The SIS Football Rookie Handbook provides an in depth analytical and scouting view on the top 254 players in this week’s upcoming NFL Draft. Here we take a look at some intriguing prospects that didn’t quite make the cut.
The following are a few players that have intriguing analytical profiles and showed traits that suggest they have NFL potential, but had flaws that kept them from being included in the Football Rookie Handbook (FRH).
Marcus McMaryion, QB, Fresno State:
Analytical Profile: McMaryion was highly efficient last year, albeit in a non-Power 5 conference and in an offense that didn’t ask him to drive the ball down field often. Though he would have ranked first in On-Target % in our book, he would have ranked next to last in Average Depth of Target (only Gardner Minshew had a lower ADoT).
Stat
Number
Rank Among SIS FRH QB’s (13 Qualified)
On-Target %
79.5%
1st
ADoT
7.6
12th
EPA/Dropback
0.15
5th
IQR
112.3
6th
IQR under pressure
107.9
2nd
Scouts Take: He possesses a strong arm with the mobility to work in and out of the pocket. He struggles with overall consistent accuracy and his ability to read defenses as his team ran a lot of RPO/1-read plays.
Terry McLaurin, WR, Ohio State:
Analytical Profile: McLaurin was a big-play deep threat that had a high ADOT and EPA/ Target, but would have had by far the lowest Target Share among Handbook WR’s. He also excelled in creating separation.
To get an estimate of separation we looked at the amount of yards between when a receiver first caught the ball, and when he was first contacted by a defender, where pass breakups and interceptions count as 0 Yards After Catch Before Contact (YACBC). He ranked third in Total Average YACBC and first in YACBC against man coverage with an average of 7.4 yards.
Stat
Number
Rank Among Handbook WRs (33 Qualified)
On-Target Catch %
84.2%
6th
Target Share
8.8%
Last
ADoT
15.1
4th
EPA/Tgt
1.08
1st
Avg YACBC
4.3 yds
3rd
Scouts Take: He is a solid special teams player that can contribute on offense with his toughness and separation ability. He isn’t an incredibly precise route runner and doesn’t have a ton of short area quickness.
Wyatt Ray, Edge, Boston College:
Analytical Profile: Ray was solid against the run, ranking in the middle of the pack in Average Depth of Tackle and Caused Bounce % on Runs to his gap. While his pressure and sack numbers are towards the bottom of Edge Rushers in our Handbook, they are still respectable and it should be noted he was competing against teammate (and our 8th ranked DT/5-Tech) Zach Allen for pressures.
Stat
Number
Rank Among Handbook Edge’s (23 Qualified)
Pressure %
10.9%
22nd
Sack %
2.2%
18th
Avg Depth of Tackle
2.4
8th
Tackle Share
5.3%
18th
Caused Bounce %
32.4%
14th
Scouts Take: He’s explosive and quick off the edge and shows the bend to get to the quarterback. He doesn’t always rush with a plan and doesn’t use any counter moves to try and get into the backfield.
E.J. Ejiya, LB, North Texas:
Analytical Profile: Ejiya has one of the strongest all-around analytical profiles among players not in the Handbook. He ranks highly in almost every category, albeit against non-Power 5 competition. Perhaps most impressive is the fact that he ranked seventh in the country in Pressure % among players with at least 150 pass rushes. This is higher than Edge Rushers such as Montez Sweat, Brian Burns, and Clelin Ferrell.
Stat
Number
Rank Among Handbook LBs (25 Qualified)
Avg Depth of Tackle
3.0
2nd
Tackle Share
15.0%
4th
Broken Tackle %
3.4%
2nd
Comp % Allowed
0.0%
N/A (Only 4 Targets)
Pressure %
18.3%
(7th in the Country Among All Players w/ 150+ Pass Rushes)
Scouts Take: He’s a rangy athlete that has solid speed from sideline to sideline. He struggles to shed blockers and navigate through the trash on a consistent basis.
Mark Fields, CB, Clemson:
Analytical Profile: Fields compares extremely well against the CBs in the Handbook, as he would have ranked first in many coverage metrics. However, he would have been the least targeted CB in the book, as he was never a true starter at Clemson. It would have been interesting to see if his strong numbers continued with a larger sample size.
Stat
Number
Rank Among Handbook CBs (25 Qualified)
Deserved Catch % Allowed
50.0%
1st
EPA/ Tgt
-0.53
1st
Positive % Allowed
17.4%
1st
Avg YACBC Allowed
0.2
1st
Broken Tackle %
41.7%
26th
Scouts Take: He is a good cover corner that has the speed to be a solid slot player. He struggles against larger receivers and doesn’t possesses great play strength to knock them off of their routes.
By Bryce Rossler We’re less than two weeks away from the first round of the NFL Draft, and it seems likely that the University of Iowa will have two players selected in the first round. It is not particularly unusual for a Power 5 school to produce multiple first-rounders in a single year – plenty of recent drafts have had multiple programs do so – but it is interesting that both the players in question, TJ Hockenson and Noah Fant, are tight ends.
As Dan Kadar of SB Nation noted, this would represent the first time that two tight ends from the same school were taken in the first round. And while their paths will almost certainly diverge on April 25, it’s impossible to mention one without the other being brought up.
However, the two weren’t so inseparable on the field. The Hawkeyes were in 12 personnel on ‘just’ 35% of their offensive snaps in 2018, and Hockenson played 342 snaps with Fant on the sideline, while the inverse was true just 63 times:
Hockenson In
Hockenson Out
Fant In
421
63
Fant Out
342
0
On plays where Hockenson was in and Fant was not (HIFO), the Hawkeyes ran the ball 54% of the time and averaged -0.2 EPA/rush on designed runs.
As one might expect, they ran less frequently when Fant was in and Hockenson was not (FIHO). The run rate in Hockenson’s absence dropped to 40%, but, interestingly enough, rushes were more effective (-0.02 EPA/rush), albeit in a limited sample.
But this is not to say that the run game was better because Hockenson was out of the game. It should be noted that Iowa’s coaches were less willing to run behind Fant than Hockenson.
Iowa dialed up C- and D-gap runs to Fant’s side on just 22% of FIHO run plays, whereas they ran behind Hockenson on 35% of HIFO plays. And indeed, the average yards before contact on HIFO runs to Hockenson’s side was 1.6, compared to just 0.8 on FIHO runs to Fant’s side.
Unsurprisingly, the EPA-based success rate on run plays improved when both were in the game (41%) as opposed to when just Hockenson (35%) or Fant (33%) was in. The team was, perhaps surprisingly, less successful passing than running, as they posted a 36% success rate on dropbacks. This mark was better than when just Hockenson (28%) was on the field, but slightly worse than when just Fant (40%) was. Additionally, the EPA/dropback on these plays (-0.07) is much higher than the plays that featured just Hockenson (-0.67).
The last two data points make sense because Fant is generally billed as the better pure receiver, but, once again, it should be noted the sample size is smaller.
Their route trees were very similar, but the average target depth on all pass plays which featured only Fant (9 air yards/throw) was higher than the average target depth on those which featured only Hockenson (8.2).
However, if you look at plays where they were both in the game, Fant was targeted 53 times to Hockenson’s 34 (33 if you exclude interceptions), but Hockenson’s average depth of target (9.4) was higher than Fant’s (8.7). Hockenson’s EPA/target of 0.77 was also well above Fant’s 0.46 EPA/target
Furthermore, Hockenson’s EPA/target across all plays was 0.77/target and ranked third of 99 tight ends with 20+ targets in 2018. Fant (0.46) ranked 22nd behind several other draft-eligible tight ends; most notably, Trevon Wesco (4th), Irv Smith, Jr. (6th), Isaac Nauta (8thth), Jace Sternberger (14th), and Dawson Knox (15th).
The numbers indicate that Hockenson is the more well-rounded player, which aligns with media consensus. In our inaugural Football Rookie Handbook, we ranked Hockenson ahead of Fant, with the two comprising our top-graded tight ends. You can purchase the Football Rookie Handbook at this link.
Editor’s note: a previous version had miscalculated dropback success rates. We regret the error.
With the draft a little more than a week away, teams and draft analysts alike are finalizing their draft boards. For the most part, they look a lot different than they did only a few months ago. A couple of the highest rated prospects from the SIS Rookie Handbook are among those whose stock has taken a hit during the pre-draft process.
Greedy Williams
In the SIS Rookie Handbook, Greedy Williams was one of nine players to receive a grade of 7.0 or better, and was tied with DeAndre Baker as the highest rated corner grade. Initial mock drafts had Williams as a potential top 5 pick, and a virtual lock for top 10. Since then though, Williams has seen his stock taking a bit of a tumble. Mel Kiper has Williams 22nd on his big board, and his 3rd corner overall, trailing both Deandre Baker and Byron Murphy. Most mock drafts now have Williams as a mid to late first round pick, with some putting him as low as the top of the second round.
What he does well:
What’s interesting about Williams is that his ability to cover has never really been in question. In 2018 he allowed a deserved catch percentage of only 60%, and a QB Rating against of only 43.3. Both of those figures ranked as the second best among draft eligible cornerbacks, and were ahead of Baker and Murphy.
Part of what makes Williams so good in coverage is his ability to make quick transitions and stay patient on deep routes and double moves. While there was some worry after he struggled in his combine drills, particularly the pedal and turn, his numbers and film show little reason for concern overall.
On throws at least 20 yards downfield in 2018 Williams allowed only 6 completions for 172 yards and a touchdown on 22 targets, a yards per attempt of only 7.8. More impressive, while lined up on the outside in man coverage, receivers attempted a double move on Williams 9 times. The lone target fell incomplete. It is a relatively small sample, but illustrates his ability to suppress targets and is strong evidence of his ability to stay patient on long developing routes.
Where he comes up short:
The biggest reason for Greedy’s fall from the top of big boards is his tackling ability. Take this quote from Mel Kiper that echoes the concerns of a number of NFL teams:
“Opinions are already complete now, and I think the tackling and the ability to be an 11th man on that defense, and not play with 10 and have a big running back coming around the corner and make a business decision on whether you tackle or you don’t. Again, you’ve got to tackle these bigger receivers, these tight ends in space, because it’s an extension of the running game. Or these short passes. You can’t be missing tackles in the open field or around the line of scrimmage. Again, tackling not just running backs, but receivers and tight ends, that’s going to be the issue.”
There is room to debate just how important it is for corners to be strong tacklers, especially when they are as strong in coverage as Williams, but there is no denying that tackling is an issue. Williams had only 34 combined tackles in 2018, which did not even rank him in the top 200 among all college corners. He also had a broken tackle percentage of 15.4%, which was among the worst of all draft eligible corners. Put into perspective, fellow top prospects Deandre Baker and Byron Murphy came in at 2.4% and 8.2% respectively, both ranking in the top 10 among draft eligible corners.
Some of this is scheme related as Williams spent 63% of his snaps in man coverage in 2018, but his poor tackling technique is certainly a concern for teams that like to use corners in run support, and is the main culprit for his slide as we approach the draft.
N’Keal Harry
There has never really been a consensus among draft analysts about the top WRs in this years draft, and the picture hasn’t become much clearer as we approach the draft. One player that seems to be sliding though is N’Keal Harry, who comes in as the top receiver in the SIS Rookie Handbook.
Once in contention with Metcalf for the top spot among receivers, Harry has been usurped in a most rankings by the likes of A.J Brown, Deebo Samuel, Marqise Brown and even J.J. Arcega-Whiteside. What’s different about his slide though is that there is nothing new you can point to that explains it. Sure, D.K. Metcalf showing up to the combine looking like a super human didn’t help, but Harry had a strong combine performance in his own right, posting a 4.53 40-yard dash, 38.5″ vertical, and 27 reps on the bench.
What he does well:
In 2018 Harry turned 90 catchable targets into 73 catches, 1,088 yards and 9 touchdowns, a QB Rating when targeted of 114.9. His ability to use his size to make plays downfield is part of what makes him such an intriguing prospect. Harry ran 47.2% of his routes down the field 2018, and on those targets racked up 17 catches for 421 yards and 5 TDs. Good for a rating of 129.75.
Harry is also dynamic with the ball in his hands after the catch, using his unique combination of size and speed to generate additional yardage. In 2018 he averaged 7.1 yards after the catch, and his 308 yards after contact ranked 5th in the NCAA.
Where he comes up short:
While Harry has shown a knack for finding soft spots in zone coverage, he fails to consistently create separation against man – particularly on shorter routes – and rather relies on his size, length, and catch radius to make plays. While this served him well in the college ranks, relying solely on size and athleticism gets exponentially more difficult against NFL corners.
To get an estimate of separation we looked at the amount of yards between when a receiver first caught the ball, and when he was first contacted by a defender. (Pass breakups and interceptions are counted as zeroes.) When looking at targets less than 15 yards downfield, Harry averaged about 2.4 yards against zone, but only .13 yards against man coverage. His numbers against man ranked him 2nd worst among draft eligible receivers, and 303rd of 313 receivers with at least 25 targets overall.
Separation is not always everything though, especially for a player who has the size and athleticism of Harry. While he struggled to consistently separate, it is also worth pointing out that some of the players in the NFL who find themselves amongst the trailers in this metric include A.J. Green, DeAndre Hopkins, and Julio Jones.
The combine is a distant memory, pro days are all but over, and it seems all that’s left to do is twiddle our thumbs as teams make their final preparations for the NFL Draft. But, arguing among ourselves about quarterbacks is a rich tradition, so perhaps that is the best way to occupy our time as we countdown to April 26.
From an analytical perspective, the search for QB1 begins and ends with Kyler Murray, who dominated the advanced stats leaderboards in our inaugural Football Rookie Handbook. Murray is widely expected to go first overall to the Arizona Cardinals, but prognosticators are less certain about how the rest of the chips will fall.
Three other quarterbacks – Ohio State’s Dwayne Haskins,
Missouri’s Drew Lock, and Duke’s Daniel Jones – are also receiving first round
consideration, and there’s no shortage of potential landing spots. The Giants,
Broncos, Bengals, Dolphins, and Redskins are franchises with long-term
uncertainty at the position who pick within the top half of the first round.
From an Expected Points Added (EPA)/attempt perspective,
Haskins (0.3) is head and shoulders above Lock (0.13) and Jones (-0.04). He’s
also considerably more accurate, having delivered an on-target ball on 76% of
his throws in 2018, whereas roughly 30% of passes thrown by Lock and Jones were
uncatchable or required an adjustment.
Haskins’ detractors will point to his low average depth of
target (ADOT) of 7.9 yards and cite that he made lower-difficulty throws, but
he targeted shallow routes at a rate comparable to the other two. Although Lock
(8.8) and Jones (8.2) had higher ADOTs, their throws traveled five yards or
less at virtually the same rate as Haskins:
Quarterback
Shallow Throw Rate
Haskins
48.5%
Jones
48.4%
Lock
47.4%
Perhaps this is more symptomatic of a concern about Haskins’ mechanics as they pertain to the deep ball. However, our metrics indicate that he was still one of the better passers in the nation at throwing catchable balls to depths of at least 20 yards. Out of 151 college quarterbacks who threw 20 or more such passes in 2018, Haskins ranked 15th at 65%.
That’s a hair better than Alabama’s Tua Tagovailoa, who is, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent 2020 QB1. It also represents a substantial demarcation from Jones, who ranked 47th at 57%. That said, he ranked lower than Lock, whose biggest selling point may be his vertical passing acumen. The Missouri signal-caller ranked 6th in the country by throwing a catchable deep ball 68% of the time.
By this point, you’ve probably noticed that Jones doesn’t
compare favorably to his counterparts, and his case is a curious one. First and
foremost, it should be noted that he played most of the season with a plate and
screws in his left clavicle to fuse together a broken collarbone he suffered on
September 8. Nevertheless, the Blue Devil captain played himself into first
round consideration and is regarded by some as the most pro-ready quarterback
in the draft. However, the numbers don’t necessarily back that assertion up.
Jones was primarily asked to execute 0/1-step drops, RPOs, screens, and rollouts, concepts that generally indicate simpler, or even singular, reads. He did so on a whopping 73% of his dropbacks, the eighth-highest rate among 164 quarterbacks who dropped back at least 100 times in 2018.
To give you an idea of how that might translate to the NFL, Nick Foles had the highest rate of 43 NFL quarterbacks at 58%. Only two other quarterbacks did so at a rate above 50%. The average rate among quarterbacks who dropped back at least 100 times was 34%.
Fit will be important for all of these quarterbacks, but it seems that Jones’ projection requires a bigger leap of faith than the others. Whereas the numbers can point to ways in which Haskins and Lock win, the statistical picture for Jones is cloudy. For a more in-depth look at each of these quarterbacks, the aforementioned Football Rookie Handbook has comprehensive stats and scouting reports on each and can be purchased at this link.
The combine is a distant memory, pro days are all but over, and it seems all that’s left to do is twiddle our thumbs as teams make their final preparations for the NFL Draft. But, arguing amongst ourselves about quarterbacks is a rich tradition, so perhaps that is the best way to occupy our time as we countdown to April 26th. From an analytical perspective, the search for QB1 begins and ends with Kyler Murray, who dominated the advanced stats leaderboards in our inaugural Rookie Handbook. Murray is widely expected to go first overall to the Arizona Cardinals, but prognosticators are less certain about how the rest of the chips will fall.
Three other quarterbacks – Ohio State’s Dwayne Haskins, Missouri’s Drew Lock, and Duke’s Daniel Jones – are also receiving first round consideration, and there’s no shortage of potential landing spots. The Giants, Broncos, Bengals, Dolphins, and Redskins are franchises with long-term uncertainty at the position who pick within the top half of the first round.
From an Expected Points Added (EPA)/attempt perspective, Haskins (0.3) is head and shoulders above Lock (0.13) and Jones (-0.04). He’s also considerably more accurate, having delivered an on-target ball on 77% of his throws in 2018, whereas roughly 30% of passes thrown by Lock (71.4%) and Jones (71.6%) were uncatchable or required an adjustment.
Haskins’ detractors will point to his low average depth of target (ADOT) of 7.9 yards and cite that he made lower-difficulty throws, but he targeted shallow routes at a rate comparable to the other two. Although Lock (8.8) and Jones (8.2) had higher ADOTs, their throws traveled five yards or less at virtually the same rate as Haskins:
Quarterback
Shallow Throw Rate
Haskins
49.1%
Jones
49.2%
Lock
48.6%
Perhaps this is more symptomatic of a concern about Haskins’ mechanics as they pertain to the deep ball. However, our metrics indicate that he was still one of the better passers in the nation at throwing catchable balls to depths of 20+ yards. Out of 151 college quarterbacks who threw twenty or more such passes in 2018, Haskins ranked 15th at 64.9%. That’s notably a tenth of a percentage point better than Alabama’s Tua Tagovailoa, who is, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent 2020 QB1. It also represents a substantial demarcation from Jones, who ranked 47th at 56.8%. That said, he ranked lower than Lock, whose biggest selling point may be his vertical passing acumen. The Missouri signal-caller ranked 6th in the country by throwing a catchable deep ball 67.8% of the time.
By this point, you’ve probably noticed that Jones doesn’t compare favorably to his counterparts, and his case is a curious one. First and foremost, it should be noted that he played most of the season with a plate and screws in his left clavicle to fuse together a broken collarbone he suffered on September 8th. Nevertheless, the Blue Devil captain played himself into first round consideration and is regarded by some as the most pro-ready quarterback in the draft. However, the numbers don’t necessarily back that assertion up.
Jones was primarily asked to execute 0/1-step drops, RPOs, screens, and rollouts, concepts that generally indicate simpler, or even singular, reads. He did so on a whopping 72.6% of his dropbacks, the eighth-highest rate among 164 quarterbacks who dropped back 100+ times in 2018. To give you an idea of how that might translate to the NFL, Nick Foles had the highest rate of 43 NFL quarterbacks at 58.3%. Only two other quarterbacks did so at a rate above 50%, and the average rate among quarterbacks who dropped back at least 100 times was 33.8%.
Fit will be important for all of these quarterbacks, but it seems that Jones’ projection requires a bigger leap of faith than the others. Whereas the numbers can point to ways in which Haskins and Lock win, the statistical picture for Jones is cloudy. For a more in-depth look at each of these quarterbacks, the aforementioned Rookie Handbook has comprehensive stats and scouting reports on each, and can be purchased here.
With the free agency finally slowing down, all eyes are turning towards the draft. With that in mind we looked at how teams at the top of the draft have used free agency to bolster their records, and how it may affect their decision come draft day. Team need charts are based on SIS’s unique Total Points metric compared against the league average at each position.
Biggest acquisitions:
The Cardinals have been relatively busy already this offseason, but have yet to make a splash signing. Terrell Suggs and Jordan Hicks were arguably the two biggest signings for the team, both signed in an attempt to bolster a linebacker unit that struggled in 2018.
Hicks was solid against the run in 2018, but struggled in the pass game. On 28 targets Hicks allowed 22 catches for 271 yards and a touchdown. A QBR against of a little bit over 100. Using Total Points, Hicks ranked as the 98th best linebacker in pass coverage among players with at least 10 targets.
The soon-to-be-37 years old Suggs, while listed as a linebacker, will slot in on the edge, and despite his age he should still be able to add value to a pass rushing unit that actually fared pretty well in 2018.
Additional signings:
In terms of weapons for whoever the QB is in 2019, the Cardinals signed TE Charles Clay, TE Ricky Seals-Jones, and WR Kevin White, a rather uninspiring trio for a team lacking weapons and moving into a Kliff Kingsbury offense in 2019. The Cardinals also added a couple of offensive linemen in Max Garcia and Marcus Gilbert and defensive lineman Darius Philon.
What to expect in the draft:
The speculation of Murray to the Cardinals seemingly won’t go away, and while Rosen’s rookie season was nothing short of a disaster, it seems crazy to think they would move on from him only one year removed from moving into the top 10 to select him.
Compounding the intrigue, Cardinals defensive ends were one of only two position groups that put up numbers above the league average in 2018. Outside of Murray, the only player’s who have been mocked at the top of the draft are pass rushers, namely Nick Bosa and Josh Allen. Either of those players would provide an immediate impact and be an upgrade over current Cardinals pass rushers, but it still makes the pick all the more interesting.
Biggest acquisitions:
It has been a relatively quiet offseason so far for the 49ers outside of sending second round pick to Kansas City for Dee Ford, adding a star player in a position of need.
Ford was a force in 2018, generating 13 sacks and 72 pressures, good for 9th and 2nd best respectively. Additionally, his 6 forced fumbles also tied with J.J. Watt for the lead league. Overall, Ford was far and away the top rated pass rusher by Total Points 2018 with 37.7 Points Earned, outpacing the like of Frank Clark, Aaron Donald, and J.J. Watt.
The 49ers also gave a massive 4 year deal to former Bucs linebacker Kwon Alexander, worth $54 million, including $25.5 million guaranteed. Alexander is a young high upside linebacker, but is coming off of a torn ACL. The 49ers are betting he can return to his 2017 form when he had 96 combined tackles, including 6.5 for a loss.
Additional signings:
The 49ers did also add another playmaker to their offense in Tevin Coleman. The 49ers were able to get solid production from a committee of running backs last season, namely Matt Breida, Alfred Morris and Raheem Mostert. Coleman will join a crowded but talented backfield, including a newly healthy Jerrick McKinnon.
What to expect in the draft:
The 49ers will have their fingers crossed hoping that the Cardinals take Murray with the 1st overall pick, allowing them to take whoever is on the top of their big board. 49ers GM John Lynch has made it clear he plans to take the “best player available”.
That “best player” is very possibly another pass rusher to go alongside Dee Ford. Nick Bosa or Josh Allen lining up opposite of Ford would quickly turn an impotent pass rush from last year into one of the more dangerous tandems in the league.
Defensive tackle was also a position of weakness for the 49ers last year, and the recent acquisition of Ford may allow the 49ers to select Quinnen Williams, a player many view as the best in the draft (including our rookie handbook). The Outland Trophy winner was dominant against the run, leading the nation in tackles for non-positive yards, and his hurry rate when pass rushing was also far and away the best among college defensive tackles.
Biggest acquisitions:
The Jets have been among the biggest spenders in free agency this season, most notably inking Le’Veon Bell to a four-year deal. Bell’s year off certainly adds some question marks, but it seems more likely than not that Bell will again find himself among the best at the position. Our Bryce Rossler took a deeper dive on what Bell does well earlier this offseason.
The Jets also added LB C.J. Mosley. The former Raven was productive over the course of his rookie contract, particularly against the run. In 2018 Mosley had 101 combined tackles, including 4.5 for a loss. Mosley did struggle in pass coverage in 2018 though, allowing a QBR against of 100 on 39 targets. By SIS’s Points Saved metric Mosley ranked as the 40th best linebacker in pass coverage this past season.
Additional signings:
Some other notable transactions for the Jets include WR Jamison Crowder, who they are hoping can turn into a reliable target for Sam Darnold, and also WR Josh Bellamy.
What to expect in the draft:
After selecting their franchise QB in last years draft, the Jets will likely be taking the “best player available” approach with the No. 3 pick. This would likely be one of Nick Bosa, Josh Allen, or Quinnen Williams, all of whom would provide tremendous value at positions of need.
It is also likely that the Jets will be fielding offers from QB-needy teams, especially if Murray slides past the Cardinals. This could allow the Jets to recoup some of the assets they parted ways with last year to get Darnold, and depending on the suitor could still leave them in position to get either Greedy Williams or Deandre Baker. Gaining assets while also grabbing the best player at arguably their biggest position of need may be the best case scenario for the Jets.
Biggest acquisitions:
After trading away Khalil Mack and Amari Cooper during the season, it appeared the Raiders were entering a lengthy rebuilding period. By trading for Antonio Brown they made it abundantly clear that was not the case. Brown immediately slots in as the best playmaker on the team, and the number one option for Derek Carr. I have already done a more detailed analysis on this trade here.
The Raiders also gave a record setting contract to offensive tackle Trent Brown, fresh off a Super Bowl win and the best season of his career. By Total Points, Brown was the 4th highest rated offensive lineman, and was especially strong pass blocking, earning 4.4 of his 5.7 Points in the pass game.
Additional signings:
The Raiders also added more talent to their wide receiving core by adding the speedy Tyrell Williams, who should find himself as their No. 2 option. LaMarcus Joyner was also brought in to help bolster the secondary, and more recently the Raiders added LB Vontaze Burfict.
What to expect in the draft:
Even after a busy start to the offseason, the Raiders have needs just about everywhere. They also conveniently have three picks in the first round this year. While their have been fun rumors about Kyler Murray throwing to Antonio Brown, it would be surprising to see them do anything other than replace the Khalil Mack-sized hole in their pass rushing unit. Depending on what happens in the first three picks this may mean one of Montez Sweat or Clelin Ferrell, but a run on quarterbacks at the top of the draft could certainly shake things up.
Biggest acquisitions:
Because of cap concerns, the Bucs have been forced into an uneventful offseason. The honor of being their biggest signee likely belongs to LB Deone Bucannon.
Bucannon played well in his time under Arians in Arizona, and now get’s a chance to be re-united with the coach who made him a first round pick in 2018. A converted safety, Bucannon will likely play a similar hybrid type role that he flourished in during his time in Arizona. In 2017 (his last season with Arians), he had 82 combined tackles, allowed a QBR against of only 76 on 44 targets, limited quarterbacks to 5.6 yards per attempt, and scored two defensive touchdowns.
Additional signings:
Outside of Bucannon, the Bucs have mostly looked to add depth. Other signings for the Bucs include S Kentrell Brice, G Earl Watford, and LB Shaqil Barrett.
What to expect in the draft:
By Total Points, the Bucs weaknesses aren’t quite as glaring as the rest of the top 5, but this is at least in some respects due to some Fitz-Magic early in the season. It is also worth noting that the future of their star defensive tackle, Gerald McCoy, is up in the air as the Bucs currently don’t have the cap to sign their upcoming draft picks.
Whether or not the Bucs are able to retain the services of McCoy will likely play a huge role in who they take with the number 5 pick. It is not impossible that Quinnen Williams is still their for the taking, and he would provide a solid, and more importantly, cost controlled, consolation for the loss of McCoy.
Two potential positions of need for the Bucs are at cornerback and on the offensive line. If the top of the draft goes as expected they will have the luxury of taking whoever is on the top of their board at either of the those positions, if they decide to go that route.
On the offensive line this would likely mean a debate between Alabama product Jonah Williams, or the incredibly athletic Jawaan Taylor. At corner, DeAndre Baker and Greedy Williams sit atop our big board. All four could provide an immediate impact for the Bucs in 2019.
The Bucs pick could also be a prime target for teams looking to make a move for a sliding QB. Projecting what Dave Gettelman will do at No. 6 is tricky, but the Giants taking a QB seems like the most likely outcome. A team like Washington or Cincinnati my need to jump to No. 5 if they want to grab their franchise QB in this draft.
During the Ted Thompson era in Green Bay, the Packers were notoriously inactive in free agency. That trend has changed under second year General Manager Brian Gutekunst. Will that help maximize Green Bay’s contending window?
This off-season alone, Gutekunst has already handed out contracts worth a total of $182 million per Spotrac. For comparison, Thompson handed out only $77.5 million worth of contracts over his last 7 years as GM combined. Gutekunst’s signings so far have been focused on defense, as he’s signed safety Adrian Amos and edge rushers Preston Smith and Za’Darius Smith, while also signing offensive lineman Billy Turner.
The three defensive signings should immediately fill positions of need, and importance, for the Packers. That is always a good thing for a team with an aging quarterback. But is spending on large free agent contracts now better than their previous draft and develop strategy?
With four draft picks in the top 75 selections and a draft loaded with pass rushers, it might seem like the Packers overspent on the two Smith’s in free agency. However, when analyzing how edge rushers at different points in their careers perform based on SIS’s Total Points metric, Green Bay probably made the right move to maximize its contending window.
How Edge Rushers and Safeties of Different Tenures Perform in the NFL:
We analyzed how edge rushers performed over the past three seasons based on how many years they have been in the NFL. Only edge rushers (DE or LB who rushes at least 70 percent of his snaps) who had at least 100 pass play snaps in a given season from 2016-2018 were included. Their performance was broken up by two major milestones in a player’s development and contract situation.
The first grouping only includes a player’s rookie season since rookies generally have a learning curve to adjust to from college. The second group is second through fourth year players. The third group is fifth year through eighth year players. This group is made up of players who are mainly playing on their second contract.
In looking at the average Total Points Saved that edge rushers create, there is an unsurprising positive jump after a player’s rookie season. There is also a positive jump as they enter into their second contract.
This doesn’t mean that free agency is a better way to build a team, especially once finances are included into the equation. It also doesn’t mean that players linearly improve as they age—there are survivor biases to consider when comparing rookies to eighth-year players. It just means that teams can generally expect more immediate results from older players that have proven they can perform in the NFL. And if the Packers are looking to maximize Aaron Rodgers’ prime seasons, that’s a big factor.
The same analysis was applied to safeties, with only safeties who played at least 100 pass play snaps in a given season from 2016-2018 included. The results show the same trend of a positive jump after a player’s rookie season and a second jump after a player’s fourth season in average Total Points Saved.
Both of these tables bode well for the Packers’ need for immediate impact players on defense. They show that safeties, such as Amos, and edge rushers, such as the two Smith’s, who make it too their second contract perform better on average than younger players and rookies.
How Adrian Amos, Preston Smith, and Za’Darius Smith will Help the Packers:
How their positions perform by tenure is not the only positive for the Packers when analyzing the signings of Amos and the two Smith’s.
Last season the Packers ranked 26th in EPA allowed per designed pass play (pass plays plus scrambles and minus screens). This was primarily due to their inability to create pressure on opposing quarterbacks and their below-average safety play. That is a major problem for a team that played the 4th-most man coverage and blitzed the 7th most in 2018. Teams with those tendencies need to have good pass rushers and reliable safeties on the back end to clean up plays.
Packers players ranked 27th in Coverage Success Rate (41%) when lined up at safety. (Coverage Success Rate is the percent of targets that result in a negative EPA for the Offense )
The Packers defense ranked 24th in Pressure Percentage on non-blitz plays (25%)
Only one Packer defender with at least 100 pass rushes had a pressure percentage of at least 10%, and that was interior defensive lineman Mike Daniels.
Adrian Amos:
Ranked 2nd in Coverage Total Points Saved (27) among safeties in 2018
Ranked 3rd in Coverage Success Rate (67%) on targets from the safety position among defenders targeted at least 15 times.
Ranked 1st in Man Coverage Success Rate (85%) on targets from the safety position among defenders targeted in man coverage at least 7 times.
Preston Smith and Za’Darius Smith:
Both have had a Pressure Percentage of at least 10% each of the last two years.
Za’Darius Smith (11%) and Preston Smith (10%) would have ranked 1st and 2nd, respectively, in Pressure Percentage among Packers edge rushers last season.
Preston Smith ranked 3rd in Pass Rush Total Points Saved among LB in 2017 with 23. He had 15 Pass Rush Total Points Saved in 2018, which was more than double the most by a Packers edge rusher.
The Packers’ need to maximize the window they currently have with Aaron Rodgers at quarterback. Going into free agency they targeted defensive players that could help them right away, while also still having some upside. They came away with Adrian Amos, Preston Smith, and Za’Darius Smith on that side of the ball.
Even though they come with large contracts, the statistics and Total Points by tenure analysis show that these signings have a good chance of working out. So although the draft and develop strategy is generally thought of as more efficient, signing free agents can be a good way to supplement a roster with immediate impact players.
For the Packers, it also doesn’t hurt that they still have plenty of draft capital to continue a draft and develop strategy for the future.
The NFL passed a rule change at its owners meetings to make pass interference a reviewable call. In light of the development, we wanted to share a newsletter that we sent to our NFL team partners earlier this year.
After what can best be described as a controversial end to the season, both pass interference (PI) and the current instant replay system are at the forefront of conversation this NFL offseason. With this in mind, SIS looked at which penalties are the most influential over the course of a game, and specifically which penalties might warrant being included in the NFL’s review process moving forward.
SIS’s charting
data includes detailed information about penalties, reviews, receiver
participation and route information, and was analyzed in terms of both Expected
Points and actual Net Drive Points. The goal was to see both the expected and
actual impact of different penalties on the game, the different factors that
can drive those penalties, and how those plays compare overall to plays
reviewed under current NFL rules, namely touchdowns, turnovers, and
receptions.
Using Expected Points to Evaluate the Impact
of Penalties
From 2016 to 2018
an offensive touchdown was worth an average of 2.03 Expected Points. While this
seems low, it is worth reiterating that for a clear majority of touchdowns,
most of the value comes in the plays preceding the score, as opposed to the
scoring play itself. Turnovers, on the other hand, are among the most impactful
events during a game, costing the offense 3.97 Expected Points on average,
almost twice the value of the average touchdown.
For comparison,
all accepted penalties from the last three seasons were analyzed, and the 10
most impactful penalties by EPA for each side of the ball are shown below:
On the defensive
side, pass interference is not only the most common penalty, but also the most
substantial based on Expected Points. On average, defensive pass interference
(DPI) nets the offense an additional 1.47 Expected Points. While this is not
quite on par with a scoring play or a turnover, it outpaces the next closest
defensive penalty by about a third of a point, and the most severe offensive
penalty by almost half a point.
While this
analysis primarily focuses on the defensive side of the ball, it is still
notable that offensive pass interference (OPI) has the most severe impact of
any offensive penalty with -1.05 EPA. It is called far less frequently than its
defensive counterpart, but, when called can play a large role in shaping a
drive or game, and it separates itself from the other more common offensive
penalties.
Using Net Drive Points to Evaluate Penalties
Another way to
look at this data is through the lens of Net Drive Points. Net Drive Points are
the eventual points scored on each drive, including negative points for
defensive touchdowns. From 2016 to 2018 the average offensive drive netted 1.62
point. To quantify how much each penalty can jump-start or stall a drive,
drives results were grouped by penalty type. Again, the top 10 penalties for
each side of the ball are listed below:
When
comparing the Net Drive Points for penalties it is important to understand the
relationship between the length of drives and the likelihood of penalties.
The
average drive that did not have a penalty was 4.9 plays long, compared to 8.3
for drives with a penalty. This is obviously not an indication that offensive
penalties extend drives, but simply that the more plays you run, the more
likely you are to take a penalty. With that in mind, the numbers for Net Drive
Points are slightly inflated, but still allow us to see which penalties had the
greatest impact on overall drive results.
DPI
was the most drastic, adding well over two points to the average drive, and was
about a quarter of a point higher than the second highest penalty.
Additionally, DPI occurred on 778 unique drives in the last three seasons, more
than any other defensive penalty, and was outdone only by holding and false
start on the offensive side.
Comparing
offensive and defensive penalties, almost all the most significant penalties
occur on the defensive side of the ball. The only offensive penalty that
rivaled the severity of a defensive penalty in terms of Net Drive Points was
intentional grounding, which includes both a loss of yardage and a loss of
down.
DPI as a Function of Play Calling
There are a few
factors that drive the increased impact of defensive penalties, the strongest
being that automatic first downs add a lot of value for the offense. When
looking at the overall EPA of penalties by down, this becomes very clear.
The average EPA
of a defensive penalty on first down is 0.64, but it doubles to 1.28 when the
penalty occurs on third down. This is likely a result of large EPA swings when
an offense is awarded a first down in third-and-long situations.
Further
illustrating this, the impact of offensive penalties remains consistent
regardless of down, with first, second, and third down having EPA values of
-0.77, -0.81, and -0.75, respectively.
Most importantly,
there is evidence that—at least on some level—offenses can force the defense
into penalties. Specifically, targeting vertical routes leads to more PI
calls.
When breaking down which routes are most likely to draw DPI, three routes stand out: hitch and go, fade, and go/fly. All three routes drew pass interference on about 7% of targets. No other route drew DPI on more than 3 percent of targets. The top 10 routes by their ability to draw DPI are shown below:
Not surprisingly,
the routes that stretch the field vertically put the most stress on defenders
and lead to the most pass interference calls. The average throw depth of a play
with DPI is 19.7 yards, about 8 yards higher than the average reception that
results in a review (11.8) and more than 10 yards higher than the average throw
(8.5).
Therefore, teams
that stretch the field, especially in high-leverage situations such as third
downs, would also be more likely to benefit from pass interference calls.
The go/fly also
stands out in terms of impact. It is not only among the most likely to draw a
DPI, but it also gains an average of 27.14 yards when flagged, well over double
the average reviewed catch, and has an EPA of 1.94, just shy of the average EPA
of a touchdown. The post and sluggo route draw DPI less frequently but have a
similar impact when called.
Final Thoughts
While DPI did not prove to be as impactful as scoring plays or turnovers by EPA, it did still stand out amongst penalties. DPI was a third of a point higher than any other penalty in terms of EPA and was also the most accepted defensive penalty. On the other side of the ball, offensive pass interference was the most impactful offensive penalty.
DPI also stood out in terms of Net Drive Points. Offenses scored an additional two points per drive on average when DPI was called. This ranked it as the most severe penalty overall, about a quarter of a point higher than the next penalty, all while occurring on the most unique drives among defensive penalties. (Only holding and false start occurred more often overall.)
Another important
finding is that offenses can play a role in defensive penalties. There were
three routes that stood out in their ability to draw DPI: hitch and go, fade,
and go/fly.
High yardage penalties, coupled with the impact of automatic first downs can lead to large swings in games, particularly when it is called in third down situations. Pass interference warrants inclusion in the NFL’s review system. The above analysis shows that PI is at least as impactful as plays that can currently be challenged, specifically receptions, and are among the most impactful plays in the game.
The league season is still a few hours from officially starting, and yet the last week has been among the most chaotic in recent memory. While record-breaking contracts have been given out left and right, the two biggest moves actually came via trade, as Antonio Brown was sent to the Raiders and Odell Beckham Jr. was sent to the Browns.
Odell to the Browns
Browns get: Odell Beckham Jr. Giants get: S Jabrill Peppers, 17th pick, 95th pick
Baker Mayfield excelled last season under then-interim OC Freddie Kitchens. From weeks 9 through 17, Mayfield posted an Independent Quarterback Rating (IQR) of 112.1, the fourth-best rating during that stretch, and a Yards per Attempt (Y/A) of 8.6, trailing only Patrick Mahomes by a tenth of a yard. With Kitchens now the head coach and with Baker having his first full offseason of preparation, that high level of play was already expected to continue into 2019. But now with Beckham in the fold, the Browns’ offense has the potential to be among the league’s most dangerous.
In 2018, Beckham was only targeted on throws more than 15 yards downfield 36 times, a criminally low rate for such a dangerous player. For reference, Julio Jones saw 65 such targets. To make matters worse, Eli Manning ranked 22nd in On-Target% (57.9) and 25th in IQR (81.2) on those throws.
Beckham should expect to be targeted downfield much more often with the Browns. During Kitchens’ tenure as OC, only Aaron Rodgers pushed the ball downfield more consistently than Mayfield. On those throws, Mayfield posted an On-Target% of 62.5 and an IQR 109.7, which ranked as the fifth- and seventh-best marks in the league during that span. Beckham should immediately become Mayfield’s go-to guy downfield, and Jarvis Landry can work the short and intermediate parts of the field where he is more comfortable. (In 2016 and 2017, 33 percent of Landry’s targets came on slants, drags, or screens, compared to only 21 percent in 2018.)
On the other end of the deal, this trade leaves the Giants in a precarious position, even before considering the dead salary cap ramifications. They’re only a handful of years away from owing Barkley a huge pay day, and have managed to trade away most of their young talent, all while not making any real effort to find a replacement for Eli. Maybe their quarterback of the future falls to them at the sixth pick this year, or maybe they use their new first round pick in a package to move up and draft their guy, but it’s hard to see a path to quick rebuild for the Giants.
The Browns also find themselves in an unfamiliar spot: betting favorites in the AFC North. It feels crazy to say about a team that is only two years removed from a winless season, but with a strong cast of skill position players on offense and a couple of young playmakers on defense, the Browns appear to be a legitimate threat in the AFC this year. It is possible that OBJ is the final piece in what has been a remarkably quick turnaround.
Brown to the Raiders
Raiders get: Antonio Brown Steelers get: 66th pick, 141st pick
This time last year, the Steelers were legitimate Super Bowl contenders. They had a future HOF quarterback; Antonio Brown and Le’Veon Bell who were both arguably the best at their respective positions; and young budding talent in players like JuJu Smith-Schuster. Fast forward to now, the Steelers are fresh off of their first playoff miss since 2013, and have managed to turn their two best players into a 3rd round pick, a 5th round pick, and $21 million of dead cap.
The Raiders, on the other hand, appeared to be entering a full on rebuild last year when they shipped their best player off to Chicago, but are seemingly trying to expedite that rebuilding process with this trade. Given the incredibly low price tag and their plethora of draft capital, it is hard to blame them.
Brown provides immediate help for an offense that mostly struggled in its first season under Jon Gruden. Derek Carr was efficient, completing 68.9% of his passes, but struggled to find big plays. His Y/A of 7.3 ranked as only 20th-best among QBs with at least 200 attempts. Despite his age, Brown should provide an immediate impact downfield. On throws of at least 15 yards, Brown turned 52 targets into 614 yards and 9 touchdowns. Raiders receivers as a whole had 1,029 yards and 7 touchdowns on such throws. The Raiders are hoping Brown can turn into the consistent downfield threat they thought they were getting with Amari Cooper.
Brown can also provide additional value in the shallow routes that are the staple of Gruden’s offense. While the Raiders were mostly efficient on these routes last year (they completed 81% of slants), Brown provides the big play threat and YAC ability that the Raiders lacked. Brown’s 8.8 YAC per reception on slant routes last year ranked 2nd in the NFL behind Tyreek Hill. Raiders receivers as a whole averaged only 6.4 YAC per reception, and only 5.3 if you remove Cooper from that equation.
A lot of the Raiders’ success this season will depend on what their three first round picks turn into, but Brown provides a clear boost to an offense lacking in playmakers. He should immediately become Carr’s favorite target and be the focal point of an offense hoping to turn things around this season.
Earlier today, Jason Witten decided to postpone his career in the broadcast booth and return to the football field. He is coming out of retirement for his 16th season with the Cowboys. But will his return be a success and help the Cowboys return to the playoffs and compete for a title?
Witten’s 2017 season (the last season he played) was, by just about every statistical measure, his worst in the NFL since his rookie year. Outside of his rookie year, 2017 saw him produce a career low in receptions, yards, and yards per reception. So it’s fair to wonder how much he has left, especially after spending last season in the booth.
Comparing his stats to the Cowboys’ TE unit from last season also paints a negative picture of his potential value in 2019.
Jason Witten Vs Cowboys’ TE’s in 2018
Season
Player
Rec
Yds
Yds/Tgt
TDs
2016
Jason Witten
69
673
7.1
3
2017
Jason Witten
63
560
6.4
5
2018
All Dal TE’s
68
710
7.8
4
The Cowboys’ TE’s basic stat production was better in 2018 than with Witten in 2016 and 2017. When compared to Witten, the group of Blake Jarwin, Geoff Swaim, Dalton Schultz, and Rico Gathers accounted for a similar number of receptions, more yards, more yards per target, and a similar amount of touchdowns in 2018. It should be noted that during 2016 and 2017 seasons, Witten accounted for 87.5% of the Cowboys’ targets towards a TE and TE’s other than Witten combined for only 19 receptions over those two years. A big factor in this is Witten’s decreased production after the catch as he aged. In 2017, he only averaged 1.7 yards after the catch, while the 2018 group of TE’s averaged 5.5 yards after the catch.
A common narrative surrounding Witten during his last two seasons was that he provided a good safety net for a young Dak Prescott. While this may have been the case, it seems that the 2018 group provided an even better safety net. The table below shows that Prescott’s production when targeting a TE increased in 2018 after Witten retired.
Dak Prescott when targeting a TE
Season
Player
Att
Comp%
On-Tgt%
Y/A
2016
Dak Prescott
105
72.4%
81.9%
7.1
2017
Dak Prescott
97
71.1%
78.4%
6.9
2018
Dak Prescott
91
74.7%
85.7%
7.8
Along with replacing him as a receiver, the 2018 group also did a good job of replacing him as a blocker. In both 2016 and 2017, Witten was asked to block on more plays than any other TE in the NFL. He was solid as a blocker, but the 2018 group of TE’s was even better, blowing only 5 blocks all season.
Season
Player
Blocking Snaps
Blown Block %
2016
Jason Witten
514
1.3%
2017
Jason Witten
488
1.6%
2018
All Dal TE’s
625
0.1%
In 2017, Jason Witten had 17.7 Total Points Earned (SIS’s overall value metric) from his receiving production. Cowboy’s TE’s in 2018 combined for 27.6 Total Points Earned from their receiving production.
Based on the numbers Witten had clearly declined during the last few years of his career, which should be expected of a TE in his late 30’s. So expecting him to provide much of a spark to the Cowboy’s offense in 2019 is a stretch, especially since the group that collectively replaced him has fared pretty well last season.
