PDA

View Full Version : Explosion Number / Production Ratio


cmhargrove
03-29-2012, 06:08 PM
I was just skimming through some mock draft materials to see how things were after most of the big pro days. I came across a fascinating article by Mile High Report. Maybe they have highlighted this before, but I just don't remember reading it. One of their formulas they are using to judge the talent (they go extensively into the top DT's) is what they call "The Explosion Number." The formula is as follows:

"Bench Press Reps + Vertical Jump + Broad Jump = The Explosion Number (70 or better)
This formula states that combining the number of bench-press reps, the vertical jump, and the broad jump of a player together, equals a measurable of that players explosiveness at the snap and changing directions. If the total is 70+ you may have someone special on your hands. 80+ and you're probably looking at a future Hall-of-Famer."

A few of the numbers for our DT's are:
Brockers - 55.92 (combine), 61.42 (pro-day)
Still - 67 ish (didn't broad jump)
Worthy - about 70 (didn't bench)
Cox - 66.25

Next, they analyze what they call a "Production Ratio."
"(SACKS + TACKLES FOR LOSS)/NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED = PRODUCTION RATIO. We are looking for someone who scores a 1.0 or better. That number shows that a player is making an average of one significant impact play per game, as in a Sack or a stop behind the line of scrimmage."

Production ratios for the big guys are:
Brockers - .48
Still - 1.07
Worthy - .99
Cox - .86

Anyway, I won't plagiarize the article, but will link it here, then you can read it and discuss. What do you think of this type of rating formula? How does it influence your choices? Pretty cool stuff.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2012/3/29/2910628/who-do-you-pick-if-you-dont-like-brockers-cox-still-or-worthy

oubronco
03-29-2012, 06:10 PM
I've been on the Worthy train for a while now and it looks like he could be the best of them

Man-Goblin
03-29-2012, 06:14 PM
When you're looking at DTs, you're looking for someone who scores higher than 1.0 in the "how many back flips can he do" category. That's all that really matters.

HILife
03-29-2012, 06:19 PM
I was just skimming through some mock draft materials to see how things were after most of the big pro days. I came across a fascinating article by Mile High Report. Maybe they have highlighted this before, but I just don't remember reading it. One of their formulas they are using to judge the talent (they go extensively into the top DT's) is what they call "The Explosion Number." The formula is as follows:

"Bench Press Reps + Vertical Jump + Broad Jump = The Explosion Number (70 or better)
This formula states that combining the number of bench-press reps, the vertical jump, and the broad jump of a player together, equals a measurable of that players explosiveness at the snap and changing directions. If the total is 70+ you may have someone special on your hands. 80+ and you're probably looking at a future Hall-of-Famer."

A few of the numbers for our DT's are:
Brockers - 55.92 (combine), 61.42 (pro-day)
Still - 67 ish (didn't broad jump)
Worthy - about 70 (didn't bench)
Cox - 66.25

Next, they analyze what they call a "Production Ratio."
"(SACKS + TACKLES FOR LOSS)/NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED = PRODUCTION RATIO. We are looking for someone who scores a 1.0 or better. That number shows that a player is making an average of one significant impact play per game, as in a Sack or a stop behind the line of scrimmage."

Production ratios for the big guys are:
Brockers - .48
Still - 1.07
Worthy - .99
Cox - .86

Anyway, I won't plagiarize the article, but will link it here, then you can read it and discuss. What do you think of this type of rating formula? How does it influence your choices? Pretty cool stuff.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2012/3/29/2910628/who-do-you-pick-if-you-dont-like-brockers-cox-still-or-worthy

What the **** did he broad jump!?!?! 30ft? That's All Universe!

cmhargrove
03-30-2012, 09:44 AM
For those looking for O-linemen, particularly a Center prospect out of this year's draft, the MHR guys also analyze a couple picks that could be excellent late round pickups. I hadn't heard of Molk before, but he sounds like a better option than even Konz. The dude put up twice as many bench reps and won the Rimington Award this year.

"But beyond the starters, we have very little depth, so I would use our 5th round pick, 137th overall to add some depth to the O-line. The guy that stood out to me here was David Molk, the center out of Michigan. He won the Rimington Award as the best center in the country, he's 6-1, 298, he blew away the combine with 41 bench reps of 225 lbs. He could come in and play center as a rookie, in my opinion. If he's not available, I would go with Ryan Miller, the 6-7, 321 lb giant guard out of the University of Colorado (I think he came out of Columbine High School). Ryan has a explosion number of 68.5, not quite 70 but close, not bad for the 5th round."

Bmore Manning
03-30-2012, 09:57 AM
I don't like this, think of all the workout warriors turned bust, who excelled with all these tedious numbers that just indicate athleticism. I like game tape to determine who is good at their position.

We should be talking about scheme fit, who plays with a great motor, who doesn't take plays off, by far and away the best DT that fits all these credentials in Brandon Thompson, and he fits in the scheme.

We should be talking about 1 techs and 3 techs, who falls under which, what round they are projected, and who should be taken..

cmhargrove
03-30-2012, 10:01 AM
I don't like this, think of all the workout warriors turned bust, who excelled with all these tedious numbers that just indicate athleticism. I like game tape to determine who is good at their position.

We should be talking about scheme fit, who plays with a great motor, who doesn't take plays off, by far and away the best DT that fits all these credentials in Brandon Thompson, and he fits in the scheme.

We should be talking about 1 techs and 3 techs, who falls under which, what round they are projected, and who should be taken..

I guess you didn't read the article then.

The second formula is called production ratio, and speaks to the actual game performance stats. That's half the analysis in the article. The question is, does it properly reflect who we think are "great players?"

Maybe I need to look back at the stats for a few excellent d-linemen already in the league. Maybe Von?

Bmore Manning
03-30-2012, 10:03 AM
I'd like to see the numbers of the DT's of the last ten years listed...

cmhargrove
03-30-2012, 10:08 AM
I'd like to see the numbers of the DT's of the last ten years listed...

I would calculate a few myself, but i'm having a hard time finding the "games played" stats for each player. Otherwise, it will be easy to calculate.

Bmore Manning
03-30-2012, 10:22 AM
I just don't feel like that formula is effective for DTs. Stats can be skewed for many reasons, 40 time is important to a DT? Bench press important for DTs, yet arm lengths vary. I like motor and production. That's why Thompson is my favorite, and Chapman/Randal later on.
I like a DE in the first round Mercilus/Perry, I think those numbers are better for DE's.
I would draft from your formula
1. Perry/Mercilus DE
2. Thompson DT
3. Best available RB
4. Chapman/ Randal DT
4. Best available WR
5. C/G
6. CB