QB question

[Techster]

You gave no theory, you said points. Points based on what? How are the points earned by a linebacker equivalent to the points earned by a place kicker?

Now you’re saying everybody knows who’s good and who’s not. That sounds very subjective to me. In fact it sounds like a depth chart. My take is this is nothing more than a fancy way to have a depth chart. They pass it off as “above the line” to motivate the players. But if they are not motivated by a depth chart why would they be motivated by this?

**YAWN**

Your rants are starting to bore me. I gotta quit wasting my time trying to engage with you. It's gotten to a point where it seems you just try to soft troll the new staff every time something positive comes out.

Not worth it anymore. I'm gonna enjoy our nice things GT is getting. It's rare that happens like this. I'll let you wallow in your own negativity.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

**YAWN**

Your rants are starting to bore me. I gotta quit wasting my time trying to engage with you. It's gotten to a point where it seems you just try to soft troll the new staff every time something positive comes out.

Not worth it anymore. I'm gonna enjoy our nice things GT is getting. It's rare that happens like this. I'll let you wallow in your own negativity.

So you are not the least bit curious about their evaluation criteria? On top of that you think anybody who is curious is negative towards the program. Nice. All I’m looking for is a little bit more information on their methodology. I’m not trolling anybody. By the way, I’m not the only one on here scratching my head about this.

 

[ncjacket79]

So you are not the least bit curious about their evaluation criteria? On top of that you think anybody who is curious is negative towards the program. Nice. All I’m looking for is a little bit more information on their methodology. I’m not trolling anybody. By the way, I’m not the only one on here scratching my head about this.

Jeez there really are too many engineers around here. I don’t get what is so hard. The staff will make decisions on who is ATL as a group. Meaning the DB coach will give his opinion based on what he sees, the other coaches will chime in based on their perspectives. For example, the WR coach may say “my guys think they can beat him with this move” or “my guys hate going against him” or whatever. I doubt this is much different from what most staffs do. If we have 9 DBs ATL it will/may impact how we design our defense. If we only have 4 DL that may as well. It’s what coaches do.

The other input will be to make sure the staff has a complete perspective, so hustle, the tech side, film, etc helps inform the decision.

 

[deeeznutz]

Why is this idea of ranking players across all positions so hard to comprehend? They have some methodology they’re using, they just aren’t giving literally all the criteria to us. Maybe position coaches grade out players in their own groups, then all the coaches take those lists and come up with a way to put them together in one. The players may not even get to see the end result, it might just be something for the coaches. And at the end of the day it’s not an exact science and has no real world repercussions.
It’s really not that hard of a concept, most of us probably do something similar in planning for our fantasy football drafts. Why are some of y’all getting so lost in the weeds on this?

 

[TechPhi97]

I think the ATL stuff is legit. But it's gonna be a small handful of coaches that determine ATL, not 40. Why in the world would you want 40 guys with equal say input on roster spots? How do you even get to 40 anyway?

It's probably because they are new and are just trying to generate more observations. Consider it the top of the funnel - you're trying to get a bunch of ideas and observations to get a high-level handle on what is going on with a bunch of players. Once fall comes, it will probably be down to the position coaches and coordinators as you get to the bottom of the funnel.

 

[MidtownJacket]

So you are not the least bit curious about their evaluation criteria? On top of that you think anybody who is curious is negative towards the program. Nice. All I’m looking for is a little bit more information on their methodology. I’m not trolling anybody. By the way, I’m not the only one on here scratching my head about this.

My take on the comments (without additional insider knowledge) is that the "global rankings" they are doing are like a classic "power ranking" of athleticism, effort and impact. This kind of challenge happens all the time in corporate america when annual reviews come around. How does Bill in Accounting equate to Charles in Sales and Mike in Marketing? The answer is, they don't equate but you can trend them fairly easily. It has become common to now start talking about the impact people bring to the organization outside the question of how they did in their specific job category.

The staff has talked a few times about being scheme agnostic and focusing on getting the best guys on the field. If anything, I think this method may help make the evaluations more clear. For example: Let's say we are STACKED at one position but concerned about the quality depth at another. If we have a mechanism (flawed as it may be) to talk about the impact a player has universally and not just by position grouping, it makes it easier to have a common understanding of who should cross train / sub where. Or even further extrapolated, when we should switch scheme based on personnel.

I don't know the specifics of his rankings or weighting so I can't comment on the appropriateness of the measurement but I can and do see value in the approach and presuming you do treat these things as more trending indicators than absolute rankings think it could bring value to the team.

 

[Novajacket]

I think most people are missing the point of why CGC is doing this concentrating on the how. Everywhere you go you are ranked. Whether you like it or not. Recruiting services rank, employers rank, nfl scouts rank, everyone you meet is ranking you. It is subjective, it may be off but it is done whether you like it or not. He is giving the players a lot of information by doing this, and at the same time giving his assistants and others a chance to improve their ranking skills. In the example above a player was given feedback on their leg twitch being better so they are ranked higher. If you listen to draft coverage these are the types of random things they are ranked on.

For people complaining about ATL vs depth chart, a depth chart is not more accurate. It has nothing about play call, time, situation or anything. Just as arbitrary as anything else. To me ATL says who could possibly play, based on all those details. As an added bonus more players get their names published and promoted. When someone is googling your name, more people see it and think they you are a big deal. For better or worse this is the new world, you old foggies need to stop thinking what worked in the past will word now. What is funny to me is the same people that lauded CPJ for doing things differently are complaining about CGC doing things differently. It is just in different areas. CGC is trying to maximize recruiting and give himself every advantage he can think off. CPJ did the same on offense.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Why is this idea of ranking players across all positions so hard to comprehend? They have some methodology they’re using, they just aren’t giving literally all the criteria to us. Maybe position coaches grade out players in their own groups, then all the coaches take those lists and come up with a way to put them together in one. The players may not even get to see the end result, it might just be something for the coaches. And at the end of the day it’s not an exact science and has no real world repercussions.
It’s really not that hard of a concept, most of us probably do something similar in planning for our fantasy football drafts. Why are some of y’all getting so lost in the weeds on this?

Getting lost in the weeds is one of the things we do best here.

 

[bobongo]

Getting lost in the weeds is one of the things we do best here.

Some folks like to delve into the weeds because after getting lost in them and then finding their way out, or perhaps being led out of them by others who point the way, they come out of them with a better understanding. I can relate to this because if I don't understand something I ask provocative questions which once answered lead me to a clearing where I can better see the situation. Reading the various aspects and responses to dressedcheeseside's inquiries has led me to a somewhat better understanding of how the new system might work.

If we all just keep our questions and observations to ourselves, we won't learn as much as we do when we ask them. If once asked and the answer is unclear, sometimes the best way to learn is to provoke an answer by stating one's objections or skepticisms. Or at least, it seems to me. Some people erroneously call this, "trolling".

 

[DeepSnap]

I need a scorecard... Which one of you is Sheldon? Leonard? Raj? Wolowitz? Kripke? Stuart?

Only 98 days til Aug 29th

 

[iceeater1969]

My take on the comments (without additional insider knowledge) is that the "global rankings" they are doing are like a classic "power ranking" of athleticism, effort and impact. This kind of challenge happens all the time in corporate america when annual reviews come around. How does Bill in Accounting equate to Charles in Sales and Mike in Marketing? The answer is, they don't equate but you can trend them fairly easily. It has become common to now start talking about the impact people bring to the organization outside the question of how they did in their specific job category.

The staff has talked a few times about being scheme agnostic and focusing on getting the best guys on the field. If anything, I think this method may help make the evaluations more clear. For example: Let's say we are STACKED at one position but concerned about the quality depth at another. If we have a mechanism (flawed as it may be) to talk about the impact a player has universally and not just by position grouping, it makes it easier to have a common understanding of who should cross train / sub where. Or even further extrapolated, when we should switch scheme based on personnel.

I don't know the specifics of his rankings or weighting so I can't comment on the appropriateness of the measurement but I can and do see value in the approach and presuming you do treat these things as more trending indicators than absolute rankings think it could bring value to the team.

Cheese may have only limited work experience in private sector. I worked as a draftsman for the naval air station and learned i was not cut out for that type of slooooow motion work environment .

I do think cheese is interested as am I.

I have been asked by the new football coach for Pensacola hs to find out more details.

 

[awbuzz]

Exactly. I'm not expecting to see an impenetrable wall of pass blocking this year. Time in the pocket might be quite fleeting.

... so in general, not much change from the past decade.

 

[bobongo]

... so in general, not much change from the past decade.

As has already been mentioned, our quarterback is going to be whomever can run and throw the ball effectively on the run. Jordan Yates?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Some folks like to delve into the weeds because after getting lost in them and then finding their way out, or perhaps being led out of them by others who point the way, they come out of them with a better understanding. I can relate to this because if I don't understand something I ask provocative questions which once answered lead me to a clearing where I can better see the situation. Reading the various aspects and responses to dressedcheeseside's inquiries has led me to a somewhat better understanding of how the new system might work.

If we all just keep our questions and observations to ourselves, we won't learn as much as we do when we ask them. If once asked and the answer is unclear, sometimes the best way to learn is to provoke an answer by stating one's objections or skepticisms. Or at least, it seems to me. Some people erroneously call this, "trolling".

Thanks. I’m just curious as to the methodology because I’ve never heard of one for ranking an entire team of 85+ players regardless of position especially in an era of increasing speciality.

As far as getting lost in the weeds goes, I bet if any of you had a boss tell you your salary depends on your rank in the business, you would damn well want to know how you were being ranked.

 

[bobongo]

Thanks. I’m just curious as to the methodology because I’ve never heard one for ranking an entire team of 85+ players regardless of position especially in an era of increasing speciality.

As far as getting lost in the weeds goes, I bet if any of you had a boss tell you your salary depends on your rank in the business, you would damn well want to know how you were being ranked.

The ranking of apples and oranges (and ten other species) all in one basket is a little counter-intuitive. Or so I find it to be, anyway.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Thanks. I’m just curious as to the methodology because I’ve never heard of one for ranking an entire team of 85+ players regardless of position especially in an era of increasing speciality.

As far as getting lost in the weeds goes, I bet if any of you had a boss tell you your salary depends on your rank in the business, you would damn well want to know how you were being ranked.

Ever played Madden?

 

[takethepoints]

Edit: I can’t understand how the Recruiting services can accurately order rank recruits across positions in the state and country either.

They can't. But nobody would subscribe to them if they didn't.

 

[Novajacket]

Thanks. I’m just curious as to the methodology because I’ve never heard of one for ranking an entire team of 85+ players regardless of position especially in an era of increasing speciality.

As far as getting lost in the weeds goes, I bet if any of you had a boss tell you your salary depends on your rank in the business, you would damn well want to know how you were being ranked.

Almost every employee is ranked whether you know it or not. While it is nice to know how, most are judging if they like you or not. We all like to think it is based on our competence.

 

[slugboy]

I think we're picking some serious nits here.
While ATL is focused on putting the best players on the field, we're going to have more than 3 OL above the line (or the refs would give us a penalty). It's not a depth chart, but positions still matter, even in "positionless defense".
Regarding not being able to rate a player at a position you don't coach--even an Offensive Line or Running Backs coach can look across the field and say "that strong safety is scary. we have to have him on the field". Likewise, if you're a defensive line coach, and every other coach on the field is telling you that one of your defensive tackles is good, including the offensive line coach you're scrimmaging against, there's probably something to the comment. And if they're telling you he's not, that probably means something too.
My guess is that, on most teams, there's a lot of difference between the first 22 players and the last 22 players on the 72-man traveling roster. If your team is loaded, maybe the line is way down towards the end of the roster. But that line is probably somewhere before #72, and the coaches are trying to figure out where that is.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Ever played Madden?

No.