Cracking the code: Introducing the 'Trench Explosion Formula

[TeamoftheCentury]

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.

Gotcha. You're looking for team fits. No need to verify anything. I take you at your word. (btw... I'm not just looking for 4 year starters. That was just something impressive about Boehm. That's all.)

"Predicting" anything is tough, no matter how one looks at it and none of us are as good at it as we might think we are.
"Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?" - Steven Wright :lol:

Quick tangent:
Last year I compared draft rumors galore looking for the inside scoop on what players teams were really interested in vs. which were probably smoke screens. That's guess work. I ended up with 13 right in the first round last year (won our .net draft contest for the 2nd time in 3 years.) But, once I finalized the picks before the last draft, I laughed at my picks because it felt like more a roll of the dice since I could see several players fitting various teams. Felt like it was going to go all haywire. Obviously, a lot of thought went into it b/c an uninformed person is less likely to get that many right with all the variables. It was a lot of fun seeing how pieces fell into place early in the draft to give my picks a chance. But, I could have just as easily been wrong - and very much so. I just happened to believe the right rumors that I found. There was more thought than that, but sort of built from there. And, there weren't as many trades that were suspected before the draft. That would have messed up everything.

We all like trying to predict the draft... or at least project players/ team draft picks. But, it's just the armchair GM game. I've enjoyed it since I was a young kid. The potential of how draft picks could improve rosters and possibly help a teams' outlook is fascinating.

PC often says something like that they bring in players that might not fit a profile, but they like to find out what they do well and how that can help the team. Something like that, you know what I'm talking about. I think that sort of approach defines the Hawks - players that don't necessarily look to be a fit for a particular team, but they can play and he loves giving guys a chance to excel.

 

[McGruff]

If it makes you feel any better, I love Josh Garnett. I think he's the best offensive lineman in the draft. He's from Washington and has even visited with Seattle.

But it's a waste of time for me to pine for him. I'd don't think their is any way we draft him.

 

[Hawkscanner]

Good overall conversation. I would agree that it's abundantly clear that Explosiveness (summed up in Rob's formula here) is obviously central to what the Seahawks look for when they are scouting linemen. They like that super athletic SPARQy player who ticks all of the boxes in terms of all the measureables (height, length, broad jump, vertical, etc.).

And what they've been doing in drafting Defensive Linemen in the 6th and 7th round and converting them over to offensive HAS merit, as those guys are better athletes at that point in the draft than any offensive linemen you'd generally get at that point. Granted.

However, I'm wondering given what we saw from the offensive line last year if they have re-examined some of their thinking and/or approach when it comes to the offensive line. I'm wondering, are they placing much more emphasis on experience? Are they factoring in experience and smarts (savvy, guys who it's apparent know the tricks of the trade that veteran offensive linemen only pick up through experience) as well as Explosiveness when it comes to their current evaluations as well?

Thoughts anyone?

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Good overall conversation. I would agree that it's abundantly clear that Explosiveness (summed up in Rob's formula here) is obviously central to what the Seahawks look for when they are scouting linemen. They like that super athletic SPARQy player who ticks all of the boxes in terms of all the measureables (height, length, broad jump, vertical, etc.).

And what they've been doing in drafting Defensive Linemen in the 6th and 7th round and converting them over to offensive HAS merit, as those guys are better athletes at that point in the draft than any offensive linemen you'd generally get at that point. Granted.

However, I'm wondering given what we saw from the offensive line last year if they have re-examined some of their thinking and/or approach when it comes to the offensive line. I'm wondering, are they placing much more emphasis on experience? Are they factoring in experience and smarts (savvy, guys who it's apparent know the tricks of the trade that veteran offensive linemen only pick up through experience) as well as Explosiveness when it comes to their current evaluations as well?

Thoughts anyone?

I think you may have something here!
There's more to what SPARQ metrics can't measure.

[youtube]5SDqa1hw2-M[/youtube]

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

If it makes you feel any better, I love Josh Garnett. I think he's the best offensive lineman in the draft. He's from Washington and has even visited with Seattle.

But it's a waste of time for me to pine for him. I'd don't think their is any way we draft him.

Feel any better?

That comes across a bit condescending because I'm not emotionally attached to any player here (like if they're from Washington state, etc.) But, while I hope the Hawks don't draft Garnett (I'm not as high on him as you are), again... I'm not "pining" for a player.

I think this conversation has probably about run it's course. But, I'll see if what I offer here helps clear up any misunderstanding.

Simply stating the merits of a player isn't a waste of time and I'm not going to be so overconfident as to suggest that the Seahawks would "never" draft a particular player. Even with mounds of evidence, "we" are not the decision makers. We're merely discussing prospects. I can grant "probability" vs. "possibility". But, I think it can go too far among fans who do not actually reside inside the draft room. Even with our best guesswork and so forth, we've been surprised before and most assuredly we will be again.

I'm merely trying to argue a case for eval beyond SPARQ. I'm interested in the pro prospects of FOOTBALL PLAYERS and less about how numbers taken from a measuring tape potentially could show up on the field. I don't mean to minimize that , either. I'm not against the formulas and I see the correlations. Would have to turn a blind eye, which I'm not going to do. But, there are things about a strict adherence that I think can get promoted to the point of being unreasonable.

Sorry, I don't see it as a waste of time to dismiss a talent that doesn't miss the mark on tape and inside his head and chest. Call me crazy, but there's just something about seeing a player perform well on the field over a convincing period of time along with what coaches confirm about the player a team would be drafting that still hold a lot of weight in my book. unno:

Thank you, Hawkscanner. I think you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[McGruff]

My apologies for appearing condescending. That was not my intent. My intent was merely to show that I also have players that I love on tape who I remove from being a probable candidate for Seattle after the tests come in, based on past history. That is just what I do and how I approach the draft.

So if you ask for opinions on any prospect, just know that I cam coming from the perspective of "fit for Seattle" not from a general scouting perspective. I would not and am not asking you or anone else to change your process or evaluations. And I will not change mine.

Again, I am not at all meaning to stifle discussion or insult or demean anyone else. I am and always will only offer my own opinion, which is and always will be my opinion of what I think k Seattle will think of a player.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

My apologies for appearing condescending. That was not my intent. My intent was merely to show that I also have players that I love on tape who I remove from being a probable candidate for Seattle after the tests come in, based on past history. That is just what I do and how I approach the draft.

So if you ask for opinions on any prospect, just know that I cam coming from the perspective of "fit for Seattle" not from a general scouting perspective. I would not and am not asking you or anone else to change your process or evaluations. And I will not change mine.

Again, I am not at all meaning to stifle discussion or insult or demean anyone else. I am and always will only offer my own opinion, which is and always will be my opinion of what I think k Seattle will think of a player.

Sure. We (all of us) just have to be careful to not come across opinionated with those opinions... that only our opinions are worth anything. Btw, who exactly did I ask you your opinion about related to this? I didn't actually ask your opinion of Boehm. Maybe you're referring to another player I have forgotten I'd asked you about? I don't recall.

If we're only on these boards to express our opinion and not consider others, then why are we even here? That's a one-way street, not discussion, right? Just looking for an audience for our opinions.

No one is asking you to change. So, no need to even think that. No need to assume my perspective, either. Why would I or anyone else apply a general scouting perspective to a fit for the Seahawks? General scouting assessments are certainly part of it, but others besides you also think about specific fits for Seattle. We just might not agree on how narrow we think the Hawks go about it. I believe the data that suggests they value SPARQ (et al), but are at liberty to deviate.

Opinion stated. Carry on.

 

[McGruff]

It wasn't a specific ask . . . It was one of those "what do you guys think?" Kind of threads . . .

But it doesn't really matter anymore. I thought we were past it a while ago, which is why I was joking about it in other threads, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for the midunderstanding.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I thought we were past it a while ago... but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for the midunderstanding.

Past what? It's still draft season, right?

If there's some perceived emotional thing going on, then yes... you did get that wrong. So, no need to apologize. Man, we're just talking about topics relating to draft philosophy in a forum. I am getting the idea the your opinions are probably beyond persuasions and more like convictions. You're not alone. Other's have more than mere opinions as well about which players the Seahawks will consider in the draft.
But, the question is... :stirthepot: will we see the Hawks deviate this year from what has been gathered about their apparent adherences in recent years?

Whatever the case, it's great to have such a place like .net to be able to get into it about the draft.

So, really... I'm good. :snack: On my end it's never been an issue.

 

[poplarbluffman]

good work agree about the Seahawks connection and your work

will point out looking historically since 2006 biggest flaw is lifts..long arms=poor lifts

also the 225 isn't a great indicator of strength...Travis Frederick only did 21 lifts but set many weight room records at wisconsin

vertical and broad are usually connected see one good score expect the other to be good.

as always intelligence/hand punch and aggression need to be included as well as 3 cone and short shuttle under 4.6 and 7.6

I liked Glowinski coming out but knew he was jc kid...which would hurt his chances

Yanda had off the charts hand punch/aggression and while played at a jc was a econ major at Iowa

add if you ignore lifts then players like Richter (think he could be a very good center), Whitehair and Brandon Shell would be on the list..also Shonn Coleman is very explosive and would of done well if healthy

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

I just heard Danny O'Neil on 710 mention the "Trench Explosion Quotient" in relation to the Seahawks' penchant for big broad jumpers.

But he didn't mention where he heard about it.

 

[jammerhawk]

Danny needs to attribute his information to the Seahawks Draft Blog. Good job Rob!