Using metrics to rank the 2013 draft class at WR

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
49,225
Name
Burger man
<a class="postlink" href="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2013/story/_/id/9163270/2013-nfl-draft-ranking-draft-top-wide-receivers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft201 ... -receivers</a>

The NFL may have the greatest amount of quality quarterback depth in the league's history right now, so many teams that are looking to upgrade passing attacks will aim to do so via the wide receiver position.

This year's NFL draft has a slew of starting-caliber prospects, yet it doesn't have a slam dunk leader like Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald (two of Mel Kiper's all-time top wide receiver prospects).

So how can we separate the cream of the crop? A thorough examination of the numbers helps identify the leaders of the receiving pack.

Each of the top nine prospects was ranked in the following categories: age (as of the 2013 draft), height, weight, 40-yard dash time, overall yards per attempt, vertical yards per attempt, stretch vertical yards per attempt, targets per game and success rate (completion percentage with penalty pass plays included as completions).

(Note: vertical passes are aerials that travel 11 or more yards downfield; stretch verticals are thrown 20 or more yards.)

Each player's metrics are based on a tape review of a minimum of nine games against BCS-caliber competition, with the exception of Cal's Keenan Allen, who played in only seven BCS-caliber games.

The player's rankings were then tabulated on a 1-9 scale, with the best score getting a rating of 9. Each player's overall total can be found under the raw points listing.

Since some categories deserve more weight than others, this year's rankings also had the addition of a modified point structure that added a 20 percent weight to targets per game, a 30 percent weight to YPA, VYPA, SVYPA and success rate and a 50 percent weight to the 40-yard dash time. This total can be found under the modified points listing.

Each player also has a modified point listing for productivity, which includes his rankings in YPA, VYPA, SVYPA, success rate and targets per game, and for attributes, which includes the rankings for the 40-yard dash, height, weight and birth date.

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, let's take a look at how the rankings turned out.


1. Terrance Williams, Baylor Bears

Birth date: Sept. 18, 1989 (23 years old)
Height/weight: 6-foot-2, 208 pounds
40-yard dash time: 4.5
YPA: 12.6
VYPA: 19.4
SVYPA: 26.0
Targets per game: 11.9
Success rate: 72.3 percent

Raw points: 60 (ranked first)
Modified points: 72.7 (first)
Productivity points: 42.9 (first)
Attributes points: 29.8 (fifth)

Williams won both the raw and modified points categories on the strength of his metrics, as he led this group in YPA, VYPA and SVYPA and did so while ranking fourth in success rate. He rated near the top in height (tied for second tallest) and weight (third heaviest), but that size advantage was a likely factor as to why he ranked next to last among our top nine receivers in the 40-yard dash. Williams is by far the oldest player in the group, more than a full year older than the next oldest player (Stedman Bailey), so his first place ranking still comes with some negatives.


2. DeAndre Hopkins, Clemson Tigers


Birth date: June 6, 1992 (20 years old)
Height/weight: 6-1, 214
40-yard dash time: 4.49
YPA: 11.2
VYPA: 15.4
SVYPA: 22.6
Targets per game: 10.2
Success rate: 65.2

Raw points: 56 (second)
Modified points: 66.9 (second)
Productivity points: 33.8 (fourth)
Attributes points: 33.1 (tied second)

Hopkins is the youngest and second-heaviest wide receiver in this analysis. He ranked second in YPA, third in VYPA and second in SVYPA. He ranked seventh in targets per game, a stat that might seem like it is due to sharing the receiving workload with Sammy Watkins, but Watkins missed three games last year and the Clemson offense generated more plays than any team in ACC history. Ranking seventh in success rate also brings up some questions about his consistency.


3. Tavon Austin, West Virginia Mountaineers


Birth date: March 15, 1991 (22 years old)
Height/weight: 5-8½, 174
40-yard dash time: 4.4
YPA: 10.0
VYPA: 15.8
SVYPA: 17.0
Targets per game: 10.3
Success rate: 79.6

Raw points: 49 (third)
Modified points: 63.2 (third)
Productivity points: 37.7 (second)
Attributes points: 25.5 (eighth)

Austin is the fastest player here and combined that mark with the best success rate and second-best VYPA rate. The major negative is that he is by far the smallest player of the group, as he finished last in height and weight. Those totals led him to rank next to last in attributes points. Austin has elite skills, but he may not have the frame to deal with the type of target volume his draft slot suggests he'll deserve.


4. Stedman Bailey, West Virginia


Birth date: Nov. 11, 1990 (22 years old)
Height/weight: 5-10¼, 193
40-yard dash time: 4.49
YPA: 11.0
VYPA: 15.3
SVYPA: 19.1
Targets per game: 11.5
Success rate: 73.2

Raw points: 47 (fourth)
Modified points: 59.2 (fourth)
Productivity points: 35.1 (third)
Attributes points: 24.1 (ninth)

Bailey nearly topped his much more highly heralded West Virginia teammate, as he bested Austin in YPA and SVYPA. Bailey has a bigger frame than Austin, yet he was still next to last in height and seventh in weight. He is also the second-oldest player in this analysis. All of those measurements led to his ranking last in attributes and give him the same durability question marks as Austin.


5. Robert Woods, USC Trojans


Birth date: April 10, 1992 (21 years old)
Height/weight: 6-0⅜, 201
40-yard dash time: 4.47
YPA: 7.9
VYPA: 10.5
SVYPA: 12.7
Targets per game: 9.0
Success rate: 73.7

Raw points: 43 (sixth)
Modified points: 52.3 (fifth)
Productivity points: 23.4 (sixth)
Attributes points: 28.9 (sixth)

It would seem like Woods would have a metric edge playing in a USC offense with Matt Barkley and Marqise Lee, yet he ranked next to last in YPA, sixth in VYPA and SVYPA and eighth in targets per game. Woods made up some ground in the attributes category, as he ranked third in the 40-yard dash and age categories, but gave up some of that ground in his height and weight rankings (sixth and fifth, respectively).


6. Keenan Allen, California Golden Bears


Birth date: April 27, 1992 (21 years old)
Height/weight: 6-2, 206
40-yard dash time: 4.53
YPA: 8.3
VYPA: 8.7
SVYPA: 7.1
Targets per game: 11.5
Success rate: 68.1

Raw points: 44 (fifth)
Modified points: 50.0 (seventh)
Productivity points: 16.9 (seventh)
Attributes points: 33.1 (tied second)

Allen has an odd combination of traits, as he is the second-youngest, second-tallest and slowest wideout in this analysis. That mixture did not lead to quality totals in the productivity realm, as he had the second-lowest VYPA and SVYPA in this group. Those numbers could have been even worse had he not missed the final three games of the season when the Golden Bears faced three of the Pac-12's toughest pass defenses (Oregon, Oregon State and Washington), but that fact still does damage since he is the only player in this review to have missed any significant playing time last year due to injury.


7. Markus Wheaton, Oregon State Beavers

Birth date: Feb. 7, 1991 (22 years old)
Height/weight: 5-11, 189
40-yard dash time: 4.45
YPA: 9.3
VYPA: 12.7
SVYPA: 16.2
Targets per game: 10.3
Success rate: 65.3

Raw points: 40 (tied seventh)
Modified points: 50.7 (sixth)
Productivity points: 24.7 (fifth)
Attributes points: 26.0 (seventh)

Wheaton's positive is also his negative, as he was good in many YPA areas but not great in any (fifth in YPA, VYPA and SVYPA). He is the second fastest, third oldest, third shortest and second lightest among this group, a collection of traits that led to his ranking seventh in the attributes category.


8. Cordarrelle Patterson, Tennessee Volunteers

Birth date: March 17, 1991 (22 years old)
Height/weight: 6-1⅞, 216
40-yard dash time: 4.48
YPA: 8.1
VYPA: 8.8
SVYPA: 11.1
Targets per game: 6.7
Success rate: 55.0

Raw points: 40 (tied seventh)
Modified points: 46.5 (eighth)
Productivity points: 14.3 (eighth)
Attributes points: 32.2 (third)

The YouTube footage of Patterson's juco days in some cases looks very similar to Randy Moss' Marshall highlights and illustrates part of why he ended up ranking third in attributes points. The issue for Patterson is he is, by his own admission, still a raw prospect and therefore would be best suited to go to a team that could invest the proper amount of time to harness his skills over the long term.


9. Justin Hunter, Tennessee

Birth date: May 20, 1991 (21 years old)
Height/weight: 6-4, 196
40-yard dash time: 4.49
YPA: 7.2
VYPA: 8.1
SVYPA: 5.1
Targets per game: 10.6
Success rate: 53.7

Raw points: 34 (ninth)
Modified points: 38.9 (ninth)
Productivity points: 5.2 (ninth)
Attributes points: 33.7 (first)

Hunter may be the biggest enigma of this group, as his top-ranked attributes total would suggest he should be an elite player yet he ranked last in YPA, VYPA, SVYPA and success rate on his way to placing last in productivity points. Some of the lack of production can be blamed on Tyler Bray's inaccuracy, but three of his teammates (Patterson, Zach Rogers and Mychal Rivera) all bested Hunter in YPA, so it cannot all go on Bray's arm. A good amount of the blame can go on Hunter's hands, as ESPN Stats & Information had him credited with 11 drops last year, a total that was highest among wideouts on BCS conference teams. Simply put, Hunter has superb physical skills but has yet to show that he can get enough out of them.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
short pass yards per attempt (SYPA), vertical yards per attempt (VYPA) and stretch vertical yards per attempt (SVYPA). (Note: Short passes are aerials thrown 10 yards or less downfield; vertical passes travel 11 or more yards; stretch verticals are thrown 20 or more yards

From one of last years articles for those interested.
 

max

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
Name
max
From PFW....

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.profootballweekly.com/2013/04/03/hunter-woods-scouting-reports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.profootballweekly.com/2013/0 ... ng-reports</a>

Hunter, Woods scouting reports

WR (X) Justin Hunter, #11 (Junior)
Tennessee
PFW Grade: 6.15
Ht: 6-4 | Wt: 196 | Sp: 4.44 | Arm: 331/4 | Hand: 93/8
Notes: Was an all-state selection and one of the top wide receiver prospects in Virginia as a prep. Also won the state championships in the high jump and the long jump plus participated in basketball. As a true freshman in 2010, he played in all 13 contests, making starts against Alabama and Mississippi, and grabbed 16 passes for 415 yards (25.9-yard average) and seven touchdowns. In ’11, he started the first three games and hauled in 17-314-2 (18.5) before tearing the ACL in his left knee against Florida. Returned in the fall of ’12 and led the team in receiving with 73-1,083-9 (14. in 12 starts at the “Z” receiver. Did not bench press at the Combine because of a left pectoral strain and sat out some shuttles after cramping.
Positives: Excellent height and overall body length. Can slip the jam. Eliminates cushion. Has legit, field-stretching vertical speed. Fluid, elastic and highly athletic with a loose lower body for his build — sinks his hips and bends his knees into breaks. Explosive — 11-foot, 4-inch broad jump was second-best at the Combine. Outstanding leaping ability (391⁄2-inch vertical jump). Tracks very well over his shoulder. Highpoints throws. Has big-time playmaking ability. Lined up outside and inside. Strong character traits — hardworking and disciplined. Works at the craft. High upside.
Negatives: Is lean and narrow-framed and needs to continue bulking up. Not a finished product — consistency does not parallel ability. Not yet a nuanced route runner. Lets throws into his body. Concentration drops. Can refine hand selection. Still learning to control his body and use size to his advantage. Needs to become a stronger traffic player to consistently secure contested grabs. Straight-linish after the catch. Finesse mentality. Not a physical blocker. Junior production was inflated against mid-major competition.
Summary: Long-levered, lithe “X” receiver with intriguing length, speed, explosiveness, elevation and playmaking to impact games as a vertical, outside-the-numbers/red-zone leaper. High-ceiling, high-floor prospect just scratching the surface, having gained more than 15 pounds of muscle since the end of the season and begun to develop more confidence. Poor man’s A.J. Green with Pro Bowl potential.
NFL projection: Top-40 pick.




WR (F)-RS Robert Woods, #2 (Junior)
USC
PFW Grade: 5.59
Ht: 6-03/8 | Wt: 201 | Sp: 4.51 | Arm: 31 | Hand: 91/4
Notes: The California prep was a Parade and USA Today All-America selection after leading his team to a state championship with 66 receptions for 1,112 yards and 15 touchdowns as a receiver and 96 tackles and eight interceptions as a defensive back. Also a member of the track team, running the 200- and 400-meter races and on the 400-meter relay team. Had a spectacular true freshman season in 2010, winning the Pac-10 Offensive Freshman of the Year and Freshman All-America honors after a team-leading 65 passes for 792 yards (12.2-yard average) and six touchdowns while returning 38 kickoffs for 971 yards (25.6-yard average) and a 97-yard touchdown return against Minnesota in 13 starts at wide receiver. In addition, he rushed six times for 50 yards (8.3-yard average). Became the first USC true freshman to start a season opener at wide receiver in the post-World War II era. In ’11, he was a consensus All-American and a finalist for the Biletnikoff Award after hauling in a team-high 111-1,292-15 (11.6) in 12 starts. The 111 catches set conference and school records. Also contributed 7-16-0 (2.3) rushing, 17-393-0 (23.1) on kickoff returns and 13-118-0 (9.1) on punt returns. Started 12-of-13 games in ’12 and was the team’s second leading receiver with 76-846-11 (11.1). Was the main punt returner with 17-61-0 (3.6), had a 76-yard run against Syracuse and leaves USC as the school’s all-time leader in receptions with 252.
Positives: Accelerates off the line. Moves fluidly. Field-fast. Stems and changes gears to separate — gets in and out of breaks quickly. Extends to catch and has soft hands. Good field awareness — throttles down in zone windows and knows where the sticks are. Surprising toughness to work inside and compete in traffic. Creates after the catch. Has experience as a kickoff and punt returner. Productive from Day One in a premier program.
Negatives: Short arms. Has a narrow frame and lean build — durability could be an issue. Needs an NFL strength and conditioning program — has 11.7 percent body fat. Can improve functional strength to better combat the jam. Lacks elite top-end speed. Not a special leaper. Concentration drops (average hand strength). Can improve as a blocker. Ordinary splash play production. Maturity needs to be examined.
Summary: Sleek, fluid, versatile receiver with a mixture of playmaking ability and possession skills. Production decreased as a junior in the shadow of Marquise Lee’s rising star, but Woods has the chops to become a solid No. 2 option working primarily in the slot.
NFL projection: Second- to third-round pick
 

Yamahopper

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,838
So according to this Terrance Williams is in play at #16 for us.
Nice read though.
 

DR RAM

Rams Lifer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
12,111
Name
Rambeau
It is interesting, but in no way should this quasi-science determine who anyone picks, or even determine their ratings. Seeing players play, and getting to know their work ethic and passion for football is the only way.
 

paceram

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
1,732
DR RAM said:
It is interesting, but in no way should this quasi-science determine who anyone picks, or even determine their ratings. Seeing players play, and getting to know their work ethic and passion for football is the only way.

+1