Largent80
New member
Awesome work....what else needs to be said?
Cracking the code: Introducing the 'Trench Explosion Formula
- Thread starter theENGLISHseahawk
- Start date
Trenchbroom
New member
Really like the article and formula--LOVE the formula name! 
bjornanderson21
New member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 885
- Reaction score
- 0
It's fine for teams to have criteria for what their ideal player is, but then you need to go back and see how well that has worked out.
For the seahawks, whatever they've been doing hasn't been working so their method is flawed at best, and horrible at worst.
For the seahawks, whatever they've been doing hasn't been working so their method is flawed at best, and horrible at worst.
Attyla the Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,559
- Reaction score
- 47
bjornanderson21":3jccsfzj said:
Well what they've been doing is making the playoffs every year and not put themselves into a position to get the better guys that fit their ideal.
So I guess in a sense what they've been doing (competing for championships) hasn't been working at all.
That said, when you look at the guys that fit that criteria, who we were interested in early in the draft and who were taken ahead of us -- they've fared pretty well.
To me, the methodology is sound. The OL is one that apparently by design, we're going to stock with largely rookie contracts. That's what pays for our excess elsewhere on the team. And as I look at the roster now -- it probably will remain this way until Sherman/Wagner/Thomas ends up declining in skill and are replaced.
Any guy we take early, can be almost assured they will only be here for 4 years. The going rate for good/not great OL talent is just far too steep.
Basically, I don't care that our OL is rated low by PFF or by conventional standard. Look at the better OLs in the league. Their teams as a whole are pretty awful. Cowboys have one playoff win in over a decade. Cleveland had a better OL than us by apparently miles. The only top 5 they are winning is overall draft position.
Be good where it counts. Go dumpster diving where it doesn't hurt. Don't lose the forest for the trees.
OP
OP
theENGLISHseahawk
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 9,977
- Reaction score
- 0
kearly":2olo05ks said:
Possibly, but I think the formula is more about ruling people in and out of contention than identifying the most explosive athlete and assuming he'll be the pick.
They might go DL at #26 because they can get McGovern in round two and Haeg or Dahl with one of the third round picks.
Attyla the Hawk":2mcez1b7 said:
I don't know that I agree. I think if they drated a lineman who was truly great, they wouldn't hesitate to sign them to a big contract. That what Seattle does. Play great and they will pay you.
Attyla the Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,559
- Reaction score
- 47
McGruff":2ij5otli said:
You might be right. By the time a rookie in this class comes up for a 2nd contract, Sherman will be 31. About time to roll over on the contracts.
DJrmb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 517
So I decided to answer my own question from above and see how prevalent this physical profile is among the top lineman at their positions in the NFL. I tried to go off a few different opinions of the top tackles, guards, and centers from various websites and then check the approximate top 10 players (that I could find all 3 stats for). It came out pretty interesting.
The top tackles all seemed to fit into this profile almost down the board the only 2 that missed a 3.0 or better grade did so with really low bench press results which was likely fixed in the weight room after they were drafted.
The top guards seemed to be all over the place. They easily had the greatest range between Evan Mathis at 3.71 and Jahri Evans at 2.29.
Centers were a little more consistent in the mid to upper 2's. Max Unger had the lowest score of any of the 30 lineman I calculated at a dismal 2.24.
One trend I noticed while going through the different positions is that the best tackles all seemed to be very even between the 3 measurements. They didn't really have measurement that basically "made" their score for them. This was similar with centers as well just in lower quantities in each measurement. However the best guards tended to make up a large portion of their scores in the bench press. The only guards to score higher than a 1.0 in either their vertical or broad jump were Evan Mathis and Joel Bitonio.
The top tackles all seemed to fit into this profile almost down the board the only 2 that missed a 3.0 or better grade did so with really low bench press results which was likely fixed in the weight room after they were drafted.
The top guards seemed to be all over the place. They easily had the greatest range between Evan Mathis at 3.71 and Jahri Evans at 2.29.
Centers were a little more consistent in the mid to upper 2's. Max Unger had the lowest score of any of the 30 lineman I calculated at a dismal 2.24.
One trend I noticed while going through the different positions is that the best tackles all seemed to be very even between the 3 measurements. They didn't really have measurement that basically "made" their score for them. This was similar with centers as well just in lower quantities in each measurement. However the best guards tended to make up a large portion of their scores in the bench press. The only guards to score higher than a 1.0 in either their vertical or broad jump were Evan Mathis and Joel Bitonio.
hawkfan68
Well-known member
Very interesting...nice stuff English!
Hawkscanner
New member
Awesome work Rob! That formula appears to dovetail beautifully with the history of what the Seahawks have actually drafted in recent years. You may have hit upon something similar to what they really use in evaluating linemen. Very nice job indeed!
Hawkscanner
New member
kearly":3127esb9 said:
That's what I've been saying and I said it for the reasons Rob laid out here with his formula. Extremely athletic measureables across the board. I'm not saying that I'd necessarily agree with the pick, but all signs appear to be pointing towards Spriggs being a guy that Seattle would be very interested in if he's there at #26.
EMTHawkfan
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 0
Very good read Rob, nice work.
Question...where did you find Joe Haeg's bench press numbers for your formula? Everything I've read says he didn't lift at the combine or his pro day.
Question...where did you find Joe Haeg's bench press numbers for your formula? Everything I've read says he didn't lift at the combine or his pro day.
OP
OP
theENGLISHseahawk
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 9,977
- Reaction score
- 0
EMTHawkfan":1eq35bq1 said:
Because he's such an interesting player (seahawks heavy presence at his pro day) I just gave him the average bench reps for the group in order to make the calculation. So his score could go up or down.
TeamoftheCentury
Well-known member
So, to be clear, I'm not an outright proponent of drafting Evan Boehm. (I'm sort of leaning toward Mike Matthews at this point. :tomato: ) But, I would say that Boehm is going to have a better than decent NFL career.
His critics, answer this for me. Mike Mayock is pretty well respected for his evaluations and analysis. It's not easy to crack his "Top 5". In his latest rankings, Boehm is the #4 Center prospect.
Center
1. Ryan Kelly, Alabama
2. Nick Martin, Notre Dame
3. Max Tuerk, USC
4. Evan Boehm, Missouri
T-5. Graham Glasgow, Michigan
T-5. Jack Allen, Michigan State
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ankings-30
I understand that some are deemed not necessarily a fit for the Seahawks based on SPARQ, the broad jump, etc. So, is Mayock careless with all that data? Is he oblivious? (I can't imagine that) I've gotta believe that Mayock has his formulas, too, for ranking the various positions.
I've read and understand the rationales FOR the prospects a few here at .net champion. I'm more interested in how others feel about where he ranks Boehm. Do you agree with Mayock that Boehm is a top Center prospect? Do you agree with those who rave about his leadership, etc. The only place I've found negative viewpoints about the player is here on .net
I respect the opinions and even admire the thought and time spent in the work to project which players are more likely to end up drafted by the Hawks. So, don't get me wrong.
Is my question clear? I'm not trying to start $#!+ Thanks.
His critics, answer this for me. Mike Mayock is pretty well respected for his evaluations and analysis. It's not easy to crack his "Top 5". In his latest rankings, Boehm is the #4 Center prospect.
Center
1. Ryan Kelly, Alabama
2. Nick Martin, Notre Dame
3. Max Tuerk, USC
4. Evan Boehm, Missouri
T-5. Graham Glasgow, Michigan
T-5. Jack Allen, Michigan State
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ankings-30
I understand that some are deemed not necessarily a fit for the Seahawks based on SPARQ, the broad jump, etc. So, is Mayock careless with all that data? Is he oblivious? (I can't imagine that) I've gotta believe that Mayock has his formulas, too, for ranking the various positions.
I've read and understand the rationales FOR the prospects a few here at .net champion. I'm more interested in how others feel about where he ranks Boehm. Do you agree with Mayock that Boehm is a top Center prospect? Do you agree with those who rave about his leadership, etc. The only place I've found negative viewpoints about the player is here on .net
I respect the opinions and even admire the thought and time spent in the work to project which players are more likely to end up drafted by the Hawks. So, don't get me wrong.
Is my question clear? I'm not trying to start $#!+ Thanks.
Attyla the Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,559
- Reaction score
- 47
TeamoftheCentury":jhgr9wc9 said:
Not at all. I think as a national analyst, you kind of blend all of that. And in truth, Seattle is a lot more formulaic about how they build their team than others as it pertains to SPARQ. That's mostly because Seattle looks at these guys as pupils and development players. Not what they've done. But what they can get them to be. National draft pundits almost to a man have no experience in that regard whatsoever.
TeamoftheCentury":jhgr9wc9 said:
I actually believe that most of the active followers of the draft -- at least in the Seahawks community here and on SDB are much more evolved than that. There is a rare depth of understanding and willingness to set aside guys we love -- and objectively look at prospects from a PCJS lens. If you look at other fan communities around the league there aren't many as willing to deep dive into the draft process to reverse engineer the kinds of players their teams show interest in. It's gone so far as to be able to identify the other teams that mirror our methodology and to see who else to watch lurking about our prospect 'cookie jar' closely as the draft unfolds.
I don't see a lot of people championing players because they personally covet them. Instead I see a lot of fans trying to decipher what this front office has done by way of the guys we've drafted and the guys we've worked out, brought in for visits etc. and analyzed these guys to arrive at a predictive model.
The reality is, this FO does apply metrics -- in a very predictable way. And we're constantly revisiting and revising that model as we come to a greater understanding of it. It's evolving most definitely. But I don't see us 'hating' on Boehm. Some may really like him. But it's also pretty easy to concede that we're likely not putting him on our board no matter the intangibles. Because we've been consistent in passing on those kinds of players.
I think it's easy to see people say we won't have him on our board and see that as a negative viewpoint. I would offer that it's not necessarily a negative on Boehm. There are a lot of players who turn into good/great players that Seattle wouldn't or didn't consider. There is an element to team fit and how one builds a team that make some guys just not viable even though they can be wildly successful elsewhere. Not being on Seattle's board isn't a kiss of death.
Two ways to approach the draft . . . What I think, and what I think they think. I prefer to pursue the second, but still try to evaluate on my own.
Which I guess makes for a third option . . . What I think about what I think they think.
Which I guess makes for a third option . . . What I think about what I think they think.
TeamoftheCentury
Well-known member
Thanks for taking the time to respond Attyla (and McGruff.) To be fair, I don't recall saying posters were "hating" on Boehm. That's another level. I merely said he has his critics (as far as a Seahawks prospect, I understand.) I was starting to get the idea that there's apparent negativity present here towards his prospects. To me, going that far is ludicrous. (So, McGruff, you think he's a great Center, just not a fit for the Seahawks?) Some posters have said he was aweful in the Senior Bowl, etc.Attyla the Hawk":1gy6l377 said:
It's a completely different take to say, "Great player, just probably not a fit for the Hawks" (Give him his due) vs. "The Hawks would NEVER draft him" (meaning, even if he was the only top Center prospect available and the rest of the Centers available were not good, you'd rather take a chump Center vs a guy who produced at a high level for 4 years? That's an extreme that doesn't jive with me.)
Mayock obviously thinks he's shown plenty. Again, Boehm is a pawn for discussion sake. Not clamoring for the guy (but, I think he screams "Raiders" and wouldn't be surprised to see him end up there.) The Seahawks did attend a workout of McGovern and Boehm. I agree it was probably for the former, but I would say I wouldn't rule out that they were at least curious about Boehm for his leadership, his durability, etc.
I'm not questioning JS/PC - obviously they know what they're looking for. I'm just not convinced that codes have have been completely cracked. There is some evidence (like the O-lineman that were drafted last year), but what we don't know is if those were their first choices or they fell back on SPARQ when their targeted players were gone.
I appreciate all the metrics, but I'm not entirely convinced they produce better draft picks altogether... I'm thinking that could result in "over-thinking" the draft a bit and possibly missing out on players who are quite good in exchange for possible projects just because they fit formulas. My opinion is that the formulas are a means to the desired end, but not the entire story. Seems like it could be a bigger risk to go with a guy who has arms 1/2 inch longer that doesn't have near the same production in college vs. a player with more convincing tape. Can they play football? (ie: Tyrann Mathieu)
I don't disagree with you. Fact is, I haven't scouted Boehm extensively because of the high probability that he isn't a prospect for us. I'm of the opinion that if prefer the Seahawks current method, but that it will often over look superior prospects who might not fit the profile.
For the record, and jammer can vouch for this, when Rusk ell was here I almost ecusivy scouted 4 year starters at big schools in major conferences with leadership roles whose athletic profile was low risk, low upside. When it comes to the draft, I have always been more interested in predicting the team versus predicting the player.
For the record, and jammer can vouch for this, when Rusk ell was here I almost ecusivy scouted 4 year starters at big schools in major conferences with leadership roles whose athletic profile was low risk, low upside. When it comes to the draft, I have always been more interested in predicting the team versus predicting the player.
TeamoftheCentury
Well-known member
Sure, there are different ways of thinking about the draft. That's basic. I certainly try to not ever care much about what I think. I think it was Kearly who said in another thread he doesn't get attached to players anymore because you'll be let down. I enjoy learn from reading perspectives at .net and other places. I'm not consumed with trying to know what the Hawks are thinking. Some of that is fine, but they still draft players that make us scratch our heads until we take a closer look at the player after the draft and understand why they drafted him, hear more info in the pressers, etc.McGruff":jpvj5e43 said:
I just can't yet fully jump on board that the Hawks have such a stubborn adherence to certain formulas to not consider players that just scream "10-year career" vs. players that look like projects that may not ever see the field.
There are solid picks and misses no matter what formulas teams devise. I think teams must have another layer of "Come on, now" discussion before they settle their board. My opinion is... I actually think they do. I trust the Hawks have lively discussions between scouts, position coaches, etc. leading up to the draft. Oh, what fun that would be to be a fly on the wall!
Similar threads
