Prototype vs Team scheme fit vs actual Prospect??

[LinvilleGorge]

This is why the draft is such a crap shoot. Some great college players just don't translate. Sometimes it's obvious. They just lack NFL size and/or athleticism. Other times all the boxes are checked and they still bust (Aaron Curry comes to mind).  Guys with ideal measurables who lack college production are still intriguing, but it's not like college coaches are idiots. Those guys can coach. If that guy didn't produce against lesser competition the odds of everything clicking at the next level against better competition are slim.

By and large, I value:

1. Production. I want guys who produced when they saw the field. 

2. Athleticism. I'll take an undersized guy with great athleticism over a prototypical sized guy who isn't a great athlete.

3. Scheme fit. There are definitely variations on what is asked of certain positions in different schemes but I'm a firm believer that great players can produce in any scheme. 

4. Size. To me, this is just the icing on the cake.

[Seoul_Panther]

Did you know that Aaron Curry coaches at UNC Charlotte? There's a very interesting Si article which alas i can't link to on my phone from this time last year. Fascinating insight into his draft story.

[Seoul_Panther]

49 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

 Guys with ideal measurables who lack college production are still intriguing, but it's not like college coaches are idiots. Those guys can coach. 

 

  It's astonishing to me that many athletes join the nfl having played the sport for one season. It's one reason that i was wary of Malik Hooker last year. Shows how much i know.

[rayzor]

5 hours ago, WOW!! said:

Yes my question is what do you guys feel is important or a more successful way when picking a prospect??

Blue chip size speed combination the league has determined is ideal for a position..

Or 

What you feel fit your team scheme better..

Or 

A prospect who might not have ideal size and speed but produced at a high rate in his career..

i think it depends on the position and what you're trying to accomplish. for example, at QB with a new coaching staff you want a guy you can build a system around.initially rivera and then hurney and even JR had to be sold on the idea of cam. chud and shula had to win all of them over because they understood that even though he had prototypical build...well, maybe the ideal build. very few QBs had ever come into the game put together physically the way cam was, but anyway they understood that unlike a guy like luck who you should have been able to plug into any system and he'd excel, cam was someone you could do well with going that route, but to get the most out of him it was going to have to be a unique (to the NFL) building of an offense tailored around his big arm, running ability, and ability to improvise. the problem then becomes you've got to find the right pieces to fit with that specific engineering of an offense, something that i think we're still trying to figure out (but i think norv has the best ability to make that happen).

having rambled all that, because of the high turnover rate in coaches and systems, i think a team is better off going off ideal measurements, including football IQ, and get good players who can adapt to what you want to do and will be able to adapt to anything else that happens.

hopefully the first two traits, prototype and scheme fit balance each other out and i think ideally they do or should. that's what you try to do.

the third trait, the high performer that lacks the prototypical measurables is going to be something that is very situational specific. it's a dangerous thing because you are going to either have to have in place a nearly identical situation or create one around that player. i think that kind of fits cam to a degree. looking back, he would have been able to come into just about any system and do well, providing he had good coaches, but to get the most out of his unique talent set, you had to create a unique system that allowed him to utilize that set. if you aren't able to create the right situation for this type of player, more than likely that player is going to be a wasted pick. it's risky and too often it just won't pay off.

[nosuchthingasapanther]

in my opinion, overall you pick for scheme...but if there some freak of nature that simply cannot be overlooked, you tweak the scheme to make him fit.

[tondi]

Wasn't there a thread recently about how WRs keep getting drafted on their measurables and keep busting?  How long does this have to continue before measurables get moved down the list of priorities? 

[panthers55]

Obviously you won't go wrong if you continually pick physical anomalies like Peppers or Cam who have already shown ability, skill and intelligence. The issue of what you value and  the importance of fit become important for guys who have talent but aren't phenoms which includes 90% of players on most team rosters. Most rosters have a number of guys who start in a particular scheme but couldn't necessarily change to a different scheme and play as effectively. So sure we would love to draft guys in every round who are physical specimens with prototypical measurables and great success on the field. But given the cap and player availability we are always going to have to balance these factors and count on guys like we just picked up to fill roles and work within our scheme. So if you change schemes you are going to keep some guys and change out others. 

[kungfoodude]

10 hours ago, WOW!! said:

Intelligence is good but let's be real.. J pep was considered the blue chip prototype for DE and he was dumb coming out of UNC.  Cam is the prototype (freak QB) and he isn't always showing his intelligence and most teams question it especially after the Gurden QB camp.. He still was a number 1 pick.. While Clausen ,Wenkie , Brees and Russell Wilson  who were consider a very smart QB'S who knew scheme like the back of their hands.. Weren't 1st round picks.  Moral of the story coaches rather have God giving abilities and feel like they can teach intelligence..

Peppers tested out as average in the Wonderlic, so I am not sure why you would say he was dumb.

[iamhubby1]

    I think that if you want to quantify what attributes you look for in a kid, you are going to drive yourself crazy with all the possibilities. 

 

    With that said. Give me ATHLETES. Athletes with SMARTS. If I can coach, I'll take my athletes over your analytics every time.

[carpanfan96]

it's a balance, you need guys who are going to fit scheme wise but you also need production, size and intangibles. 

[run-run-pass-punt]

Team always beats talent.

Having complementary parts fitting into a clear vision is always better than having lots of great components assembled without thought for how they blend into a cohesive whole.

[pantherclaw]

Production on the field means more to me in the higher rounds. 

After that, I definately lean towards athletic ability and size. 

Btw, great conversation going on in here guys. Sure beats the norm. 

[t96]

15 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'd call Short a homerun pick. Daryl Williams too.

Short, Turner, Williams were all home runs for DG

[davos]

15 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is why the draft is such a crap shoot. Some great college players just don't translate. Sometimes it's obvious. They just lack NFL size and/or athleticism. Other times all the boxes are checked and they still bust (Aaron Curry comes to mind).  Guys with ideal measurables who lack college production are still intriguing, but it's not like college coaches are idiots. Those guys can coach. If that guy didn't produce against lesser competition the odds of everything clicking at the next level against better competition are slim.

By and large, I value:

1. Production. I want guys who produced when they saw the field. 

2. Athleticism. I'll take an undersized guy with great athleticism over a prototypical sized guy who isn't a great athlete.

3. Scheme fit. There are definitely variations on what is asked of certain positions in different schemes but I'm a firm believer that great players can produce in any scheme. 

4. Size. To me, this is just the icing on the cake.

I'd slide scheme fit ahead of athleticism and add a 5th: Intangibles.  RE: Cam, Watson, Lane Johnson, Bakhtiari, etc.  The guys who have that winning/it factor for larger schools tend to follow through a lot of the time.  Combine that factor with a guy that makes sense for a given team and it works out in a lot of cases.  

Penny could be a guy that falls in this realm for us.