The CardBoard

Author Topic: NFL draft projections  (Read 8697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fullmetal

  • Supreme Court Justice
  • ********
  • Posts: 12443
  • Reputation: 55
  • Make room in the cupboard for one more Cup.
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2017, 05:37:53 am »
CMac could be picked up by a team who has question marks at RB and decides that Green Bay's approach to Ty Montgomery would be useful.

Offline Boston Card

  • Tech mogul
  • *******
  • Posts: 9103
  • Reputation: 116
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2017, 03:04:06 pm »
CMac could be picked up by a team who has question marks at RB and decides that Green Bay's approach to Ty Montgomery would be useful.

It would be funny if Green Bay picked McCaffrey up.  I know they moved Montgomery to running back semi-permanently, but given the success they had using him as a wide receiver/running back, maybe McCaffrey would be a good pick.

BC

P.S. With the Chargers leaving San Diego, I'm adopting Green Bay as my rooting interest.

Offline fullmetal

  • Supreme Court Justice
  • ********
  • Posts: 12443
  • Reputation: 55
  • Make room in the cupboard for one more Cup.
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #77 on: February 17, 2017, 03:13:27 pm »
Maybe GB trades Ty for value and drafts CMac...

Offline hurlburt88

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Reputation: 15
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #78 on: February 18, 2017, 08:09:02 am »
of exceedingly large proportions difference to Mac's career if he goes late 1st or early 2nd in terms of playing on a quality team & not being pressed into situations where he is less likely to succeed.  Being an optimist, I'll predict 4.46 and a late 1st round selection followed by a very distinguished career! 
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT

Offline ColoradoTree

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Reputation: 17
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #79 on: February 21, 2017, 09:01:36 am »
I fail to see how a factually accurate statement is evidence of bias.  McCaffrey is a smaller back than the prototypical NFL running back, and his size/weight was a subject of question marks on this very board.

It would be one thing if the write-up I posted talked about him lacking speed, explosiveness, or athleticism.  Those are all traits that he has in spades, but that aren't associated with white running backs.  But noting that he lacks size isn't bias; it's true.  Moreover, if anything, talking about his size goes a bit against stereotype; for better or worse, you hear words like tough and slow associated with white running backs, even when they have a fair bit of speed (like Toby Gerhart).

I don't dismiss the idea that McCaffrey has been a victim of stereotyping about what a white running back can do, and it may have been a contributing factor to his second place finish in the H-award race.  But I didn't see anything in that article that suggests his evaluation was based on a stereotype of what white running backs are.

Well said, BC.

Offline Mick

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 4589
  • Reputation: 7
  • Have been kissed on Kennedy Mall...
    • Client Science
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #80 on: February 21, 2017, 01:16:36 pm »
I fail to see how a factually accurate statement is evidence of bias.  McCaffrey is a smaller back than the prototypical NFL running back, and his size/weight was a subject of question marks on this very board.

#1 RB was 6'1", 225 lbs.
#2 RB was 5'11", 199 lbs. (per NFL.com stats)
#3 RB was 5'9", 233 lbs.
#4 RB was 6'1", 225 lbs.
#5 RB was 6'0", 225 lbs.
#6 RB was 5'9", 209 lbs.
#7 RB was 6'1", 231 lbs.

CMAC seems a trifle smallish to be an every down back.
Audaces fortuna iuvat

Offline Hulk01

  • Tree
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Reputation: 48
  • Moves like Jagger
    • Beckwith Partners
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #81 on: February 21, 2017, 01:41:48 pm »
I'm going with Boston Card here.  In the last couple weeks I've rewatched several of Mac's games last season.  And I had missed several of them, so I was seeing them afresh--and he looked less scary than he had the year before.  I kept thinking, "Okay, he's going to break this one," but then he wouldn't. 

He may have been a blink slower after the injury.  His recent 4.48 hints that he may have gotten that blink back.

Offline CTcard

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 3135
  • Reputation: 82
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #82 on: February 21, 2017, 07:42:04 pm »
I'm going with Boston Card here.  In the last couple weeks I've rewatched several of Mac's games last season.  And I had missed several of them, so I was seeing them afresh--and he looked less scary than he had the year before.  I kept thinking, "Okay, he's going to break this one," but then he wouldn't. 

He may have been a blink slower after the injury.  His recent 4.48 hints that he may have gotten that blink back.

When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.


This past year is interesting on McCaffrey's production, and perhaps a testament to the power of expectations to colour our perception of what we see.

He had a better yds/carry in 2016 than in 2015 by 6.34 to 5.99.

The number of big plays is a small enough number that it can be rather random, but it is directly related to what people are comemnting on.
Overall, it looks as if his percentage of big plays held remarkably steady, despite fewer carries overall and thus fewer big plays.
10+ yd runs: 2016 = 39 (15.4%), 2015 = 56 (16.6%)
20+ yd runs: 2016 = 14 (5.5%),   2015 = 19 (5.6%)

Both years there were some games where McCaffrey seemed considerably less effective. In 2016 that seemed to be primarily due to injury.
In 2016 McCaffrey was more steady on a game to game basis - with lower highs and higher lows. 

Offline DC 86

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Reputation: 26
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #83 on: February 22, 2017, 12:53:21 pm »
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mccaffrey-goes-drills-mock-nfl-scouting-combine/

Offline OutsiderFan

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
  • Reputation: 1
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #84 on: February 22, 2017, 01:06:39 pm »
I know I said he'd be a lock first round pick if he ran a sub 4.4 40, but that doesn't mean he won't be if he doesn't.  I solid sub 4.5 - which the reporting suggests is imminently doable - very well could do it too.

Offline CTcard

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 3135
  • Reputation: 82
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #85 on: February 22, 2017, 02:40:11 pm »
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mccaffrey-goes-drills-mock-nfl-scouting-combine/

Thanks for that.

The current note says, "Replaced @CMcCaffrey5 40 yard dash video so that his time can't be revealed." Which makes things slightly ambiguous.

However, the article also states, "McCaffrey ran two 40-yard dashes at the event, with NFL Insider Benjamin Allbright clocking him at 4.46 and 4.48."
If an individual timed him, then those would presumably be hand timed. However, it may be an awkward way of noting that said individual saw those times taken electronically.

They are in the ballpark of what I would expect.


Offline CornFed

  • Tree
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
  • Reputation: 10
  • Give 'em the axe! Right in the neck!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #86 on: February 22, 2017, 08:59:50 pm »
When/where was this 4.48?
The 4.48 noted by Mick above was somebody's guess as to what he would run, apparently not an actual time.
Of course it could also be an actual time, and would be about my guess for him as well.

McCaffrey conducted a workout at Landow Performance Denver two weeks ago in which he was timed at 4.46 and 4.48. Video below:

http://milehighsports.com/christian-mccaffrey-goes-drills-mock-nfl-scouting-combine/

Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Milton Friedman

Offline CTcard

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 3135
  • Reputation: 82
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #87 on: February 22, 2017, 09:10:51 pm »
Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

Altitude does help sprinters.

Denver is at an altitutde of 1609 meters. According to this chart (which seems to roughly match what I have often heard), this altitude would help a runner who runs a 10s 100 meters by about 5/100ths.
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/altwind.htm

So, for a 40 - maybe 2/100ths?

Offline Roberton3

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
  • Reputation: 5
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #88 on: February 23, 2017, 11:59:04 am »
Since these things get timed electronically to thousandths of a second perhaps this question will not seem too stupid:  To what extent does thin air in Denver enhance the time in a short distance like this?

Altitude does help sprinters.

Denver is at an altitutde of 1609 meters. According to this chart (which seems to roughly match what I have often heard), this altitude would help a runner who runs a 10s 100 meters by about 5/100ths.
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/altwind.htm

So, for a 40 - maybe 2/100ths?

It'd make less difference than that.  Air resistance matters most for top-end speed and less for acceleration (drag is roughly quadratic with velocity), and the 40 is much more about acceleration and less about top-end speed than the 100.

Offline DC 86

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Reputation: 26
  • Go Stanford!
Re: NFL draft projections
« Reply #89 on: February 23, 2017, 03:24:44 pm »
Air resistance matters most for top-end speed and less for acceleration (drag is roughly quadratic with velocity), and the 40 is much more about acceleration and less about top-end speed than the 100.
Correct, the 40 is about an explosive start (which is why runners try to cheat by rolling) and quick acceleration. The biggest external factor is probably the running surface itself; the RCA Dome is notoriously slow which is why many players run materially faster in their pre-combine workouts and on their post-combine pro days. Moreover, McCaffrey's workout was hand timed by a blogger who was on hand, so while the times confirm a general range we can't really extrapolate much precise predictive information beyond the fact that he is running in the expected range.