Reception Perception Database

[StealYoGurley]

Matt Harmon at reception perception does a really interesting analysis of draft eligible WRs. I have posted a couple, but I thought it would helpful to put them all in one place. He actually gives you data that backs up or disproves claims "limited route tree," "doesn't separate," "not good in contested situations," etc. I also like how they show how prospects stacks up against each other in their draft class and few years before since this a relatively new project. The articles are pretty long, so just CTRL F and you should be able to find the prospect you are looking for if he has completed a write up. I will post new reports as they come up.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Taywan Taylor
​

One theme that continues to hold true throughout the process of evaluating this wide receiver group: Day 2 will be loaded with potential longtime NFL players. You can argue that the top of this class isn’t filled with high-end No. 1 wideouts; it’s a fair point to raise, but there’s no getting around how many quality future contributors exist in this crop.

Among that group is Western Kentucky’s Taywan Taylor. The compact 5-foot-11, 203-pound wideout enters the NFL coming off back-to-back 17-touchdown seasons, with 1,467 and 1,730 yards in each. He’s a proven big play threat, popping off over 17 yards per reception over the last two years. Taylor backed up his explosive ability by running a 4.5 in the 40-yard dash, and shining in the three-cone drill and broad jump.

Taywan Taylor often goes undiscussed among the group of top-10 wide receivers in the 2017 NFL Draft, but his Reception Perception begs us to believe that he belongs up there. He’s an easy prospect to like.

Alignment and target data
Alabama, Vanderbilt, Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion, North Texas, Louisiana Tech

Throughout this series, we’ve made it a point to note when a wide receiver played on one side of the field at an extraordinary rate. Taywan Taylor falls into this category. The Western Kentucky senior took a whopping 82.5 percent of the snaps logged in his Reception Perception sample on the right side of the field.

Taylor did experiment some with playing inside, taking 14.6 percent of his snaps from the slot. Otherwise, he rarely played outside left (1.6 percent) or lined up in the backfield (1.3 percent). While mostly operating at right wideout, Taylor alternated between the flanker and split end positions, with 57.4 percent of his snaps coming behind the line of scrimmage and 42.6 percent on the line.

GETTY IMAGES SPORT / KEVIN C. COX

While it’s nice to see Taylor have experience lining up at all three receiver positions, given what we know in a limited sample size of players who primarily played on one side of the field in college, it’s fair to have questions about his ability to translate right away as a rookie. The fact that he played at such a low-level of competition does not ease worries.

However, it’s encouraging that Taylor was the clear engine of his team’s passing game. A true target hog when he was on the field, Taylor saw a pass go his way on 36 percent of his routes run over the sampled games. He didn’t waste opportunities in posting a 68.5 catch rate, as well.

Success Rate vs. Coverage
Taywan Taylor’s athletic ability is apparent when watching him and he helped underscore that with his performance at the NFL Scouting Combine. He tested in the 81st percentile for NFL athletes in SPARQ, per Three Sigma Athlete. Those players, especially smaller shifty ones, have something of an advantage when it comes to earning separation. Yet, strong understanding of timing will always be the biggest assist. Reception Perception shows that Taylor has plenty of both.

With a 73.4 percent success rate vs. man coverage, Taylor falls along the 74th percentile among prospects charted over the last two seasons. Taylor’s score also proved the fifth-best among receivers in the 2017 draft.

An easy and natural separator, Taylor is a chore to cover one on one. Plenty of agility integrated into his well-timed cuts make him a difficult task for opposing corners. Truth be told, he’s still something of a work in progress technique-wise, but shows just enough ability when mixed with his physical traits to win at the college level. Taylor only saw limited reps against press coverage, with 33 attempts overall. Yet, his success rate of 75.8 percent was a stellar result. It was the third-best in this class, trailing only Carlos Henderson and Isaiah Ford.

Unlike his work against man and press coverage, Taylor came in under the Reception Perception average with a 75.7 percent success rate facing zones. While not a painfully poor score, falling in the 45th percentile, it’s possible that Taylor’s touch and go technique influenced his zone success rate.

It’s hard to imagine Taylor not finding some role in the NFL and proving a successful long term asset. However, if he does indeed hone the craftsman portion of the game and his technical prowess does not wane drive-to-drive, there’s a path to a high-end starter ready for him to walk.

Route Data
We clearly see Taywan Taylor’s overall success rate vs. coverage scores paint the picture of a player who has a solid NFL future down the line. In breaking his scores down on a route-by-route basis, the full image of how he wins as a receiver comes into focus.

The three routes that Taylor ran at an above average rate were the post, curl and out. The curl is of particular note, as it is often one of the key patterns to capitalizing in the short game for traditional deep threats. With the ability to earn cushion or additional space due to their vertical ability, speed receivers can assist their quarterback with the benefit of easy chunk throws with high usage on curl routes.

In terms of the vertical game, it’s rather surprising to see Taylor check in with just 12.8 percent of his charted routes falling under the “nine” branch. Perhaps Western Kentucky was less inclined to use him on straight-line deep routes due to a lack of confidence their passers could hit those throws, because Taylor’s speed should be respected on such a route.

Overall, Taylor’s route tree percentage chart is one of the more balanced in the class, with five branches checking within the two-year prospect average. Perhaps that catches some by surprise due to the level of conference he played in, but Taylor has experience executing a variety of route concepts. With that in mind, his success rate chart becomes that much more impressive.

Again, speaking to the curl route, this particular concept came with his highest success rate vs. coverage score at 83.3 percent. Taylor certainly shows the ability to sell the vertical pattern before snapping back to face his signal caller. His performance on the curl, in addition to a strong 80.6 percent success rate on slant routes will unlock the short and intermediate sections of the field in addition to what he can offer in the deep portions.

It does appear that Western Kentucky left something on the table when it comes to Taylor’s ability as a straight-line vertical threat. Despite running the nine-route at a below average clip, Taylor’s 73.1 percent success rate checks in above the 90th percentile. His NFL team will no doubt find him more useful as a vertical playmaker than even his collegiate squad, where he already averaged over 16 yards per reception in his time with the program.

We did note that Taylor has some work to do as a technician and the routes in which he has some of his worst success rates exemplify that issue. The post, curl, and dig all check in below the two-year prospect average. The dig is a route that requires pristine footwork and consistency to earn separation when in one-on-one coverage. There’s work left to do for Taylor on that pattern. The diminutive receiver could also serve himself well by adding a repertoire of head fakes to his arsenal to leave cornerbacks hesitating at the breakpoint of the corners and posts.

Should Taylor, in time, iron out some of the detail-level concerns, we may well have a complete receiver on out hands. His performance on the nuanced out route—not to be overlooked considering his route percentage was over the class average—gives hope that more technical acumen is within his range of outcomes.

Ancillary Metrics
While you’d expect a player of Taywan Taylor’s build and profile to be a dynamo after the catch but weak in traffic, the Senior wideout proves almost the opposite. Taylor was “in space” on 12.3 percent of his routes, which is above the two-year charted average. He broke a single tackle on just 40 percent of those plays, which is a below average rate. Taylor won’t consistently make the first defender miss and he went down on first contact on 48 percent of his attempts. However, he does have the ability to break long runs after the catch, as his multiple broken tackle rate of 12 percent is above the two-year prospect average.

GETTY IMAGES SPORT / MICHAEL HICKEY

While he checks in as solid if unspectacular after the catch, Taylor is one of the top prospects in traffic. Despite being under 6-foot-0, Taylor’s 76.9 contested catch conversion rate falls along the 87th percentile among Reception Perception draft prospects. Weight and arm length can often be more important for receivers than height when winning the ball in the air, and Taylor checks in at the 54th and 68th percentile, respectively, for both, per Mockdraftable.

Yet, while physical traits can be an asset in the contested catch game, mindset and mentality are often the trump cards for shorter receivers. Taylor has that aggressive approach in spaces and it’s one of the primary reasons he is a “small receiver who plays big.”

Again, that’s not what we’d expect from a receiver of Taywan Taylor’s perceived archetpye, but that’s why studying how a player actually plays on film will forever be important. We must always be open to expecting the unexpected.

Moving Forward
Plenty of prospects offer intrigue on the second day of the draft. So much so that it feels as if Taywan Taylor just doesn’t get his proper due. Everything in his Reception Perception profile speaks to a wide receiver who will translate to the pro game, and have a long successful career as a rotational player, at worst. If he enjoyed a Torrey Smith-like career, no one should be surprised.

Of course, we also see with a pristine success rate vs. man and press coverage, in conjunction with a stellar contested catch conversion rate, that perhaps there’s more of a star-studded path for Taylor to stroll down. Should he land with the proper team we could see a situation much like what unfolded with T.Y. Hilton a few years back come to pass.

The former Florida international star went in the third-round of the NFL draft with little fanfare back in 2012. Through years of a symbiotic relationship developing alongside his excellent quarterback, Hilton eventually grew his talents into that of a top target on his offense. Naturally, this is an aggressive projection for the career of Taywan Taylor. Nevertheless, Reception Perception indicates through several of its key metrics that it is a destiny Taylor could certainly fulfill.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Zay Jones​

Back in Cooper Kupp’s Reception Perception evaluation, we discussed the process of the NFL Draft season. At that time, the massive hype machine generated by the Eastern Washington receiver’s Senior Bowl week had hit an impasse with a poor combine performance. This served as a reminder that there are multiple boxes to check off in the pre-draft process.

Another receiver also appeared to get the same propping up from a strong Senior Bowl week. Yet, unlike his counterpart, Zay Jones took a large sharpie and checked off the NFL Scouting Combine box.

The massively productive Jones absorbed 158 receptions and posted 1,746 yards as a senior at East Carolina in 2016. That capped a four-year collegiate career where Jones nearly cracked 400 catches, went over 4,200 yards and scored 23 touchdowns.

Yet, some of the detailed notes in his production profile left questions to be answered. A 10.7 career yards per reception and a 5.8 touchdowns-per-year average rightly caused some to wonder if Jones’ proper NFL casting was that of an ancillary slot or flanker/interior hybrid receiver.

Jones proceeded to cast more confusion on his projection with a sterling performance at the NFL Scouting Combine, displaying a wealth of measurable athletic ability. Measuring in at 6-foot-2 and 201 pounds, Jones tested in the 65th percentile in the vertical and the 73rd percentile or better in the broad jump, three-cone drill and both shuttles while popping off a 4.45 in the 40-yard dash, per Mockdraftable. Overall, his SPARQ score for athletic testing was in the 94th percentile among NFL wide receivers, per 3 Sigma Athlete.

In just about every way, Zay Jones has crushed the pre-draft process, provided teams are also pleased with his performance in private interview sessions. Those results require us to return to the product offered by his college game film with a fine-toothed comb to see if any further contextualization must take place when deciphering his NFL prospects. We’ll turn to Reception Perception to glean those answers.

Alignment and Target Data
Games sampled: Connecticut, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Tulsa, Temple

As the hyper-productive clear top receiver for the East Carolina Pirates, Zay Jones moved all around the formation in the six games sampled for his Reception Perception evaluation. While some might project him as an interior receiver at the next level, he spent 29.6 percent of his snaps in the slot. The others were a mix of right (36.6 percent) and left (33.3 percent) outside receiver. Jones also split time lining up on the line of scrimmage and off it, with just over a 60-40 difference.

Given his lofty production numbers, it’s no surprise Jones boasts some of the beefier target data metrics in the 2017 class. A target went Jones’ way on 42 percent of the 269 routes run over his Reception Perception sample. Not only was that rate nearly 10 percentage points higher than the two-year prospect average, but Jones ran more routes than any other receiver charted this year and a full 47 more than the second-place finisher.

Many of Jones’ catches came on designed plays and manufactured touches, yet, it’s clear that his reliability was a big factor in making that a staple of the game plan. Only Ishmael Zamora finished with a higher percentage of routes with a catch figure than Zay Jones’ 29 percent, and his rates are skewed because of the design of Baylor’s offense. Speaking to his reliable nature, Jones posted a drop rate of just 2.7, bested only by Cooper Kupp and Chris Godwin, players recently covered in Reception Perception.

Success Rate vs. Coverage
While most every piece thus far explored of Zay Jones’ Reception Perception evaluation has fallen in line with expectations given his raw profile, here is where things get tricky. The results of Jones’ success rate vs. coverage (which measures how often a receiver gets open on each route run) is the main metric in which you start to wonder if he’s somewhat “painted into a corner” as a prospect.

On 95 attempts vs. man coverage, Jones posted a 66.3 percent success rate. That falls right within a percentage point the two-year prospect average. While that in and of itself is not a major damnation, when paired with a 51 percent success rate vs. 49 press coverage attempts, concerns begin to mount. Jones’ success rate vs. press coverage checks in just above the 23rd percentile among prospects charted the last two years.

With just an average score against man coverage and a bottom-quarter success rate when pressed, we have to wonder if Jones projects as an effective outside receiver at the NFL level. An inability to win off the line of scrimmage in duels with boundary cornerbacks is essentially a death sentence for wide receivers. To further complicate matters, his contested catch conversion rate of 54.5 checked in below the two-year average and in the 30th percentile. As such, Jones’ best role may be as an interior receiver in the NFL.

Should Jones need to move to a primary slot position, he has already demonstrated the ability to win against the forms of defense he’d see there. On 171 attempts against zone coverage, what he clearly saw more of, Jones came away with an 81.9 percent success rate. He scored out just above the 82nd percentile in Reception Perception.

It’s encouraging to see Jones already has an understanding of how to sift through zone coverages as most of his NFL assignments should take him to the middle of the field. Some of the metrics in his route data cast more evidence that may indeed be his best home.

Route Data
We’re already struggling to find encouraging evidence of Zay Jones’ ability to translate to a productive role as an outside NFL wide receiver. Given his athletic test results at the scouting combine, that’s rather surprising. And yet, his route data only seems to heighten the degree of those struggles.

Red is below the two-year prospect average, green is above and yellow is within the average.

Without question, compared to the average college prospect charted for Reception Perception, Zay Jones was primarily used as a short area receiver on in-breaking routes. The only three routes that Jones ran on a rate above the two-year prospect average were the screen, curl and dig. His 18.6 route percentage for the slant was right within that average. Vertical routes like the post and nine, along with every single out-breaking pattern, checked with a route percentage below the average.

The fact that 64.3 percent of Jones’ charted routes came one on just four patterns, all of which typically come with a low average depth of target, helps much-needed context to his route success rate chart.

It’s encouraging to find that Jones posted strong success rate vs. coverage score on the four routes he almost exclusively ran at East Carolina. His proficiency at earning separation on slants, digs and curls made him a strong and, again, reliable short to intermediate target for the team’s quarterbacks. Jones does show an ability to bring agility to his slant route and shift to the middle of the field at the proper depth. On the curl routes, he knows when to break off the pattern and snap back to the quarterback.

The trouble for Jones comes after the ball arrives. Obviously, with his usage in college, Jones was “in space” on a well-above-average number of his routes at 17.1 percent. Only Dede Westbrook found himself with more opportunities to break a tackle after the catch among prospects charted this year. However, Jones rarely did much damage on those opportunities, going down on first contact on 54.3 percent of his in space attempts. That rate was above the two-year prospect average, and Jones did not check in with a plus score in the single or multiple broken tackle metric.

Moving Forward
Even if he finds a home as a possession-flanker/slot receiver hybrid in the NFL, Jones doesn’t offer much upside as a player in space. Along with his utilization, this was likely a big culprit in his low yards per reception total as a collegian.

We needed to see more from Jones in space, as his route success rate chart doesn’t lend much credence to the idea he has some untapped upside as an outside or downfield threat. His out-breaking route percentages were simply too low to glean much from positive success rates on corners or comebacks. Even when Jones did run nine routes, we see he failed to create much vertical separation with a below-average 43.2 percent success rate vs. coverage.

When viewed in conjunction with his 23rd percentile success rate vs. press coverage, Jones’ route data seems to slam the door shut on a projection for an outside receiver in the NFL. An inability to win consistently off the line, in contested situations or on downfield routes spells doom for a primary pass-catcher.

Yet, this is all painfully difficult to reconcile with a prospect who tested outrageously well as an athlete at the NFL Scouting Combine. That measured athleticism is real; you cannot just write those numbers off. Right along with it, the way he’s destroyed the stat sheet in college along with every other step of the pre-draft process is real. Then again, his Reception Perception brings needed context and a clear pause that needs to occur in the projecting process.

Perhaps Zay Jones is just a better tester for a job interview than he actually is in the field. On the other hand, maybe there truly are untapped physical gifts that he just never showed on tape at the collegiate level. Either way, while I like this player overall, one thing is clear: Zay Jones is the most confusing wide receiver prospect in the 2017 NFL Draft.

A best-case NFL scenario given Zay Jones’ build and college usage would be to end up as a Keenan Allen-type player. However, during Allen’s peak but injury-shortened 2015 season, he posted a 77.1 percent success rate vs. man coverage, a top-five score in series’ history, and a sterling 79.6 percent success rate vs. press coverage. Again, that’s a best case scenario and an unlikely outcome based on Jones’ college Reception Perception.

The safest bet appears to be that Jones settles into a high-volume but low-ceiling slot and flanker hybrid role when he hits the next level. Yes, he can win on those short to intermediate routes while sifting through zone coverage, and there is certainly value in a player like that, but Reception Perception gave us plenty of reason to question what is available beyond that.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Isaiah Ford​

In my view, this is a strong wide receiver class. Last year, we saw four wideouts go in the first round. While I’m not so sure this group is as top-heavy as its 2016 counterpart, this year’s receiver crop extends a bit deeper. There are a number of players that will likely be available on the second day who will go on to have long and productive starting NFL careers.

The perfect example of a player of this ilk is Isaiah Ford out of Virginia Tech. So far this offseason we’ve look at some of Reception Perception’s “my guys” in Carlos Henderson and Chris Godwin. Ford is the third and final wide receiver in that group.

While Henderson and Godwin, especially, experienced periods of increasing buzz in the pre-draft process, Ford’s name has largely gone unmentioned.

Ford comes with a strong resume of production, with over 200 receptions in his college career and clearing 1,000 yards in each of his last two seasons. Additionally, he’s one of the youngest receivers in this draft class. Ford, Godwin and JuJu Smith-Schuster are one of just three wideouts who will play their rookie seasons at 21 years old.

Unfortunately, Ford failed to carry that strong resume over to his performance at the NFL Scouting Combine this month. The only measurement where Ford tested above the 50th percentile was in the broad jump, per Mockdraftable, and his 4.61 40-yard dash time was particularly disappointing. To his credit, Ford was immensely displeased with his performance in Indianapolis and improved his testing at his pro day by running a 4.52 in the 40.

While taking his own combine performance to task at his pro day, Ford also shined a light on what he believes is the most crucial area of winning at the wide receiver position. Ford told reporters, “I think the biggest aspect of the position is not only catching the ball but being able to run routes.” In my time charting receivers, I’ve often said that speed is the most overrated attribute to a wide receiver’s ability to get open and Ford concurred by adding, “no matter how you’re getting the separation — whether it’s because you’re fast or because you’re shifty or you’re a technician with running routes — it’s about getting open.”

Reception Perception would agree with Ford; it is all about getting open. Therein lies the appeal of Isaiah Ford as a draft prospect. Few players are as proficient as he is in creating separation in this class and there will always be a place for those players in the pros.

Alignment and Target Data
Game sampled: Clemson, Boston College, Notre Dame, Miami, Pittsburgh, Tennessee

Measuring in at 6-foot-1 and 194 pounds, Isaiah Ford’s lanky build is hardly what you’d expect out of a top receiver. Yet, that’s exactly what he was for Virginia Tech.

Over the six games sampled for Reception Perception, Ford lined up outside on 97.7 percent of his snaps and was on the line of scrimmage on 92.5 percent. Ford took just 1.2 percent of his snaps from the slot. He was an X-receiver through and through for the Hokies in his final year. His best home in the NFL may be as a flanker, where he profiles almost “to a T”.

As the clear engine of the Virginia Tech passing game, Ford saw a target come his way on 30.2 percent of his 189 routes run in the sampled games. Quarterback Jerod Evans clearly had an affinity for throwing his direction. Now, Ford did only catch a pass on 18 percent of those patterns, coming with one of the larger gaps in the class. Drops are something that will creep into his game. Ford’s 8.8 drop rate ranked second only to Corey Davis among charted 2017 prospects.

Like Ford said at his pro day, the real work at the wide receiver position happens before the ball even arrives. It’s in this area where the young prospect simply smashed expectations.

Success Rate vs. Coverage
Being a proficient technician is clearly of importance to Isaiah Ford based on his own words. It’s a reality that clearly shows up in his game.

The best route-runner in last year’s class was now Giants wide receiver Sterling Shepard. He posted a 2016 class-best 82.8 percent success rate vs. man coverage. Ford looks like that player in this year’s class and he just nipped at Shepard’s heels with an 80 percent success rate vs. man coverage. Those two receivers are the only prospects to post an 80 percent or better score over the last two classes.

Ford’s strong technical performance also carried over into his release moves. With an 81.9 percent success rate vs. press coverage, Ford’s score was just above the 88th percentile among receivers charted over the last two years.

The only branch of success rate vs. coverage where he performed below the two-year average was when facing zone. His 74.6 percent score put him in the 36th percentile. It’s an unexpected footnote given how strong his performance was against man and press, and the average receiver typically carries a higher success rate against zones. However, it is worth noting that Ford faced more than double the amount of man coverage compared to his attempts against zones.

Simply put, Ford is an outstanding route-runner. He shows an understanding of the details and nuances of the game that most of his peers are still attempting to grasp. The fact that he played his final season at just 20 years old make his success rates even more impressive. Ford’s quickness off the line combined with a variety of release techniques renders his size negligible. His timing and suddenness at the breakpoints of routes are a true a chore to cover one-on-one.

Route Data
Breaking down Ford’s Reception Perception performance and usage on a route-by-route basis truly helps illuminate what makes him such a great technician. He’s a player with clear specialties but is well-rounded in his abilities, as well.

We often see the slant and nine routes as two of the more popular patterns for collegiate receivers. Ford’s usage portfolio is no exception with a whopping 52.9 percent of his charted routes checking in as a slant or nine.

With so much of his route percentage chart being dedicate to those two, in particular, it’s no shock to see that much of the other branches of the tree get little exposure. However, one route to note is his 8.5 percent comeback rate. I assert this with mostly anecdotal evidence: the comeback is perhaps the best route to notice who the truly special technicians are. So much goes into earning separation on that pattern. Not only does the wideout have to sell the cornerback that he’s going vertical, the timing of the break is so crucial as is the executing of sinking the hips while breaking back to the passer.

As such, it’s notable that Ford ran a comeback at an above average rate compared to other college prospects. It also makes his success rate that much more startling.

Isaiah Ford checked in with a wildly high 93.8 percent success rate vs. coverage on the comeback. He and Chris Godwin were the only two prospects this year to both run the comeback at an above average rate and manage a positive success rate. Again, this metric truly shows what kind of a pristine route-runner he is already.

However, the entire chart is truly something to behold. Ford backed up his high usage on slants and nines with excellent success rates. His 89.6 percent on slants was the best among prospects charted this year, and his 61.5 percent on nine routes was well above the two-year average. With detailed release moves and a near-impossible-to-handle ability at the break point, Ford was often uncoverable on quick-striking slant routes in college.

The only two routes where Ford failed to score above the prospect average were the corner and flat routes. Otherwise, the results were all positive.

What Ford’s route charts show us is that he’s a player who can create separation and win at all levels of the field. While he clearly carries a trump card in his route-running on the highly used slant and nine patterns, he’s someone whose route portfolio should carry quite a bit of depth at the next level. He’s on his way to mastery of the craftsman portion of the game.

Ancillary Metrics
We can clearly assert that Isaiah Ford is one of the most polished and mature route-runners in this class, if not the best in that department. Scores like his success rate vs. man coverage should indicate potential NFL star. Of course, Reception Perception carries other metrics along with route data to help properly place prospects on a range of outcomes.

While his frame doesn’t seem to hinder his ability off the line, it does show up as an issue after the catch. Despite running a high amount of slant routes, Ford was only “in space” on 8.5 percent of them. Breaking tackles is not an area of strength for the Hokies receiver as he was brought down on first contact on 56.2 percent of his in space attempts, the fourth-highest rate among 2017 prospects.

In the contested catch game, Ford is more of an asset than he is with the ball in his hands, though still not one of the elite receivers in the class. His 61.5 percent contested catch conversion rate falls right within the two-year prospect average. Ford is capable of winning passes in tight coverage but it’s not a dominant skill of his. He won’t hurt his NFL team in this regard, but his ability to create separation will be his true calling card.

Moving Forward
With some of the ancillary metrics conjoined with his elite success rate vs coverage scores, we begin to better understand what Isaiah Ford may bring to an NFL team. There’s no way to ignore his skills as a separator. Ford will earn his offense’s trust as route-runner early and likely become a reliable target for his quarterback because of it.

In my view, there will always be a place for those players in the NFL. Wide receivers who can constantly separate are crucial, especially one who does it so consistently like Ford.

Ford’s ability as a technician, his route success rates in Reception Perception and his build all combined to give me a Stefon Diggs-like vibe. When healthy last NFL season, Diggs played and produced like a true No. 1 wide receiver. He’s a future superstar at the position.

However, Ford’s performances in some of Reception Perception’s ancillary metrics and his athletic testing results do at least make you question whether he has that same high range of outcomes. Technique and separating are extremely valuable, but high-ends starters also offer more than that.

Reception Perception firmly plants a flag in Isaiah Ford’s camp to confidently say he will be a successful NFL player and an asset to his future offense. His success rate vs. coverage scores are simply too strong to believe otherwise. In terms of projecting his production or reach the status of an NFL star-level player, he will need to improve in other areas of the game.

Isaiah Ford remains one of the more under the radar prospects as the NFL Draft creeps ever closer, just as non-flashy as extremely precise players at the position often do. However, much like fellow Reception Perception star Sterling Shepard, look for Ford to prove his worth quickly once he enters the league.

 

[StealYoGurley]

JuJu Smith-Schuster​

When at peak functionality, an academic department is a truly beautiful ecosystem to observe. Those in it work under the same subject umbrella, yes, but the professors and their most loyal student followers often approach their search of the truth in the field with entirely different theoretical methodologies.

Back before this whole “career in football” vision was my goal, my life plan after undergrad was to set out in pursuit of a Ph.D. in sociology emphasizing in social theory and cultural studies. As such, I was well inundated in the sociology department at Lynchburg College, especially in my junior and senior years. The academic mentors I followed at school, and thus my side of the field was the symbolic interactionism, incredibly qualitative portion of the field. I often didn’t share the methods of the more qualitative, survey-heavy sectors of our department, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t see the value in their work. I believed that the purpose of my research, and those who undertook similar work to mine, was to help illuminate other layers of meaning and help contextualize through a micro sense the work of my quantitative-focused peers.

My longtime mentor in the football media world, Sigmund Bloom, believes our community of analysts, and particularly those who focus on the NFL Draft, operates in a similar fashion to that of an academic department.

In theory, this should mean that while we’re all approaching player analysis through different lenses of study, the different camps in the field should be able to add to and complement the other side’s work. Those who spend hours watching film and crafting reports based on that can absolutely learn a ton from the data-miners who take a more metric or qualitative approach to evaluating prospects. Unfortunately, there often develops a faux war and foolish competition between the two sides that involves useless retorts like “just watch the tape” from the qualitative side or use of traditional scouting jargon in a mocking fashion from the qualitative corner. Those of us, like me, who are pure writers at heart and therefore perpetually juggling arrogance and insecurity can contribute to the fruitless battles even if that’s not out true goal. Come to think of it, I can also recall some silly back-biting among the faculty of my undergrad sociology department, as well. We’re all humans here.

I suppose because my process for evaluating wide receivers involves absorbing hours of game film, I fall more on the qualitative side of the tape-watchers. However, because I’m rather obsessed with the shortcomings of our brains when trying to properly weigh what we see (perhaps best explained in my thoughts on not overweighting drops), I created Reception Perception in order to properly log all of my findings and to introduce a quantitative system for keeping my qualitative research on receivers honest.

Within the prospect analysis world, there exists a sector that relies heavily on college production to project prospects in the NFL. Kevin Cole of Rotoviz is one of the best in that field, detailing his regression tree findings in a post known as “college production isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” when evaluating wide receiver draft picks. Not always, but sometimes my method for evaluating leads me to contrasting conclusions from those like Cole who evaluate this way.

One such example from the 2017 NFL Draft class appears to be USC wide receiver JuJu Smith-Schuster. With the still 20-year old receiver’s college production as impressive as it, it was no surprise to see Cole recently declare that Smith-Schuster was his No. 1 player at the position this year.

Reception Perception doesn’t view JuJu Smith-Schuster in quite that fashion. However, I’ve often said that my method is not the only way to the truth in evaluating, and I’d offer caution to any reader who encounters an analyst who preaches the opposite of that admission. In fact, by then end of this report, we should likely find the most honest projecting of Smith-Schuster, (and other prospects like him) comes from blending Reception Perception’s findings with those of qualitative models.

Alignment and Target Data
Games sampled: Arizona State, Arizona, Washington, Notre Dame, Penn State, Alabama

In Chris Godwin’s Reception Perception breakdown, we touched on the advanced learning curve of wide receivers who primarily stuck to one side of the field. While Godwin didn’t fit that bill, despite never venturing into the slot, JuJu Smith-Schuster definitely does.

Among Smith-Schuster’s snaps taken over his Reception Perception sample, 83.3 percent of them saw him lined up at right wide receiver. He ventured into the slot for 13.5 percent and took less than 10 total at outside left. It’s rare to see an NFL receiver even approach a 60 percent snap rate from one side of the field and prospects like Kevin White, Laquon Treadwell and Dorial Green-Beckham, among others, have struggled with the transition over the last few seasons. In fact, in the last two draft classes currently in my database, players who took more than 70 percent of their snaps from one side of the field largely struggled to transition quickly to the league:

NFL Draft prospects charted for Reception Perception the last three years who have played more than 70 percent of their snaps on one side of the field.

Now, there’s no question that some of these players were derailed by injuries in their first seasons. However, Corey Coleman averaged the most yards per game with 41.3 as a rookie among the players on this list. Neither Green-Beckham or White showed any career momentum in their second seasons. Perhaps this was what an NFL scout had in mind when he told my NFL Network colleague Bucky Brooks that the proliferation of the spread offense was killing wide receiver development. They are unlikely to find themselves in a deployment plan that resembles anything like this collegiate pattern, and thus reversing all aspects of route-running, releasing from the line and working the sideline presents a greater challenge when you have little to no experience doing so at the college level.

At this point, we can only hypothesize that receivers who primarily play on one side of the field in college face a steeper learning curve in the NFL. Based on the evidence we have so far, it’s at least something to monitor.

As mentioned at the onset, JuJu Smith-Schuster will be popular among evaluators who value production, especially when adjusted for age. As an 18/19-year old sophomore, he terrorized the Pac-12 with 89 catches, 1,454 yards and 10 touchdowns in 14 games. His momentum slowed a bit this year, as he caught just 70 passes for 914 yards, despite still scoring 10 times.

Smith-Schuster wasn’t quite the target hog in 2016 one would expect following his dominant sophomore campaign. USC’s quarterbacks targeted him on 28.1 percent of his routes run in the Reception Perception sample, which is below the two-year prospect average. His production came in a bit more of a spiked fashion this season and he caught a pass on just 16.2 percent of his routes, also below the two-year prospect average.

There’s no getting around the fact that Smith-Schuster had a tendency to disappear from games, or at least stretches of them. The questions for evaluators is how much do we assign blame to him versus his surrounding variables. To be fair, USC’s quarterback play was rocky in the early goings of the post-Cody Kessler era before Sam Darnold took the reigns. In order to get more clarity on the answer to that query, we’ll turn to the rest of his Reception Perception results.

Success Rate vs. Coverage
The road already gets rocky in JuJu Smith-Schuster’s Reception Perception evaluation under the methodology’s primary metric. Success rate vs. coverage measures how often a receiver gets open against defenders covering them and what brands of defenses they are best at facing. It’s clear that this is not an area of strength in Smith-Schuster’s game.

With a 62.7 percent success rate vs. man coverage, Smith-Schuster falls below the 33rd percentile among prospects charted the last two seasons. It often appeared there wasn’t enough creativity or quickness in his route-running to earn separation when facing off man coverage. His success rate vs. zone coverage did not see him take a sizable leap, finishing in the 41st percentile.

What’s interesting to observe about JuJu Smith-Schuster as a route-runner, is that he does have some strong release moves off the line of scrimmage. He’s able to engage in hand fights or deceive defenders to elude jam attempts. This is reflected in his 68.6 percent success rate vs. press coverage, which unlike the previously listed scores, is above the two-year average. It’s troubling that he seemed to be unable to sustain separation the longer a route dragged on or lacked the creativity to win against off-man, yet, proper credit should go to his work with release moves.

Route Data
JuJu Smith-Schuster’s troubling performance in the base success rate vs. coverage metrics certainly requires a deep route-by-route investigation. Here we can see where USC deployed him most often in conjunction with where he best created separation.

Red is below the two-year prospect average, green is above and yellow is within the average.

Smith-Schuster’s most heavily featured routes were the slant, curl and dig. In total, they accounted for almost 60 percent of his total route run in his Reception Perception sample. For a player whose team clearly held designs for him as the featured player in the passing game, these routes make sense for consistent usage. All three patterns provide ample opportunities for moderately simple completions for a quarterback and allow the receiver to rack up production in the short to intermediate game.

Not a major factor in the vertical game, Smith-Schuster’s nine and post route percentage were below the two-year charted average. The corner and out were the only two outside breaking routes that he ran at a rate within the class average. His route percentage on the comebacks and flats was just 1.6 percent for each.

In conjunction with Smith-Schuster’s usage pattern, his success rate vs. coverage route chart seems to only bring more questions than answers. Some of his most run patterns also show up with some of his lower success rate scores.

Despite running the curl and slant at one of the highest rates in the 2017 class, Smith-Schuster’s 67.3 and 74 percent success rate vs. coverage, respectively, on those routes checked in below the two-year prospect average. However, the other route that he ran at a high rate, the dig, saw him score an 81.8 percent success rate vs. coverage, which is above the average. The dig is often a pattern that requires a good deal of nuance and detail to properly execute. His performance there might just indicate there is more potential as a route-runner yet untapped.

Smith-Schuster did show some ability as a downfield player, with an 80 percent success rate on post routes and 62.5 percent on corners. He wasn’t asked to run those routes often, but those scores are nevertheless encouraging. Yet, it’s clear he’s not a true vertical player, with a below average 53.8 percent success rate on the nine-route.

We noted that out-breaking routes weren’t a big portion of Smith-Schuster’s route portfolio. Outside of the corner, he failed to score above the two-year average on any outside routes. Given what we see in his route data, Smith-Schuster’s best NFL system is likely one that asks him to primarily work the middle of the field in the intermediate zones of a passing game. However, with just three routes (aside from the screen) featuring an above average success rate vs. coverage score, it’s fair to wonder just how much is there to mine out.

Naturally, there will be some blowback to Smith-Schuster’s success rate vs. coverage with the notion that’s not “where he wins” as a player. That’s true. However, Reception Perception questions whether he’s as a strong as billed to be in some of the other facets of the game, or if some highlight bias is in effect.

Ancillary Metrics to Dispels Narratives
JuJu Smith-Schuster is often regarded as a “bully” receiver, a player who can win at the catch point and is tough after the catch.

His 57.1 contested catch conversion rate turned up at the 40th percentile among prospects charted the last two years. His official measurements at the NFL Scouting Combine turned in under the 6-foot-2, 220 pounds he was listed as at USC. Now, an inch and five pounds isn’t a massive deal, but Smith-Schuster doesn’t truly fit the mold of a big receiver. He’s put up some highlight real worthy catch when leaping in the air, but this metric shows it is not a consistent trait.

The same can be said for his work after the catch. There’s a popular play from Smith-Schuster’s collegiate game film where he destroys a defender with a brutal stiff-arm. Unfortunately, those moments were few and far in-between. He went down on first contact on 69.2 percent of his “in space” attempts over his Reception Perception sample, which was the highest rate among the prospects charted this year.

Moving Forward
With the highlight plays that would offset concerns about his separation scores not showing up as consistent strengths, JuJu Smith-Schuster remains something of a mystery. His Reception Perception evaluation certainly doesn’t paint him in the light that analysts who operate in the production-focused department might. However, there exists a way in which we might both be pointing to the truth in our findings.

I’m not sure that I’ve ever intended Reception Perception to be a tool in finding out “who is bad”. Rather, I’d like to use the findings from the methodology to better contextualize players, both in terms of what they do best and setting a range of outcomes.

What Kevin Cole and other evaluators in his department show us is that JuJu Smith-Schuster has a strong projection to be a useful NFL wide receiver. The thought would be that someone who shows so well in those historical production models has little chance of completely washing out as an NFL player. Now, what Reception Perception looks to add to the conversation is creating that range of outcomes for these players. I believe that’s the goal of my department, or at least it should be when working conjunction with the quantitative work of my peers.

A similar situation played out in last year’s draft with now Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Tyler Boyd. The former University of Pittsburgh star checked all the boxes for production-based college evaluations. However, he scored below the class average in multiple branches of success rate vs. coverage, contested catch conversion rate and breaking tackles in space.

Despite that, I’d challenge anyone to find a single moment where I seriously suggested, throughout the number of pieces I wrote or podcasts I appeared on last offseason, that his Reception Perception results meant Boyd would be a failure at the NFL level. Rather, I believed that my findings on Boyd merely cast major doubt on his ability to be a top-two option in a passing game, and his chances to function outside of a specific role at the next level.

We are only one year in, but that’s exactly what played out in his rookie season. The Bengals never moved him outside of a low-volume slot receiver role and he was even out-produced by veteran Brandon LaFell, who the team promptly re-signed when free agency opened, after A.J. Green went down with a season-ending injury. A Next Gen Stats analysis of Boyd’s rookie season showed the Bengals were likely wise to do so. He averaged a healthy 2.78 yards of separation on his targets from the slot, but a lowly 1.97 on those coming when lined up out wide.

Again, it’s just one year’s worth of results, but to me, this is a case where both the department featuring production-based models and my own work were correct in projecting this player. Their camp was right to point out Boyd had the pedigree of a future NFL receiver, while Reception Perception appears to have rightly offered a not of caution when projecting him aggressively into his pro role.

The similarities to the JuJu Smith-Schuster case in this draft are striking. His Reception Perception results are similar, but he also comes with a pedigree that indicates a positive pro future. I’m not interested in a faux battle between the two departments. I value the other branches’ work. In this case, I place importance on their findings that indicate Smith-Schuster’s pedigree make him a strong and safe bet for the NFL. Yet, Reception Perception just offers caution on extending that range of outcomes too high.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Cooper Kupp​

Viewing the NFL Draft as anything but a process would be a mistake. Yes, it culminates in a singular event where the teams “put pen to paper” and select college players to join their organization, but there is so much that must play out to get to that moment.

Prior to the three days that stretch out from the end of April into the early days of May, there are many pivotal points in the draft process that take place and create peaks valleys and crests to the outlook of the players to be selected.

There’s the college football season, where prospects put on film what NFL scouting departments will judge them by. The declaration process comes next, where underclassmen join the pool of seniors and create movement in all the stocks of all involved. During the All-Star circuit, especially at the Senior Bowl, the few granted the privilege to be there get to take the first step in the pre-draft circuit to show off their abilities ahead of the rest of the class. At the NFL Scouting Combine, the majority of the rest players destined to get picked in the draft join those already featured at the Senior Bowl, and there, they’ll all be subjected to putting hard data behind the athleticism each possesses. After that comes pro days, team visits and the ever ongoing exercise of scrubbing every nook and cranny in the name of gathering information on all these young men.

To strongly overreact to just one of the many events on the pre-draft calendar is to ignore the realities of the natural ebb and flow when working with incomplete data. It’s not all about the Senior Bowl, the Scouting Combine or the film; it’s about the puzzles pieces fitting together throughout the process as a whole.

Something of this ilk appeared to take place with Eastern Washington wide receiver Cooper Kupp in the early goings of the postseason. After a dominant statistical run at Eastern Washington, Kupp traveled to Mobile, Alabama and by many accounts, put on a show at the Senior Bowl. His week there sent ripple effects throughout the draft world, causing many to place him among the top-five wide receivers in this class and perhaps even elevate his stock to that of a late Round 1 to early Round 2 prospect.

In my opinion, that seemed brought on by an overreaction to a singular event in the process, whereas the on-field players already profiled for Reception Perception like Chris Godwin and Carlos Henderson are clearly superior. Those players are in the midst of getting their dues as more analysts tune into Henderson’s tape and Godwin woke the world up with his combine.

At that same combine, Kupp tested in the 23rd percentile for the broad jump, the seventh percentile for the vertical and the 14th percentile for the 40-yard dash, per MockDraftable. Seeing his lack of athletic ability in comparison to some of his peers should cause the football world to ask if they put “the cart before the horse” on his NFL projection.

The key to understanding Cooper Kupp’s evaluation is in the art of contextualizing his projection with what he’s capable of offering an NFL team. Reception Perception can help us achieve that goal.

Alignment and Target Data
Games sampled: Washington State, North Dakota State, UC Davis, North Colorado, Portland State, Youngstown State

Let’s get right down to the most crucial reality of Kupp’s evaluation: he’s a slot receiver, through and through. In the six games sampled for Reception Perception, Kupp took 78.6 percent of his snaps from the slot. Over the last two draft classes, the prospect average is 20.1 percent of snaps taken on the interior. The only receiver sampled in that span who lined up in the slot more was UNC’s Ryan Switzer with 86.9 percent.

If his collegiate team didn’t even believe Kupp’s best position was as an outside receiver, what can we possibly base a belief that he will be anything but a big slot receiver in the NFL? His lack of measurable athleticism shown at the NFL Scouting Combine gives us a clue as to why that’s his most likely pro position. This is not to be taken as a negative, but it helps us put a value on the player.

As clear as it is that Kupp must be a slot receiver at the NFL level, it’s just as apparent that he’s one of the most reliable players in the draft class. Eastern Washington’s quarterbacks targeted Kupp on 29.2 percent of his 212 routes run in his Reception Perception sample. He caught a pass on 23.6 percent of them. His 5.6 percent differential between those two metrics was the lowest number of any prospect charted this year, showing that he was proficient at turning usage into production. In addition, his 1.6 drop rate was also the lowest in this class.

Success Rate vs. Coverage
It feels awfully aggressive to pigeonhole a receiver into a role before he’s taken an NFL snap. However, Kupp’s Reception Perception Success Rate vs. Coverage scores bear out that reality.

Naturally, as an inside receiver, Kupp faced far more zone coverage than he did isolated man-to-man defenders. Kupp registered 124 attempts against man coverage in his sampled games and did a solid job at getting open. His 77.4 percent success rate vs. coverage when facing zones is within the two-year prospect average. Kupp shows an ability to sift through zones and will assist his team as a chain mover against that brand of coverage in the NFL.

The struggles for Kupp come when asked to beat tight man coverage, and it is within these metrics we find the questions about his success as an outside receiver at the pro level. Kupp’s 59.1 percent success rate vs. man coverage is just above the 23rd percentile among prospects charted the last two years. Similarly, his success rate vs. press coverage of 52.3 percent checks in below the 27th percentile.

It’s a stretch to believe a player, no matter how productive on paper they may be, that struggled to consistently beat man coverage at a low-level of collegiate football will be able to transition to the outside in the NFL. Technical prowess is essential for most wide receivers to win as route-runners in the league, but even the most proficient technicians can be rendered moot when they lack the tangible athletic gifts of an average NFL receiver. After the scouting combine, we know Kupp falls into that group.

Route Data
As with most slot receivers, Cooper Kupp came with a narrow route portfolio at the collegiate level. He was primarily asked to run short to intermediate routes with the design to get him into open space.

The four routes that Kupp ran above the two-year prospect average were the screen at nine percent, the slant at 25.9 percent, the dig at 8.5 percent and the flat at 14.2 percent.

Outside of those patterns, Kupp has little exposure on out-breaking patterns or in the vert game. Kupp’s post route percentage was right at the two-year prospect average, but he rarely ran the nine or corner route. Observing how often he ran each pattern helps add a needed extra layer of context to his route success rate vs coverage chart.

Despite running the slant and flat routes at a rate that was above the two-year prospect average and making up around 40 percent of his route run, Kupp did not manage to post an above average success rate vs. coverage score on either pattern. If Kupp is to become a reliable chain-moving receiver out of the slot at the NFL-level, he will need to perform better as a separator on those two patterns. Players like Jordan Matthews, who operate in a similar role to Kupp’s best-projected usage plan, do their best work on those routes.

Outside of the screen, the only route that Kupp posted an above average route percentage and success rate vs. coverage score was the dig. His performance on that pattern is crucial as it will assist him in picking up chunk yardage in the intermediate areas of the field. The same can be said for the out-route, which he ran at a rate in line with the two-year average.

His above average success rate vs. coverage scores on the nine and comeback should come with an asterisk, considering how infrequently Kupp ran those routes. His comeback route percentage was less than one percent.

None of the route or success rate vs. coverage data from Reception Perception is to say that he’s a worthless NFL projection or a player who cannot function at the next level. What this does is provide some sobering context to a draft stock that seemed inflated coming off a strong Senior Bowl week and give some clarity to his future outlook. Nevertheless, there are two areas where despite his lack of separation ability, he can help an NFL team.

Ancillary Metrics
Cooper Kupp posted an 81.8 contested catch conversion rate over his Reception Perception sample, the same figure Alshon Jeffery posted through his 2016 NFL season. It was a superior rate to that of Clemson wide receiver Mike Williams, who is widely regarded as a dominant catch point wideout.

Kupp’s frame and strength are complementary to his excellent hands. He is a strong receiver in traffic who can pluck the ball away from his frame even when well covered. His vertical jump illuminates the reality that he isn’t an elite leaper, but he offsets that by an ability to shield defenders.

Another area where Kupp showed up in a positive fashion was his solid ability after the catch. His high usage rate on flat and slant routes frequently put the receiver in space, totaling 11.3 percent of his routes in whole. He broke a single tackle on 54.2 percent of his “in space” attempts, which was the highest rate among all wideouts charted this year. The spectacular plays were in short supply, as he broke multiple tackles one just 4.2 percent of his “in space” attempts but he’s clearly a threat to make the first defender miss.

Moving Forward
It’s fair to say that the hype on Cooper Kupp’s NFL projections certainly got out of control in the weeks following the Senior Bowl. His lack of ability as a separator and a player that can win outside are clearly illuminated in his Reception Perception evaluation. He must be confined to a big slot receiver position at the pro level, no more and no less.

However, he does bring some attributes to the table, such as his ability to win contested passes, overall reliability and solid skills at breaking tackles after the catch. With those in tow, he can slide into a spot as a role player for the team that selects him in the NFL Draft. Yet, with below average athleticism and questions about his ability to separate from coverage, he’s a selection best made on Day 3. With that context blanketed over his stock, he becomes a much more tenable pro prospect.

 

[StealYoGurley]

John Ross​

Coming off the 2017 NFL Scouting Combine, the biggest story is without question John Ross and his now quantified speed. Ross ripped off an official 4.22 seconds time in the 40-yard dash, which broke Chris Johnson’s previously held record of 4.24 from 2008. We already knew Ross was fast, but this act proved he was on another level of speed.

Studying deep threats is one of the more enjoyable endeavors when scouting wide receivers. There seems to be a desire by some to simply lump all vertical threats into the “one trick pony” category, implying that outside of their speed on long catches, these players don’t offer much else. However, that more often than not tends to be an oversimplification on what a player can do, leaving aside what they might be asked to do.

It also appears that the public at-large seems to have a quite a distaste for the unpredictable, submitting to variance or forgoing the overemphasis of negative events. As such, when a player whose primary asset is deep speed falls into the negative side of variance on one too many prominent occasions, the bad taste often lingers for viewers who have these biases. Yet, we must accept and submit to that variance when viewing these players. You cannot reap the rewards of what these players have to offer without opening up to experiencing some negatives.

Personally, the most fascinating portion of studying deep threats is discerning what else they bring to the table. A player like John Ross fits the bill for this type of question. Even before his record-breaking 40-yard dash, we knew he was fast. A simple exposure to a highlight reel will tell you that. The question in my mind and that of many others is “What else can Ross do and what’s his projected ceiling in terms of an NFL role?” He could be strictly a vertical threat, or fall along a different branch of the archetype of small fast receivers like Odell Beckham and T.Y. Hilton who have taken their games to lengths beyond just winning deep with their speed.

Hilton, and especially Beckham, represent the peak of the small speedy receiver archetype as true No. 1 wideouts who win as technicians at all levels of the field. The question to answer with Ross is whether he demonstrates similar ability as to join those two or whether he likely falls in the next tier of speed receivers like DeSean Jackson or Mike Wallace at his best.

Alignment and Target Data
Games sampled: USC, Alabama, Oregon, Arizona, California-Berkeley, Stanford

At the University of Washington, John Ross primarily lined up as the team’s X-receiver or flanker. He only took 9.7 percent of his snaps sampled for Reception Perception out of the slot with all but one other coming at right or left wide receiver. The majority of his snaps, 60.5 percent, took place with Ross on the line of scrimmage.

Given Ross’ 5-foot-11, sub 190-pound frame it’s likely that his NFL team will look to make use of him in the slot more often than the Huskies football team did. With Phillip Dorsett and Donte Moncrief breaking in as starters outside, the Colts deployed T.Y. Hilton in the slot more this past year the ever before. Half of Hilton’s 155 targets this season came when he was lined up in the slot. As a result, the diminutive speedsters enjoyed more favorable matchup than he sees with bigger corners on the outside and turned in the best year of his career.

While such a utilization plan could benefit Ross in the NFL, he had no issues winning on the outside at Washington. One of the most productive receivers in the nation, Ross saw a target go his way on 32.4 percent of the routes he ran over his six-game Reception Perception sample. His conversion rate was a tick lower, with a catch coming on 19.2 percent of those routes, but much of that is due to the high degree of difficulty deep targets he received.

In-space and Ancillary Metrics
In his final season in school, John Ross tacked on another 417 kick return yards to his lofty receiving totals at an average of 24.2 per return. That mentality transfers over into his work after the catch in the open field.

Rather surprisingly, Ross was only “in space” (which is defined as a run after the catch attempt where a player can break a tackle) on 9.9 percent of his routes, which is under the two-year prospect average of 11 percent. Given his skill set, that could well be something that changes as a pro. However, when he did get his shots he made them count in the open field. Ross went down on first contact on 44.4 percent of his “in space” attempts, which is less often than the average college prospect charted. His multiple broken tackle rate was 22.2 percent of his “in space” attempts, good for 3rd best in the class.

Where we don’t get much exposure to Ross’ game is in contested catch situations. Indeed, over his Reception Perception sample, he only registered two contested catch attempts, one he caught and one he did not.

Naturally, Ross’ weight and smaller hands and arms lead to questions in contested situations and whether he’ll be able to win the ball in traffic. Odell Beckham and Antonio Brown have taken their games beyond what players of their frame normally do because they are both dominant at the catch point, consistently maintaining contested catch conversion rates over 75 to 80 percent in the last three years of Reception Perception charting. Ross may not be able to do that, or at least his college film left that question unanswered.

Yet, there is a positive to take from the fact that we rarely see Ross in contested situations if you’re willing to extrapolate the trail of this idea. Ross rarely finds himself in tight coverage because he’s routinely creating separation from the defenders covering him.

Success Rate vs. Coverage
In terms of Reception Perception’s primary metric success rate vs. coverage, which measures how often a receiver gets open on a route-by-route basis, John Ross is in rare company this season. He is one of just four receivers charted this year to score above the two-year prospect average in all four of success rate vs. man, zone, double and press coverage.

Ross’ 69.2 percent success rate vs. man coverage puts him at the 56th percentile among receivers charted over the last two years. His zone coverage 80 percent score is quite a bit more impressive, falling in the 71st percentile.

One notable data point here for Ross is his 60.7 percent success rate vs. double coverage. Opposing defenses double-covered Ross on 28 routes in his Reception Perception sample, second only to Taywan Taylor among charted receivers this year. Despite that extra attention, Ross rose to the challenge with a success rate mark 14 points higher than the prospect average.

What most will be dying to know regarding Ross’ Reception Perception is how he performed against press coverage. Ross’ statistical production fell silent against Alabama in the college playoff series with just five catches for 28 yards. This exacerbated concerns about how the slight receiver works against press coverage. Those concerns can be dialed back a bit as Ross maintained a 73.2 percent success rate vs. press coverage, which was the fourth-best score recorded this year and falls above the 78th percentile.

Releasing from the line of scrimmage is just about quickness, footwork and technique as it is about size and strength. Size tends to carry far too much weight, or perhaps just creates too many assumptions when it comes to wide receiver evaluations. If a player doesn’t have a variation of clean release moves, opposing cornerbacks will jam them prior to their route no matter how tall they may be.

On the other side of the scale, small receivers can be some of the best against press coverage if their technique integrates well with their agile nature. You can’t jam what you can’t touch. John Ross has the ability to elude press defenders at the line of scrimmage enough to mitigate his lack of ideal size.

Route Data
Here’s where the fun begins with John Ross’ evaluation. We can examine his route charts to decipher if there is more to his game than just winning vertical with speed.

Red is below the two-year prospect average, green is above and yellow is within the average.

As to be expected, the farther away we get from the line of scrimmage the higher we find Ross’ route percentages as it relates to the two-year college average. He ran the slant, screen or flat route at a rate that was below the prospect average.

It’s no surprise we see the corner and post route among the more popular routes for Ross as they are typically vertical-leaning patterns. The nine route was also expected to be high. In all honesty, seeing Ross ran the nine route (20.3 percent) at an average rate is a bit more of a shock. One would have expected it to be even higher given his burner reputation.

The more intermediate routes where Ross pops up with a rate above the two-year prospect average were the out (6.6 percent) and curl (18.1 percent). The curl, in particular, is key here. It was striking to see on film just how much cushion received from opposing defensive backs clearly terrified of giving up the deep ball. Ross is unlikely to get that in the NFL, but he’s already shown an understanding of how to sell the vertical route without tipping it with his eyes or head before snapping back to the quarterback on the curl or comeback. That will be how Ross makes a living beyond just a deep threat and amasses yardage in the short game.

With that in mind, it becomes even more important to see his success rate vs. coverage as it lends more credence to the idea that Ross functions well outside of just the bomb plays.

Starting with the negatives, Ross came in under the two-year prospect average in success rate vs. coverage on slant and post routes. Given his speed, quickness and strong technique, that was unexpected. It’s worth noting that neither his 70.4 percent success rate on posts or 74.2 percent on slants is all that terribly low, but the prospect average is particularly inflated on the slant pattern, in particular.

Otherwise, Ross’ route success rate chart shows nothing but positives. His 62.2 percent success rate on nine routes quantifies his dangerous ability to get over the top. His 100 percent success rate on comebacks and 78.8 percent on curls help exemplify that skill to sell the vertical pattern before chopping his feet and turning back short.

Ross ran the out route at an above average rate and his 83.3 percent success rate is all the more impressive because of it. The out is a difficult pattern and requires the deception of keeping your head steady along with the cut at a sharp angle to earn separation. Ross shows he’s up to the task.

Moving Forward
We posed the question at the onset of this study as to what kind of small receiver John Ross really was. Is he the type of deep threat that only helps out in the vertical game or was there potential to reach out to the T.Y. Hilton-esque upper branches of the archetype?

After taking in Ross’ Reception Perception results, we can conclusively say he has more to offer as a complete package in a small frame than just his deep game. He created separation at different levels of the field and his success rate vs. coverage shows a player who wins with detail and athleticism.

The on-field package is superb and something NFL teams salivate over. All that can stand in Ross’ way as a high-first round pick is a long and winding injury rap sheet, including multiple knee maladies and an upcoming surgery set for May. Those are major concerns and each team will have to weight them against a skill set that is quite simply, rare.

Heading into this weekend we already knew John Ross was fast. Yet, he showed us all we may have not truly known just how fast he was and put a 4.22 record-breaking time down to prove it. To the same point, perhaps you’d already seen enough on film to know that Ross was a better technician than credited and someone who could win at levels of the field. Seeing it play out in his Reception Perception results only serves to reinforce this reality.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Chris Godwin​

Perhaps the biggest success story in Reception Perception history was identifying Allen Robinson as a future NFL star prior to his 1,400-yard, 14-touchdown 2015 season. The methodology revealed Robinson’s true abilities were on film before the massive production came.

Everyone knew that Robinson could make the highlight reel catch based on his famous 2013 catch against Michigan. What the football world at large may not have known was that Robinson was a detailed technician with a fine release move off the line and a consistent separator on a route-to-route basis. Those were items Reception Perception revealed and those traits helped him leap into a Pro Bowl season in his second season.

As the 2017 NFL Draft approaches, Reception Perception has once again taken an interest in a Penn State wide receiver. One who simply doesn’t get the recognition he deserves as one of the best prospects in this class.

Much like Allen Robinson before him, it doesn’t take the most discerning eye to identify Godwin’s proclivity for making the spectacular play. His Rose Bowl game film against USC is littered with them. That nine-catch, 182-yard dismantling of the Trojans topped with a couple of scores was the best game charted for any wide receiver prospect in this draft class.

We know heading into Chris Godwin’s evaluation that he’s capable of taking over a game on the collegiate level and can win the ball in the air. It will be the goal of Reception Perception to show that like his fellow former Nittany Lion, he has the all-around game to become a top flight NFL wideout.

Alignment and target data
Games sampled: USC, Pittsburgh, Temple, Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Measuring in at 6-foot-1 and just over 200 pounds, Chris Godwin has the build of a top outside receiver. That was precisely the role he played at Penn State.

Every single snap in Godwin’s six-game Reception Perception sample saw him lined up out wide and on the line of scrimmage. He took 56 percent of his snaps at left wide receiver and another 44 percent at outside right. Godwin never ventured into the slot or lined up as a flanker off the line.

Over the last three seasons of studying wide receiver prospects, I’ve begun to pay close attention to the development of players who took the vast majority of their snaps on one side of the field. Receivers like Kevin White and Dorial Green-Beckham operated in this fashion as a collegiate players and neither has managed to make use of their clear athletic gifts at the NFL level.

While transferring the game from one side of the field to the other may seem like simple task to the reader, one must consider the massive amount of muscle memory that the constant reps of football puts into place for a player. Reversing all aspects of route-running, releasing from the line and working the sideline is a greater challenge when you have little to no experience doing so at the college level. These receivers who come into the NFL playing 80 to 99 percent of their snaps on one side of the field are at a disadvantage as a pro offense rarely stations their receiver on one side of the field on more than 60 percent of their snaps. Perhaps this is one of the aspects of the spread an NFL scout had in mind when he told NFL.com’s Bucky Brooks that the proliferation of that offense was killing wide receiver development.

Godwin doesn’t fall into that category since he moved between left and right wide receiver. Yet, it’s still notable that he didn’t take any snaps in the slot or as a flanker and strictly operated as an X-receiver. One has to wonder if that will factor in while adjusting to the NFL level.

After a 69-catch, 1,101-yard season as a sophomore, Godwin fell back to 59 catches and 982 yards as a sophomore despite his touchdown total jumping to 11. Any lack of production in the offense is no fault to the player in this case. Godwin saw a target on 25.9 percent of his routes run over the course of his Reception Perception sample. The two-year prospect average is 33.2 percent and only Tennessee’s Josh Malone checked in with a lower target per route rate among those sampled this year.

When Godwin did see targets come his way he was mostly efficient in converting them. He caught almost 70 percent of the passes sent to him and dropped just 2.3 percent of them.

Contested catch conversion rate
Often times what helps wide receivers off the top tier distinguish themselves is the presence of a trump card in their game. In Mike Williams’ evaluation, it was concluded that his dominance at the catch point gave him a trump card, a skilled exemplified by his 81.3 contested catch conversion rate. Williams’ score is the fourth-highest recorded over the last two years and Chris Godwin has him beat.

Godwin’s insane 85.7 percent contested catch conversion rate is the highest among prospects charted the last two years. He narrowly edged out well-known high-pointer Josh Doctson from 2016, who owned an 85 percent conversion rate.

Not only does Godwin play at an elite level in traffic, he also shows an advanced understanding of timing and hand use when leaving his feet. He’s not as tall as a player like Williams or Doctson, but his ability in the air gives him just as much of a catch radius. His overall play strength makes him a force in close quarters with a defender.

Of course, the true appeal to Godwin goes beyond his trump card trait. His ability as a route-runner and separator must also get the recognition it deserves.

Success rate vs. coverage
While Chris Godwin can come down with catches despite a defender being in his hip pocket in contested situations, he’s also a strong route runner who can leave them behind. Godwin posted a 73.5 percent success rate vs. coverage in the games sampled for Reception Perception. That was the fourth-highest score in the 2017 NFL Draft class and falls at the 76th percentile among prospects the last two years.

Godwin also showed well when facing zone defenses. His 85.5 success rate vs. zone coverage checked in as the fourth-highest among prospects in the 2017 NFL Draft. His 68.8 percent success rate vs. double coverage was above the 80th percentile.

There were a number of reps where Godwin showed off a pristine set of release moves from the line of scrimmage. He used deception, strength and quick feet to elude defenders’ jams off the line. However, there were also moments where those moves faded and he slipped into bad habits. The result was a 68.1 percent success rate vs. press coverage, which was above the average along the 53rd percentile, but was not quite as elite as his other marks.

Godwin, along with John Ross, Carlos Henderson and Ryan Switzer, was one of only four receivers this year to post an above average success rate vs. coverage score against all type of defenses measured. Godwin is the biggest member of that foursome, which just serves to underscore how impressive his route technique is at this stage of his development.

Route data
While I don’t like it to be used as a negative or criticism of a draft prospect’s abilities, one of the trickier parts about projecting college wide receivers to the NFL is how their route trees skew to a small handful of inside-breaking routes. Carlos Henderson, for example, ran an out-breaking route on just 4.5 percent of his patterns sampled for Reception Perception. The NFL will ask receivers to run a wider variety of routes.

Chris Godwin doesn’t come with this asterisk in his scouting portfolio. Not only did he show an ability to run the full route tree, he was quite adept at executing out-breaking routes.

Red is below the two-year prospect average, green is above and yellow is within the average.

While the typical prospect will see their route percentage chart skew more towards the slant, curl, post and nine route, those were the four patterns that Godwin ran at a below average rate. It’s unusual, but Godwin ran the corner (4.6 percent) and out (4.6 percent) routes at rates right in line with the two-year prospect average.

Godwin’s preferred routes were the dig (12.7 percent), comeback (13.3 percent) and flat (9.8 percent) as his usage rate was above the prospect average on those three routes. The dig and comeback are two patterns that take the most detail and technical prowess to run with precision Godwin is much farther along as a route-runner than most of his peers in this class.

While his route percentage chart skewed more toward outside routes than the typical prospect, his route success rate scores show a player who wins in all areas of the field.

The only routes in which Chris Godwin did not post an above average success rate vs. coverage score was the nine and “other.” Godwin’s straight-line speed may not be among the best in the class, and his 48 percent success rate vs. coverage was the fourth-lowest among prospects charted this year. His success rate on the “other” route of 70 percent was within the average. Otherwise, Godwin thrived on all routes.

Despite not running them as much as other prospects over the last two seasons, Godwin’s 86.4 percent success rate vs. coverage on slants and 84.6 percent on posts show off his quickness at the stem of routes. He’s also adept at using the subtle head fakes to take a defender outside in coverage before he breaks to the interior. Once in the open field on those routes, Godwin can be dangerous. Only 6.9 percent of his routes classified as “in space” attempts where he could break a tackle in the open field, but he was dropped on first contract on just 33.3 percent of those attempts.

As mentioned, the dig and comeback route were two patterns Godwin ran at a higher rate than the average prospect. Both difficult patterns to execute cleanly, his use there says a thing or two about his route-running. The fact that he posted success rates of 90.9 and 87 percent of them says even more. While Godwin’s trump card is his ability to win the ball in the air, don’t undersell his ability to separate from defenders and get open.

At just 21 years old, Chris Godwin already shows plenty of polish and seasoning for a young player who may have even more room to grow. He’s a player that comes with a complete skill set as a separator in addition to his work in the contested catch game with the best conversion rate in Reception Perception college history.

With the NFL Scouting Combine upon us, expect the buzz on Godwin to grow as he enters the national spotlight. While players like Cooper Kupp and Zay Jones appear to still be riding the hype of strong Senior Bowl weeks, it will soon be Godwin’s turn to displace them as one of the true sleepers of this draft class.

Much like now Super Bowl-winner Malcolm Mitchell from the 2016 class, Reception Perception identifies Chris Godwin as a player who will likely go outside of the first round but is destined to outperform his draft status. However, as long as Godwin continues to nail the pre-draft process, he could certainly end up working himself into the early Day 2 conversation. The results that lie in his Reception Perception metrics tell us that he is a player well worth that sort of investment.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Carlos Henderson
​

Sometimes it just clicks. You witness an event unfold and almost instantaneously it hits you that you’re taking in something different from the norm, perhaps even something special.

In the best of cases, those feelings and a logical assessment of them afterward inspire us to take a stand, to believe in something. A mere observation alone isn’t something worth celebrating, but rather the action that follows it.

Watching Carlos Henderson play wide receiver creates that effect. His play inspires you to craft the story of his future NFL success and believe in its coming to pass.

After the consensus top two receivers in this class, Mike Williams and Corey Davis, it’s essentially open season in terms of who will fill out the rest of draft analysts’ top 10 position rankings. Henderson is one of the best x-factors to shoot up those lists in the coming months.

Unlike his peers Williams and Davis, or even the likes of John Ross and Juju Smith-Schuster, Carlos Henderson hasn’t been on the scene for multiple years. He’s a newcomer, and those not inundated in the deepest depths of college football might just be learning about him. I certainly fell into that category before charting out his Reception Perception sample.

I expected Henderson’s numbers to be just another set to round out my database of wide receiver prospects for the 2017 draft class. What I didn’t see coming was that by the end of the process, he would easily be my favorite wide receiver prospect of the 2017 draft class. Yet, that’s exactly what the data bore out.

When viewed in totality, Carlos Henderson’s Reception Perception results speak to a player with perhaps more upside than any other receiver outside the top two. There are few flaws to pick out of his game, and cartons of potential of which to unpack.

Alignment and target data
Games sampled: Texas Tech, Arkansas, Western Kentucky 12/3, Southern Methodist, Western Kentucky 10/6, Massachusetts

Louisiana Tech lists Carlos Henderson at 5-foot-11, 191 pounds. While he’s not the biggest player, he almost exclusively functioned as the Bulldogs’ X-receiver this season. Henderson lined up at left wide receiver on 51.4 percent of his snaps over the six games sampled for Reception Perception and on the right side for 44.6 percent. He was on the line of scrimmage for 91.1 percent of his plays.

While slot receiver Trent Taylor recorded more catches than Henderson this year, it’s clear who the focal point of the aerial attack was. Louisiana Tech’s quarterbacks targeted him on 36.1 percent of the 202 routes he ran in the Reception Perception sample. His targets often come in high-leverage, big play potential situations, as Henderson maintained 19.6 yards per reception average for his collegiate career.

In space and contested catch ancillary metrics
Before looking at his success rate vs. coverage scores, it’s important to quantify the aspects of Henderson’s game that “pops” on film. It’s his performance in these ancillary metrics in conjunction with his raw profile that got him on the draft world’s radar.

Carlos Henderson is a dynamic player in space, that’s easy to see when watching a highlight reel of his big plays. Yet, Reception Perception helps shine a light on just how dominant he was in this regard, as he is bar none the best prospect charted the last two years “in space” with the ball in his hands.

Of his 202 routes charted, Henderson was out “in space” with the opportunity to break a tackle on 13.9 percent of them. He was only brought down on first contact on 21.4 percent of those attempts, the lowest rate of the 40-plus prospects charted over the last two seasons. Conversely, his astronomical multiple broken tackle rate of 39.3 percent was the best score recorded. To put that into context, Corey Davis has the second highest rate at 22.6 percent and Corey Coleman led the 2016 class with 17.4 percent.

What Carlos Henderson did at Louisiana Tech with the ball in his hands was special, no questions asked. His combination of tenacity, power and agility make it hard to imagine that he won’t at least translate that skill to the NFL level. Don’t be surprised if Henderson tests off the charts and performs in the top-five of several drills at the NFL Scouting Combine this year.

Of course, a sub 6-foot-0 receiver is expected to be something of an asset after the catch. Their abilities in space are meant to offset the potential worries brought on by a lack of height. However, what makes Henderson so unique is that he is a small receiver who wins in the air and in contested situations.

Henderson posted a 76.9 contested catch conversion rate on 13 attempts in his Reception Perception sample. That score slides him into the 87th percentile among prospects charted over the last two years. Despite his lack of size, Henderson is an excellent leaper who doesn’t shy away from tight physical coverage. We have plenty of examples in the NFL today of smaller receivers who end up becoming the focal point of their team’s passing offense, due to their ability to integrate playing above the rim with the separation they create. Henderson appears to have the skills to do that as well.

Success rate vs. coverage
While winning contested catches and making highlight-reel athletic feats after the catch will get you on the draft radar, showing consistent route-running and earning separation get you into the Day 2 conversation. It was in the success rate vs. coverage metric, which measures how often a receiver gets open on each individual route run, that Carlos Henderson established himself as one of the better receiver prospects in this draft.

Last season, Sterling Shepard was the best performer almost across the board in success rate vs. coverage. His 82.8 and 91.1 percent success rate vs. man and press coverage, respectively, were far and away the top scores in the class. His 80.2 percent success rate vs. zones was also a top-three mark. All of those metrics pointed to Shepard being a strong NFL prospect, something he showed to be true right away in year one of his career.

Among the 2017 prospects, it was Carlos Henderson who stood above the crowd. Henderson bested Shepard’s success rate vs. press coverage score with a 92.6 percent score this year. Now, he didn’t face much press coverage in his lower-level conference, but when defenders took the chance to try and square him up at the line of scrimmage, Henderson defeated their efforts with a variety of release moves. Henderson also took home the highest success rate vs. zone coverage score in Reception Perception’s prospect database with 90.5 percent. While Shepard still holds the best score against man coverage after the entry of the 2017 prospects’ data, Henderson’s 78.9 percent success rate v. man coverage checks in above the 91st percentile.

Carlos Henderson has a more refined technical arsenal than one may expect. He shows precision timing when breaking off his routes, as well as the ability to use deception in the nuanced sections of creating separation. His unhinged athleticism on the field helps put a crescendo on his efforts to get open at all levels of the field.

Route data
I’ve long been on the record as someone who believes “doesn’t run the full route tree” should not be levied as a critique against draft prospects. It’s a note that assesses the environment a receiver exists in, not the player himself.

With that being said, what a player is asked to do as a route-runner is a part of the story that helps bring context to their Reception Perception profile. What Carlos Henderson’s route percentage shows is a player with a narrow utilization portfolio.

Red is below the two-year prospect average, green is above and yellow is within the average.

What we clearly notice is Henderson’s lack of deployment on out-breaking routes. The corner, out, comeback and flat routes combined for just 4.5 percent of his patterns overall. Given Henderson’s skills after the catch, it makes sense to assign him in-breaking routes to best get him in space. Still, such limited use on outside routes is noteworthy.

Henderson’s most run routes compared to the two-year prospect average were the nine, dig, curl and screen. He’s capable of picking up vertical chunk plays on vertical routes, as well as using and creating cushion for himself by breaking back to the quarterback on curls. Those routes will help him become an asset as a downfield receiver in addition to what he does after the catch. His high usage rate on digs is striking, and points to some of the more under-noticed aspects of his precision that show up on his route success rate chart.

Not only was Henderson used frequently on digs routes compared to the average prospect, he was also incredibly successful. His 94.4 percent success rate on dig routes was the best score of any prospect charted this year. Henderson shows a strong understanding of where to break off his routes at the 90-degree angle, and does so with pristine foot frequency.

Carlos Henderson posted a success rate vs coverage score above the two-year prospect average on every route on the tree outside of the screen and comeback (which he never ran in this sample). Also showing his versatility, he was one of the top-two performing receivers in both the short and deep game.

Among the six prospects who ran the nine route at a rate above the two-year average (20.6 percent), Carlos Henderson’s 66 percent success rate was the best score. His 88.9 percent success rate on post route tied Mike Williams for the best among prospects this year. His 87.9 percent score on slant route trailed on slants trailed only Isaiah Ford. There isn’t a level on the field where Henderson isn’t one of the best receivers in this class.

It’s easy to get swept away with enthusiasm watching Carlos Henderson play. The fact that Reception Perception quantifies his abilities on a route-to-route basis doesn’t make it any easier to avoid getting bullish with the projections.

Still establishing his NFL Draft story, expect Henderson’s stock to continue to gain steam in the coming weeks. As perhaps a surprise underclassmen declaration, the big draft industrial complex and even the most passionate observers have just turned their gaze to this star over the last few weeks. It won’t be long before Henderson replaces names like Cooper Kupp and Zay Jones, still riding off the buzz from strong Senior Bowl weeks, as the darling of the second-tier of receiver prospects this year.

As a player who clearly has it all when it comes to on-field ability, Carlos Henderson checks all the boxes of a player we need to monitor closely in his career, especially if he lands with an NFL team able to nurture that clear upside in his corner. Henderson’s is a story worth believing in, one that Reception Perception believes won’t stay a tale of folklore for much longer. When it comes to “my guys” this year, Henderson is squarely at the forefront of the group.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Mike Williams​

Evaluating college prospects is a tricky endeavor. Not only is there no exact scientific method to follow but we’re also attempting to oversimplify a process that revolves around the complex and unpredictable nature of human subjects, something that many evaluators appear to entirely forget. Making the matter even more difficult is the fact that some of us, even those in the tightest inner circles of the NFL, are working with incomplete information.

One of the most impactful pieces of football content I’ve ever consumed was an article by Adam Harstad of Footballguys detailing psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s theory on bias he called “What You See Is All There Is” or WYSIATI. In his own assertion, Kahneman explains that when we take in some elements of a story or occurrence, we often construct the rest of the story off of what we see and pass up the pursuit of “the unseen” or what we don’t already know. As it relates to football, Harstad wonders if this unconsciously makes us biased towards certain players based on what we can plainly see on a broadcast view, an inherently limited and incomplete picture, and if we open ourselves to creating a story based only on those “seen” events rather than the entire complexion of their game.

Harstad wrote this piece in November 2015, but the notion behind Kahneman’s original WYSIATI theory and its application to player evaluation is exactly what led me to create the charting methodology Reception Perception over a year prior to its publication.

I believe that the wide receiver position is one of the most susceptible to this sort of bias. So much of a receiver’s job is executed before the ball arrives for them to attempt a catch, or even prior to to the quarterback deciding to throw a pass their way. Yet, that portion of their game is rarely captured by traditional broadcast angles, leaving those unable or unwilling to dig through the footage of additional angles, like the all-22, to only evaluate what happens at the catch point and beyond on a route-to-route basis.

Harstad wonders, “Are we biased towards receivers whose biggest strengths come after the catch as opposed to receivers who excel before the catch?” That’s likely true, but I’d assert that there’s another, perhaps greater bias created by Kahneman’s WYSIATI phenomenon. Due to the public’s limited access to footage beyond the broadcast angle for college games, we often see perhaps incomplete conclusions made on wide receiver prospects based on what can be seen on that angle—primarily at the catch point and beyond rather than before it.

We see that single element in the story of their game and it becomes the primary construction tool in creating biases about the rest of their profile.

It is plain to see that Clemson wide receiver Mike Williams can dominate at the catch point. Even if you haven’t poured over his college game film all you needed was a few exposures to watching him live, most notably in the National Championship, to glean that reality. A wide receiver that makes a large amount of dominant, highlight-reel contested catches often leads the public to a natural conclusion I’ve seen pop up on a number of occasions in my time as an evaluator.

“If he’s winning all these contested catches, it must be because he can’t separate.”

The goal of Reception Perception is to illuminate what occurs on a route-to-route basis; its use is that of a tool to remind us of “the unseen.” In Williams’ evaluation, it can help us decide if we should have concerns about his ability before the ball arrives, despite his pristine work in contested situations.

Alignment and target data
Games sampled: Louisville, South Carolina, Pittsburgh, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Alabama

Mike Williams has long had the intrigue of NFL Draft evaluators. As a sophomore in 2014, Williams posted over 1,000 receiving yards and showed he was a big play maven, averaging 18.1 yards per catch. Unfortunately, he couldn’t sustain that momentum as a serious neck injury cost him the remainder of his junior season after just two catches in his first outing. Williams elected to return for his senior season and culminated his collegiate resume with 98 catches, 1,361 yards and 11 touchdowns on way to Clemson snagging the National Championship trophy.

The appeal to Williams is easy to see on the surface as he’s built like the prototypical No. 1 X receiver. The Clemson wideout is listed at 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds. He was used as a such in his collegiate career, as well. Williams lined up outside on a whopping 97.9 percent of his snaps taken over the six games sampled for his Reception Perception evaluation.

Despite playing on an offense with intriguing pass-catchers like Artavis Scott, Hunter Renfrow and Jordan Leggett, Mike Williams was the focal-point of the Tigers’ aerial attack. Deshaun Watson targeted Williams on 36 percent of the 172 routes in his Reception Perception sampled. Williams paid back his quarterback’s faith by being a clearly reliable target. Williams hauled in a catch on 26.2 percent of his routes run, which was the third-highest figure in the receivers sampled from the 2017 NFL Draft class and 4.8 percent higher than the two-year average.

Contested catch conversion rate
As mentioned, Mike Williams’ strength as a player is his ability at the catch point. Physical contact and traffic doesn’t bother him; he’s a strong leaper and tracks the ball well. He’s a classic “wins-in-the-air” receiver.

With a contested catch conversion rate of 81.3 percent, Reception Perception does not deny that as Williams’ true best attribute. His score in this metric falls in the 91st percentile among the receivers sampled over the last two seasons. He has strong hands overall checking in with a 3.2 drop rate, the fourth-lowest among the Top-15 receivers charted this year.

Williams’ proficiency in contested situations gives him what I call a “trump card.” A receiver with a trump card has one trait in which they are just so inherently dominant that even if a defender stops them on three out of four attempts, on that fourth down their trump card will eventually shine through.

Of course, Mike Williams’ ability to win contested catches is not what’s in question here. What Reception Perception will help answer is whether Williams has enough separation ability and acumen as a route-runner to be more than just a jump ball threat.

Success rate vs. coverage
The primary metric in the Reception Perception catalog is “success rate vs. coverage” which measure how often a wide receiver gets open on every route they run and against different forms of defenses. Mike Williams’ positive performance in this metric may surprise some.

Mike Williams scored above the two-year prospect average in success rate vs. man, zone and press coverage. His best score was his 82.5 percent success rate when facing zone coverage, 5.4 percentage points higher than the two-year average. We’ve yet to see Williams’ athletic testing results as of press time, but those findings aside, athleticism may not be the pivotal marking of his game. Williams is undersold as a technician and a mental player diagnosing zones. That technical prowess also shows up on his release moves from the line of scrimmage with a 71.2 percent success rate vs press coverage, falling at the 71st percentile.

Now, Williams’ success rate vs. man coverage score isn’t quite as strong as his marks against zone and press coverage, despite it being above average. With a 69 percent success rate, Williams falls at the 55th percentile. Again, that’s not an elite score like the 79.6 percent success rate posted by his counterpart Corey Davis. The two are quite different prospects with contrary strengths and that’s quite alright. What we’ve learned from Williams’ success rate vs. coverage scores is that his separate ability is “good enough” to make him a viable No. 1 receiver candidate when viewed alongside the trump card he carries in contested situations.

One common comparison assigned to Williams is that of Chicago Bears wide receiver Alshon Jeffery. Much like Williams, Jeffery is known as a jump-ball specialist who relies on that trait to offset his perceived issues as a separator. Reception Perception reveals that the comparison is fair, even if the concerns with both players’ ability to separate are overstated:

If Williams can amass the type of production and make the impact of a player like Alshon Jeffery, his future pro team will be more than pleased.

Route data
While we’ve learned that we shouldn’t be overly concerned about Williams’ ability to separate from coverage, it’s still necessary to dig into his route tree to see where he is most successful at creating separation.

Red is below the two-year prospect average, green is above and yellow is within the average.

Mike Williams’ route percentage chart reveals a clear utilization plan for the wide receiver. Clemson asked Williams to run an intermediate route including the curl, comeback and dig below the two-year charted average rate for college prospects.

You can see that his usage on shorter routes was quite a bit higher, as most of the more shallow patterns were right in line with the average rate, in addition to his post route usage. It was on vertical patterns like the nine and corner route that Williams showed up with an above average rate. His ability to separate deep and in the air on shot plays should not be in question.

Further highlighting that the intermediate game is not where he’s at his best, Williams’ route success rate chart shows the areas of the field where his NFL team will look to make the most use of him.

The three routes in which Williams ran under the average were also three of the four where he failed to create separation. His highest success rates came on shorter patterns like the slant and flat in addition to his vertical work on the post, nine and corner routes.

Unless Williams takes a dramatic step in his development as a route-runner, it’s unlikely that he ever becomes an elite separator or that his NFL team will make much use of him on nuanced out-breaking routes. The question for those attempting to project him to the pro game is will that really matter? I often find myself offering a resounding “no” to queries like this.

Good coaches cater the assignments they dole out to match the strengths of their receivers. It’s why a player’s lack of ability to run the full route tree is often a hollow concern. If a player is dominant on just a handful of routes, what’s the sense in asking them to work outside of that comfort zone just for the sake of it? The goal should be to set them up for an optimal usage, even if it limits their route portfolio.

Even the most diehard viewers would likely be surprised at how many receivers fall into a usage pattern such as this, including some of the league’s best wideouts. Take for example the route percentage chart of Calvin Johnson, who is certainly one of the top receivers to ever play at his peak, during his final NFL season.

Even one of the best to ever do it came with limited route tree, with over 53 percent of his routes being corners, slants or nines. The Lions were able to make use of Johnson’s incredible skills and position him as an easy target for his quarterbacks by assigning a rather simple route portfolio. This is not to suggest that Williams is a comparable talent to Johnson, or that he’ll produce at his level. Yet, what this does show us is that it’s certainly possible to funnel 140-plus targets on a No. 1 receiver workload even if the player runs just a handful of simplistic routes.

Reception Perception certainly suggests that there is little reason to worry about Mike Williams projection to the NFL as a separator or future usage as a No. 1 receiver. The details in “the unseen” revealed by the methodology show that just because he has a clear trump card in the contested catch game does not mean that we should limit our thoughts on what else he can do.

Williams will compete with Corey Davis to be the first wide receiver off the board in the 2017 NFL Draft. The process that will play out over the next few months will likely have a say in who ends up taking the honor home to be selected over the other. Although, in the end, the decision may come down to pure archetypal preferences. The trump card of Williams’ ability in the air help him have a clear projection to an early role, but the good enough separation ability Reception Perception sees gives hope to the idea that there is more to him than that.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Corey Davis​

We’re a divided people. You can apply the statement to many sectors of our world, but it certainly fits the small group of individuals on this planet who gather on the internet to discuss the happenings of the National Football League.

The beauty of the game lies in its ability to captivate an audience with the impressive feats of tremendous athletes or the dramatic twists of the league as a whole, but also in the way that two people can look at one individual occurrence and see wildly different realities. And that’s okay.

The subjectivity of the takeaways following the viewing of a football game is part of what makes it something that can be discussed for hours on end, 365 days a year. There’s no better example of that than in the toils of scouting college prospects.

Many analysts and observers approach evaluating college players and their potential worth as they transition to the NFL with widely varying processes. Even two people who approach evaluation with the same lens of process can come away from their study with two entirely different conclusions. One film-watcher can watch five games of a prospect and come away believing they just studied a future NFL star; another could see something that causes them to be less enthusiastic about the projection. One analytic data-miner might get hung up on one particular metric while another can easily explain it away.

Those differing end points to a similar journey can incite debate and discourse over a college prospect for months. However, the projection of Western Michigan senior wide receiver Corey Davis seems to be immune from that debate room floor.

It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t like Corey Davis’ game. It appears the draft community has largely extended a universal nod of approval toward his pro prospects. Even those who don’t view him as the 2017 NFL Draft’s best wide receiver largely regard him as no worse than No. 2 in their rankings.

Reception Perception, the charting methodology I developed for evaluating wide receivers, also casts a light of approval of Corey Davis. In the most crucial of metrics in the series’ portfolio, Davis comes up as a tremendous performer.

Alignment and target data
Games sampled: Buffalo, Wisconsin, Ball State, Kent state, Northwestern, Ohio.

Davis has been an impact player since he hit Western Michigan’s campus, recording 67 catches as a freshman in 2013. A stud performer over his last three seasons, Davis topped 1,400 yards in each of those campaigns. He reached new heights as a senior with 97 catches for 1,500 yards and a whopping 19 touchdowns.

Unlike some receiver prospects who will stick to just one side of the field, Davis was a do-it-all threat in the Broncos’ offense. Davis lined up at right wide receiver on 42.6 percent of his snaps in the six games sampled for Reception Perception and another 30.9 percent at left wide receiver. Listed at 6-foot-3 and over 210 pounds, Davis is primarily an X-receiver with 71.3 percent of his snaps featuring him on the line of scrimmage. However, the Broncos also felt comfortable shifting him into the slot on 26.3 percent of his sampled snaps. Davis comes to the NFL with experience at playing all of the receiver positions in a traditional NFL offense.

As the engine of the Broncos offense, quarterbacks targeted Davis on 37 percent of his 184 routes run in his 2016 Reception Perception sample. It’s clear to see why his teammates and the Western Michigan coaching staff had such tremendous faith in him based on his Reception Perception “success rate vs. coverage” scores, which measures how often a receiver gets open on every variety of route run and against certain brands of coverage.

Success rate vs. coverage
Davis posted a 79.6 percent success rate when facing man coverage in his Reception Perception sample. That’s a score that falls in the 94th percentile among the prospects charted over the last two years, bested only by Sterling Shepard’s incredible 82.8 percent mark from the 2016 draft class. A smooth and natural route-runner, Davis easily separates from defenders and shows an advanced understanding of technique for a collegiate player.

It’s incredibly rare for a player of Davis’ frame to show up with such a gaudy success rate vs. man coverage score. While the prospect Reception Perception data points are typically higher than NFL players on the top-end, no “big receiver” in the pros has approached matching 79.6 percent success rate. The closest big receivers in the database from the last three years would be Dez Bryant (75.5 percent in 2014), Allen Robinson (73.6 percent in 2015) and Keenan Allen (77.1 percent in 2015).

Davis’ success rate vs. press coverage was also a positive note. At a 71.7 percent success rate, he fell along the 76th percentile among draft prospects charted the last two years. Davis’ quick feet and a variety of release moves make him a chore for defensive backs attempting to press him.

In an odd result, Davis didn’t perform as well when facing zone coverage, with a success rate of just 70.1 percent. That score put him several steps below the two-year prospect average of 77.1 percent.

Route data
In his six-game Reception Perception sample, Davis showed an ability to run a full portfolio of routes. However, a close look at his routes run shows a clear favoritism to patterns designed to show off one of his best attributes.

(Red indicates below the two-year prospect average route percentage, green is above the average and yellow is within the average)

Davis ran five routes at a rate that was above the two-year prospect average. Those patterns were the slant, post, dig, out and flat route. His screen route percentage was right within the average. Three of those four routes are in-breaking routes, while the screen and flat are also often used to assist receivers in getting into the open field,

When you consider Davis’ run after-the-catch ability, it’s little surprise that he was so heavily featured on routes of that variety. Davis was “in space” on 16.8 percent on his 184 routes in the sampled games. The average prospect checks in at just 11.2 percent over the last two years. Davis was tremendous as creating with the ball in his hands, and his blend of physicality and athleticism makes him a chore for opposing defenders. Davis broke a single tackle on 51.6 percent of his “in space” attempts and multiple tackles on 22.6 percent. Both marks were in the top-three for this year’s receiver group and his bested the two-year prospect average of 40.4 percent and 10.2 percent.

While that’s a notable and highlight-reel worthy part of his game, what makes Corey Davis such a tremendous wide receiver prospect is his seemingly effortless ability to separate from the defender covering him. His success rate vs. coverage scores across the route tree help bring that skill into focus.

(Red indicates below the two-year prospect average success rate, green is above the average and yellow is within the average)

Davis posted an above average success rate on all but three routes on the tree. Of those three patterns, the post route was the only one in which he also ran at an above average rate. While most of his route-running is impeccably clean, Davis could further his acumen by adding in some deceptive moves at the stem point in his deep posts.

The same could be said in regards to his work on curl routes. By adding in more deceptive techniques to sell the vertical pattern before snapping back on the hitch, Davis could improve his curl route success rate.

Otherwise, Davis route success rate chart is superb. Despite only running a nine route on 10.3 percent of his sampled patterns, Davis’ 68.4 percent success rate gives reason to believe he could be an even better straight-line vertical threat at the NFL level if paired with a quarterback who likes to air it out.

In the NFL, Davis will be an incredibly dangerous asset running slants to the middle of the field. His tackle breaking makes him a lethal threat when the ball arrives, but his strong release from the line of scrimmage helped him post a strong 85.4 percent success rate on slants, making him even better before the ball arrives.

Player comparisons and NFL projection
Davis’ work on slants and screen patterns will cause some to assign him a Demaryius Thomas comparison. There are some similarities to the way those two play with the ball in their hands. However, Davis already shows more signs of being a better technician than even Thomas did at his peak. While the NFL veteran has always relied on his athletic ability and physical trump cards over nuance, the same cannot be said of the detailed Davis.

The dig and out routes are some of the more difficult patterns for NFL receiver to execute. The integration of technique and quick feet, especially at the break point, isn’t an easy task. Not only did Davis run those routes at a rate above the two-year prospect average, his 76.9 percent success rate on digs and 80 percent on outs were sterling scores. Thomas, in his peak 2014 season posted a 42.9 percent success rate on digs and 57.1 percent on outs, showing the differences in their games.

All in all, there was only one section of the game where Davis showed poorly compared to receivers over the last two draft classes. His 60 percent contested catch conversion rate was below the two-year prospect average. Since he is such an elite separator, he rarely has to make contest catch attempts (just five in his sample), but it’s fair to classify that as the weak point in his game. Davis also has some drops show up on his film, as his 10.3 drop rate is the highest so far among prospects charted for the 2017 draft class.

With such clear and valuable strengths as a route-runner and after the catch, Corey Davis has an incredibly safe projection to the NFL game. His traits and Reception Perception scores indicate he has the potential to be an offense’s alpha receiver, able to succeed in both a time-based or vertical passing game. However, even if doesn’t hit that peak, so much of his game indicates he could slide safely into a high-volume No. 2 receiver spot.

Much of Corey Davis’ game is reminiscent of Buffalo Bills wide receiver Sammy Watkins. Helping to further the comparison, Davis’ Reception Perception scores are strikingly similar to the results from Watkins’ 2015 season. Like Davis, Watkins posted strong marks against man and press coverage, while faltering a bit when facing zones. Their route success charts were markedly similar, as well, with high success rates on slants, digs and outs. Watkins also posted below NFL average contested catch conversion scores in both 2014 and 2015. Of course, unlike Watkins, Davis doesn’t come with constant health worries, which should have NFL observers excited about the potential of seeing the bright flashes of Watkins’ 2015 second-half consistently manifest themselves in Davis.

A universally adored prospect, Corey Davis comes with a clean Reception Perception profile to back-up his claim to be the 2017 NFL Draft’s best wide receiver prospect. He adds play-making dazzle after the catch ability to a craftsman-like approach to route-running in his efforts to separate from defenders.

A sure-fire first-round pick, Corey Davis could assert himself as a Top-15 player and usurp the rights to be the first receiver off the board from Mike Williams with a strong pre-draft process. His Reception Perception results indicate he might already deserve those honors regardless.

 

[Sportsed]

Thanks, was a lot of work and reading. I Godwin's there at 37, he should be our pick' big, strong, fast, very good hands. Route running is good now and will only get better. Godwin is super-talented, can easily be a number 1 type receiver, very reliable, and would provide Goff and the Rams another excellent weapon for McVay's offense.
Thanks again SYG!!

 

[StealYoGurley]

Thanks, was a lot of work and reading. I Godwin's there at 37, he should be our pick' big, strong, fast, very good hands. Route running is good now and will only get better. Godwin is super-talented, can easily be a number 1 type receiver, very reliable, and would provide Goff and the Rams another excellent weapon for McVay's offense.
Thanks again SYG!!

Agree whole heartedly he checks all the boxes for me. Good tape, great athleticism, and metric break down on a route to route basis backs up what you see on tape.

 

[Sportsed]

Agree whole heartedly he checks all the boxes for me. Good tape, great athleticism, and metric break down on a route to route basis backs up what you see on tape.

I think hell be a much better pro than college player; high character kid and a very hard working guy as well. No doubt he'll have a very good career.

 

[DaveFan'51]

I like these reports! They are a nice read! Thanks for the work you put in!!

 

[LACHAMP46]

Great read

At this point, we can only hypothesize that receivers who primarily play on one side of the field in college face a steeper learning curve in the NFL. Based on the evidence we have so far, it’s at least something to monitor.

A very interesting point...wonder if it means anything?

 

[StealYoGurley]

Great read
A very interesting point...wonder if it means anything?

Limited sample size, but it is not promising in terms of NFL development at this point. Makes sense though when college players are running limited routes and muscle memory of doing it over and over from the same spot. Hard to adjust in the NFL where you are asked to do alot more. You would think the special athletes could overcome things like that, but there are some really good athletes on that list like Kevin White and Dorial Green Beckham who have struggled. There are many reasons why those guys struggle, but limited alignment could definitely contribute.

 

[jrry32]

Limited sample size, but it is not promising in terms of NFL development at this point. Makes sense though when college players are running limited routes and muscle memory of doing it over and over from the same spot. Hard to adjust in the NFL where you are asked to do alot more. You would think the special athletes could overcome things like that, but there are some really good athletes on that list like Kevin White and Dorial Green Beckham who have struggled. There are many reasons why those guys struggle, but limited alignment could definitely contribute.

I doubt there's anything to it. Hell, White has been injured, and DGB's issues extend much further than that.

 

[StealYoGurley]

Limited sample size, but it is not promising in terms of NFL development at this point. Makes sense though when college players are running limited routes and muscle memory of doing it over and over from the same spot. Hard to adjust in the NFL where you are asked to do alot more. You would think the special athletes could overcome things like that, but there are some really good athletes on that list like Kevin White and Dorial Green Beckham who have struggled. There are many reasons why those guys struggle, but limited alignment could definitely contribute.

 

[jrry32]

Limited sample size, but it is not promising in terms of NFL development at this point. Makes sense though when college players are running limited routes and muscle memory of doing it over and over from the same spot. Hard to adjust in the NFL where you are asked to do alot more. You would think the special athletes could overcome things like that, but there are some really good athletes on that list like Kevin White and Dorial Green Beckham who have struggled. There are many reasons why those guys struggle, but limited alignment could definitely contribute.

Here's why I don't think it's meaningful, look at the teams listed next to the players. Those systems don't tend to change much. Think about the WRs who have come out of those schools. There are more than enough early impact guys to dispel the notion that it significantly hinders them.

Can it make the transition harder? Sure. But I doubt it makes a meaningful difference.