Saturday, April 30, 2016

NY Jets Draft Polarizing QB




Yesterday, my football dream came true when the Jets drafted former Penn State quarterback Christian Hackenberg.  But for many other fans, that dream was a nightmare. 

“The Buccaneers traded actual picks to take a kicker in the second round & it wasn't even the dumbest thing that happened today. #Hackenberg  @jwyeNFL”

“Can't put into 140 characters how pissed off I am about #jets drafting #Hackenberg! Mike you've lost the plot on this one I'm afraid! 😡 ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ @danlahunter”

Hackenberg or Hack, was the top QB prospect coming out of Fork Union Military Academy where he led the school to a state championship as a sophomore, getting back to the final game as a senior.  His career at Penn State started on fire but ended in flames as he was sacked over 100 times .  Completions declined.  Footwork fundamentals became unwound.   He was constantly maligned in the press and social media as a sure-fire pre-draft bust. 

Despite all that, I still have him as the best QB coming out of the draft and I am ecstatic my Jets drafted him.  Here’s why:

The Guy:

Both parents were collegiate athletes.  From a genetic, discipline and competitive standpoint, such players can have an advantage.  Dad was a football player at UVA.   HS football coaches may not always have as much time to develop players as they would like.  Players coming from a football family (Tyler Lockett, Rob Gronkowski, Derek Carr) have access to college and pro level concepts, coaches, players and facilities from Pop Warner on.

Penn State Adversity:

Sandusky Scandal – Despite the horrific scandal that rocked PSU and saw top prospects de-commit,  he maintained his commitment to Penn State.  Maybe he didn’t fully understand the impact the bad publicity and sanctions would have on his surrounding cast but to stand by your commitment despite the opportunity to leave for one of his other scholarship offers (and he had them from many top schools) shows a lot of character.  Many others de-committed, including first round WR Will Fuller who went on to Notre Dame.

When his coach Bill O’Brien, the man who carried the whole of Penn State on his shoulders through the aftermath of the scandal, left for the NFL, Hack had another opportunity to sit out a year and move on to another program.  Again, he stayed to fulfill his commitment.

With the hiring of Coach  Franklin, we saw a clear disintegration in Hack’s performance. As pointed out on many outlets, his footwork was totally changed by the staff.  In my opinion, some coaches get fixated on how things should be and forget that if something isn’t broken, don’t fix it.  When asked by John Gruden why Hack changed his footwork, he replied, “Because they asked me to.”  He’s a young man who respects his coaches.  If he fought change, the media would have been all over him for being a trouble maker.   Despite having accomplished so much using the techniques he’d built all his life, he respected his coaches and made changes, although to his detriment.  In the hands of coaches who understand how to use the talents their players bring to the table and don’t try to reprogram successful players, he will be able to build on his solid foundation.


Playing the Game

Hackenberg played in a pro style system.  That is why he wanted to go to Penn State.  He was under center and was able to make adjustments at the line of scrimmage.  If you are in a spread offense at the college level, not only are you not under center, but you have to learn many new concepts like the exchange with the center, dropping based on the play and footwork in play action.  This is a huge advantage he has over the QBs drafted before him in the 2016 draft. 

Given he is in a pro system his ability to read defenses at the line is critical.  If the defensive scheme would blow up a play, he is free to recognize, change the play and OL protection and exploit a defensive miscue.  One thing I’ve noticed is, despite the off the mark passes,  Hack rarely makes the wrong decision in terms of where the weakness is on defense.  Fully clear on  understanding leverage at the line of scrimmage (basically, how will the defense respond to our play and what do I do about it) and how to make defenses pay,  his fundamentals are far and away more advanced than any QB in the draft.  

Supporting Staff

Not to blame the rest of the team but a QB can’t do it all alone.   Ignoring stats and watching games, the mind boggles at all of the missed blocking assignments, incorrectly run routes and dropped passes (a LOT of dropped passes) over the course of a season.  A key factor to all this was the scholarship sanctions and de-commitment of players following the scandal.  The absolute lack of skill across the board on that team could not be overcome by any one player.  Watching tape, you will see consecutive first downs erased by consecutive sacks.   Drives stopped by dropped passes.  All the while, Hack getting popped with hits as his OL of subpar players just could not hold up vs. top programs.  

You will have many “lowlight” reels showing short or overthrown passes but when you watch games you see how a measure of panic set in as the futility of the supporting cast stops drive after drive after drive.  Hack would press and also got out of kilter. One can argue that he should have risen above the poor supporting cast but he is human.  Again, one must watch full games to see the progressive disintegration of the team.  To watch clips out of context will lead to an oversimplification of the complex issues driving this situation. 

Hack Mechanical Issues

As previously stated, Hack has some mechanical issues, mainly with footwork.  He was a master of his fundamentals prior to the arrival of Coach Franklin, and after, major issues.  Hence, these problems are related to confusion in going against the natural tendencies he had developed his entire life.   Working with Chan Gailey, who knows how to focus on the strengths of his players rather than forcing his own styles down their throats, will work for Hack, not against him.

Poor throws especially from shotgun can be traced to Franklin’s staff forcing a change.  Simply having a Hack switching his back foot will cure this problem.  The work required to do so is as simply as giving him permission to do so.  The investment to cure is next to nothing.

Above the Neck

Hack ran a pro-style offense and was given the keys.  Other QBs in spread offenses rarely got past the 2nd progression option (with the exception of Goff) and, as such, never developed much in assessing leverage to find open receivers deep in the progression.   Not only does Hack know were his receivers are, he has a great understanding of defenses so that he can anticipate coverages to quickly go through progressions and find the open receiver.  Youtube any whiteboard session and try finding any QB who showed a better understanding of his offense.  You can’t.

In terms of dealing with adversity, that’s all he faced at Penn State and still led his team to bowl games.  Playing under the pressure of a sports team in the harsh NY market has broken many athletes.  Dealing with the harsh NY media and the rabid fans will be a piece of cake for him. 

Below the Neck

At 6’4” and 224 lbs, he looks the part of an NFL QB.  His arm strength is undeniable.  He can make every throw  and can consistently put touch on the ball when required.   He is not a dual threat QB, but he will pull the ball down and pick up a first down when the defense allows it.  He is a big strong kid who has time and again picked himself up after his many knock downs without missing time due to injury. 


In conclusion, the NY Jets have drafted a physically imposing QB who has all the fundamentals in place.  He is superior above the neck given his ability to process information on the fly in a pro-style defense.  His tape shows a player who can make all the throws on the field with ease.  His durability is unquestionable and, with the draft of OL Brandon  Shell, the Jets will rebuild the OL to protect Hack.  When he has time to operate in the pocket, he is deadly.  He makes adjustments on the field, frequently outthinking opposing defensive coordinators.   As we have seen from his last two years in the Big 10 with no notable players on his supporting staff, if he has no time to work, disaster happens.  If we juxtapose Hack with any other QB in FBS, I’m not sure any of them could have fared much better than Christian.  I would wager they would have performed much worse.

Look for him to absorb the playbook over the Spring and compete over the Summer.  Given the turmoil at QB, don’t be surprised if we see Hack start at some point in 2016. 

Looking forward to a long, solid career from Hack.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

NFL Draft 2016: Understanding the concept of WR Return on Investment


Return on Investment or “ROI” is a fundamental principal we all use everyday.  Whether in our entertainment choices, when selecting a restaurant or in managing our actual personal financial investments, everyone want to have the maximum pay off while reducing the risk to a minimum.

During this NFL draft season, the wide receiver position is one in which the perception of value is varied: Some value tall receivers, some precise route runners, while others focus on speed.   At the end of the day the true value from a wide receiver is based on reception yards.  And while many other factors outside of the WR contribute to his success in generating yards (QB performance, offensive system, competition, etc), a player who proves his ability to catch the ball when targeted and generate yards upon each reception likely has a skill set that can translate over to the NFL.

What is ROI?  - Return on Investment for WRs is based on measuring how much better a player is than his teammates at producing receptions compared to target opportunities and yards compared to reception opportunities.  The aggregate of these percentages gives us a player’s ROI.  And while one player may be in a run first offense, another in a pass first and another in a balanced system, volume does not benefit the WR in this analysis as all statistics are based on rates.

WR statistical data is isolated for this analysis (that is,RB and TE statistics are thrown out from the sample set).

Let’s look at Laquon Treadwell, who has been seen by many media outlets as the WR1 for the 2016 draft:
For Ole Miss: He was targeted 122 times and caught 83 balls for 1165 yards; a very solid body of work.  Many would calculate his market share (rec yards/team rec yards) of 28.5% and catch rate (recs/targets) of 68% and wrap up the statistical analysis. Now taking a look at it from a lens of his percentage of contribution from a team standpoint, we see he was responsible for 35.2% of WR targets (122/347 total WR targets), 35.3% of WR receptions  (84/235 total WR receptions) and 33.7% of WR rec yards (1165/3460 total WR yards).  So in each category he represents about a third…so what? 

The interesting thing is what happens when you consider the first two categories as baselines for the next.  So, if Treadwell received 35.2% of team WR targets for any return on that investment in spending those plays on him, he should at LEAST return 35.2% of team receptions.  Any less and those excess targets might be better distributed to WRs with higher ROIs.  In the case of Treadwell, his Target to Reception return rate of 0.5% ([Reception % less Target Percentage]/ Reception %)  is positive, but as you will see from examining the data, it does not eclipse the highest levels for WRs. 

Using a similar calculation to compare his Reception to Yards return rate, we see a negative number of <4.7%>.   What does this mean?  For his share of receptions, he left 4.7% or 163 of Ole Miss’ reception yards on the field. 

In order to calculate an overall ROI number, we simply add the Reception Conversion number to the Yardage Conversion figure which in this case for Treadwell, is negative at <4.2%>. 

In comparing the 3 ratios for ROI calculation side by side in actual sequence (that is, targets, receptions and yards), a  visual graph of a line with a positive slope from left to right shows the WR improves at each step in the sequence.  If, he generates a higher reception rate than his target rate and a higher yard accumulation rate than his reception rate, this progressive trait is considered “elite”(only for the sake of differentiation, and not for Twitter argument’s sake).  Given his declining slope, Treadwell is classified as “Did Not Qualify” (DNQ) for “Elite” designation.  This is not a definitive statement on the player.  ROI  is not a prediction tool, it is an analytical tool to help when watching video.
How do his ROI figures compare to his teammates?  Did his QB have strong accuracy numbers (Treadwell’s QB corp completed 67.7% of their passes, 13.7% above the FBS average) that may have contributed to inflated targets/reception?    To consider this, we exclude his stats from his teams reception completion and see his personal completion percentage was  only 0.7% better than the rest of the receiving corps.  This tells he wasn’t as huge part of his QB’s completion ratio so his QB was likely quite accurate or he was not significantly much more successful than his receiver teammates.  Does this mean he’s not WR1?  No, it is just a gauge of things to look for when reviewing other numbers and watching his actual game video.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Corey Coleman, formerly of Baylor who went for 121 targets, caught 74 passes for 1,363 yards.  His catch rate of 61.2% is materially less than that of Treadwell’s. Performing the same calculations as above we find a Target rate of 35.9%, Reception rate of 36.6% and Yardage rate of 38.7%.  Given what you’ve just learned, you can see the ascending pattern in the numbers and we know that merits an “Elite” designation.  Based on the above numbers, CC generates a ROI of 7.76% driven by a Target to Reception return rate of 2.0% (compared to 0.5% for Treadwell) and a Reception to Yard return rate of 5.7% (compared to Treadwell’s, negative mark).  All this with quarterback play that was barely 0.7% above the 59.4% average for this exercise.  Of course, if we exclude CC’s targets and receptions, we see his completion percentage is 3.1% better than his teammates.   

Because Coleman has a higher ROI (7.76%) compared to Treadwell, can we conclude the former is better than the latter?  I wouldn’t do that, at least not based on the numbers alone.   

While looking over the numbers in the spreadsheet, please keep in mind the following interesting points:

Although WMU’s Daniel Braverman’s Catch Rate (Rec/Targets) was higher at 76.8%, Demarcus Ayers of Houston had the highest Catch Rate for an Elite ROI Trend WR.  76.0%

Despite a shaky QB situation at UVA, Canaan Severin  had the highest exclusive Catch Rate (comparing his catch rate to his completion percentage excluding his stats) at 36.8% better than his teammates.  Troy’s Teddy Rubin was best in the Elite ROI Trend class at 22.4%

The highest Target volume belonged to Buckeye Michael Thomas who received 60.9% of all WR targets for his team.  Shockingly, there were a total of 4 who eclipsed the 60.0% mark:  Thomas, Stoshak (FAU), Sharpe (UMass) and Boyd (PITT).   Cincinnati’s Johnnie Horton and Tennessee’s Marquez North each received only 6.4% amd 6.8% of their teams targets, respectively, yet were invited to the NFL combine.

The players with the highest Return on Investment numbers AND Elite ROI trends include (players with > 38 receptions per SD analysis):

  1. Leonte Carroo, RU:  44.83% The author’s personal favorite, based on qualifying criteria, he is the top ROI WR in 2015.
  2. Tre’ Parmalee,KU: 41.41% - This pedigree player’s dad has a nice NFL career, but he has generated no pre-draft buzz.
  3. Will Fuller, ND: 37.84% - Lumpiness in his numbers (1.2% Target Reception ROI , 36.6% Rec Yard ROI and Catch Rate > Team of only 1.8%)aligns with the media reports of issues of drops but being a burner with homerun play potential.
  4. Teddy Ruben, Troy: 36.21% - Tough player who, despite being 5’7” was a bulldog of a high school QB.  It would be interesting to see if he gets a shot as UDFA>
  5. Deandre Reaves, MAR:  30.74% - At 5’10” 179lbs, Reaves combines his solid WR skills with kick return experience making him an interesting option. 
  6. Devin Lucien, ASU:  30.32% - Graduate transfer from UCLA had a breakout season in a big way working himself into the Day 3 conversation.
  7. Jehu Chesson, MICH:  26.86% - 6’3” 200 lbs, Chesson has a breakout year in 2015 and could be an interesting UFDA or even late Day 3 selection.
  8. Trevor Davis, CAL:  20.66% - The tall, thin receiver hooked up with former teammate, QB Jared Goff for a 72.7% catch rate, a testimonial to the skill of both players.
  9. Josh Doctson, TCU:  20.54% - The former walk on is as balanced as one could be as both ROI components are basically identical at 10.2% & 10.3%.  He has the ability to catch the ball consistently and can generate yards after the catch as well as go long. In the argument for WR1.
  10. Rashard Higgins, CSU:  18.79% - Proving he can lose his star QB to the NFL and still generate over 1,000 yards in the industry, “Hollywood” Higgins may be a Sunday afternoon fixture.

Welcome!

Hello everyone.  Welcome to the "3AM and I don't have to go into the office because it's finally NFL Draft Day" edition of the Blog!  Through posts and, hopefully, interactions with any of you checking this out, we will explore college football player analysis concepts and keep our eyes open for CFB talents before they emerge on the NFL scene.  Last year, I had Danielle (Don't Call Me "Danielle") Hunter and Markus Golden on defense and OL Mitch Matthews and Rob Havenstein as my Island of Misfit Toys picks. 
They worked out but I'm not so sure about Jelly Gun, here.


This year I will unleash my Misfit Toys in several hours pre-draft (after I get some sleep) and would love to get feedback. 
 And I will be following the draft live on Twitter Thursday night for Round 1!!!
Follow me @boombearjr on Twitter.