forums

Legs Race Part III- (Roster Analysis)

View as article
Lance Roffers said:
Personally, I do not know the answer to this. My guess is most of the time you're sucking up to the kids when they're on campus more than testing them, but I could be wrong.

It would absolutely be a part of my Paradise Camp etc. though. I'd probably make it a semi-requirement for an offer to be extended as well. You aren't withholding an offer from the major targets, of course, but it would eventually just become a part of the fabric of your offers and many would see it as a source of pride.
Click to expand...
Man... Kudos to you. Hope the U finds out about and hires you!!!!!
 
Advertisement
Great stuff, Lance. As you said, the data is a good starting point to benchmark starting-out athleticism, and serve as a baseline for what the player shows on the field and in his character. The fact that Redwine and Thriller improved significantly on their numbers shows that despite all his other flaws, Coley had a pretty good eye for raw talent, so evaluations are still critical. But all things being equal, who wouldn't take a K Smith over a Knowles, a Brooks over a McCray, a Jordan over a Hodges? By and large, there sure does appear to be a high (if imperfect) correlation between the best athletes coming out of HS and how their careers turn out at Miami.

Herbert's and Scaife's numbers give me some hope for a good OL assuming Butch Barry is as good as advertised. Gaynor's numbers are bad, and he did plateau last season. But that was after a very strong finish to his senior year, so I think (hope) he's better than his numbers suggest. That line could gel into something behind a decent QB that doesn't need too much from them.

Starting to drink the Kool-Aid. Can't wait to hear how practices go in these coming weeks.
 
is it safe to assume that miami (and other schools of course) records its own testing numbers when recruits are on campus for i.e. paradise?
 
Lance Roffers said:
That said, if you start using outside influencers , you’ll be finding ways to justify what you want your eyes to tell you based on internal biases.
Click to expand...

That is easily the best line in the thread. Every tape guy does that. It is the reason they also are desperate to overstate conditional variance toward producing the numbers. Anything to clear the field toward pure flawed subjectivity.

Regarding wide receivers, the number one correlation toward success in college and pro is yards per target. Fairly self explanatory...the receiver is special enough to get downfield and trusted enough by his offense and quarterback to launch it to him frequently on those deeper throws.

I'm not sure how easy that would be to track at the high school level. Obviously the high school level is also somewhat different given talent gaps and so many simple plays near the line of scrimmage that turn into burst touchdowns.

I follow the evolving analytics closely. Everyone is having trouble with wide receiver. One guy I respect immensely discovered that return ability is an underrated variable. Lower rated players who exceed expectation had a much greater tendency than typical to own high success as return man.

Also, historically the best height for a wide receiver is in the 6-0 range. If you chart the number of multiple All-American and All-Pro receivers going back decades, 6-0 slots highest and 5-11 is nearby. However, the taller receivers are drafted higher and receiver higher recruiting grades. There is more of a willingness to err on taller receivers, even if it isn't justified by results.

It makes sense to me because I have long believed that conventional wisdom can be brutally wrong regarding bigger as better in some roles in athletics. I had a field day wagering on women's golf for a long time once I discovered that 5-6 is the ideal height for an LPGA golfer. I ran the stats through Excel as experimentation and it was absolutely incredible how the 5-6 women were dominating the matchup results each week. This was late '90s and related numbers were sometimes difficult to come up with. I literally was walking the LPGA event at Desert Inn in Las Vegas with a friend of mine I trusted. He would take half the list of our missing numbers and I would take the other half. We'd go out there and estimate height for each player, then cross check and see if we agreed. I would end up standing as close as I could to the player for reference point, even though I am 6-4.

Michelle Wie never had a chance to fulfill expectation, not at a giraffe 6 foot 1. Simply too far from her work and too many moving parts. Before I ever saw her hit a shot I posted that she would fail to live up to the lofty projections. That was in 2001 or thereabouts. Taller female golfers can have some peak stretches but not the consistency. The 5-6 frame allows just enough wiry power and also ideal coordination. South Koreans are perfectly suited to dominate that sport because the average height of their females is tall for an Asian country at 5-4. Since the best athletes are generally taller than population as a whole, South Korea spits out one prototype 5-6 female golfer after another.

I believe it was a 17 or 18 year run in which the LPGA Player of the Year had a listed height of exactly 5-6. Stacy Lewis finally broke the streak. She is 5-5.

But it was:

Annika Sorenstam 5-6
Lorena Ochoa 5-6
Karrie Webb 5-6
Se Ri Pak 5-6
Yani Tseng 5-6
Inbee Park 5-6

And so forth. Sorry for the detour. I just wanted to provide an example of what can be done with numbers, especially when they aren't the most obvious ones. Subjectivity is an incredibly flawed reliance because you are starting from scratch every day. Simply too much burden. Virtually nobody is good enough to weave through all the variables and emerge calmly and logically on the other side.
 
Silver's has great height and weight numbers. He looks like a football player. His numbers are Sapp like when he was in Tampa.
 
Advertisement
Awsi Dooger said:
I follow the evolving analytics closely. Everyone is having trouble with wide receiver. One guy I respect immensely discovered that return ability is an underrated variable. Lower rated players who exceed expectation had a much greater tendency than typical to own high success as return man.

Also, historically the best height for a wide receiver is in the 6-0 range. If you chart the number of multiple All-American and All-Pro receivers going back decades, 6-0 slots highest and 5-11 is nearby. However, the taller receivers are drafted higher and receiver higher recruiting grades. There is more of a willingness to err on taller receivers, even if it isn't justified by results.
Click to expand...

Interesting on the return angle, difficulty with that is most DI guys are returning kicks and punts on their teams because they're the most dynamic athletes on the team, but I'll look into that if I can find a resource to script from.

WR's with height are always getting undue bias, I agree. I'd rather have the 6-0 to 6-1 types with elite flexibility and hand-eye coordination.
 
Lance Roffers said:
Linebackers- 216 pounds, 4.77 40, 4.40 SH, 36’ Powerball, 32” Vertical, 93 SPARQ

Linebacker is a position that asked different things from different places, but with the interchangeable nature of the position, it is difficult to separate them into SAM, WLB, MLB.

Sam Brooks- 194 pounds, 4.62 40, 4.20 SH, 42’ Powerball, 36” Vertical, 116.91 SPARQ

Several of our recruits got fanfare from recruiting analysts this year, but Brooks seemed to be overlooked. His profile is that of a high-end AC player. His production was top-shelf and his athletic testing matched. 92nd percentile athlete.

Waynmon Steed- 221 pounds, 4.73 40, 4.33 SH, 40’ Powerball, 31” Vertical, 102.36 SPARQ

Much like Brooks, Steed had a leg injury to rehab and overcome. Steed has played sparingly the first few seasons, but has the athletic testing to be a quality starter. If Steed regains all of his athleticism, he can even be an AC level performer. 79th percentile athlete.

Zach McCloud- 220 pounds, 4.83 40, 4.55 SH, 34’ Powerball, 36” Vertical, 88.05 SPARQ

McCloud is a 49th percentile athlete who profiles as a solid starter. I would say his career has been exactly that to this point.

DeAndre Wilder- 189 pounds, 4.67 40, 4.43 SH, 36’ Powerball, 29” Vertical, 78.99 SPARQ

Wilder is an interesting profile as he is underweight, but does meet the other criteria athletically outside of vertical jump. More of a pass rusher in HS, Wilder has the profile of a depth player.

Bradley Jennings- 218 pounds, 4.43 SH, 33’ Powerball, 31” Vertical

Jennings didn’t run the 40 so he doesn’t have a SPARQ score, but he profiles as a player with good change-of-direction skills but less-than-stellar explosiveness and power. This profile is that of a depth player and to this point he has played to that level.

No Longer on Roster

Charles Perry- 203 pounds, 4.67 40, 4.68 SH, 35’ Powerball, 37” Vertical, 88.98 SPARQ

Perry tested like a good athlete, but it is highly unusual to have a short shuttle slower than your 40. A 51st percentile athlete, his stiff hips limited his ability on the field. A depth player who showed flashes of more.

Mike Smith- 210 pounds, 4.86 40, 4.53 SH, 33’ Powerball, 30” Vertical. 72.66 SPARQ

Smith developed slowly and improved each year at Miami. Eventually he filled a role as a Senior and was adequate in that role. His lack of power really showed up in his tackling, as he was often in the right place, but would miss a tackle. Looking at his athletic data it is obvious he got the most of his ability as he profiled as a depth player or DII player as a 20th percentile athlete.

James King- 187 pounds, 4.91 40, 4.38 SH, 35’ Powerball, 27” Vertical, 72.03 SPARQ

Slow afoot, and lacking explosion, King did last long on the Miami roster as a 19th percentile athlete. He profiled as a depth player or DII player and that is how his career turned out.

Terry McCray- 205 pounds, 4.92 40, 4.63 SH, 34’ Powerball, 30” Vertical, 65.91 SPARQ

McCray was a hard-working pass rushing convert who did not profile as a DI player and his career really went that way. The 10th percentile athlete will leave with a degree.

Cornerbacks- 178 pounds, 4.60 40, 4.28 SH, 34’ Powerball, 34” Vertical, 92 SPARQ

The fact that cornerbacks need excellent change-of-direction skills to profile as an AC player is not surprising, but it is a bit surprising that the position didn’t have more pure speed and SPARQ ratings. One area that has shown a high correlation at both the college and NFL level for CB’s is that of upper-body strength. Bench press profiles to NFL and Powerball translates to college. The guess is that the strength comes into play with jamming, hand fighting, and tackling, but that’s speculation on my part.

Trajan Bandy- 182 pounds, 4.51 40, 4.23 SH, 40’ Powerball, 34” Vertical, 111.96 SPARQ

Bandy hits every mark that you could ask for from the CB position and profiles as an AC player. To this point, that is exactly the expectation for Bandy this season for the 87th percentile athlete.

Al Blades Jr.- 173 pounds, 4.57 40, 3.95 SH, 38’ Powerball, 34” Vertical, 108.56 SPARQ

The slot corner position in a Manny Diaz defense is one of the most important spots because of what they’re asked to do. Bandy has been asked to handle that role many times in his time at Miami but Blades has the athletic profile to free Bandy from needing to be a slot. Blades has a SH (just a tick ahead of Deionte Thompson of Alabama) nearly two standard deviations below the mean and the 85th percentile athlete profiles as an AC performer during his time at Miami.

Tecory Couch- 148 pounds, 4.51 40, 4.25 SH, 36’ Powerball, 36” Vertical, 96.45 SPARQ

Obviously, the weight is an issue for Couch, as it is fairly unprecedented for a player of his weight to make AC. The trump card for the 65th percentile athlete is that he has is his length is that of a much bigger player and how physical he is. Outside of weight he profiles almost exactly like Bandy, which is that of an AC CB in his career here.

Nigel Bethel- 160 pounds, 4.61 40, 4.44 SH, 30’ Powerball, 32” Vertical, 74.34 SPARQ

Bethel profiles as a depth player only, as he is well below average in all areas. As a 23rd percentile athlete he is going to have to surprise to play a meaningful role at Miami.

Christian Williams- 182 pounds, 4.64 40, 4.38 SH, 32’ Powerball, 35” Vertical, 86.38 SPARQ

Williams meets the minimum thresholds of all categories just barely and profiles a little under the average AC CB. He looks to be a good starter profile as a 45th percentile athlete and has the type of tools that can overcome the average athleticism due to his length.

DJ Ivey- 171 pounds, 4.20 SH, 36” Vertical

Limited in his testing, Ivey showed the requisite change-of-direction skills and explosion with his vertical to profile very well at the CB position.

No Longer on Roster

Mike Jackson- 189 pounds, 4.67 40, 4.29 SH, 35’ Powerball, 35” Vertical, 95.76 SPARQ

Jackson is a player who simply worked his way into being a player. A perfect example of Coach Rumph helping to develop a player with technique and their hard work, Jackson improved his testing at the Combine. At 210 pounds, Jackson ran a 4.45 40, 4.12 SH, and benched an average 13 reps with 32.5” arms. That athletic profile is that of an AC CB and he hit that mark as a junior. As a senior, he made honorable-mention All-ACC.

Safety- 187 pounds, 4.64 40, 4.26 SH, 36’ Powerball, 35” Vertical, 102 SPARQ

A position that is difficult to separate from CB due to the overlap a lot of players experience as they move from high school to college, it is interesting that safeties are actually more athletic than their CB counterparts at the AC level.

Bubba Bolden- 188 pounds, 4.57 40, 4.46 SH, 36’ Powerball, 33” Vertical, 91.96 SPARQ

Bolden profiles as a very good starter to borderline AC player. Weight, speed, strength are all in-line with the average AC S, but change-of-direction and explosion are a bit behind. Pedigree and film lend themselves to big things for the 55th percentile athlete.

Keontra Smith- 195 pounds, 4.55 40, 4.35 SH, 39’ Powerball, 36” Vertical, 103.95 SPARQ

If Bolden falls just short of profiling as an AC S, Keontra Smith profiles as the prototypical AC player. His speed and power are top-notch, while overall profile comes in at the 61st percentile.

Derrick Smith- 196 pounds, 4.68 SH, 29’ Powerball

Smith did not complete the testing, but the events he did participate in paint a picture of a depth player. Both his SH and his Powerball were well below average numbers.

Robert Knowles- 190 pounds, 4.81 40, 5.41 SH, 32’ Powerball, 29” Vertical, 54.33 SPARQ

Knowles is a try-hard player who by all accounts works hard, but his profile is that of a DII player. The SH time I almost throw out because he must have fallen down, but that number is so poor it is dead last among all players at the position by over half a second. The only player who tested worse than the 2nd percentile Knowles signed at the DII level. The one just ahead went FCS. Knowles career to this point has been that of a special team’s player and a defensive player that has proven not to be capable at this level.

No Longer on Roster

Sheldrick Redwine- 183 pounds, 4.77 40, 4.74 SH, 37’ Powerball, 36” Vertical, 83.40 SPARQ

It is very difficult to change your athletic profile regardless of age, but with hard work and some technique improvements, you can improve your testing numbers. Redwine falls into the outlier category, as out of HS he tested as a depth player. That said, if you look at his Powerball and Vertical numbers, you can see explosion was in the player, but the running times were not good. At the Combine, Redwine improved himself all the way to a 4.44 40, 4.14 SH, 39” Vertical with no bench. The improvement in his SH is the single biggest improvement that any player has made in my database from HS to NFL Combine. That profile is an AC profile, while out of HS he profiled as depth only.

Jaquan Johnson- 182 pounds, 4.75 40, 4.28 SH, 34’ Powerball, 33” Vertical, 87.78 SPARQ

Jaquan profiled as a very good starter coming out of HS, but as we’ve seen all along, movement skills are kind and Jaquan showed those at an AC level. He hit the All-Conference designation in his time here. Unlike Redwine, Johnson did not improve substantially at the Combine, running a 4.69 40 with the same 33” Vertical. I believe the movement skills and instincts will allow him to be successful at the NFL level.

Overall Depth Chart
This article was a lot of words and I know many of you look for the TL:DR version, so here it is in depth chart form. * means the player did not test. The scale goes from dark green for All-Conference profile, to pale green, which is a depth player only. A yellow player is not this level of player.

View attachment 82053

View attachment 82054

Final tally:
Offense:
All-Conference- 4
Great Starter- 4
Starter- 9
Depth- 3
Non-Athletic- 2
Did not Test- 15

Defense:
All-Conference- 9
Great Starter- 5
Starter- 6
Depth- 0
Non-Athletic- 3
Did not Test- 17
Click to expand...

This is best analysis I have read in 20 years of following recruiting.

Fantastic job @Lance Roffers
 
Advertisement
Awsi Dooger said:
That is easily the best line in the thread. Every tape guy does that. It is the reason they also are desperate to overstate conditional variance toward producing the numbers. Anything to clear the field toward pure flawed subjectivity.

Regarding wide receivers, the number one correlation toward success in college and pro is yards per target. Fairly self explanatory...the receiver is special enough to get downfield and trusted enough by his offense and quarterback to launch it to him frequently on those deeper throws.

I'm not sure how easy that would be to track at the high school level. Obviously the high school level is also somewhat different given talent gaps and so many simple plays near the line of scrimmage that turn into burst touchdowns.

I follow the evolving analytics closely. Everyone is having trouble with wide receiver. One guy I respect immensely discovered that return ability is an underrated variable. Lower rated players who exceed expectation had a much greater tendency than typical to own high success as return man.

Also, historically the best height for a wide receiver is in the 6-0 range. If you chart the number of multiple All-American and All-Pro receivers going back decades, 6-0 slots highest and 5-11 is nearby. However, the taller receivers are drafted higher and receiver higher recruiting grades. There is more of a willingness to err on taller receivers, even if it isn't justified by results.

It makes sense to me because I have long believed that conventional wisdom can be brutally wrong regarding bigger as better in some roles in athletics. I had a field day wagering on women's golf for a long time once I discovered that 5-6 is the ideal height for an LPGA golfer. I ran the stats through Excel as experimentation and it was absolutely incredible how the 5-6 women were dominating the matchup results each week. This was late '90s and related numbers were sometimes difficult to come up with. I literally was walking the LPGA event at Desert Inn in Las Vegas with a friend of mine I trusted. He would take half the list of our missing numbers and I would take the other half. We'd go out there and estimate height for each player, then cross check and see if we agreed. I would end up standing as close as I could to the player for reference point, even though I am 6-4.

Michelle Wie never had a chance to fulfill expectation, not at a giraffe 6 foot 1. Simply too far from her work and too many moving parts. Before I ever saw her hit a shot I posted that she would fail to live up to the lofty projections. That was in 2001 or thereabouts. Taller female golfers can have some peak stretches but not the consistency. The 5-6 frame allows just enough wiry power and also ideal coordination. South Koreans are perfectly suited to dominate that sport because the average height of their females is tall for an Asian country at 5-4. Since the best athletes are generally taller than population as a whole, South Korea spits out one prototype 5-6 female golfer after another.

I believe it was a 17 or 18 year run in which the LPGA Player of the Year had a listed height of exactly 5-6. Stacy Lewis finally broke the streak. She is 5-5.

But it was:

Annika Sorenstam 5-6
Lorena Ochoa 5-6
Karrie Webb 5-6
Se Ri Pak 5-6
Yani Tseng 5-6
Inbee Park 5-6

And so forth. Sorry for the detour. I just wanted to provide an example of what can be done with numbers, especially when they aren't the most obvious ones. Subjectivity is an incredibly flawed reliance because you are starting from scratch every day. Simply too much burden. Virtually nobody is good enough to weave through all the variables and emerge calmly and logically on the other side.
Click to expand...


Kicking has the same issue with height. QBs probably do too. Basketball players and shooting as well.
 
What ever happened to player testing being public? I used to reference these theads all the time to get a real glimpse at the athleticism of our recruits. Now numbers aren’t posted anywhere. Any idea where you can find?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top