Long versus Clowney Pre-draft measurables

[jjab360]

I think there's something wrong what you just said but it's that time of the night again and I'm not thinking clear enough. I'll check back in on this tomorrow. But as a quick preview, NFLDraftScout also has Cook running a 4.42. How would a scout time it? With a stop watch? the offical time is done by a machine and is never wrong. That's why the official time is always the one used for official purposes. Hence the name official. But like I said, i'm not thinking all that clearly right now so I'll look at this again later. Time to watch some DVR'd Elementary.

You should watch the BBC version, Sherlock. Much, much better show, but unfortunately only 3 episodes a season. Each episode is 90 minutes long, though, so I guess it's more of a series of movies.

 

[jrry32]

I just finished watching Person of Interest. About to watch Justified...since we're talking shows. Recommend both highly.

 

[jjab360]

I just finished watching Person of Interest. About to watch Justified...since we're talking shows. Recommend both highly.

Loving this season, about to watch tonight's episode in a little bit. The new bad guy is great, really intimidating in that redneck gangster kind of way, but clearly pretty intelligent as well.

Haven't seen POI yet, I might take a chance on that one soon starting from the beginning.

 

[RamsOfCastamere]

I'm not trying to join your make-up ???, but a difference of .2 in straight line speed is huge. 40 times do not matter as much for DE's as they do for other positions, but I bet you'll enjoy that speed when you see a guy chase and sack a QB rolling to the other side of the field.

 

[jrry32]

I'm not trying to join your make-up ???, but a difference of .2 in straight line speed is huge. 40 times do not matter as much for DE's as they do for other positions, but I bet you'll enjoy that speed when you see a guy chase and sack a QB rolling to the other side of the field.

Imagine Kaeperdick's and Wilson's shock when that 270 pound man runs them down from behind and puts on a crushing hit.

 

[Alan]

Great post jrry. Very informative.
So after reading that here's the deal for me. All the stopwatch times are twice as inaccurate (as a group) as the electronic time because human error is introduced twice rather than just once for the electronic time. The Official time is also the only comparative constant in the equation and in order to actually compare one player's time to another players time it's essential to have a level playing field. Using any other time would be meaningless because who gets to choose which time is used? The only other alternative is to use the whole span of times (maybe throwing out the high and low times and taking the average?) and then of course you no longer have a single time to compare against the other players. Taking those two factors into consideration, I will only be using the official time in these types of discussions. Do you disagree with my logic here?

Yes, Cook didn't time at that weight but then we get into the murky area of how close does a weight have to be before we consider it inconsequential. Or to use your term, "similar". I myself consider it close enough but I can understand if you don't. Of course to keep my reasoning from the first paragraph intact, I guess we'll have to use the combine weight figure to maintain the "level playing field" I was talking about. That still leaves the problem of how much weight difference is inconsequential.

As for as the 4.53 vs 4.47 is concerned, I have two things to say about that. "for a DE doesn't mean much." is qualifying your statement and inching over to talking about athletic freaks at certain position groups versus athletic freaks in groups for similar sized people like I was referring too. I still don't see how the position the player plays at has anything to do with whether he's an athletic freak or not. Physical size is a completely different matter and IMO should be the deciding factor in determining who is part of the comparison pool.

That's it. Fire away. :eek:

 

[Alan]

RamsOfCastamere joining, if unwillingly, the fray:
I'm not trying to join your make-up ???, but a difference of .2 in straight line speed is huge. 40 times do not matter as much for DE's as they do for other positions, but I bet you'll enjoy that speed when you see a guy chase and sack a QB rolling to the other side of the field.

Good point ROC. That could come in handy at times but I do believe that the 10 yard split is far more important to a DE.

And why aren't you trying to join?

 

[Alan]

jjab360 with a heads up:
You should watch the BBC version, Sherlock. Much, much better show, but unfortunately only 3 episodes a season. Each episode is 90 minutes long, though, so I guess it's more of a series of movies.

Thanks for the heads up jjab, but my son already turned me onto to that.

I hope they make more episodes soon and it's not just another mini-series. Makes for good binge watching though. With my luck they'll probably cancel it.

 

[RaminExile]

Interesting that Long's 10 split is quicker than Clowneys and Quinns. That's surprised me. I always saw him as pure "effort" guy who gets his sacks through technique and a relentless motor. He's a better athlete than I gave him credit for even if he is still a bit undersized.

 

[LesBaker]

Those are short arms, I'm only 6ft and mine are 34"

Yes but you may be the missing link between humans and apes. Or you might be related to Kevin McHale......one or the other.

 

[Warner4Prez]

Yes but you may be the missing link between humans and apes. Or you might be related to Kevin McHale......one or the other.

That's good shit.

 

[jrry32]

Great post jrry. Very informative.
So after reading that here's the deal for me. All the stopwatch times are twice as inaccurate (as a group) as the electronic time because human error is introduced twice rather than just once for the electronic time. The Official time is also the only comparative constant in the equation and in order to actually compare one player's time to another players time it's essential to have a level playing field. Using any other time would be meaningless because who gets to choose which time is used? The only other alternative is to use the whole span of times (maybe throwing out the high and low times and taking the average?) and then of course you no longer have a single time to compare against the other players. Taking those two factors into consideration, I will only be using the official time in these types of discussions. Do you disagree with my logic here?

Somewhat...yes. Because, as the link said, there's no such thing as official times. That's a media creation and the media "official" times are highly questionable. I prefer to use the NFLDraftScout times when they're updated because they include the splits which are more important than the 40 itself.

But to be frank, I don't care about the times being comparable for one player to another(because what say Dri Archer runs in comparison to Mike Evans is irrelevant to me if Archer isn't on my draft board...so if Mike Evans runs the 6th fastest 40 but the 5 guys with faster 40s aren't on my draft board...what do I care that he's 6th? Does that make sense?). I prefer to know how fast a guy gets from Point A to Point B. The greater rigidity in the rules for the laser times on first movement has an effect on the 40 times. Which is why I use the NFLDS times which, as the article said, are the high end of the times excluding outliers. Plus, based on my perception, film viewing, and past history...I generally find them to be more accurate relative to how I think a guy would run based on his on the field speed.

Yes, Cook didn't time at that weight but then we get into the murky area of how close does a weight have to be before we consider it inconsequential. Or to use your term, "similar". I myself consider it close enough but I can understand if you don't. Of course to keep my reasoning from the first paragraph intact, I guess we'll have to use the combine weight figure to maintain the "level playing field" I was talking about. That still leaves the problem of how much weight difference is inconsequential.

As for as the 4.53 vs 4.47 is concerned, I have two things to say about that. "for a DE doesn't mean much." is qualifying your statement and inching over to talking about athletic freaks at certain position groups versus athletic freaks in groups for similar sized people like I was referring too. I still don't see how the position the player plays at has anything to do with whether he's an athletic freak or not. Physical size is a completely different matter and IMO should be the deciding factor in determining who is part of the comparison pool.

That's it. Fire away. :eek:

I think position matters to an extent. I'd consider Cam Newton a physical freak but his athleticism measurables in comparison to a TE for example aren't truly freakish or rare. But I think when you couple his athleticism and size with his strong arm...it makes for an exceedingly rare physical talent. Whereas how strong a WR's arm is would be irrelevant.

Regardless, I think on the field and off of it, Clowney is a physical freak regardless of position. He's a 6'5" 266 pound man with the speed of a HB and the strength to put 300 pound men on their behinds. That's pretty scary.

I'm just saying how fast a DE runs 40 yards doesn't really mean much for his success at the position. But athleticism wise...it's highly impressive.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 responding after an extended period of thought:
Somewhat...yes. Because, as the link said, there's no such thing as official times. That's a media creation and the media "official" times are highly questionable. I prefer to use the NFLDraftScout times when they're updated because they include the splits which are more important than the 40 itself.

I also think that the splits are often more important than the actual 40 time. For many positions, the 40 times is very important too.

But to be frank, I don't care about the times being comparable for one player to another(because what say Dri Archer runs in comparison to Mike Evans is irrelevant to me if Archer isn't on my draft board...so if Mike Evans runs the 6th fastest 40 but the 5 guys with faster 40s aren't on my draft board...what do I care that he's 6th? Does that make sense?). I prefer to know how fast a guy gets from Point A to Point B. The greater rigidity in the rules for the laser times on first movement has an effect on the 40 times. Which is why I use the NFLDS times which, as the article said, are the high end of the times excluding outliers. Plus, based on my perception, film viewing, and past history...I generally find them to be more accurate relative to how I think a guy would run based on his on the field speed.

I totally agree with you that whether a guy was 2nd fastest or 5th fastest isn't important.

Relative times, when comparing players who have no NFL experience, certainly has a part to play in any discussion about the merits of one player versus another. In our case, when discussing whether a player is an athletic freak it has a huge importance. I do understand now what your methodology is and if that is what you've found to be most helpful in your analysis of a player then by all means stick with it. I'll just have to realize that when we are discussing subjective viewpoints like who's a freak athlete that we might not be on the same page. That's OK. Wasn't looking to change your viewpoint but rather just wishing to express my own.

I think position matters to an extent. I'd consider Cam Newton a physical freak but his athleticism measurables in comparison to a TE for example aren't truly freakish or rare. But I think when you couple his athleticism and size with his strong arm...it makes for an exceedingly rare physical talent. Whereas how strong a WR's arm is would be irrelevant.

I think we're just gonna disagree here because for me, freakdom is all about how you compare with others with the same physical characteristics. Those with the same physical characteristics often play the same position but that's coincidental. I'm unable to think in terms of being an athletic freak for a WR. You're either an athletic freak or you're not. Would you not compare a similar sized DB to a WR when talking about freakish athleticism?

Regardless, I think on the field and off of it, Clowney is a physical freak regardless of position. He's a 6'5" 266 pound man with the speed of a HB and the strength to put 300 pound men on their behinds. That's pretty scary.

From my viewpoint they're all pretty scary. You don't make it to the NFL without being an outstanding athlete (certain positions not withstanding like P or K). Even when they describe a player as not being athletic, that's just in comparison to others at the same position in the NFL or college.

I'm just saying how fast a DE runs 40 yards doesn't really mean much for his success at the position. But athleticism wise...it's highly impressive.

Can't disagree with that.[/QUOTE]

 

[jrry32]

I think we're just gonna disagree here because for me, freakdom is all about how you compare with others with the same physical characteristics. Those with the same physical characteristics often play the same position but that's coincidental. I'm unable to think in terms of being an athletic freak for a WR. You're either an athletic freak or you're not. Would you not compare a similar sized DB to a WR when talking about freakish athleticism?

I think your position matters because your position dictates what attributes are important. For example, taking your comparison for a DB vs. WR, Calvin Johnson is a freak athlete at WR because he's so big, so fast, so explosive and so good at going up and getting the football. However, he's stiff and does not possess outstanding short area quickness. At WR, those two attributes aren't that important for a guy with Johnson's skill-set. But at DB, you need to have loose hips and outstanding short area quickness imo to be a freak athlete. Whereas, going up and getting the ball...while a nice attribute to have...isn't something I'd care about as much for a CB when labeling him a freak athlete.

So yea, I think it does matter because certain attributes are more and less important to certain positions.

For example, I'd say Michael Vick in his prime is very arguably the freakiest athlete to ever play the game. Why? Not because he was the biggest. Not because he was the fastest. Not because he was the quickest. Not because he was the strongest.

What made Vick that for me is his combination of attributes. While he was only 6'0" 215, he possessed 4.3 speed, ridiculous short area quickness, amazing balance/body control and one of the strongest arms I've ever seen. Simply put, his physical skill-set was unheard of and completely unique. But if Vick had been a HB, he'd be an exceptional athlete but certainly not the freakiest ever. It was his incredibly rare arm strength that allowed him to be something we may never see again.

Too bad the guy just didn't have good work habits, character and football IQ.

 

[wrstdude]

Count me as someone who doesn't remember the 1.53 split from Long. He always seems last off the ball when I watch games (when he's not jumping off sides).

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/chris-long?id=276

The combine profile is pretty funny to read. They suggest he should be a 3-4 DE...whoops.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 refining his position:
I think your position matters because your position dictates what attributes are important. For example, taking your comparison for a DB vs. WR, Calvin Johnson is a freak athlete at WR because he's so big, so fast, so explosive and so good at going up and getting the football. However, he's stiff and does not possess outstanding short area quickness. At WR, those two attributes aren't that important for a guy with Johnson's skill-set. But at DB, you need to have loose hips and outstanding short area quickness imo to be a freak athlete. Whereas, going up and getting the ball...while a nice attribute to have...isn't something I'd care about as much for a CB when labeling him a freak athlete.

So yea, I think it does matter because certain attributes are more and less important to certain positions.

For example, I'd say Michael Vick in his prime is very arguably the freakiest athlete to ever play the game. Why? Not because he was the biggest. Not because he was the fastest. Not because he was the quickest. Not because he was the strongest.

What made Vick that for me is his combination of attributes. While he was only 6'0" 215, he possessed 4.3 speed, ridiculous short area quickness, amazing balance/body control and one of the strongest arms I've ever seen. Simply put, his physical skill-set was unheard of and completely unique. But if Vick had been a HB, he'd be an exceptional athlete but certainly not the freakiest ever. It was his incredibly rare arm strength that allowed him to be something we may never see again.

Too bad the guy just didn't have good work habits, character and football IQ.

You got me at a bad time but I'll give it a try.

I disagree that the athletic abilities that a WR needs differ in any substantive way from those required for a CB. I understand the greater point you're trying to make here though.

As for your comments about Vick, I see exactly what your talking about too. I also see that we are thinking about the meaning of athletic freak in different ways. Though you started out saying physical skill-sets you then went on to include actual skills. For me, when I am talking about a freakish athlete I'm talking about what they can make their bodies do, their agility, strength and speed. That doesn't imply that they'll be fantastic at any particular skill. Being a great QB, like any other skill, takes shit loads pf practice and more or less brain power that are different from a different position. Including other traits that have nothing to do with physical abilities.

So as I understand it, your view of an athletic freak need only be freakily good at those physical attributes needed to excel at a particular position. My view is that an athletic freak would eventually excel at anything he trained for hard enough.

Yeah, Vick was really scary. He just destroyed the Rams. He could have been really good if he had not always been so ready to run.

 

[jrry32]

I disagree that the athletic abilities that a WR needs differ in any substantive way from those required for a CB. I understand the greater point you're trying to make here though.

I completely disagree with you, my friend. With WRs, you dictate what routes they run and where they run their routes. Calvin Johnson is not loose in the hips. He's not extraordinarily quick. Those things are imperative to being a good CB. Because you have to cover all types of WRs. The athletic traits you look for in a CB are different than the ones you look for in a WR. Which is why a guy like Calvin can be a freakish and unstoppable WR but might struggle if you tried to move him to CB. Because he's not quick enough and loose enough in the hips to try and keep up with a guy like Tavon Austin in short areas. But as a WR, you don't have to worry about that. You can just avoid using routes that highlight that issue.

Certain physical traits are necessary to success at some positions and not as important at others. Such as HB vs. LB. Chris Johnson was a top tier HB because he was freakishly fast and had great vision. But he did not have the strength to run powerfully between the tackles. Flip him to LB, now, do you think it matters if Johnson has that freakish speed if he's not strong enough to get off blocks or tackle bigger HBs?

There is no single universal set of attributes. Every position and role emphasizes certain attributes over others. So you just have to take things within context.

As for your comments about Vick, I see exactly what your talking about too. I also see that we are thinking about the meaning of athletic freak in different ways. Though you started out saying physical skill-sets you then went on to include actual skills. For me, when I am talking about a freakish athlete I'm talking about what they can make their bodies do, their agility, strength and speed. That doesn't imply that they'll be fantastic at any particular skill. Being a great QB, like any other skill, takes crap loads pf practice and more or less brain power that are different from a different position. Including other traits that have nothing to do with physical abilities.

So as I understand it, your view of an athletic freak need only be freakily good at those physical attributes needed to excel at a particular position. My view is that an athletic freak would eventually excel at anything he trained for hard enough.

Yeah, Vick was really scary. He just destroyed the Rams. He could have been really good if he had not always been so ready to run.

Sort of. I'm still talking about physical talent. I don't care how much you train, you're not going to have Vick's arm strength. That's a physical attribute.

But yes, in the realm of football, when I talk about a guy as an athletic freak, it's because he has the right freakish combination of physical attributes at his position to make him truly rare and unique among all the great athletes in football.

Basically, if you look at the attributes he has, how many players have a comparable set? If the list is very small or non-existent, imo, he's a freak athlete. That's why Vick is the freakiest to me. We have never seen another guy quite like him. There have been athletic guys...but not quite to the extent he was imo.