Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:54

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:38

BF004 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:33

I've been interested for years in making a website with commonly sought data, by people like us, not exactly tens of thousands of us, but data we find useful. But simple data like that, results.

Gil Brandt used to do it at NFL.com; all the Pro Days, by schedule; results listed on each one; plus his analysis blurbs. That was very nice.

Even if it's not a combine-results style, sortable chart of results; I just want one-stop shopping

seems every draft site has a pay wall these days, Draft tech is the only one I've found that gives a explanation of a player, and draft tech was never one of my fav draft sites.

years ago I'd look for Gil Brandts analysis on players, he seemed the most accurate and would do a college season ending grade on a lot of players, he tipped me off the Mathews long before the combine and pro days, now he has a pay wall, the industry has cut us out unless we want to pay for the info.

People wanting to get paid for their work.

The inhumanity!

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 09:26

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:54

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:38

Gil Brandt used to do it at NFL.com; all the Pro Days, by schedule; results listed on each one; plus his analysis blurbs. That was very nice.

Even if it's not a combine-results style, sortable chart of results; I just want one-stop shopping

seems every draft site has a pay wall these days, Draft tech is the only one I've found that gives a explanation of a player, and draft tech was never one of my fav draft sites.

years ago I'd look for Gil Brandts analysis on players, he seemed the most accurate and would do a college season ending grade on a lot of players, he tipped me off the Mathews long before the combine and pro days, now he has a pay wall, the industry has cut us out unless we want to pay for the info.

People wanting to get paid for their work.

The inhumanity!

they are already being paid by nfl teams, who do you think footed the bill for the PFF start up?

I get it when News sites want money for online info, not so much when drafts sites who sell there info to the nfl want more.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 09:40

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 09:26

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:54

seems every draft site has a pay wall these days, Draft tech is the only one I've found that gives a explanation of a player, and draft tech was never one of my fav draft sites.

years ago I'd look for Gil Brandts analysis on players, he seemed the most accurate and would do a college season ending grade on a lot of players, he tipped me off the Mathews long before the combine and pro days, now he has a pay wall, the industry has cut us out unless we want to pay for the info.

People wanting to get paid for their work.

The inhumanity!

they are already being paid by nfl teams, who do you think footed the bill for the PFF start up?

I get it when News sites want money for online info, not so much when drafts sites who sell there info to the nfl want more.

If they are directly affiliated with the NFL I agree. But most draft sites are not directly affiliated with the NFL.

The NFL in the past though always did provide data on the combine. I agree if they want to promote their NFL draft product they should up their ability this year with no draft.

But my guess is that NFL draft data and scouting is a LOT of work that doesn't bring much revenue. I mean ESPN used to always provide McShay and Kiper mocks for free. Now they don't and they likely don't for a reason. You have to either tune into their show or pay for it.

Again. It is a lot of work and most people who actually care, only care about the first round or top 50 players. So to get a pool of hundreds of players and filter them down to even a top 250 list is just a lot, a lot of work.

So they have to monetize that work somehow. The NFL at large knows only 1% of the fan base cares about anything after Round 3. They also know maybe 5% to 10% of the fan base care about Rd 2 and 3. Advertisers know this too so they won't pay.

My guess is there is a reason paywalls have been put up for this stuff. Especially in an era where literally anyone can do it. If anyone found a way to provide this stuff free to people....it would be out there.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 09:40

they are already being paid by nfl teams, who do you think footed the bill for the PFF start up?

It wasn't the NFL. PFF went for 6 years independently before finally agreeing to provide data to 3 NFL teams.

Yoop wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 09:40

I get it when News sites want money for online info, not so much when drafts sites who sell there info to the nfl want more.

How many online draft sites do you think are getting paid by the NFL?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:38

BF004 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 08:33

I've been interested for years in making a website with commonly sought data, by people like us, not exactly tens of thousands of us, but data we find useful. But simple data like that, results.

Gil Brandt used to do it at NFL.com; all the Pro Days, by schedule; results listed on each one; plus his analysis blurbs. That was very nice.

Even if it's not a combine-results style, sortable chart of results; I just want one-stop shopping

https://www.ftnfantasy.com/articles/Jef ... s-tracker/


Best I've found

BF004 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 10:27

https://www.ftnfantasy.com/articles/Jef ... s-tracker/


Best I've found

Awesome, thanks so much!

I think it's going to be hard to rely on measurables this year too because they are all Pro Day which almost always appears better than actual combine results.

Not that I am questioning if the numbers are legit, but the combine provides its own stresses which can hurt performance. So if we see a LOT of people under 4.45 for instance and think everyone is fast....a few of those guys may have been in the 4.5's at Indy.

go pak go wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 10:34

I think it's going to be hard to rely on measurables this year too because they are all Pro Day which almost always appears better than actual combine results.

Not that I am questioning if the numbers are legit, but the combine provides its own stresses which can hurt performance. So if we see a LOT of people under 4.45 for instance and think everyone is fast....a few of those guys may have been in the 4.5's at Indy.

I mean sure sure, but it's still far more useful than no information. You can apply the old standard to 40-times of adding like 0.05 to pro day times. But you can compare to peers, as well. Plus the jumps are a lot harder to fudge, and things like 3-cone and short-shuttle should still get you in the ballpark.

Could certainly use it more for disqualifiers rather than finding 'elite' athletes.

Like OL and LBs on the COD drills and such, CB's and WR's with bad jumping ability, etc.

I like not relying so much on measurables. I doubt TT would have ever drafted the great Jaire due to his apparent lack of size. Moving off the firm law of measurables allowed us to get a great player.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:15

I like not relying so much on measurables. I doubt TT would have ever drafted the great Jaire due to his apparent lack of size. Moving off the firm law of measurables allowed us to get a great player.

TT didn't draft the great Jaire.


I long had a theory that the Packers don't take those measurables as gospel, at least back in the TT days. But more that athletes with elite measurables, jumping, COD, twitch, etc., should already be showing up on game tape and those traits on tape were what was so coveted.

BF004 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:21

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:15

I like not relying so much on measurables. I doubt TT would have ever drafted the great Jaire due to his apparent lack of size. Moving off the firm law of measurables allowed us to get a great player.

TT didn't draft the great Jaire.


I long had a theory that the Packers don't take those measurables as gospel, at least back in the TT days. But more that athletes with elite measurables, jumping, COD, twitch, etc., should already be showing up on game tape and those traits on tape were what was so coveted.

i know he didnt. I was implying that he would not be a Packer if TT was in charge of that draft because Jaire is short. I could be wrong tho

BF004 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:21

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:15

I like not relying so much on measurables. I doubt TT would have ever drafted the great Jaire due to his apparent lack of size. Moving off the firm law of measurables allowed us to get a great player.

TT didn't draft the great Jaire.


I long had a theory that the Packers don't take those measurables as gospel, at least back in the TT days. But more that athletes with elite measurables, jumping, COD, twitch, etc., should already be showing up on game tape and those traits on tape were what was so coveted.

For the record, I long contended that the rumors of CB height hardlines in the GB front office was a myth based on small sample size and focusing on drafted players and not undrafted FAs... people said the hard line was 5'11" until they had one or two who was 5'10 1/2" and people said they probably round up and then we took Jaire who is 5'10 1/4" and people are like "wow, they broke their rules." I mean

More importantly is that Jaire is a pretty normal-sized CB--he's over 5'10" and was 196 pounds at the combine, which is decent bulk for that height. And his OTHER measurables are a huge part of his appeal. He ran sub 4.4 in the 40, had a sub-4.0 short shuttle and an outstanding 3-cone at 6.71.

While Jaire's instincts and attitude are a huge part of his game, he is a TERRIBLE example of not following measurables. He's got outstanding measurables aside from height, which is still totally fine. There are CBs in the league playing at 5'8" and 5'9". We've never gone that far, and most of those guys (but not all) get stuck inside.

Measurables matter. There are exceptions, but there are also different measurables that matter to different teams at different positions, so a blanket statement about them is hard to make.

Walterfootball ProDay

Separated by Pro Day

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:45

walterfootball.com/proday.php

Separated by Pro Day

Yeah, scroll down. There are only three pro days listed and only Pitt has more than one player.

Unless there's some "next page" button that is taking 8 minutes to load, which I would not rule out.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:49

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:45

walterfootball.com/proday.php

Separated by Pro Day

Yeah, scroll down. There are only three pro days listed and only Pitt has more than one player.

Unless there's some "next page" button that is taking 8 minutes to load, which I would not rule out.

Ya, I am not sure what is going on there. I have been avoiding the site for a few years now since better options have come about and their site sucks.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:52

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:49

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2021 11:45

walterfootball.com/proday.php

Separated by Pro Day

Yeah, scroll down. There are only three pro days listed and only Pitt has more than one player.

Unless there's some "next page" button that is taking 8 minutes to load, which I would not rule out.

Ya, I am not sure what is going on there. I have been avoiding the site for a few years now since better options have come about and their site sucks.

I actually made a post saying "looks like Walter has it" and then scrolled down and was like "oh," so I came back here and deleted my post.

Damn, hard to be sold on a guy in 1 clip, but can never unsee that now.



I think what seems most impressive to me is that he doesn’t even seem to be trying hard, getting those results not even on a 100% play.

I don't like watching players that I know will be gone by top 20.

Jaycee is a top 3 CB. He isn't escaping the top 20. Maybe. Maaaaybe he cracks in the low 20's.

go pak go wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2021 10:13

I don't like watching players that I know will be gone by top 20.

Jaycee is a top 3 CB. He isn't escaping the top 20. Maybe. Maaaaybe he cracks in the low 20's.

You do know we are allowed to trade up in the draft, right? We've done it before.