Critiquing Mike Mayock's Top 5 Running Backs

by John Morgan on Feb 16, 2008 3:52 PM PST in 2008 NFL Draft Comment 11 comments

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

The combine starts next week. With it begins that deluge of rumor, speculation and misinformation that comprises the pre-NFL draft. The entire foofaraw is a textbook example of argumentum verbosium with every draftnik with a horse jockeying to out bullcrap each other. I'm not attempting to impugn the whole scouting community, some, even most, no doubt, just want to be right. But right and honest are different daemons with different agendas. My point is that over the next few weeks it's best to keep a healthy skepticism about anyone's analysis of who is a stud or dud - including mine. I do my best to find the truth, but truth is a momentary quality. If I see Sam Baker play well over the course of three games it doesn't mean that Baker is and forever will be a stud left tackle, it just means this is what I saw, this is what I think it means. That plus a little rhetorical flare sounds awful cogent, but it's only information + opinion. That's what I do. That's what any writer does, even those who hide behind the veil of objectivity.

Anyway, enough naval gazing. I state all this because it's incumbent of me these next two months to state my opinions and argue those of others. This is a link I happened upon while skimming Blogging the Boys of Mike Mayock's take on the top five running backs in the NFL draft. And my response to his analysis.

Any real evaluation of a player must include all plays, not just highlights and lowlights. The use of lowlights to emphasize a weakness is no more accurate than the use of highlights to emphasize a player's strength. Mayock uses this bit of deception when he shows Jones being tackled saying "you have to make this play 10 out of 10 times". No one makes any play 10 out of 10 times. He's implying that because he gets tackled on this play that Jones is missing an ability, but one could take one play from any player who's ever played the game, say they should "make that play 10 out of 10 times" and paint an inaccurate portrait of that player. This is a basic fallacy of accident, where Mayock implies that this play can't be an exception, but must be indicative of a larger weakness.

The play where "McFadden's supposed to fly, Highsmith almost caught him" is highly deceptive and makes me both wonder about and question Mayock's scouting. First, Highsmith posted a 4.5 40 in high school. He is one of the fastest linebackers in the NCAA, something that should be stated. More importantly, if you look at the play it's clear that Highsmith is not faster than McFadden but because of simple geometry is running a shorter route to their meeting point than McFadden. Watch the clip again, McFadden cuts in, the linebacker is already inside of McFadden, so McFadden is running toward the linebacker in a horizontal sense - that's the only reason the linebacker even gets close to McFadden. I'm not super-high on McFadden, for other reasons, but that clip, framed as it was is more deception than scouting.

I'm not discrediting Mayock outright, but we should be wary of this type of analysis. Highlights, lowlights, special framing and broad declarations are more hype than analysis.

I've often thought to myself what I would tell someone who asked how they could better understand football, and the response I keep coming up with is "trust your eyes, not your memory." I didn't need any special training to start evaluating players, I just watched them play, over and over, and took down notes. Notes are good. Little that happens in the NFL is so complex or specialized that it should be beyond the grasp of an average fan. What I think persistently fudges good evidence broadcast for free into millions of homes is half-assed commentary, highlight packages and the weaknesses of human memory. We tend to remember the vivid rather than the consistent. That's why I think if you want to be a better draft scout or NFL fan you'd be well served trusting your eyes and not your memory. See if you can't find whole games to watch, not highlight (or lowlight) packages. Don't be afraid to be wrong. Wrong is good, if you can admit to it. That's what I'll try to do, anyhow.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just watched the video.

I agree with the general opinion of your breakdown of his scouting, or for that matter, scouting in general, but It's still tough to tell how much video he watched, and being on such a short time slot, he probably has to choose the best options of clips to explain what his opinion of the runners are. But who knows.

I think the Highsmith comment is a bit interesting, it is pretty vague, I know Mcfadden was slowly cutting inward, but It's still a DECENT display of what the guy's trying to say. I mean, watching them run before Mcfadden starts to drastically come inward, It does look like Highsmith gains speed on him slightly.

And I think the point he was trying to say is that, even though he had that angle, Mcfadden is supposed to be known for his burst and explosiveness, and should have been able to outrun even a FAST linebacker in the open field. Although, he still did the job, so I don't really see why that clip was even shown to be honest. It did seem a bit petty and worthless in terms of really making any point about Mcfadden. I felt the weak legs and ball carrying vids were a bit better.

I liked some of the analysis from him, for such a small clip, it was vague and generalized, but still not too bad.

But I agree, there just isn't enough film analysis to really know if these guys are really actually breaking them down.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 17, 2008 12:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well, lets put it this way.

If Highsmith is still just a 4.5/40, and McFadden is super fast, say a 4.30/40, it would only take a few feet of lateral motion by McFadden to neutralize their speed difference. It doesn't really matter how much film Mayock watched, that he chose to show that clip and use it as evidence that McFadden's top speed is not as good as reported is tantamount to propaganda. Propaganda or a pretty good indication that Mayock doesn't know much about football. Angles of pursuit are pretty rudimentary. All things considered, I think the guy is just looking for something that looks compelling with sufficient framing and on a single viewing to support an attention grabbing declaration: "McFadden is overrated." Again, it doesn't matter how much tape he watches if he's providing junk analysis.

by John Morgan on Feb 17, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, no.

But again, how much analysis can you give with that sort of time slot.

I don't know the man, so it's not my place to judge his football intelligence. As far as the film he watched, again, it's all speculation by anyone who breaks down that analysis he gave, because realistically it's tough to say what his options were in terms of that.

As to what you said here:

All things considered, I think the guy is just looking for something that looks compelling with sufficient framing and on a single viewing to support an attention grabbing declaration: "McFadden is overrated."

I think that's pretty much the clear indication as well. Again, what were his video options, what was his time schedule in breaking the videos down, what tactics did he use, etc.

As tough as it is to tell how good a running back is by a couple clips, without much knowledge behind the plays or the thought processes involved in diagnosing them, I can't imagine it's much easier to judge this man's perception of football off of his analysis in such a small clip.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 17, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

About the Jones bit.

I just finished the video and watched the Felix Jones part.

Again, I agree with what you're sayin about his analysis of that 10/10 play, but It's still pretty obvious to me that he's trying to say this is an area of the game where he needs to make the play. 10/10 times is basically just a cliche wouldn't you say?

He also immediately followed up by saying tackles toward his legs are generally what bring him down easiest, and that video was an example of that. Still, very short, not very precise, but not terrible.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 17, 2008 12:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Okay, again.

He's using one clip to "prove" that Jones lacks agility or break tackle ability, and because anyone by way of common sense innately understands that one clip proves nothing, he's using an abusive rhetorical technique, that a play this bad absolutely can't be an exception, to fudge the facts.

by John Morgan on Feb 17, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I don't really believe he was trying to '' prove '' anything to anyone. He is placed in a situation where he is to breakdown film in a 4 and a half minute clip. Unless he had alot of other material to go by, which he didn't mention, then it's tough to blame him for bringing most fans what they want, which is just a quick fix in terms of breaking down a players' abilities.

Common sense aside, I think number one before we dismember someone for THEIR opinions, based on their research, we should probably understand what their means were of gaining the information, and for that matter even presenting it.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 17, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I'm not trying to rip him up.

And I won't likely ever know what limitations were placed on him, but all I'm saying is watching that video made me trust his analysis less. He certainly has access to tape of every down of the last college season, that he chose to present the clips he did and frame them like he did is very dubious to me.

by John Morgan on Feb 17, 2008 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

Yeah, I agree. I think honestly I was just in a mood for debate.

I guess my main point is, out of such a small analysis it's tough to really expect too many great things.

I'd like to find somewhere that really breaks people down, because it's always interesting, unfortunately I'll have to rely on Mayocks 4 minutes.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 17, 2008 12:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hey, I just checked out your site.

It's pretty cool. The layout is very clean. My hip-hop leanings are decidedly undeveloped, Jay-Z, Kanye, Dead Prez (some), KRS-1, Clipse, nothing too underground or anything, but I just wanted to say the site looks really clean and well organized.

WRT to debate. I'm sort of hard to debate with nowadays. When I was younger I was fricken' tenacious and it was kind of a character flaw. I'd debate anything to the bitter end. So I've learned to check myself and let most things go. I figure I get a chance to speak my piece on the main page, I don't need to muck it up too much in the comments section.

by John Morgan on Feb 17, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Ah yes, Hip Hop used to be my main music of choice, but with todays talent I don't become impressed very easily. Nice@ the KRS mention though. I'm more of a Tupac guy myself.

And on the issue of debating, It sounds like I might be in your younger days shoes. I tend to have that ''problem'' haha, but I've always felt debating or arguing things out is one of the best ways to learn about all sides and view points of a topic, and to see what someone is really passionate about.

But yeah, this is a great site. I'm not a part of very many blogs, but I've been a pretty strong Hawks fan since about 2000, and your analysis and breakdowns are usually what keep this site bookmarked. Reading Seattle PI and Sportsline just doesn't cut it if you're a Seattle fan haha.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 18, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs