Slow progress or resistance to change?
I've been following the NFL Draft this weekend with a mild interest. I mostly check in on the draft once it's finished to see what kind of wheeling and dealing was done, if any. I really enjoy reading the analysts takes on who did well, who didn't do well, and who took some flyers on players that may or may not pan out.
One thing that I've noticed, and have been noticing more and more is the discussion of height, specifically with quarterbacks. Now again, this is a good time to mention that I've never played football, or coached it, so I don't know what exactly goes on when evaluating players to step into arguably the most important role in professional football. However, I do have some thoughts on what I've read that tie into my common theme for the last two months: Sabermetrics, Moneyball, and breaking outside the box.
I'm sure as it is in rowing, it is in football; Height helps. In rowing height gives you greater reach. In football, especially at quarterback, I'm sure that standing 6'4" really helps you see the field better than someone who is shorter can. Height is still something that is readily talked about these days when discussing potential draftees.
But as in baseball, are we not reaching a point in sports evolution where height is no longer considered a make or break physical trait? In baseball we see that getting on base has slowly gained ground on the traditional ways of measuring how good a player is going to be. We've seen franchises and GMs starting to look at stats differently when putting together their teams, and making their draft picks. The "five tools" guy doesn't seem to hold as much sway as it did 10 years ago.
Is it time that the NFL and analysts took a page from baseball and started reevaluating players? One of the most noticeable comments that I read this weekend during the draft was height, or a lack of height on a player, specifically a quarterback. Whereas I've heard that a mobile quarterback may not necessarily be a great NFL quarterback - I believe the jury is still out on this - have we not seen examples of shorter quarterbacks at both the collegiate and professional levels getting it done?
The Seahawks just won the Super Bowl with Russell Wilson, a player listed at 5'11". Drew Brees, a potential first ballot Hall of Fame candidate and quarterback for the New Orleans Saints stands roughly 6'0". Johnny Manziel put up outstanding numbers at Texas A&M, yet is listed at 6'0".
Again, I don't know what goes through the mind of GM or a scout when they look at players, and can only make assumptions based on what I've read and seen. But I would think that with the successes of these afore mentioned players, that teams and analysts would start to see players for more than a pile of physical stats before making a decision on whether or not the player can play.
This is where I try and bring my observations back into rowing, and this is my thought. This fascination with the physical characteristics of a potential athlete shouldn't blind you when deciding who to draft, or in this case, who to recruit and who to walk by. At least that is my opinion.
I bring up the same argument that I've been having with myself. If the best erg scores don't always create the best boat - and in my limited experience, they don't - then why are we getting lost on numbers and stats that can be over turned once we put the athlete into the medium that we must work with? We as coaches discuss this with what is referred to as the, "dock test," or the "eyeball test," where essentially you look at a boat on the dock and make a quick determination on what that boat may do based only on what you see. We figure that a boat full of athletes over 6'0" - thinking on men's boats only - must be faster than the boat we see that's probably 5'7". But we know that this doesn't always hold true.
So again, we keep trying to push the ball forward when it comes to analyzing recruits or draft picks, yet we keep referencing old, or outdated ways of measuring the athlete.
One thing that I've noticed, and have been noticing more and more is the discussion of height, specifically with quarterbacks. Now again, this is a good time to mention that I've never played football, or coached it, so I don't know what exactly goes on when evaluating players to step into arguably the most important role in professional football. However, I do have some thoughts on what I've read that tie into my common theme for the last two months: Sabermetrics, Moneyball, and breaking outside the box.
I'm sure as it is in rowing, it is in football; Height helps. In rowing height gives you greater reach. In football, especially at quarterback, I'm sure that standing 6'4" really helps you see the field better than someone who is shorter can. Height is still something that is readily talked about these days when discussing potential draftees.
But as in baseball, are we not reaching a point in sports evolution where height is no longer considered a make or break physical trait? In baseball we see that getting on base has slowly gained ground on the traditional ways of measuring how good a player is going to be. We've seen franchises and GMs starting to look at stats differently when putting together their teams, and making their draft picks. The "five tools" guy doesn't seem to hold as much sway as it did 10 years ago.
Is it time that the NFL and analysts took a page from baseball and started reevaluating players? One of the most noticeable comments that I read this weekend during the draft was height, or a lack of height on a player, specifically a quarterback. Whereas I've heard that a mobile quarterback may not necessarily be a great NFL quarterback - I believe the jury is still out on this - have we not seen examples of shorter quarterbacks at both the collegiate and professional levels getting it done?
The Seahawks just won the Super Bowl with Russell Wilson, a player listed at 5'11". Drew Brees, a potential first ballot Hall of Fame candidate and quarterback for the New Orleans Saints stands roughly 6'0". Johnny Manziel put up outstanding numbers at Texas A&M, yet is listed at 6'0".
Again, I don't know what goes through the mind of GM or a scout when they look at players, and can only make assumptions based on what I've read and seen. But I would think that with the successes of these afore mentioned players, that teams and analysts would start to see players for more than a pile of physical stats before making a decision on whether or not the player can play.
This is where I try and bring my observations back into rowing, and this is my thought. This fascination with the physical characteristics of a potential athlete shouldn't blind you when deciding who to draft, or in this case, who to recruit and who to walk by. At least that is my opinion.
I bring up the same argument that I've been having with myself. If the best erg scores don't always create the best boat - and in my limited experience, they don't - then why are we getting lost on numbers and stats that can be over turned once we put the athlete into the medium that we must work with? We as coaches discuss this with what is referred to as the, "dock test," or the "eyeball test," where essentially you look at a boat on the dock and make a quick determination on what that boat may do based only on what you see. We figure that a boat full of athletes over 6'0" - thinking on men's boats only - must be faster than the boat we see that's probably 5'7". But we know that this doesn't always hold true.
So again, we keep trying to push the ball forward when it comes to analyzing recruits or draft picks, yet we keep referencing old, or outdated ways of measuring the athlete.
Comments