DT Development 'n' Stuff

[MagicHef]

Here's a big waste of time I decided to work on:

I've compiled a list of every DT (4-3 DTs, 3-4 NTs, and 3-4 DEs) that has played in the past 5 years. Using PFF ratings for each one, I have done a couple things:

Charted average rating with years played:



As you can see, DTs have a small bump in skill in year 2, but don't really seem to have a large change until year 7. After 11 years, they are typically done. I don't know what happens in year 9.

Charted number of players in the league with years played:



The vast majority of DTs are in their first 4 years. This is totaled over 5 years, so to get the average number of players per year, divide by 5.

Charted total rating over the past 5 years with draft position (the clump at the end is UDFAs):



This looks like a bunch of nonsense. I'm hoping that comparing this with other positions (and maybe with some smoothing) will yield some meaningful results.

Cool note: The biggest bust by far is Tyson Jackson. His -43.8 is the 3rd lowest rating of all 395 players that have played in the last 5 years. The 2 guys worse than him were drafted 81st (Roy Miller, -47.1) and 152nd (Antonio Johnson, -46.8). Jackson, as you know, was drafted 3rd.

The best value? No one has been as good as Justin Smith (+169). He was drafted 4th, though. Geno Atkins wasn't drafted until the 120th pick, and has a rating of +125.4.

Anyway, I'm planning on doing all positions, I decided to do DTs first, what with Star coming out and all. I'll post the other positions here as well if people are interested. If not, I'll keep it all to myself.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Also, are you charting averages or medians? I think median might be preferable. It may not make a huge difference either way.

Interesting stuff, by the way.

Here's Medians:

[ForeverChiefs58]

Very interesting stuff MagicHef. Good work

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by Strongside

mmmm. Pacman.

wocka wocka wocka

[MagicHef]

Ok, this makes me feel a little better. Plotting total snaps against experience changes things:



5th year players played more snaps at DT than rookies did. 6th year players played only 6 fewer snaps than rookies over the course of 5 years. The first big drop off doesn't occur until year 10.

[cyborgtable]

Good work looks interesting. Keep up the good work

[Ace Gunner]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Ok, this makes me feel a little better. Plotting total snaps against experience changes things:



5th year players played more snaps at DT than rookies did. 6th year players played only 6 fewer snaps than rookies over the course of 5 years. The first big drop off doesn't occur until year 10.

so, the avg performance of all DT's starts off at 70% efficiency? that doesn't really seem right.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls

so, the avg performance of all DT's starts off at 70% efficiency? that doesn't really seem right.

That's not performance, just number of snaps. Rookie DTs played 34173 snaps over the last 5 seasons, 2nd year DTs played 42510, etc.

[MagicHef]

Okay, Rain Man, what is the best way to weed out the players that never had a chance of succeeding?

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Oh, okay. Nice work.

Maybe then you develop a family of curves, one that includes guys with 10 year careers, another that includes guys with 9 year careers, and so on. I could be mentally deficient, but I still think we have some pollution by the fact that the left side is going to include weaker players who aren't destined for long careers.

The issue with that is that since I only have 5 years of data, if we limit it to guys with 10 year careers, that means we have no data for the first 5 years of anyone's career.

Here's something I came up with. If we limit it to guys who have a full 5 years of data, hopefully we can cover close to the entire range of experience while getting rid of the guys who can't play. Most players wouldn't play for 5 years if they were terrible. I made the graph below by limiting it to guys with 5 years of experience.

The pink line is their average rating, yellow is median, and blue is every player's rating summed, divided by the sum of their snaps, then multiplied by a constant (total snaps of all players divided by total player-seasons). If that makes sense. I'm not sure which line would give the best sense of typical development.

[MagicHef]

Ok, one (maybe) last thing before I do DEs and OLBs. Here's the same draft position chart as before, but with some percentiles (90, 75, 50, 25, 10) added in. Hopefully it will give us something useful to compare with the draft data for other positions.

[Rambozo]

I think the key to a really good DT is heart. It's a horrible job and can really wear you down. It's a job that has very little reward. You have to find a guy that will weather the storm because the transition from college to pro is a really tough one at that position. People like to look at size and strength when evaluating these guys but the motor and the desire to play football are the biggest factors imo. The good ones are always extremely driven.

If KC drafts a DT, I hope they draft Jenkins from Georgia (if he provs to want it bad enough). He is an experienced 3-4 NT and the learning curve might not be as bad. I know we probably won't be in a position to take him but, he would be my guy...

[MagicHef]

Ok, I've done DE/OLBs. I put them on the same graphs as the DTs to compare.

First, their "development" (snap weighted average grade by experience):



Snap Count:



Draft (just DE/OLBs, not DTs):

[ottawa_chiefs_fan]

who in the **** thought Tyson Jackson was a good idea in the top 3 - holy ****....