The Elusiveness Factor: Patterson-Austin-Woods

[News Bot]

by MATT WALDMAN
<a class="postlink" href="http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/the-elusiveness-factor-patterson-austin-woods-by-nick-whalen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/th ... ck-whalen/</a>

If you’re an NFL Draft junkie, this time of year feels like the weeks of anticipation leading to Christmas Day. When I was a kid, recordings of previous NFL Drafts were my “cartoons before bedtime,” before this blessed event that always brought a sense of euphoria when it finally arrived.

I’m not normal.

But I seek solace in the fact that many of you know what I mean. The 2013 NFL Draft has two bright, shiny toys in Cordarrelle Patterson and Tavon Austin. Yet like some of the most popular toys kids want for Christmas, they present some risks that are polarizing.

I’m not the Consumer Reports of college prospects. If you want a safety assessment regarding the risk of investing in them, go somewhere else. I want to explore what they do best: making collegiate defenders look silly trying to corral them in when they had the ball.

So for the past few weeks, I dove into film study that took more time than I feel comfortable divulging. My fiancé literally thinks I’m nuts, but this is her first NFL Draft with me – so better she know now what she’s getting into. This piece has enough data collection on the back end that it could blow Mel Kiper so far back that he’d have no more product left in his hair.

Since Patterson and Austin are so good at making defenders miss, I wanted a third prospect to study that is considered an elusive receiver in the normal sense of the word. I chose Robert Woods. Here are the number of games and plays I watched of each player.*

Cordarrelle Patterson: 12 games/67 plays
Tavon Austin: 12 games/172 plays
Robert Woods: 15 games/138 plays

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE --
<a class="postlink" href="http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/the-elusiveness-factor-patterson-austin-woods-by-nick-whalen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/th ... ck-whalen/</a>


.

 

[albefree69]

That was very good and a most welcome relief from what I've been reading lately. :ja:

 

[Faceplant]

I dunno. Hard to make sense out of that much data. Looked like he was basically saying that Austin was the 3rd best WR of the group. My eyes didn't tell me that at all when watching him, even vs highlights of the other 2.

 

[RamzFanz]

I dunno. Hard to make sense out of that much data. Looked like he was basically saying that Austin was the 3rd best WR of the group. My eyes didn't tell me that at all when watching him, even vs highlights of the other 2.

Yeah, I'm thinking there must be flaws in the methodology. He's amazingly elusive. The other thing is he's so fast, he doesn't have to use it as much as another receiver might.

Did he count multiple moves on a single play?

 

[albefree69]

RamzFanz queried:
Did he count multiple moves on a single play?

I believe the answer is no. He counted players eluded not moves. So if there were three guys ahead of Austin and he eluded them all he got credit for three.

Another thing that is being over looked about these stats is that he didn't count all the times Austin eluded players when acting as a RB. Many of Austins highlights were these types of plays. This would tend to make you think he was more elusive than he actually was when only acting as a WR.

 

[bwdenverram]

I don't claim to be a coach, scout or talent evaluator. But I think anyone on this board that watches tape of all three would still come away thinking, minus the size disadvantage, Austin is the best overall talent. Don't get me wrong, I do think Patterson is a freak athlete, but I I think his lack of polish (at least initially) is going to hurt him in the NFL. He could get away with it in college but not in the NFL. Do I think he'll be good? Absolutely. Do I think Austin will be better? Yes I do. Woods, should be a good WR, but we needed dynamic and we got it, IMO.

 

[albefree69]

bwdenverram wrote:
we needed dynamic and we got it, IMO.

That we did.