Posts tagged RSP

WR Size: Is It Valid Analysis? By Chase Stuart and Matt Waldman

Photo by Dr. Clifford Choi.
If correlation were causation, this photo and others like it wouldn’t exist. Photo by Dr. Clifford Choi.

Chase Stuart of Football Perspective drops by to collaborate on the topic of wide receiver size and the limits of applying analytics to the subject.

Matt Waldman: Stats Ministers and Their Church

I’m a fan of applying analytics to football. Those who do it best possess rigorous statistical training or are disciplined about maintaining limits with its application. Brian Burke wrote that at its core, football analytics is no different than the classic scientific method. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are some bad scientists out there, who behave more like religious zealots than statisticians. I call them Stats Ministers. They claim objectivity when their methodology and fervor is anything but.

Stats Ministers scoff at the notion that anyone would see value in a wide receiver under a specific height and weight. They love to share how an overwhelming number of receivers above that specific height and weight mark make up the highest production tiers at the history of the position, but that narrow observation doesn’t prove the broader point that among top-tier prospects, taller wide receivers fare better than shorter ones. In fact, what the Stats Ministers ignore is that a disproportionately high number of the biggest busts were above a certain height and weight, too. Having a microphone does not mean one conducted thoughtful analysis: it could also mean one has a bully pulpit where a person with less knowledge and perspective of the subject will look at the correlation and come to the conclusion that it must be so.

However, correlation isn’t causation. Questioning why anyone would like a smaller wide receiver based on larger number of top wide receivers having size is an example of pointing to faulty ‘data backed’ points. Pointing to historical data can only get you so far: it’s not that different than the reasoning that led to Warren Moon going undrafted. That’s an extreme comparison, of course, but the structure of the argument is the same: there were very few black quarterbacks who had experienced any sort of success in the NFL, so why would Moon? Sometimes you have to shift eras to see in a clear light what “correlation isn’t causation” really looks like.

It was overwhelmingly obvious that Moon could play quarterback if you watched him. But if you’re prejudiced by past history rather than open to learning what to study on the field, then it isn’t overwhelmingly obvious. Data can help define the boundaries of risk, but when those wielding the data want to eliminate the search for the exceptional they’ve gone too far. Even as we see players get taller, stronger, and faster, wide receivers under 6’2″, 210 pounds aren’t the exception.

Analytics-minded individuals employed by NFL teams — who have backgrounds in statistics – don’t follow this line of thoughts. Those with whom I spoke acknowledged that there is an effective player archetype of the small, quick receiver. They recognize the large number of size of shorter/smaller receivers who have been impact players in the NFL that make the size argument moot: Isaac Bruce, Derrick Mason, Wes Welker, Marvin Harrison, DeSean Jackson, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Antonio Brown, Pierre Garcon, Victor Cruz, and Reggie Wayne are just a small sample of players who did not match this 6-2, 210-pound requirement.

This size/weight notion and discussion of “calibration” or what I think they actually mean–reverse regression–is also a classic statistical case of overfitting. There are too many variables and complexities to the game and the position to throw up two data points like height and weight and derive a predictive model on quality talent among receivers. The only fact about big/tall receivers is that they tend to have a large catch radius. Otherwise, there is no factual basis to assume that these players have more talent and skill.

The dangerous thing about this type of thinking is that many of these “Stats Ministers” were trained using perfect data sets in the classroom and their math is reliant on “high fit” equations. When they tackle a real world environment like football they still expect these lessons to help them when it won’t. However, there are plenty of people who are reading and buying into what they’re selling. I showed my argument above to Chase Stuart and asked him to share his thoughts. Here’s his analysis:

Chase Stuart: Analysis of the Big vs. Small WR Question

We should begin by first getting a sense of the distribution of height among wide receivers in the draft. The graph below shows the number of wide receivers selected in the first two rounds of each draft from 1970 to 2013 at each height (in inches):

 

wr draft ht

The distribution is somewhat like a bell curve, with the peak height being 6’1″, and the curve being slightly skewed thereafter towards shorter players (more 6’0 receivers than 6’2″, more 5’11″ receivers than 6’3″, and so on).

Now, let’s look at the number of WRs who have made three Pro Bowls since 1970:

wr pro bowl ht

The most common height for a wide receiver who has made three Pro Bowls since the AFL-NFL merger is 72 inches. And while Harold Jackson is the only wide receiver right at 5’10 to make the list, players at 71 and 69 inches are pretty well represented, too. I suppose it’s easy to forget smaller receivers, so here’s the list of wide receivers 6′0 or shorter with 3 pro bowls:

 

Mel Gray
Mark Duper
Mark Clayton
Gary Clark
Steve Smith
Wes Welker
Harold Jackson
Charlie Joiner
Cliff Branch
Lynn Swann
Steve Largent
Stanley Morgan
Henry Ellard
Anthony Carter
Anthony Miller
Paul Warfield
Drew Pearson
Wes Chandler
Irving Fryar
Tim Brown
Sterling Sharpe
Isaac Bruce
Rod Smith
Marvin Harrison
Hines Ward
Donald Driver
Torry Holt
Reggie Wayne
DeSean Jackson

Recent history

Now, let’s turn to players drafted since 2000. This next graph shows how many wide receivers were selected in the first two rounds of drafts from ’00 to ’13, based on height:

wr draft 2000 2013 ht

As you can see, the draft is skewing towards taller wide receivers in recent years. Part of that is because nearly all positions are getting bigger and taller (and faster), but the real question concerns whether this trend is overvaluing tall wide receivers.

It’s too early to grade receivers from the 2012 or 2013 classes, so let’s look at all receivers drafted in the first round between 2000 and 2011. There were 21 receivers drafted who were 6’3 or taller, compared to just 14 receivers drafted who stood six feet tall or shorter. On average, these taller receivers were drafted with the 13th pick in the draft, while the set of short receivers were selected, on average, with the 21st pick.

So we would expect the taller receivers to be better players, since they were drafted eight spots higher. But that wasn’t really the case. Both sets of players produced nearly identical receiving yards averages:

Type Rookie Year 2 Year 2
Short 535 669 709
Tall 567 676 720

Taller wide receivers have fared ever so slightly better than shorter receivers. But once you factor in draft position, that edge disappears. If you look at the ten highest drafted “short” receivers, they still were drafted later (on average, 17th overall) than the average “tall” receiver. But their three-year receiving yards line is better, reading 563-694-790. In other words, I don’t see evidence to indicate that shorter receivers, once taking draft position into account, are worse than taller receivers. If anything, the evidence points the other way, suggesting that talent evaluators are more comfortable “reaching” for a taller player who isn’t quite as good. Players like Santana Moss, Lee Evans, Percy Harvin, and Jeremy Maclin were very productive shorter picks; for some reason, it’s easy for some folks to forget the success of those shorter receivers, and also forget the failures of taller players like Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, Jonathan Baldwin, Sylvester Morris, David Terrell, Michael Jenkins, Reggie Williams, and Matt Jones.

But that’s just one way of answering the question. What I did next was run a regression using draft value using the values from my Draft Value Chart and height to predict success. If the draft was truly efficient — i.e., if height was properly being incorporated into a player’s draft position–then adding height to the regression would be useless. But if height was being improperly valued by NFL decision makers, the regression would tell us that, too.

To measure success, I used True Receiving Yards by players in their first five seasons.  I jointly developed True Receiving Yards with Neil Paine (now of 538 fame), and you can read the background about it here and here.

The basic explanation is that TRY adjusts receiver numbers for era and combines receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns into one number, and adjusts for the volume of each team’s passing attack.  The end result is one number that looks like receiving yards: Antonio Brown, AJ Green, Josh Gordon, Calvin Johnson, Anquan Boldin, and Demaryius Thomas all had between 1100 and 1200 TRY last year.

First, I had to isolate a sample of receivers to analyze.  I decided to take 20 years of NFL drafts, looking at all players drafted between 1990 and 2009 who played in an NFL game, and their number of TRYs in their first five seasons. (Note: As will become clear at the end of this post, I have little reason to think this is an issue.  But technically, I should note that I am only looking at drafted wide receivers who actually played in an NFL game.  So if, for example, height is disproportionately linked to players who are drafted but fail to make it to an NFL game, that would be important to know but would be ignored in this analysis.)

To give you a sense of what type of players TRY likes, here are the top 10 leaders (in order) in True Receiving Yards accumulated during their first five seasons among players drafted between 1990 and 2009:

  • Randy Moss
  • Torry Holt
  • Marvin Harrison
  • Larry Fitzgerald
  • Chad Johnson
  • Calvin Johnson
  • Keyshawn Johnson
  • Anquan Boldin
  • Herman Moore
  • Andre Johnson

First, I ran a regression using Draft Pick Value as my sole input and True Receiving Yards as my output.  The best-fit formula was:

TRY through five years = 348 + 131.3 * Draft Pick Value

That doesn’t mean much in the abstract, so let’s use an example.  Keyshawn Johnson was the first pick in the draft, which gives him a draft value of 34.6. This formula projected Johnson to have 4,890 TRY through five years.  In reality, he had 4,838.   The R^2 in the regression was 0.60, which is pretty strong: It means draft pick is pretty strongly tied to wide receiver production, a sign that the market is pretty efficient.

Then I re-ran the formula using draft pick value *and* height as my inputs.  As it turns out, the height variable was completely meaningless.  The R^2 remained at 0.60, and the coefficient on the height variable was not close to significant (p=0.53) despite a large sample of 543 players.

In other words, NFL GMs were properly valuing height in the draft during this period.

In case you’re curious, the 15 biggest “overachievers” as far as TRY relative to draft position were, in order: Marques Colston, Santana Moss, Brandon Marshall, Darrell Jackson, Terrell Owens, Anquan Boldin, Antonio Freeman, Chad Johnson, Coles, Mike Wallace, Greg Jennings, Chris Chambers, Marvin Harrison, Hines Ward, and Steve Johnson.

In this sample, about 50% of the players were taller than 6-0, and only about 30% of the receivers were 5-11 or shorter. We shouldn’t necessarily expect to see a bunch of short overachievers, but I’m convinced that height was properly valued by NFL teams in the draft at least over this 20-year period. There may be fewer star receivers who are short, but that’s only because there are fewer star receiver prospects who are short. Once an NFL team puts a high grade on a short prospect, that’s pretty much all we need to know.

Of the 33 players drafted in the top 15, just one-third of them were six feet or shorter.  As a group, there were a couple of big overachievers (Torry Holt, Lee Evans), some other players who did very well (Joey Galloway, Terry Glenn, and Donte Stallworth), and a few big busts (Desmond Howard, Ted Ginn, Troy Edwards, and Peter Warrick).  Ike Hilliard and Mike Pritchard round out the group.  But I see nothing to indicate that short receivers who are highly drafted do any worse than tall receivers who are highly drafted.  It’s just that usually, the taller receiver is drafted earlier.

Waldman: Why the Exceptional is Valuable

When a team finds a good player with exceptional qualities--like the too short/too slow UDFA Rod Smith--it has ancillary benefits for the organization. Photo by Jeffery Beall.
When a team finds a good player with exceptional qualities–like the too short/too slow UDFA Rod Smith–it has ancillary benefits for the organization. Photo by Jeffery Beall.

Chase’s analysis echoes what I have heard from those with NFL analytics backgrounds: There are too many variables to consider with raw stats to indicate that big receivers are inherently better than small receivers and there are viable archetypes of the effective small receiver.

What concerns me about the attempts to pigeonhole player evaluation into narrower physical parameters is that if taken too far one might as well replace the word “talent” in the phrase “talent evaluation” and use “athletic” or “physical” in its place. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that some of these Stats Ministers–intentionally or otherwise–dislike the exceptional when it comes to human nature. They’re seeking a way to make scouting a plain of square holes where the square pegs fit neatly into each place.

The problem with this philosophy is that once a concept, strategy, or view becomes the “right way” it evolves into the standard convention. Once it becomes conventional, it’s considered “safe.” However this is not true in the arena of competition. If you’re seeking the conventional, you’ve limited the possibilities of finding and creating environments for the exceptional to grow.

Many players who didn’t match the ideal size for their positions and had success were difference makers on winning teams–often Super Bowl Champions. I’d argue that exceptions to the rule that succeed are often drivers of excellence:

  • Russell Wilson didn’t meet the faulty “data backed” physical prototypes for quarterback and picking this exception to the rule in the third round earned them exceptional savings to acquire or keep other players for a Super Bowl run.
  • Rod Smith was too short, too slow, a rookie at 25, and not even drafted. But like a lot of his peers I mentioned above, his production was a huge factor for his team becoming a contender. The fact he was the exception to the rule freed Denver to acquire other pieces to the puzzle.
  • Joe Montana was too small, threw a wobbly ball, and was a third-round pick who was more of a point guard than full-fledged pocket passer, but he was just the type of player Bill Walsh was seeking in an offense that changed the entire course of the game. But at the time, the west coast offense was the exception to the rule that turned the league upside down.
  • Buddy Ryan the Bears drafted a bunch of defenders that didn’t meet physical prototypes for traditional roles in a 4-3, but the 46 defense took Chicago to Super Bowl dominance.
  • Drew Brees, Darren Sproles, and Marques Colston were exceptions to the rule. The Saints offense has been the driver for this team’s playoff and Super Bowl appearances.

I could name more, but the point isn’t to list every player. Why should I? Players who become top starters in the NFL are by very definition the exception to the rule. The only thing height gives a wide receiver is potential position on a target due to wing span, but it doesn’t help hand-eye coordination, body position, route running, comfort with physical contact, and understanding of a defense.

There are also smaller players with good arm length, leaping ability, quickness, and strength to earn similar, if not better position on a target. Even when the smaller receivers lack the same caliber of physical measurements as the bigger players, if  they possess all of the other traits of a good receiver that these big athletes lack then size doesn’t matter.

There are legitimate archetypes for smaller, quick receivers with change of direction. However, there are social biases with these correlations that filter out players from the earliest stages of the game. These biases include the idea that the vast majority of these types of players are in the highest levels of football so anything different should be discouraged at the high school and college level–think white wide receivers, running backs, and cornerbacks as examples.

Players who succeed in defying these social biases and also possess the skill and persistence to overcome them.  I’ve shown this video before, but physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a strong point against “data backed” arguments of this nature when he answered a question posed about the small number of female and black scientists in the world. Harvard President Lawrence Summers hazarded a guess that it was genetics. Tyson’s answer is a great example why correlation isn’t causation.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/KEeBPSvcNZQ?start=3689]

The greatest irony about this specific crowd of data zealots is that they are often the first to complain about coaching tendencies that have same biases.

Maybe rookie receivers with the dimensions of Paul Richardson–or for that matter Jeremy Gallon or Odell Beckham–don’t become productive fantasy options or football players as often as bigger players based on correlating data. However, pointing to past history and scoffing at the wisdom of making an investment is like stating that it was a fact in the 15th century that dragons lie at the edge of the flat world we live in.

If you’re going to avoid investing in a player–or encourage others to do so–use good reasoning. Looking at the data is helpful, but the NFL isn’t a perfect data set. There are some data analysts writing about football that derive ideas reliant on a lot of highly fit equations that don’t work in a real world situation. However, they expect perfection and it’s not going to happen. They also behave as if data only tells the truth–and when that data lacks a fit, context, or proper application, it’s a little scary.

I want to see analytics succeed in the NFL, but like film study it’s not the answer. These two areas–when executed well–can contribute to the answer. However, the NFL–beyond some individual cases–hasn’t made significant advances in either area.

I suppose when you have a monopoly in the marketplace combined with a socialistic system for spreading the wealth owners don’t have significant motivation to become innovative with player evaluation. If they did, they’d be spending more money on making these processes rather than cycling through coaches and GMs every 3-5 years.

In case you’re new to the RSP blog, Chase Stuart runs the excellent blog Football Perspective. He also writes for Footballguys and Football Outsiders. I recommend you check out more of his work.

Reads Listens Views 5/30/2014

[youtube=http://youtu.be/TJ1dTMsxM7Y]

Upside Down Strategy, Jeff Tedford, Ryan Riddle’s Draft Metrics, Kraken, and RSP Post-Draft Update.

What is Reads Listens Views?

If you’re new to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio blog, welcome.  May is normally a lighter month for me on the blog due to the short turnaround time for the RSP Post-Draft and the magazine schedule at my day job. Otherwise, I post links on Fridays to content I’m saving for later consumption or pieces that I found compelling. You may not like everything listed here, but you’re bound to like something.

Listens/Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/kbbKtcbVMDM]

I was a matriculate of this program. This is a fun composition from one of its students that sounds like the title.

Download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio + Post-Draft Update!

Friday’s are also my chance to thank you for reading my work, encourage you to follow the RSP blog, and download the Rookie Scouting Portfolio publication.

The 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio Post-Draft Add-On is ready for download.  If you’re in a dynasty league, the combination of the 2014 RSP and the RSP Post-Draft will have you prepared for this year and beyond. Want details? Need details? I have ’em right here:

  • 84 pages
  • How to use the RSP and RSP-Post Draft together
  • Overrated/Underrated
  • Good/Bad post-draft fits
  • UDFAs to watch
  • Long-term dynasty waiver wire gems
  • Strategic overview of 2014 rookie drafts
  • Tiered Value Chart Cheat Sheet across all positions
  • Post-Draft rankings analysis and commentary–including notes about impending contracts years of competition on the depth charts
  • Average Draft Position (ADP) Data of 19 dynasty drafts
  • RSP Ranking-to-ADP Value Data
  • Raw Data Worksheets to continue calculating additional ADP data for future drafts

Hell, take a video tour of the 2013 post-draft to see what I mean:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8f06wrsHVI&feature=share]

Seriously, this analysis is worth the price of the 2014 RSP package alone, but you get this as a part of your purchase with the 2014 RSP. Remember 10 percent of each sale is donated to Darkness to Light to prevent sexual abuse in communities across the United States. While that alone should get you to download the RSP package, do it because you will be blown away with the detail and insight of the analysis and content. It’s why the RSP has grown so much in the past nine years.

Best yet, 10 percent of each RSP sale is donated to Darkness to Light, a non-profit devoted to preventing and addressing sexual abuse through community training in schools, religious groups, and a variety of civic groups across the U.S.

Download the 2014 RSP and RSP Post-Draft here

In Case You Missed It/Coming Soon

Reads (Football)

Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/DePFiF-nNoE]

H/T to RabidBuc.

 Reads (Life In General)

  • The ‘Miracle’ Berry That Could Replace Sugar – Miracle fruit contains a protein called miraculin that tastes sweet enough to replicate the effect of sugar.
  • Blue Note turns 75 – Not the club in New York or Tokyo, but the record label based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Check out some of the music and articles on NPR–especially the Lou Donaldson & Lonnie Liston set where Donaldson talks a little trash about “pop-jazz” and 50 cent. Ironically, it’s their brand of “hard-bop” that actually led to some of this music he was trashing. Good music though.
  • ‘Oh My Jesus!'” Shots Fired During NPR Interview in Chicago – An interview about gun violence is interrupted with gun violence.
  • The $6800, 84-mpg Elio is Getting Closer – This three-wheel, two-seat car is getting closer to its production standard with reservation list sporting 17,000. It qualifies as a motorcycle for driving, but they’re shooting for a 5-star safety rating. I don’t know if that’s a reflection of the car or a reflection of the government. I hope it’s the car.
  • A Series on the Koch Brothers – If you’re a conservative, you’re likely to look at this series in Mother Jones’ as a “hit-piece.” If you’re liberal, you’ll probably love it. If you’re a writer, you’ll probably judge it on the merits of the work. And if you’ve ever known anyone who was asked to sign a statement saying that you’ve never received welfare before one of their companies gives you a job, then you have a smidgeon of insight into them.
  • God, The Devil, and ‘Hannibal’ -I’m hearing this NBC series based on Hannibal Lecter is good. I watched some clips on Hulu and was impressed.
  • Intriguing Lime-Green Blobs Appear In The Andes Mountains. Are They Alive? – These “drops of lime sherbert” in the desert are about 2,000 years old.
  • How Gun Extremists Target Women – These people give responsible gun owners a bad name. Some of them even harassed a Marine Veteran on Memorial Day.

Views

You’ve probably seen this, but if you haven’t it’s worth it. Cool, but not surprising. My cat did this to save a kitten from two dogs about 9-10 years ago.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/sPccqkSjy8M]

Chicago Bears RB Ka’Deem Carey: Substance Over Flash

 Ka'Deem Carey IIMany draftniks are lukewarm about Ka’Deem Carey’s prospects, but it’s the little things he does that generate big plays that get me excited about his future.

A scout told me this spring that Ka’Deem Carey is the type of runner that scouts like and coaches love, but makes personnel executives squint their eyes.  Carey’s off-field domestic violence charge early in his college career is a viable reason for scrutiny, but it’s not the reason the scout I spoke with says that some big wigs in NFL front offices weren’t jumping on board with their staffs.

Carey is a punishing runner for a back that weighed less than 210 pounds at the combine. He also ran a 4.7-40, which is by no means a death knell for a running back, but the front office sees the smaller stature, the average speed, and a career built on volume and the risk management hat comes on.

However, coaches love the intensity that a player like Carey brings to the game and the Bears have the kind of offense where I believe the rookie can develop into a feature back when Matt Forte’s contract expires. Carey’s 21-carry, 138-yard night against USC that included 10 first downs, 11 broken tackles, and 6 catches for 36 yards offers some quality moments that illustrate why I hold this view of the Bears’ fourth-round pick.

A quick suggestion: Set the speed to “0.5” on YouTube’s playback settings “the cog” icon on the bottom right of  the video player before viewing each highlight.

Turning Losses Into Gains

Quickness and agility are more important than speed to a running back and vision to identify and avoid trouble trumps all three. This third-down run from a 2×2 receiver, 10 personnel shotgun set with 13:47 in the third quarter is a not against a packed box, but it’s still a good demonstration of what I’m talking about. Carey’s offensive line slants left and the runner intends to split the tackle and guard on that end to the flat.

However, USC ‘s tackle gets strong penetration up the middle to cut off this gap as Carey is taking the exchange with the quarterback. By the time Carey has the ball and a step past his quarterback, this tackle is two yards deep in the backfield and is blocking the widest gap at the line of scrimmage.

Carey has already identified the penetration and taking action. His first step is a hard plant and dip inside, but it’s not enough to avoid the tackle’s angle and he knows it. Some running backs will try to cut off the inside foot and lose balance.

Not Carey. He completes the second step with a turn, but it’s a quick step so he can plant harder with the outside leg to maintain balance and generate burst. It’s a minor adjustment that gets him inside the penetration and downhill with balanced pad level.

Now Carey can attack the defense in the middle of the field while avoiding the outside gap protection of the defensive back. He’s also in position to keep his knees high to run through the defensive back’s wrap.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/pLUfSGnNAI4&start=167]

He finishes the play backing his way to the Arizona 43 for a gain of eight on what could have been a loss of three. As I said, quickness and agility are more important than speed to a running back and vision to identify and avoid trouble trumps all three. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

High Knees

This 39-yard gain highlights Carey’s average speed, but what I like is the finish. Once again this is a run where USC is expecting pass, but I love how Cary pressed to the inside shoulder of the left tackle to force the defensive tackle inside and then cuts to his blocker’s outside shoulder to hit the smaller crease between the left tackle and H-Back.

This press and cut not only sets up the initial hole, but it baits the middle linebacker to slide outside and give the left guard the angle he needs to seal the edge at the second level. This is fine inside running by Carey, because if he tries to beat the defensive tackle inside, the linebacker is already in position to end this play early. Instead, Carey sets up the smaller crease and in turn sets up guard’s block.

The reward is a first down and another 29 yards. As Carey gets 20 yards into the run, note how high he lifts his knees as he anticipates and runs through contact.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/pLUfSGnNAI4&start=201]

Carey gains another 14 yards in part to running with his knees high. The Bears’ new runner may not break long touchdown runs, but he’ll have a lot of runs of 15-25 yards that matter.

Integrating Both Skills From Above

This is another third-down run early in the fourth quarter where Carey essentially faces a five-man front with six at the line of scrimmage. Again, these are favorable numbers for the ground game, but not when a defensive tackle swims past the center and beats the right guard assigned to him. The defensive tackle is a yard deep int the backfield with a good angle before Carey even takes the exchange.

Carey plants hard as he takes the exchange and turns his hips away from the reach of the defender who is almost four yards into the backfield.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/pLUfSGnNAI4&start=233]

He then bursts down hill with high knees through the crease, earning the first down and carrying a defender for a 12-yard gain on what could have been a three-yard loss.

Reading the Field A Level Ahead

Finding running backs with the capability to read and set up defenders a level ahead of the ball carrier’s current position is not as common as one might think. Most running backs–even in the NFL–read one level of defenders at a time. This 1st and 10 run with 10:11 in the game is a good example of Carey reading a level ahead. It’s a play that I think is easy for some analysts to get wrong and characterize it as Carey “wasting movement.”

Carey flanks the left side of the quarterback in this pistol set with 2×2 receivers. USC plays off coverage on the receivers and both safeties are deep enough that the defense is expect pass, but the linebackers are still in good position to defend the run. As Carey takes the exchange from the quarterback, note linebackers No.10 (middle of field) and No.56 (accountable for the left flat in the short zone).

No.10 maintains good position to defend the inside and prevent a cutback to the middle. No.56 does a strong job of reacting tot he hole between left guard and left tackle, flying towards the gap after accounting for the slot receiver and verifying the exchange between the quarterback and runner. However, watch Carey read No.56, bounce the play three steps to the outside, and force No.56 to account for the edge.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/pLUfSGnNAI4&start=252]

I believe Carey knew exactly what he was doing on this run: He saw the hole and the linebacker’s reaction, baited the defender outside, and all the while was prepared to spin his way inside and back his way through the small crease for positive yards. This is a lot like a two-way go, but Carey knows he’s operating in a tight space and has to factor the two first-tier defenders into his movement.

One of the reasons I believe Carey knew what he was doing is his spin move. He doesn’t try to do a complete 360-degree turn. If he does, the tackle plants him behind the line of scrimmage. Only a runner that does not see or feel the tackle working down the line tries a full spin. It’s the type of 360 move that at one time Darren McFadden might have tried on a zone play and failed. Carey spins so his back is to the defender and he has leverage to drive through the hit and earn yards.

A three-yard gain doesn’t seem impressive in the box score, but this is a good example of process trumping the product. Carey makes a good decision and is fast enough to set up the move while factoring four defenders into his choice, gaining three yards instead of potentially bouncing outside or cutting back for a loss or executing a full spin for no gain.

Some scouts would examine this run and label it a good example of “feel” or “intuition.”

Plays Big In Tight Quarters

The previous play was an example of how Carey leveraged his size for maximum power in a situation where he could have been planted into the ground by a much bigger man. This reception and run for a first down on 3rd and 7 with 9:40 in the game is technically a “space play” based on the location, but the room Carey has to operate in the flat as he makes the catch and run is anything but.

Once again this is a 2×2 receiver, 10 personnel shotgun set with Carey flanking the quarterback’s left side. USC has one safety deep middle and the rest of the coverage on the receivers is six yards off the line of scrimmage. Six USC defenders pack the box pre-snap.  USC sends four–including two defenders towards the left edge, which leaves the flat open until the middle linebacker can sprint across to account for Carey swing from the backfield.

Arizona’s quarterback does a good job holding the defense in the middle of the field long enough for the linebacker to account for the crossing route moving under him left to right. This look-off paired with the shallow cross leaves Carey open in the flat and forces the defensive back to drive up field from the Arizona 45 towards Carey working towards the ball at the line of scrimmage at the 35.

Carey feels the presence of the defensive back over top and extends his arms to attack the ball at the 39. It’s a play that, if he misses, he might have been accused of alligator arms, but upon repeated viewings I think the ball was far enough and low enough that Carey had to extend the way he did to make the catch and the presence of the defensive back was a secondary factor, at best.

Once Carey makes the catch, he illustrates the awareness to spin, avoid the big hit, and force a wrap. Once achieved, Carey has pad level and leg drive to drag two players four yards. He crossed the first down marker and gains another three. Not a Lache Seastrunk display of disappearing in thin air and taking the ball another 40 yards, but also a play that Lache Seastrunk does not make 9 times out of 10 at his current level of skill.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/pLUfSGnNAI4&start=274]

Carey flashes the skill to concentrate on what he needs to do in the moment while anticipating what comes next. He’s also consistent and finishing strong. It’s easy to forget his weight is in the range of 207-210 pounds.  I think he’ll add weight and explosion within the next year and it will only accentuate these positives of his game.

Tight quarters isn’t just winning against multiple defenders on top of you; navigating a sideline is another example. Here’s a catch as a check-down option after the play breaks down. Carey works across the formation towards the edge defender, but the quarterback is forced to scramble to Carey’s side due to interior pressure and Carey loses position on the defender because of the quarterback’s roll out.

The runner knows that it’s now time to work open as a receiver and he sprints to the right flat. The quarterback makes the throw and Carey makes the catch on the run five yards behind the line of scrimmage, but with the sideline open to him.

The pursing defensive linemen has an angle as Carey crosses the line of scrimmage to the sideline and there’s a defensive back over top and charging up the sideline. Carey stutters to freeze the two defenders, set up a block on the lineman, and plays give-a-leg-take-a-leg on the cornerback at the sideline. Even with the move to avoid much of the corner’s hit, Carey still gets hit hard on the leg, five yards past the line of scrimmage, maintains his balance while straddling the boundary and gains another five yards for the first down before the linebacker pushes the runner out.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/pLUfSGnNAI4&start=313]

It’s a tough play that appears easy when Carey executes it. It’s something I could say about all of these examples. It’s probably why football players and coaches are excited about him, but writers are lukewarm.

For analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio and the RSP Post-Draft. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download now. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

 

Reads Listens Views 5/23/2014

[youtube=http://youtu.be/xKjMYui_RdI]

Rene Marie, gubernatorial debate worth watching, 20 Surreal Places, and RSP Post-Draft Update.

What is Reads Listens Views?

If you’re new to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio blog, welcome.  May is normally a lighter month for me on the blog due to the short turnaround time for the RSP Post-Draft and the magazine schedule at my day job. Otherwise, I post links on Fridays to content I’m saving for later consumption or pieces that I found compelling. You may not like everything listed here, but you’re bound to like something.

Listens/Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/lfJJ4-AUyYg]

Idaho’s gubernatorial debate with characters out of a movie–true and fantastic!

Post-Draft On the Couch w/Sigmund Bloom

Linkalicious 

Download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio + Post-Draft Update!

Friday’s are also my chance to thank you for reading my work, encourage you to follow the RSP blog, and download the Rookie Scouting Portfolio publication.

The 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio Post-Draft Add-On is ready for download.  If you’re in a dynasty league, the combination of the 2014 RSP and the RSP Post-Draft will have you prepared for this year and beyond. Want details? Need details? I have ’em right here:

  • 84 pages
  • How to use the RSP and RSP-Post Draft together
  • Overrated/Underrated
  • Good/Bad post-draft fits
  • UDFAs to watch
  • Long-term dynasty waiver wire gems
  • Strategic overview of 2014 rookie drafts
  • Tiered Value Chart Cheat Sheet across all positions
  • Post-Draft rankings analysis and commentary–including notes about impending contracts years of competition on the depth charts
  • Average Draft Position (ADP) Data of 19 dynasty drafts
  • RSP Ranking-to-ADP Value Data
  • Raw Data Worksheets to continue calculating additional ADP data for future drafts

Hell, take a video tour of the 2013 post-draft to see what I mean:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8f06wrsHVI&feature=share]

Seriously, this analysis is worth the price of the 2014 RSP package alone, but you get this as a part of your purchase with the 2014 RSP. Remember 10 percent of each sale is donated to Darkness to Light to prevent sexual abuse in communities across the United States. While that alone should get you to download the RSP package, do it because you will be blown away with the detail and insight of the analysis and content. It’s why the RSP has grown so much in the past nine years.

Best yet, 10 percent of each RSP sale is donated to Darkness to Light, a non-profit devoted to preventing and addressing sexual abuse through community training in schools, religious groups, and a variety of civic groups across the U.S.

Download the 2014 RSP and RSP Post-Draft here

In Case You Missed It/Coming Soon

  • A Trip to The Thrift Store – Gut Check No.292 takes a look at players I think are emerging, progressing, in crowded scenarios, and at a crossroads.
  • Ka’Deem Carey Analysis – Coming Soon.
  • Futures: My Expansion Franchise – I’ve just been awarded an NFL expansion team and must build my personnel department. Here’s how I departed from many in the NFL.
  • The 2014 RSP Writers Project -Sometime after the draft, we’ll get this rolling.

Reads (Football)

Views

I just bought some photography from one of my readers, Adrian Landin. He and his girlfriend Ashlie are Dallas natives who have been nomads in Southeast Asia for some time now. They are selling their work at Etsy and its excellent work. If you seeking quality photography for your home or office and have affinity for landscapes, Southeast Asia, or quality work in general, head on over.

 Reads (Life In General)

Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/hOHrUX8glYQ]
Rene Marie is someone I just discovered in my musical travels. Hell, I can’t show you just one . . .
[youtube=http://youtu.be/hcTI9-bOHE4]

 

Teddy Bridgewater’s NFL Personality Assessment

Best Louisville prospect in this draft? Maybe, but don't give the short end of the stick to the Cardinals' safety Calvin Pryor. Photo by KYNGPAO
Teddy Bridgewater’s personality assessment flies in the face of statements about the QB’s personality-leadership-capability to learn . Photo by KYNGPAO

An NFL source confirmed to me that Teddy Bridgewater has scored exceptionally well on a league-used personality assessment. 

I know how some bloggers have develop some disdain for the anonymous source when it comes to football news.  If you’re one of them, this isn’t the post you want to read. If you don’t care, tonight I’ve been given the green light to share basics about Teddy Bridgewater’s personality assessment that at least two-thirds of the league uses for rookie prospects.

I know the scores, but I have been cautioned not to share the exact numbers. What the source has confirmed is that Bridgewater scored exceptionally well on his personality assessment-very close to the highest possible score. Bridgewater scored high in these categories:

  • Focus
  • Interpersonal skills
  • Dedication
  • Self Efficacy
  • Affective Commitment

This information–if accurate–calls into question the points we’ve been hearing in the media since the combine that Bridgewater is dull and lacks leadership skills. These results support what at least many have seen that opposes the statements to the media that Bridgewater doesn’t have “It”. It also pokes holes in the statements from anonymous executives through major media that Bridgewater can’t “be the face of the franchise” or lacks “CEO” qualities.

Based on what I’ve seen from Bridgewater in Jon Gruden’s QB Camp, Bridgewater was straight-forward, accountable, and engaging. Is he the classic personality type that charmed Jon Gruden like Aaron Murray? Not at all.

Neither was Joe Montana, Joe Flacco, or even Johnny Unitas. It’s been said that Mike Nolan and the 49ers preferred Alex Smith’s grounded personality to Aaron Rodgers, who came across as arrogant.

Where the Wonderlic assesses book smarts in a timed environment, this test–according to my source–uses fast-paced, jarring questions that can often be embarrassing and pointed in nature. Much of the NFL is apparently sold on this  interview-style test’s ability to assess leadership, emotions under pressure, how a player works with others, and behavior on and off the field.

Is it a good test? I have no idea. I’m sure folks with some expertise could find flaws with it just like the Wonderlic.

Does this assessment prove that the NFL is exhibiting some degree of bias? It’s a good indicator that at the very least, Bridgewater doesn’t fit the tried-and-true mold that the NFL prefers when it risks high draft picks on quarterbacks: big arm, big frame, and/or great mobility.

When it comes to precision passers with smarts but arms, athleticism, and frames that are “good enough,” but top-drawer, the NFL seems to balk at the idea of using a top-15 pick. On the other hand, they’ll err this high with good athletes possessing lesser football skills and football intelligence.

As my buddy Ryan Riddle says, “It means that teams have to determine if Bridgewater’s intelligence for the game is that much better than the norm and that’s a very hard thing to evaluate.”  Drew Brees is mobile, but not dynamically athletic and his arm strength was lacking for teams to feel he was a “can’t-miss” guy. However, San Diego GM John Butler was confident that he stole Brees at the top of the second round.

If me, Daniel Jeremiah, Kurt Warner, Josh Norris, Doug Farrar and the rest of Draft Twitter are correct, Bridgewater is going to be the best value among the quarterbacks in this class.

For analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

Reads Listens Views 5/2/2014 + My Take on MMQB Manziel Roundtable

I bought mine, thank you very much. Photo by Kevin Lu.
I bought mine, thank you very much. Photo by Kevin Lu.

My critique of Peter King’s Manziel roundtable, Beats Antique, Hangouts, Cramps and crablegs

What is Reads Listens Views?

If you’re new to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio blog, welcome.  I post links on Friday to content I’m saving for later consumption or content I’ve viewed that I found compelling. You may not like everything listed here, but you’re bound to like something.

Listens/Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/nWeYKrGQkR0]

Before I was writing about football, Friday nights for me after work often meant a couple of beers, some crab legs (don’t go there . . . ), and NBA on TNT. This is one sports show I do miss watching.

 Opinion- MMQB Johnny Manziel Analysis Article

Peter King wrote a roundtable piece on Johnny Manziel where he had a group of football men view some plays of Manziel at Texas A&M and comment on what they saw. I always enjoy these type of articles because the reader gets a chance to see the perspective of individuals who are paid to play, coach, and study the game. If the reader looks beyond the immediate information, he or she sees that there’s quite a bit of disagreement about Manziel among players who have all had success when it comes to the quarterback position.

Mike Holmgren is skeptical about Manziel; David Cutcliffe is optimistic. Kevin Gilbride is most critical of technique; Rich Gannon and Doug Flutie have a more pragmatic take. Think about the experiences of these five people in football and it provides opportunity to critique each critic.

Flutie and Gannon were successful quarterbacks who performed in the league with skill sets that approximate Manziel as a scrambler who can throw. I commend King for recruiting them for this analysis. While both are critical of Manziel’s behavior at times, they’re not dismissive of Manziel’s chances to play the position. Both Gannon and Flutie were in some respects exceptions to the rule of what the NFL values from the position and their perspective includes which quarterbacks in the NFL are exceptions to the rule in ways Manziel might be and why ; what factors will aid the rookie’s transition; and what he’ll see in the NFL that will require him to adjust based on their experience as successful scramblers and improvisors.

Kevin Gilbride has been a quarterback coach and offensive coordinator for several NFL teams and he’s known for an offense that is mostly pocket driven. Even the mobile Mark Brunell, who Gilbride described along with other mobile passers as “running around like a maniac,” threw for over 4000 yards in Gilbride’s offense in 1996. I do find it telling that Gilbride’s noun of choice to describe these quarterbacks is “maniac,” because his perspective is the most critical from a technical standpoint.

Although I’d bet Gilbride’s offensive philosophies have evolved over time, his strength as a coordinator was with pocket passers. Brunell could scramble, but at heart he was still a pocket passer. Kordell Stuart had his worst two seasons with Pittsburgh under Gilbride after having success in a mobile-friendly scheme under Chan Gailey. Gilbride’s criticisms of Manziel are just, but any conclusions drawn from these criticism come from a coach who didn’t have success molding a system to a player who wasn’t a strong pocket passer from the beginning.

I love how King emphasized Cutcliffe’s experience working with successful NFL quarterbacks, coaching the current college game that is feeding offensive concepts to the NFL, and competing against Manziel this year. Something that I believe is true, but King was right not to write as the host of this piece–if he even recognized it as a valid reason for highlighting Cutcliffe in the first place–is that Cutcliffe displayed more flexibility in his perspective than either Gilbride or Holmgren and he’s well-known for his work with classic pocket passers. If King states it as bluntly as I do, the statement would characterize Gilbride and Holmgren as stiff and inflexible minds rooted in their process.  Instead he lets the reader derive his own conclusions.

Holmgren has the greatest range of experiences as a coach and general manager. However, I think we see more of Holmgren the GM than Holmgren the coach when it comes to Manziel. If you recall, the former Packers and Seahawks head coach was very hands-on with his quarterbacks and not averse to critiquing his passers in the moment of the game. He had a very set idea of what he wanted from his passers and I think he emotionally thrived off being known as the quarterback guru as well as a coach. You don’t let media film you coaching your quarterbacks in meetings during the week if you don’t have pride in this aspect of your job.

Holmgren’s specific prescriptions for quarterback play as a coach and then his experience as a GM might actually limit his scope on what he believes works and doesn’t work in the NFL. Someone I spoke with last night told me that there are certain players that make coaches light up, but cause GM’s to squint their eyes and shake their heads. In this case, my friend was talking about running backs who play with little regard for their bodies. However, I can see how it translates to other positions–especially quarterback.

Of course, these perspectives are based on my views of them as a writer and film analyst. Take it for what you will.

Download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio

Friday’s are also my chance to thank you for reading my work, encourage you to follow the RSP blog, and download the Rookie Scouting Portfolio publication.

The RSP is available every April 1 for download. This year’s RSP is nearly 300 pages in the draft guide section and filled with analysis of  164 skill position prospects that has earned a loyal following:

  • Rankings
  • Draft history analysis
  • Overrated/Underrated analysis
  • Multidimensional player comparisons
  • Individual skills analysis by position

You can learn more about the RSP here. If you want to see samples of the play-by-play notes I take to write the analysis, you can find them here. If you want to know what my readers say about it, look here. If you want a quick video tour, here it is:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsQwtyOCDM&feature=share]

If you don’t have time to look into details, know that once you look through the RSP, there will be no question in your mind that I do the work, that I have a plan about the work that I do, and that you get more than your money’s worth. It’s why more and more draftniks every spring can’t wait until April 1.

If you think that’s a ton, you ain’t seen nothing. When you purchase the RSP, you also get a free post-draft publication that’s available for download a week after the NFL Draft. Fantasy football owners tell me all the time that this alone is worth the price.

Best yet, 10 percent of each RSP sale is donated to Darkness to Light, a non-profit devoted to preventing and addressing sexual abuse through community training in schools, religious groups, and a variety of civic groups across the U.S.

Here is what the RSP donated to D2L this year. According to D2L, the RSP’s 2013 donation amount was enough to train 250 adults in communities across the country.

Pre-order the 2014 RSP and/or download past versions of the publication (2006-2013).

In Case You Missed It/Coming Soon

  • Futures: Tom Savage – Why magnification exists in NFL scouting and why it demands more vigilant regulation so it doesn’t overshadow important issues.
  • Gruden QB Camp: The Teddy Bridgewater Interview – An experiment with interview analysis, including body language analysis. What’s the deal with Teddy licking his lips?
  • Gruden QB Camp: The Tajh Boyd Interview – Boyd sure likes to tell us he’s a top-three quarterback, but he’s as elusive with criticism as he is in the pocket.
  • Futures: My Expansion Franchise – I’ve just been awarded an NFL expansion team and must build my personnel department. Here’s how I departed from many in the NFL.
  • The Audible Hangout NFL Draft Show – Bloom and I will be hosting shows during the first and second nights of pro football’s annual selection process.
  • The 2014 RSP Writers Project -Sometime after the draft, we’ll get this rolling.

The Thursday Night Audible Hangout

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDWE5gWPE4&feature=share]

Reads (Football)

Listens

[youtube=http://youtu.be/YI8yvTXNNeU]

Hat-tip to Bryan Zukowski for sending this my way.

 Reads (Life In General)

Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/9nUAarErp5Y]
Another good one from Bryan from this South African group that says so much with who they are and what they do.

 

Futures: QB Tom Savage

Photo by Mike Pettigano.
Photo by Mike Pettigano.

Savage has the physical skills and flashes of on-field play that make him look like a first-rounder. Is his rumored late rise up draft boards a product of hyperbolic thinking?

Futures: Pittsburgh QB Tom Savage

By Matt Waldman

Beware of the fast rising quarterback. This is what Football Outsiders newcomer Jason Lisk wrote in 2012 after he did a search on quarterbacks whose stock rose in the month prior to the draft since 1990. His article led with Ryan Tannehill as the “buzz creator” approaching the 2012 NFL Draft that motivated his search for this dubious, late charge up draft boards to the first round.

While I liked Tannehill and still believe he is on his way to becoming a decent NFL starter, I think Lisk offered compelling examples why he could write an article about this subject. He mentions several players who reportedly had draft grades lower than the first round before the collective buzz from the postseason all-star games, combine, and workouts upped their draft stock in the final weeks.

I want to dig deeper than draft stock, which is shorthand for “ability and talent” for some, but as Lisk points out with some hindsight on his side, draft stock contains a healthy dose of other factors that influenced errors of judgment. One of these factors is what we might as well call “the eyeball test”—does he look like a franchise quarterback?

  • Does he have the requisite height?
  • Does he have the requisite weight?
  • Does he have a big arm?
  • Does he demonstrate the pro style throws that project well to the NFL?

If he has at least three of these four things, it appears that there are enough teams that believe that they can mold these players into good quarterbacks. They will often bet on these players at the expense of a more polished passer lacking the same qualities in abundance, but enough to get the job done.

Jim Druckenmiller is a great example. Tall, strong, and capable of throws that make people gush at workouts, Druckenmiller had trouble reading defenses and maneuvering the pocket.

Bill Walsh saw this was the case and told the 49ers to draft Jake Plummer. While Plummer never full lived up to his potential, he had enough moments to illustrate why Walsh liked the Arizona State Sun Devil the most from this quarterback class. Druckenmiller continued to have trouble with the same things he had in college and never left the San Francisco bench.

Patrick Ramsey was another late riser. ESPN’s Chris Mortensen relayed a lot of this sentiment in the final month prior to the draft for this strong-armed quarterback from Tulane with consistency issues. According to a Chicago Bears’ fans scouting site, Ramsey “looks like an All-American quarterback one play and totally different the next.”

Ramsey had difficulty reading defenses and maneuvering the pocket. Neither progressed enough for the former first-round pick to become a consistent NFL starter.

J.P. Losman was another Tulane product with a big arm and athleticism, who thought he could throw holes through defenders to get the ball to his wide receivers. He found out his ball didn’t burn through opposing defender’s flesh.

I’ll add Brandon Weeden to this list. A big guy with a big arm who had big production at a big-time school, add it all up and it still didn’t compensate for his big problem with rushing his reads under pressure because he didn’t maneuver the pocket with a comfort level desirable for an NFL quarterback. Weeden is now considered another one of Cleveland’s big mistakes on draft day.

I’m beginning to think there’s a pattern of mistakes that certain NFL teams make when it comes to evaluating quarterbacks. I don’t know if this is true, but after 10 years of studying players—9 of those where I published the RSP—it appears that some teams have too many magnifying factors and not enough knockout factors.

As I mentioned in my piece on Jimmy Garoppolo, I’m getting closer to the point of instituting knockout factors in evaluations. Certain mistakes in quarterbacking are fatal errors and might be too difficult to fix. How a passer reacts to pressure is one of them.

Magnifying factors is a term I thought of while writing this column. It’s a set of qualities that prospects display that get NFL decision makers excited—too excited. Scouts, general managers, coaches, or owners see some of these qualities and let them overshadow flaws.

Based on the strengths and weaknesses of these five players above, it appears some teams will rationalize that they can coach these flaws away where they might not feel the same if the prospect lacked these magnifying factors. A simply way of putting it is crass, but I believe it illustrates the point:

Some NFL analysts and decision-makers look at arm strength the way some men look at the quality of a woman’s chest when they decide whom to date—they’re focused solely on what’s below the neckline. Later, they have the nerve to complain about the person’s flaws.

I believe there is a lot of magnification happening with quarterback evaluation. None more apparent this year than with Pittsburgh quarterback Tom Savage.

The 6-5, 230-lb. quarterback is equipped with one of the strongest arms in this draft and that accounts for three of the four qualities that teams appear to magnify with their quarterback evaluation process. It’s easy to see how this magnification can take place with Savage. There are several plays that in a vacuum look like the passes of an NFL starter.

See enough of these on tape, and it’s understandable that a decision-maker will take this sum of good-looking moments and allow it to out-weight the bad. Because there’s no regulation of strength and weaknesses that prevent evaluators from exaggerating the importance of what they saw, it’s easy to hyperbolize rare physical characteristics.

Even if this is not their intent to do so, I don’t know of scouting reports that have embedded into their process defined scoring weights for certain qualities or knockout factors. Today I’ll show you some plays that I believe some evaluators might be prone to hyperbolizing and flawed plays where they may underestimate the difficulty of fixing.

Read the rest of Foobtall Outsiders.

Gruden QB Camp: Teddy Bridgewater

Best Louisville prospect in this draft? Maybe, but don't give the short end of the stick to the Cardinals' safety Calvin Pryor. Photo by KYNGPAO
What can people discern from one interview? The analysis below is an experiment to find out. Photo by KYNGPAO

Reader Advisory: This series is an experiment. The takes within are not anything that I’m willing to stand behind as enhancing or detracting from the “draft value” of the players I am profiling here. I developed this series to illustrate the subjectivity of a player interview. There will be plenty of armchair psychology and body language analysis interlaced with opinions based on my experiences as a manager, a journalist, and a student of football.  Learn about the actual personality assessment that two-thirds of the NFL has on Bridgewater. 

Intro

I have always thought Jon Gruden was sneaky-good at interviewing NFL prospects. The former coach is intelligent, he’s well-prepared, and he understands how to frame conversations that elicit information without attacking the player–even when delivering criticism. There’s a playfulness on the surface that belies the seriousness of Gruden’s points.

I repeat, this is an experiment and a series I’m writing because I’m curious what I’d see if I studied an interview as if I studied a game. There’s no weight I’m placing on this analysis. The intent is to show the variety of ways different observers can interpret the same interview.

I don’t agree with all the takes I’m positing. I will say that after studying three of these QB Camp shows, there are potential observations that are similar to observations I’ve seen others believe were valid points during job or field interviews as a writer.

Some of these insights may hit the mark–maybe even touch upon something deeper into the player’s personality. However, these takeaways may also be a reflection of a player’s nerves and insecurity about appearing on national television on the eve of the most important job selection process of his life to date.

I know that I’d be nervous about having my game dissected by a top expert in the field on national television. There are extraordinarily few people who wouldn’t feel this pressure and react with a measure of insecurity on some level.

I’m not telling you which of these takes I believe have actual merit.  These interviews are first impressions of a player’s personality away from the field. If I was a manager for a team’s front office, I’d want our organization to spend more time with the player to determine if a variety of co-workers had similar impressions.

For the last time,  these are hypothetical takes of one interview and these observations have no factor in my evaluation of the player as found in the RSP. As with every interview I’m studying in this series I watched it at least twice–often 3-4 times–to gather quotes and study the interaction between Gruden and his interview subject.

The first interview I analyzed was Tajh Boyd’s. A lot of his responses and body language indicated a player projecting confidence, but also some defensiveness and insecurity about his standing in this draft. He also appeared unwilling to reveal flaws in his game. Teddy Bridgewater also possesses some defensive body language in this interview. However, there’s a tell in Bridgewater’s body language and eye behavior that indicates a far different set of things happening between him and Gruden.

Opening Scene

“As a quarterback, I’m just saying that I am the eye of the hurricane,” says Bridgewater during the introduction of the show. “I’m smart with the football–38 touchdowns-4 interceptions. I was able to master the college game. And I feel that me being a student of the game, I’m most eager to learn.”

Gruden gives his introductory take of Bridgewater before the interview. Because his brother Jay played quarterback at Louisville, the coach’s impressions of Teddy Bridgewater were based on what he thought of the Louisville football program.

“This is a basketball school and for him to transform it into a football school for the three years that he was there . . . it excited me. I wanted to find out how he did it.”

A Polarizing Start

Did Bridgewater want to take his ball and go home? Photo by Jayel Aheram
Did Bridgewater want to take his ball and go home? Photo by Jayel Aheram

The Louisville QB begins the conversation with his elbows on the table and his fingers interwoven. This can be interpreted as a sign of anxiety. The rest of Bridgewater’s body language appears calm enough that the interwoven hand position is a protective-defensive gesture.

When asked about the recruiting process and why he chose Louisville after originally committing to Miami, Bridgewater maintains his hand position while telling the story. The QB describes Randy Shannon getting fired at Miami changed his mind about the program because he wanted to go somewhere there would be stability.

As he tells this story, Bridgewater’s eyes move to his left a couple of times–often a sign of recalling facts. When he talk about stability, Bridgewater punctuates the statement with a quick raise of his eyebrows. This is a sign of emphasizing or acknowledging a point.

Bridgewater also raises his shoulders for punched emphasis two different times as he explains that this story summed up his recruiting process. This too is a non-verbal accent of what he’s saying to hammer home emphasis.

“I heard when you went to Louisville–it was cold,” says Gruden. “I heard you got homesick . . . ”

“Nah,” interjects Bridgewater, shaking his head.

“There was a time where you were ready to leave Louisville,” Gruden continues, “Is that true?”

“Nah, there was a time that I was ready to go home. My freshman year,” explains Bridgewater, his fingers still interlaced while he raises his eyebrows twice to emphasize what he’s saying. “I wasn’t starting. Things weren’t going the way that I wanted them to go. I wanted to go home and just give up on football.”

At the end of this last sentence, Bridgewater does something that he’ll do through much of the interview: He pokes his tongue from his mouth as if he’s licking his lips and squints his eyes. This is often regarded as an expression of extreme disapproval.

Combine these two things with Bridgewater’s eyes moving right and downward before saying, “I wanted to go home and just give up on football,” and the body language indicates that Bridgewater is recalling his feelings at the time he was thinking about leaving the game behind. His reaction is as if the memory left a nasty taste.  One could determine that Bridgewater was disgusted with the idea of quitting football now that he looks back on it.

Bridgewater talks about meeting with the team chaplain and buying into that individual’s wisdom and the coaches’ wisdom. As he tells the story, he again looks to his right and down–a sign that he’s sharing feelings that he had about that experience. Bridgewater ends with another shoulder raise as he says, “everything worked out for me.”

Some could read into the entirety of this response and decide that despite the fact that Bridgewater contemplated leaving the team, the idea of actually following through went against everything he wanted to do.

The actual admission that Bridgewater considered quitting football could be a polarizing one.

Some may say that if Bridgewater even considered quitting that he truly doesn’t love football the way they want a prospect to love it. Others might say that he’s emotionally soft and if he doesn’t get his way, he will threaten to take his ball and go home.

In contrast, some may see that Bridgewater’s actual decision to stay combined with his body language while telling the story indicates that the quarterback loves football or at the very least hates giving up on anything.

Others may see this statement’s candor and see a great deal of confidence from Bridgewater to admit he felt this way. They may see that Bridgewater is willing to show some vulnerability and weakness and share how he’s grown up as a teen moving into early adulthood.

These observers may believe Bridgewater’s exchange with Gruden is an indication that he’s strong enough to handle everything swirling around him–much like the eye of a hurricane he describes himself to be at the beginning of the segment.

Lemons Into Lemonade

Russell Wilson revels in the challenge of adversity. Does Bridgewater? Photo by  Whateyesee13
Russell Wilson revels in the challenge of adversity. Does Bridgewater? Photo by Whateyesee13

The next segment features Bridgewater’s first pass, which is a deep route for an interception–an awful throw. Gruden asks if Bridgewater remembers it.

“I remember it like it was yesterday,” responds Bridgewater, whose smile includes his eyes–a sign it’s a genuine smile. Bridgewater’s hands are still at the table with the fingers interlaced. There’s a pattern of behavior in this show where Bridgewater seems to show comfort with unpleasant events. One might examine his reactions to these events and determine he revels in the fact that he was strong enough to overcome them.

Gruden queues the Kentucky game the following week and sets up his question by describing how the young Bridgewater came off the bench and had a big game. Gruden shows pro-caliber throws that remind the coach of Drew Brees. He shows Charlie Strong’s excitement after a touchdown. And he has a clip of Bridgewater celebrating with his coach.

“Is Strong saying, ‘You’re my guy now?” asks Gruden.

“I said, ‘I told you, coach,'” says Bridgewater, who peppers this sequence with intermittent laughter.

There are a lot of notable stories about quarterbacks sharing confidence to their coaches or superiors. Tom Brady thanked Robert Kraft for picking him and that it would be the best pick he ever made. Peyton Manning told Bill Polian in a pre-draft interview that if the Colts didn’t pick him, that Manning would kick Indy’s ass for the duration of his career.

Gruden told Tajh Boyd a story about Russell Wilson as a rookie starter. When the Seahawks were down, he walked up to Pete Carroll and according to the Seattle coach, said that he was excited about the opportunity to be down by 14 and take the game back. Carroll thought Wilson was crazy in the best sense.

Bridgewater’s “I told you, coach,” might not be up there as bold statements, but some teams may recognize it as confidence in that same category.

Still Waters Run Deep

One criticism of Bridgewater by some anonymous NFL people is that the quarterback was a dud during interviews. At least one executive spoke anonymously to a reporter to question the quarterback’s leadership. Based on his body language, there is some indication that Bridgewater is a passionate individual who, in a public setting off the field, keeps his feelings below the surface.

Bridgewater’s responses earlier in the show where often accompanied by eye movements that indicate he was accessing feelings as he recalled events. The next line of questions reveal the same tendency, but how to interpret it is more difficult.

Gruden asks Bridgewater why he left a year early when everyone loved him at Louisville.

“I had a plan when I was being recruited,” says Bridgewater, dropping his eyes downward and to his right to access his feelings while telling the rest of the story. “I had a plan when I was being recruited. My plan was to get my degree in three years. I told every school that recruited me, ‘Listen, I’m on a three-year plan,’ and I have always been purpose driven my entire life. That played a huge factor, I was able to get my degree–in sports administration–and the rest was history.”

What adds a layer of complexity to this story is the eye movement in combination with Bridgewater poking his tongue from his mouth twice during his explanation. It could be a sign that Bridgewater didn’t like the question. However, he didn’t poke the tongue upon hearing the question; the first time he did it was in the middle of his answer.

There is a possibility that Bridgewater was remembering something distasteful about the recruiting process as he was recalling events. Remember, the eye movement downward  and to the right is about recalling feelings associated with events. The memory Bridgewater is retelling is what he told college recruiters and before he tells Gruden what he told recruiters, his tongue pokes from his mouth (often a symbol of disgust, distaste, or rejecting something–in this case something he remembers that he might not be sharing fully) when he says, “Listen, I’m on a three-year plan.”

We all have read enough about the recruiting process to understand how this can be a distasteful process. Perhaps Bridgewater is also remembering the reactions of recruiters when he said he was on a three-year plan and didn’t like what they said.

It’s also possible that Bridgewater doesn’t like Gruden’s question in the first place. The young quarterback may feel he’s ready for the next step and he has his degree, so why ask the question. Charlie Strong is gone and Bobby Petrino has returned–new coach, new offense, and new scrutiny based on one year of a lot of changes. The idea of staying in school for all of that has a mighty distasteful element for any college quarterback who has more to lose than gain in the NFL evaluation process.

The second tongue poke is also curious because it comes after Bridgewater says he graduated with a degree in sports administration. Maybe Bridgewater doesn’t like the degree that he earned.

Considering the schedule a player has to undertake while balancing football and academics, the quarterback might have wished he could have studied something else. Robert Smith’s story as well as the recent feature on college bag men, supports the notion that athletic programs steer players towards certain degrees because it’s convenient for the team.

It could also mean that Bridgewater doesn’t value the college degree that much at this point in his life. He’s about to go pro. Maybe he got the degree for his mom. It’s also possible that he was recalling the work he had to do in order to finish the degree in three years and it elicited memories he didn’t like.

The tongue comes out during another question where one might not expect it: When Gruden cues a video of Louisville sports icons Tom Jackson and Muhammad Ali before a Cardinals game and Ali is wearing Bridgewater’s jersey.

“What was it like to see Ali in your jersey?”

As Bridgewater responds, his eyes move down and to his left. This is an indication of a person recalling facts as well as outside stimuli like sights and sounds of the event. As Bridgewater does this, he begins to tell about what it was like on the field that night before the game.

The quarterback then sticks his tongue out after saying how meaningful it was to him to see Ali in his jersey. Is he lying? Some might say the tongue poke reveals there’s a layer to this story that he’s not sharing.

Bridgewater’s tongue poke could be a betrayal of his concluding statement, “it was one of the most happy days of my life.” Remember, football players learn early on that when they speak to the media that he has to respond with platitudes.

It’s possible Bridgewater finds giving platitudes distasteful–even if he understands how positive it is to see “the Greatest” wearing his jersey. Bridgewater’s genuine smile complements this track of analysis.

A response about Ali has nothing to do with quarterbacking. However, it may indicate that Bridgewater feels deeply, isn’t sharing everything that he remembers and felt about these events, and some of those memories aren’t pleasant. It may also indicate that Bridgewater doesn’t like Gruden’s questions. If he had his way, perhaps he’d only talk about the actual game of football.

If any of these insights are accurate, the fact that Bridgewater is pleasant, selective, and appropriate with his answers could be seen as a positive. It reveals a level of maturity and understanding of what’s right to share with the media.

Of course, all of this about a tongue poking out could be the fact that Bridgewater’s lips are dry, his mouth is dry, or it’s some odd habit he’s had all his life.

The Gloves Come Off

Photo by Todd Huffman
Photo by Todd Huffman

We see more of this behavior from Bridgewater when Gruden broached the quarterback’s pro day preparation. At this point, Bridgewater unclasped his fingers, grabs a pen and begins this response with his forearms and hands on the table.

Holding an object as well as the position of his forearms is an indication of a protective posture. Like Tajh Boyd, the way Bridgewater is sitting could be interpreted as a person steeling himself to address something he feels uncomfortable about.

Unlike Boyd, Bridgewater’s response appears more forthcoming than many of the Clemson quarterback’s answers. As Bridgewater tells the story of when he first began wearing the gloves, nothing in his body language or words were notable during his very straightforward explanation.

Then Gruden mentions the pro day and points out Bridgewater isn’t wearing gloves. At this point, Bridgewater’s tongue pokes out.

It could be habit. It could be the Bridgewater has been anticipating this subject to come up and now that it has he’s expressing his subconscious dislike of it.

Bridgewater talks about going back to Florida to train and the weather and his eye move down and to the right–accessing feelings associated with being there. His eyes move in that direction again as he recalls his high school days when he didn’t ear a glove.

Immediately after saying the word “glove,” the tongue comes out. A pretty obvious indication that he doesn’t like this glove subject. As he tells the story, his hands remain in this protective position, but nothing about his eyes, face, head, or body position indicate that he’s hiding anything and this is consistent with him taking responsibility for what happened on his pro day.

From this standpoint, it’s possible that Bridgewater’s tongue poking in this retelling of the story is a sign that he is angry with himself for not keeping his gloves on. This is something that could be supported by him subsequently telling Gruden,  “I’m one of those guys that trusts preparation and gains confidence the more that I prepare.”

“I learned a valuable lesson that day,” says Bridgewater about his pro day. He looks down and to his right–recounting how he felt about that moment. Then he looks straight at Gruden and follows with a response that show accountability. “I had a few balls that got away from me that day.”

Bridgewater squints once as he makes this statement–another potential sign that he was disappointed with himself as he recounts the event.

“Like I said, I was able to walk away from the event and learn: ‘Just do what got you there,'” he says with genuine smile while nodding his head and raising his eyebrows at Gruden as he talked about how he should have worn the gloves if that’s a normal part of his routine. He sticks his tongue out after saying, “If you’re comfortable with the gloves, wear the gloves.”

The body language and his words during this explanation of his pro day suggest a number of possibilities that could all be true:

  1. Bridgewater truly learned a lesson and he still has some lingering disgust about his pro day performance.
  2. He’s disgusted with the scrutiny over a few poor passes and rejects the idea that he had a bad pro day.
  3. He thinks the whole discussion of the gloves/no gloves is overblown.

“Do you have thick skin?” asks Gruden.

Bridgewater sticks his tongue out, lowers his head, and looks up as he responds, “Yes sir.”

The body signals indicate rejection of something. He could be  rejecting the notion that anyone would even question his ability to handle this kind of scrutiny. Or he could be thinking of the questions people have of his ability and rejecting that notion. He could also be indicating that the criticism bothers him and he doesn’t agree with it.

When Gruden imitates Mel Kiper dissecting a bad slant, out comes Bridgewater’s tongue.

“I can’t control what people say about me,” says Bridgewater as he tilts his head to the side, which is often an indication of someone about to reveal something that’s vulnerable and truthful. It’s a sign that Bridgewater trusts Gruden or trusts in the traits he possesses as a football player and is about to share. “I can control my work ethic, my study habits, and the way I communicate with teammates.”

When asked again if he has thick skin, Bridgewater gives a very straightforward “yes sir,” while nodding quick enough that it’s not likely a faked agreement signal. Slow nodding is often a mechanical affectation to simulate agreement.

Bridgewater’s responses to the most difficult line of questions he’ll get in this interview demonstrate accountability in a situation that doesn’t feel good to him, honesty about the basic facts, deeper feelings of disgust that he’s not completely sharing, and potential rejection of the notion that the events reveal something negative about his overall potential.

Some may say this is a reflection of inner confidence because unlike Tajh Boyd, Bridgewater isn’t comparing himself to anyone and the rejection of the criticism isn’t verbal. He’s not changing the subject, he’s not avoiding the issue, and he’s answering the questions head-on with specifics. But he’s demonstrating a subtle rejection of the criticisms as he addresses them.

The Easy Part: The Film

Projector

Gruden introduces the next segment with an overall positive take of Bridgewater’s film. The coach says he liked watching Bridgewater at Louisville because the quarterback ran a similar offense that Gruden ran as a pro coach and that knowledge will make Bridgewater a quick study.

The coach begins the segment with a voi dire of Bridgewater’s knowledge of  west coast concepts in the Louisville offense then he asks the QB if he liked playing in the system.

“Oh I loved it,” answers Bridgewater who talks about the freedom he had in it. “So much in the quarterbacks hands to make decisions at the line of scrimmage, know each guys’ routes, and know the offense in and out.”

The rest of the segment is spent at the white board. Gruden has Bridgewater explain his understanding off the offensive concepts. Gruden asks Bridgewater why the quarterback made certain reads and as Bridgewater gives his explanations, Gruden nods in agreement.

There’s a lot of praise coming from Gruden when it comes to Bridgewater demonstrating an understanding of what defenses do to defend the routes and how Bridgewater would counter these tendencies. Multiple fist bumps and multiple verbal praises in this segment.

After the on-field segment, the episode flashes back to the film room and the subject returns to toughness–this time on-field toughness.

“What kind of leader are you?” asks Gruden.

“When I was younger–a freshman and a sophomore–I kind of lead by example. But as I got older, I understood that it took more. It took more than just going out there and executing. You have to be that coach on the field,” says Bridgewater as Gruden looks ahead but with his eyes turned to the right (often an indicator that the person doing this is imagining as he’s listening).  “Someone who motivates guys. Tells them when they’re having a bad day, ‘C’mon guys, let’s pick it up.’ Talks to the offensive line and tells them to give me two more seconds.”

The notion that Gruden was imagining an event has some merit. Gruden follows this response with a film example of the Connecticut game when Bridgewater’s receivers drop multiple passes. Gruden clicks to a scene at the sideline where Bridgewater is talking to his teammates.

Gruden later asks if Bridgewater ever yelled at his teammates.

The quarterback describes a practice during his sophomore year where he did so and explains how it shocked his teammates–the tongue making an appearance again accompanied with a squint. This could indicate a certain amount of intensity Bridgewater is experiencing from recalling this moment.

The tongue poke might indicate that he finds the yelling distasteful and it’s not his style. It’s not as if he said, “yeah, I yell at them all the time.”

The fact that he’s not quick to get onto teammates could be perceived as a positive or negative. Some teams might want more intensity. Others might like the fact that he can get his points across without yelling, but will do so if he needs to–even if he finds it distasteful.

Gruden doesn’t question this further. Het sums up the lesson in a question that’s phrased as if Bridgewater clearly knows the answer.

“Sometimes you just have to take control of the whole team, don’t you?”

In the Boyd episode–Gruden was telling Boyd certain lessons. Not once did he tell Bridgewater to write anything down–although the quarterback did. In contrast, Gruden told Boyd and Johnny Manziel to write things down.

The coach even asked Boyd to promise to focus on certain things. None of that happened with Bridgewater.

“On the toughness meter how tough is Teddy Bridgewater?” asks Gruden after he and Bridgewater watch a highlight package of the Louisville QB’s sacks.

“I’m off the charts,” responds Bridgewater without missing a beat and a smile on his face that includes his eyes–an addition indicator of a truthful smile. If this is any indication, Bridgewater knows he’s tough like he knows he’s breathing.

“You’ve got a lot poise and a lot of toughness playing this game,” says Gruden, staring into the QB’s eyes.

The coach walks Bridgewater through the Rutgers game–a contest where the quarterback comes off the bench with a high ankle sprain and broken wrist to lead Louisville to a BCS Sugar Bowl. The entire time, there’s nothing but a relaxed vibe that includes jokes and laughter between both coach and QB.

Then Gruden jumps to the Florida game in the Sugar Bowl where Bridgewater gets smacked by Jon Bostic on the first pass. Bridgewater tells Gruden it’s the hardest hit he ever felt and says it with that same smile where the eyes are a part of the smile.  He even laughs about it pointing out the scar that he got on his chin from the hit.

“Then [Bostic] got up dancing after hitting me in the forehead…I was pissed about that,” says Bridgewater before poking the tongue out. He then squints as he says, “It added fuel to the fire.”

“What is it about you?” says Gruden.

Bridgewater’s eyes light up with his smile.

“I’m just tough. I’m a different breed. I’m a rare breed. My kind is becoming extinct. My background has made me what I am today,” says Bridgewater, now squinting as he talks about his background. “It has made me physically and mentally tough. Nothing bothers me [biting his tongue for a moment–an indication that might not be true]. You can set my hair on fire, I’m still going to go. I’m just one of those guys”

One might look at this statement and see the tongue-biting as if he’s not sure he should say what he says next, but decides to anyhow. It could also mean that Bridgewater is bothered by things–which is certainly an indication throughout this interview–bothered deeply by them. Even so, it appears he handles these things head-on and appropriately, which is really all one can ask from a mature human being.

Conclusions

Bridgewater comes off as a person in touch and in control of his emotions even if there are indications that he has deep emotions that he doesn’t want to share. His behavior during the interview could be an indication that he’s had a fair number of events that he associates with intense feelings–some of them unpleasant.

There is also some indication that he has a deep belief in his toughness and ability to overcome adversity. A lot of these rejection signals with the tongue could be a reflection of an inner monologue that says something like, “None of this matters, I’ll overcome anything you throw at me.”

At the same time, some may look at Bridgewater thinking about quitting as a freshman as believe he doesn’t love football or he doesn’t respond well to adversity. The take depends on how open these people are to allowing a young man to mature and learn lessons.

For actual analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio – available now. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

Gruden QB Camp: Tajh Boyd

Tajh Boyd II by PDA.Photo

Reader Advisory: This series is an experiment. The takes within are not anything that I’m willing to stand behind as enhancing or detracting from the “draft value” of the players I am profiling here. I developed this series to illustrate the subjectivity of a player interview. There will be plenty of armchair psychology and body language analysis interlaced with opinions based on my experiences as a manager, a journalist, and a student of football.   

Intro

I have always thought Jon Gruden was sneaky-good at interviewing NFL prospects. The former coach is intelligent, he’s well-prepared, and he understands how to frame conversations that elicit information without attacking the player–even when delivering criticism. There’s a playfulness on the surface that belies the seriousness of Gruden’s points.

I repeat, this is an experiment and a series I’m writing because I’m curious what I’d see if I studied an interview as if I studied a game. There’s no weight I’m placing on this analysis. The intent is to show the variety of ways different observers can interpret the same interview.

I don’t agree with all the takes I’m positing. I will say that after studying three of these QB Camp shows, there are potential observations that are similar to observations I’ve seen others believe were valid points during job or field interviews as a writer.

Some of these insights may hit the mark–maybe even touch upon something deeper into the player’s personality. However, these takeaways may also be a reflection of a player’s nerves and insecurity about appearing on national television on the eve of the most important job selection process of his life to date.

I know that I’d be nervous about having my game dissected by a top expert in the field on national television. There are extraordinarily few people who wouldn’t feel this pressure and react with a measure of insecurity on some level.

I’m not telling you which of these takes I believe have actual merit.  These interviews are first impressions of a player’s personality away from the field. If I was a manager for a team’s front office, I’d want our organization to spend more time with the player to determine if a variety of co-workers had similar impressions.

For the last time,  these are hypothetical takes of one interview and these observations have no factor in my evaluation of the player as found in the RSP. As with every interview I’m studying in this series I watched it at least twice–often 3-4 times–to gather quotes and study the interaction between Gruden and his interview subject.

Gruden and Boyd: The Intro-Setting the Tone

“I”m definitely a top-three quarterback,” says Tajh Boyd in this opening segment talking to the camera

If you believe this statement then you’ll agree with him. However, most evaluators and scouts don’t share this opinion.

Take the statement for its surface value and Boyd is projecting confidence in his craft. Remember, Boyd isn’t talking to anyone on camera here so his response could be to a question posed by the production crew: “Where do you see yourself in this class of quarterbacks?”

Whether its true or not, what do you expect Boyd to say other than, “I’m definitely a top-three quarterback.”

If no one asked Boyd about where he fits in this class and the actual question was more open-ended question, then there’s some room for debate about Boyd’s answer. Some coaches might have preferred to see Boyd not make the statement about his spot in this class.

Instead, they might have preferred Boyd lead off with specific positive traits of his game (which he did after this initial proclamation that he was top-three). There are two potential reasons:

  • An observer might perceive Boyd’s statement as lacking self-awareness of his talents and shortcomings. No team wants to draft a player who overestimates his abilities to the extent that he doesn’t understand how to prioritize or address his shortcomings.
  • A straight shooter evaluating Boyd may feel the statement is the result of Boyd taking an agent’s advice and behaving too “coached up” for the interview, which can turn off some. Remember, these players and coaches have to work together every day–coaches want to have a sense of the personality they are working with and not be told what the player thinks the coach wants to hear.

Gruden’s initial assessment of Boyd before the two engage in conversation is a statement focused on Boyd’s personality. The coach spends no time in this intro listing any positives about Boyd’s hard skills (technique or understanding of the game or position). Gruden ends the intro by saying, “[Boyd] has a lot to have his eyes opened to.”

One might believe Gruden is saying that Boyd is inexperienced with the finer details of quarterbacking. Based on what I’ve seen on tape and what other analysts have said about Boyd’s on-field performances, there’s a good argument to be made that this is what Gruden meant.

It could also mean that Boyd is naive when it comes to assessing his own abilities. Clemson is a big-time college football program, but even the best college programs are “small ponds” relative to the NFL. A lot of the big fish in those small ponds are deluded into thinking they are a more prepared than they are. An experienced coach like Jon Gruden has seen this before.

The Opening Segment

The coach sets up the interview praising Boyd’s production. He shares that Boyd broke one of Philip Rivers’ records in college.

When Gruden asks Boyd why the quarterback returned to Clemson in 2013, Boyd’s response is thorough–arguably too thorough:

“When you leave you want to make sure you don’t have any questions about your career. About anything. I told myself that I wanted to be the best quarterback in this class. And ultimately I feel like I am most definitely. Does it appear that way to some others? Probably not. But it doesn’t really matter what they think at the end of the day. So for me I felt like I got everything I wanted out of this year. I feel like I matured. I feel like I’m ready to make the leap to this next level. Not only on the field, but off the field. If you can’t handle what happens off the field then you can’t handle what’s on the field. I feel like there’s a maturation process and I feel like I’m well prepared for it.”

Some might listen to this statement and note that Boyd not only brought up that idea about being the best quarterback in this class, but he also anticipated a question (underlined and bold above) that was not even asked: “How do you feel about the fact that most people don’t have you in the top-three of this quarterback class?”

This tactic in Boyd’s answer could indicate that the quarterback feels insecure about his standing in the class. Observers who believe this is the case will say this statement not only detracts from the preceding one saying, “I am most definitively [the best of the group],” but it severely undermines it.

Those who study Boyd’s body language might also see some defensiveness in his statement. After Boyd explains that others may not think he’s the best quarterback in this class and says, “But it doesn’t really matter what they think at the end of the day,” Boyd steeples his fingers towards Gruden.

When an interview subject steeples his fingers and the fingers are pointed upward, it’s a sign of thoughtfulness behind the words being spoken. When the fingers are pointed towards the speaker–which Boyd does towards Gruden–it can be a sign of the speaker creating a barrier of distance from the listener –a defensive position.

The body language and words could reinforce to an observer that Boyd feels defensive and insecure about the way he’s perceived as a prospect. Considering that we’ve heard Boyd say twice in the opening five minutes of the show that he believes he’s one of the top three quarterbacks in this class– it may seem to some that Boyd is trying to sell himself rather than prove himself.

If you buy into Boyd’s body language as a tell, this insecurity and desire to sell his take is further reinforced when the QB places his hand on his chin with his elbow on the table while finishing his final statement, “and I feel like I’m well prepared for it [the maturation process of becoming an NFL quarterback].”

This body language is said to be an indication that the subject is “evaluating” the reaction of the listener. In this case, Boyd’s body langauge could be a non-verbal question: “Is Gruden buying what I’m selling here?”

One could argue that this behavior is natural for a person who’s being interviewed. He’s there to make a good impression. However, some might say Boyd is too eager to make a good impression and he’s not giving enough substantive answers to do it–relying more on projecting confidence than illustrating competency.

Best Louisville prospect in this draft? Maybe, but don't give the short end of the stick to the Cardinals' safety Calvin Pryor. Photo by KYNGPAO
Boyd shows avoidance behaviors and defensive postures during his Gruden interview. Bridgewater also reveals defensive postures, but there’s also subconscious signs that Bridgewater could be disgusted with the conversation find out more later this week. Photo by KYNGPAO

Avoidance Behavior?

The body language analysis continues to point towards insecurity. Gruden tells Boyd that it’s a credit to the quarterback that he finished. The coach then says that he likes people who finish and not enough people do it.

Boyd responds by crossing his arms and holding his biceps in his hands. When a person hugs themselves, it’s considered a non-verbal effort of self-reassurance in a situation where the subject doesn’t feel safe.

To add context to the non-verbal reaction, Gruden told Boyd at the beginning of the segment–before this first question–that he’s praising the QB so it will be a little easier to “come after him.” Boyd has been anticipating this pending criticism and the non-verbal tell could be an indication that Boyd is trying to generate emotional reassurance with the praise he’s been given before the expected criticism.

Gruden continues praising Boyd for the quarterback’s arm strength, signs of accuracy and anticipation, and a quick release. Boyd continues to hug himself.

Then Gruden pulls out the hammer. He asks Boyd about working with his own private quarterback coach. Gruden mentions that some of the work is focused on throwing from different platforms. Gruden finishes by asking, “What are we fixing?”

“I don’t know…that’s the thing,” says Boyd, covering his mouth.  A non-verbal indication of surprise and shock. It can also be a physical manifestation of a person trying to suppress what he’s really thinking, but not saying. “Sometimes you try to fix what you hear and I don’t say I don’t have…I have all the confidence in the world in my arm. I feel like I have the best ball in college football, but you hearing this and that…”

As Boyd is talking, the monitor displays the Clemson quarterback completing a pass in a tight window up the sideline. Without finishing his last sentence, Boyd changes the subject while still covering his mouth with his hand.

“Droppin’ dimes on them coach, look at this,” says Boyd.

The response and the body language could indicate that Boyd is so uncomfortable with that question that he avoids giving specifics and at the first opportunity he changes the subject in a desperate attempt not to address his flaws. Some may believe that Boyd is displaying a consistent pattern of insecurity when it comes to facing his flaws.

There is evidence that he’s being vague, changing the subject, and anticipating or avoiding criticism to the detriment of his responses. The body language underscores this behavior as well.

A more confident interview subject would address specific flaws when asked a direct question about it. Instead, Boyd’s answer indicates either he doesn’t want to tell the audience his flaws or he truly doesn’t know why he he’s paying a quarterback coach a whole hell of a lot of money. Intentionally or otherwise, an observer might see Boyd as resistant to instruction–despite Gruden saying at the end of the episode that he believes Boyd is a player that the coach is confident will take to coaching.

Another perspective on this response could fall into the category of being “coached up” by an agent. Perhaps Boyd took the “project confidence” lessons to the extreme and became afraid of addressing his flaws. Or, perhaps the interview coaching wasn’t thorough and Boyd didn’t have a clear understanding of how to apply the advice.

Again, this appearance on ESPN may be a great opportunity, but it’s also a tough situation. If you’re invited to participate you do it, or else declining it will look bad.

Gruden whips out the Bison to hammer home a ponit about details to Boyd. Photo by Jeremy Kunz.
Gruden whips out the Bison to hammer home a point about details to Boyd. Photo by Jeremy Kunz.

Gruden’s Patience to Make His Point

Later on, Gruden asks Boyd to explain why the QB throws an interception inside the five in this year’s bowl game against Ohio State. Boyd is more relaxed with his body language–his arms are in a non-defensive position, he is leaning back in his chair,  and he goes through the details of the play. He didn’t throw the quick pass and tried to wait for Sammy Watkins to come open in the corner, admitting an error.

It was a genuine, open, and honest response. The body language and specific detail was opposite of the quality of explanation that Boyd gave about having a QB coach.

The fact that Boyd didn’t want to discuss the quarterback coaching but was open about his mistake in judgment on this red zone play could have multiple meanings. One person might say Boyd got more comfortable during the interview and loosened up. Another might say that Boyd is afraid to reveal the details of the coaching because he’s afraid of how the NFL might react and this was a simple decision-making flaw that Boyd knows happens to most quarterbacks from time to time.

After this explanation, Gruden tells Boyd that the QB has to keep growing mentally. Boyd continues to listen while covering his hand over his mouth. Gruden praises Boyd for his potential and then goes into great depth on Boyd’s ball handling as a positive with even greater potential if the quarterback works at the skill.

Gruden then circles back to a point about details. He criticizes Boyd’s poor ball security in a game one week after injuring his hand. It’s a point one begins to see that Gruden hopes to hammer home throughout this interview.

The coach began the show saying he hoped to open Boyd’s eyes. One could argue that Gruden’s question about the quarterback coach that went unanswered was something that the coach expected to happen.

There’s potential credence to his theory as the show progresses–especially when we see the coach stress details with greater emphasis.

The answer-dodging that Gruden gets from Boyd might also be an indicator that the quarterback has not bought into (consciously or otherwise) what he must do to improve his game. Gruden has seen this kind of thing before as a coach.

It is common for a young athlete who has had a lot of success not to realize how much work he truly has to do to get better. Remember, the fine details are the small things that spell a huge gap between college and pro talent. Without a clear perspective of self, it might be difficult to see one’s flaws accurately.

One of Gruden’s talents is setting up his guests. He’s not trying to make these guys look bad, but he continues to press if they dodge him. He’s firm about it, but he still gives a positive note of encouragement so he’s not actively trying to demoralize the guest. It’s important that the audience perceives Gruden as only “wearing” the bad guy hat and can remove it from one segment to the next.

Otherwise, there would be a lot more criticism leveled at Gruden. Imagine if agents didn’t think the coach handled this well? The show might not have made it into its fifth year.

Gruden makes a huge impression on Boyd about details in the next segment. It comes with Boyd’s handling of the Bison 2-Roll blitz.

It’s a play where the safety and outside linebacker blitz off one side while the corner and safety roll to accommodate the blitz side. The defense plays Cover 2 to help support the blitz while rolling over its coverage responsibilities.

Gruden illustrates to Boyd and the audience that the QB has not mastered details important to NFL QB play.

The first Bison 2-Roll Blitz that Gruden shows is a Lamarcus Joyner strip-sack that FSU returns for a touchdown in the first quarter. Boyd fails to recognize the blitz pre-snap.

Gruden gives the old, “fool me once/fool me twice,” quote to set up a clip of the Clemson coach on the sideline whispering to Boyd after the play. Gruden speculates that the coach is telling Boyd, “watch out for the Bison they’re going to come back to it.”

Boyd’s response is what could be described as nervous laughter and it’s accompanied by the phrase “Oh my God.” One could make the next assumption that Boyd is thinking I’‘m about to get reamed on national TV for missing this twice in a game.

What Gruden shows next is a play later in the game. FSU’s defense has nine guys on the field and Boyd fails to quick-snap the ball. He allows FSU to get a 10th player on the field. Even then, the defense is a player short when Boyd starts the play and the quarterback sill throws an interception in scoring territory.

The most damning part of this segment could be the fact that Gruden asks Boyd before the play begins how many players FSU has on the field. Boyd says “10” twice when it’s actually 9. When Gruden corrects Boyd, the QB purses his lips and his quiet reaction is a strong indication of disappointment if you buy into the body language.

Unlike Andrew Luck and some of the other players who appeared on this show, Boyd does not seem to remember this play. Luck seemed to know that Spider-Two, Y-Banana was leading to a specific play during the season.

It seems Boyd either didn’t know this was the play that was coming or if he did, he didn’t remember the details. Not remembering the details of a play that was a huge mistake might lead some observers to believe that Boyd doesn’t study the film as intently as he should. Others might say Boyd forgot and don’t over-analyze it.

One thing is apparent; Boyd is clearly withdrawn and angry.

“Does this piss you off?”

All Boyd can do is respond with a non-verbal affirmative

Valid reason, excuse, or denial. Three ways people might see Boyd's invocation of Favre. Photo by Elvis Kennedy.
Valid reason, excuse, or denial. Three ways people might see Boyd’s invocation of Favre. Photo by Elvis Kennedy.

Leadership

“What kind of a leader were you after this,” Gruden asks. Boyd responds with a longer answer:

“I learned a lot from it. Probably the biggest lesson I learned in my whole career. After my young guy came off the field after the first play (the strip by Joyner on a quick pass) nothing really happened. I just kind of came back to the sideline and didn’t say anything thinking we’d be okay, but we weren’t okay. We werent okay as a team. I wasn’t okay, he wasn’t okay, and we weren’t okay as a team. If I had talked to the team I could have change the course of that game for the team. I had a rough game and it was just a downhill spiral…one of the best things I learned was to make sure you’re proactive.”

Boyd is talking about leadership lessons, but not the details. Boyd appeared as if this was the first time he heard about Bison. This is something one could attribute to the Clemson coaching staff–right or wrong–but it could also be on Boyd. Either way, the better QB prospects already have the leadership component down and are focusing on the strategic improvements. Boyd talks as if he is a step behind as a leader and a quarterback.

“It’s all in the details,” says Gruden. “Film study and countless hours of work.”

Another thing I see with Boyd in this interview is forced laughter while he’s criticized. This is often a sign of nervousness, stress, and seeking empathy from other person. Again, can you blame him for feeling these emotions? Most of these prospects are going to show some level of insecurity with their body language in this environment.

Boyd’s laughter is much different from the chuckle when Gruden showed a tape of an N.C. State fan doubled over in grief in the stands. That laugh seemed more genuine and joyful–especially since Boyd had eight touchdowns in the game.

Gruden tells Boyd that he sees a player with peaks and valleys and the NFL sees it too. He asks Boyd what does he think about that perception.

“You know honestly, again I feel like consistency is what got me to the point where I’m at. I feel like I’m one of the more consistent players out there. But in order to be great in anything that you do you have to go out there and take risks,” says Boyd. At this point Gruden smiles a very tight-lipped smile and begins writing. Gruden’s body language here is often seen as “guarded,” indicating a reaction he doesn’t want to share because he doesn’t like or trust what he heard from Boyd. “You can take check-downs all day if you want to but check-downs don’t always lead to touchdowns. You have to go out there and try to make it happen sometimes.”

Boyd goes on to link his tendencies to Brett Favre’s risk-taking. Depending on the observer, Boyd’s use of Favre could be seen as a form of denial and delusions of grandeur about his play or if the observer thinks Boyd can develop into a starter then it’s a valid point.

Gruden’s response is to repeat the phrase, “peak and valley” three times.  This response from Gruden could come across as a subtle way of telling Boyd that he’s stubbornly refusing to admit fault or he’s in denial about the comparison. Either way, it there’s evidence that Gruden isn’t convinced that Boyd is a student of the game.

“Will you promise me that you’ll be relentless with the details,” asks Gruden, telling Boyd that many of these things are very easy to fix.

Gruden finishes the show explaining to the camera that he likes Boyd’s toughness, willingness to work, and the fact that he’s the type of player that a coach will feel confident that he can develop.

The most critical takeaway from his show might be that Boyd doesn’t have a clear picture of what he has to learn, doesn’t want to admit flaws, and doesn’t study the details. If these are all true, then observers who have this viewpoint will not be as optimistic about Boyd’s developmental potential.

Others may believe Boyd was coached not to discuss his flaws or took his media coaching to an extreme that wasn’t as nuanced as it should be. They might be more forgiving of his avoidance behavior. They might go either way on Boyd’s lack of detailed focus on the film.

However, many observers might see a confident young quarterback who might be a little too confident for own good and they’ll see this arrogance as a positive in some ways. They will see a friendly young man, who was clearly angry with his mistakes and guarded with his responses because he was under the microscope on national television. If they believe he can improve, there’s little here that might dissuade them from taking a shot on him.

For actual analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio – available now. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

 

Reads Listens Views 4/25/2014

Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down. Photo by Fraser Elliot.
Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down. Photo by Fraser Elliot.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Wobble Masters and Teddy Bridgewater, Donny Hathaway, and a good daddy.

What is Reads Listens Views?

If you’re new to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio blog, welcome.  I post links on Friday to content I’m saving for later consumption. You may not like everything listed here, but you’re bound to like something.

Listens/Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/KEeBPSvcNZQ?start=3689]

Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked about Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ comments about genetic differences with men and women in science and gave a compelling answer about race in America. A great listen that only takes a few minutes.

 Opinion

I read Greg Cosell’s take on Teddy Bridgewater and Blake Bortles two days ago and there were two things that surprised me about Cosell’s views. The first was this quote:

Bridgewater doesn’t spin it very well; too many passes came out wobbly. If you don’t think that’s a concern for NFL coaches, then you are not watching the NFL.

I watch the NFL. In fact, I watch this guy a lot who has been known for his wobbly throws since his days as a Volunteer.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/1aq_VzigxHo]

This guy that Cosell has great affection for as one of the best pocket passers in the game. A guy, whose wobbly passes in the video below are harder to see here, but the Boston Globe’s beat reporter seemed to have no problem seeing them (or dozens of fans and writers and Twitter) all season when in January, he said that “Rivers hasn’t thrown a perfect spiral in forever…

[youtube=http://youtu.be/-wMEVeiYl28&start=74]

Here’s a guy who threw flocks of baby ducks interspersed with some aesthetically beautiful passes throughout his MVP career.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/Xau9mcAXhz4&start=300]

And I grew up on this guy who said “I’ve never been a guy who threw a tight spiral. Everyone who plays with me says I throw a tight wobble, not a tight spiral.”

[youtube=http://youtu.be/nkKHj7TmJt0]

And if you think he’s kidding, here’s another quote from Joe Montana talking about his wobbly passes.

Now don’t get me wrong, there’s no question that a tight spiral is preferable on a deep ball.  And I’m not attacking Greg Cosell, who is a fine analyst of the game–I’m questioning his points.

Cosell is an aesthete when it comes to quarterbacking. While it’s a fantastic quality to possess and it comes from three decades of experience studying football, there’s a degree of nitpicking with the wobbly pass analysis.

In light of Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Steve McNair, and Joe Montana’s work, I think his inference  if you don’t agree with me then you aren’t watching football is melodramatic.

I also have questions about what Cosell means when he  says Bridgewater and Bortles can be starters, but not “top quarterbacks” if they don’t improve their deep game. I don’t know what his definition is for a “top quarterback.”  Is it a handful of passers or half the starters in the league?

If it’s the latter, I could find more NFL successful quarterbacks who throw wobbly deep balls as supporting evidence–and I don’t have to go back to Billy Kilmer’s era to do it–but I want to address the second piece of this analysis of Bortles and Bridgewater that runs counter to what I’ve seen on film.

Cosell says Bridgewater “had to put a lot of body into those [deep] throws; as a result, he struggled with trajectory and accuracy.” In contrast, he said, “Bortles will improve his lower body mechanics with more coaching and more refinement.”

Did Bridgewater “put everything” into this throw that covered 48 yards from the line of scrimmage and 56 yards from his release point?

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZzmXxB64ec&w=560&h=315]

I don’t see an overcompensation to drive the ball. If anything, there wasn’t enough use of his legs to drive through the pass.

TBDeep

On the other hand, I see Bortles putting far more into his throws to deliver a downfield pass. This one is a 34-yard throw from the opposite hash covering 43 yards from the release point.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6JLz-M9E8E&start=380w=560&h=315]

In fact there are numerous opposite hash throws in the short and intermediate range where Bortles wheels his entire body through his release with the hope of generating momentum.

BortlesDee

 

When I watch Bridgewater, I see a player who had smaller adjustments to make with his throwing motion than Bortles to deliver a ball with greater velocity. If I’m right, add it to the list of reasons why people are grossly underestimating Bridgewater. If I’m wrong, this will be another learning opportunity for me with quarterback mechanics

Listens

[youtube=http://youtu.be/9eotl7otdlo]

Thanks, Bloom . . .

Download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio

Friday’s are also my chance to thank you for reading my work, encourage you to follow the RSP blog, and download the Rookie Scouting Portfolio publication.

The RSP is available every April 1 for download. This year’s RSP is nearly 300 pages in the draft guide section and filled with analysis of  164 skill position prospects that has earned a loyal following:

  • Rankings
  • Draft history analysis
  • Overrated/Underrated analysis
  • Multidimensional player comparisons
  • Individual skills analysis by position

You can learn more about the RSP here. If you want to see samples of the play-by-play notes I take to write the analysis, you can find them here. If you want to know what my readers say about it, look here. If you want a quick video tour, here it is:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsQwtyOCDM&feature=share]

If you don’t have time to look into details, know that once you look through the RSP, there will be no question in your mind that I do the work, that I have a plan about the work that I do, and that you get more than your money’s worth. It’s why more and more draftniks every spring can’t wait until April 1.

If you think that’s a ton, you ain’t seen nothing. When you purchase the RSP, you also get a free post-draft publication that’s available for download a week after the NFL Draft. Fantasy football owners tell me all the time that this alone is worth the price.

Best yet, 10 percent of each RSP sale is donated to Darkness to Light, a non-profit devoted to preventing and addressing sexual abuse through community training in schools, religious groups, and a variety of civic groups across the U.S.

Here is what the RSP donated to D2L this year. According to D2L, the RSP’s 2013 donation amount was enough to train 250 adults in communities across the country.

Pre-order the 2014 RSP and/or download past versions of the publication (2006-2012).

In Case You Missed It/Coming Soon

Reads (Football)

Listens

[youtube=http://youtu.be/7rWtDMPaRD8]

 Reads (Life In General)

Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/Bpu0TIXzI1w]
This dad clearly knows how to talk to his kid like a human being in an age-appropriate manner that’s not condescending. Also, he obviously spends a lot of time with her. Great video.