Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'data'.
Found 2 results
I don't retract my disagreement with how we've spent our Draft and FA cumulatively. However, the picks themselves are something I think we may well look back on as really solidifying this line, potentially for the next decade. First off, some background. RAS stands for Relative Athletic Score. It's a metric created by Kent Platte, and it compares things like size, speed, explosion, and agility to previous prospects. It's remarkably effective at projecting future success for draft picks, especially on the OL. Of the 25 pro bowl tackles selected in the first round that have been measured by this metric, 21 have over a 8.00 RAS. Looking over all the metrics, low scores are consistently excellent at predicting bad players, and high scores are consistently excellent at predicting good players. The same logic seems to apply to Falcons drafts. Since 2008, we have made a total of 13 OL picks under Dimitroff. These are their RAS scores, already adjusted to account for the increase in athleticism of prospects coming out. Adjusted RAS Scores Sam Baker: 4.32 Garrett Reynolds: 1.35 Mike Johnson: 1.91 Joe Hawley: 6.71 Andrew Jackson: 6.34 Peter Konz: N/A (scores not calculated, didn't do anything but bench, which went poorly - a bad sign in and of itself) Lamar Holmes: 5.01 Jake Matthews: 9.50 Jake Rodgers: 6.93 Wes Schweitzer: 7.38 Sean Harlow: 5.96 Chris Lindstrom: 9.84 Kaleb McGary: 9.83 As you can see, I've already bolded the ones who were over that 8.0 score criteria. Pretty impressive, right? I'd be hard pressed to spend an early pick on a guy who didn't fit this criteria after looking up the details. https://relativeathleticscores.com/2017/01/17/ot-relative-athletic-scores-ras-table/ https://relativeathleticscores.com/2017/01/17/og-relative-athletic-scores-ras-table/ Look at the ones there that are first round picks. It's almost like there isn't a shot at them being busts. It's incredible, really. If all holds true, our line should look immensely improved this year. Still iffy on the defense...but, eh. Here's hoping.
Here are a few stats that PROVE Sark is the problem. People who say “it’s not Sark” are the same problem with this organization, no accountability. Let’s face it Sark is in WAY over his head and stats below prove it. He has no track record of being a competent NFL coord/coach, has also been run out of town at all his college jobs. I get it, the oline isn’t performing as well but I chalk a large portion of that to scheme and playcalling. Sark calls plays without our limitations in mind - jet sweeps, empty backfield on short yardage situations making us one dimensional even if it’s just a decoy, Sanu throwing deep balls on 3rd downs, etc... You don’t regress the level of this without a major factor being coaching, period! We were averaging 38 points a game with the SAME players (injury bug is 90% on D). Now we’re averaging 24 points a game, a TWO TD DELTA!!!! Now the proof: In 2016 Matt Ryan’s average “time to throw” was 2.64 seconds and in 2018 it’s 2.68. How is that not coaching? More time to throw, go from #1 O in league to 14th and you add Calvin Ridley. This is a scheme issue, 100%! 2016: completion percent 69%, 2018 70%. Rushing efficiency: 2018 Tevin Coleman 4.86, 2016 Devonta Freeman 4.05 For the buck passers saying its not Sark let’s get real here! Data doesn’t lie, Sark is the problem, PERIOD! Even if we averaged 28 points a game (10 point regression) were sitting at 8-4 with a decimated defense. FIRE SARK!!!!!!! https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing/2016/all