Sports Buzz-Ireland vs Hickey drafting philosophy for LBs

Sports Buzz- Dolphins GM Dennis Hickey is ok with smaller, playmaking LBs

Former Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland had no interest in short, light linebackers (Miami’s lightest linebacker is 240 pounds) and was disinclined to make exceptions to his size/weight prototypes at other positions.

But whereas new GM Dennis Hickey prefers big players at certain positions, he has no stringent requirements if he likes a player. So Hickey appears far more likely to draft some smaller, playmaking linebackers than Ireland would.

Case in point: Hickey strongly advocated Tampa Bay’s decision to draft 6-1, 233-pound Lavonte David, who was far better than any Miami linebacker this past season.

Keep that in mind with a player such as Ohio State’s 6-2, 229-pound Ryan Shazier, who led the Big 10 with 144 tackles and could go late in the first round or during the second round in May. “He’s got a lot of Lavonte David in him,” ESPN’s Mel Kiper said. “He’s all over the field, heck of a player.”

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...-thought-lebrons-future-um.html#storylink=cpy

 

I can already see that these differences are going to be interpreted conveniently such to where whoever is currently picking is obviously superior to whoever is no longer picking the talent.

But let's keep in mind these are philosophical differences and the reality is there IS NO "right" or "wrong" here.

Jeff Ireland believes in linebackers having "instincts" just as much as Dennis Hickey does. To suggest Ireland didn't value "instincts" would be dumber than people are accusing Jeff Ireland of being.

What is at issue here is the use of prototypes. Jeff Ireland was a prototype guy. He was not as stringently about adherence to prototypes as Bill Parcells, but it was part of the Parcells philosophy that he adopted into his own core beliefs.

IF there is even a real difference between Hickey's philosophy here and Ireland's philosophy (there often isn't, and it's 100% spin), it is simply that Hickey does not adhere as stringently to prototypes.

There's a good to that and there's also a bad to that. If you adhere to prototypes you may miss out on guys that didn't fit the prototype but who are actually quite awesome. However you're probably also not going to strike out that often by taking guys that just can't play football. Prototype guys would argue that while someone adhering closely to prototypes may miss opportunistically (failed to get a guy that was good), guys who adhere to no prototypes will have more positive misses (took a guy that can't play football at all).

Prototypes are there for a reason and you should not kid yourselves thinking there is ANY evaluator that does not mentally make use of prototypes. None. Not a single one evaluates free of prototyping. Not one. Evaluators know when a guy looks too small to do things at the next level the way he did in college, or on the flip side when he's so big that there could pose problems at the next level. If they don't have a sense of these things then they're not worth the poo in my daughter's diapers.

The trick is in how much you adhere to the prototypes and when you make exceptions. That's an art rather than a science.

Incidentally, Dannell Ellerbe does not really fit the Parcells prototype at all. When he came out he was 6'1" and 236 lbs. When Lavonte David came out he was 6'1" and 233 lbs. That 3 lbs difference could be lost in one light workout. Hell, J.D. Folsom was 228 lbs when he was drafted by the Miami Dolphins. Jelani Jenkins was an eighth of an inch SHORTER than Lavonte David.

But of course everyone wants to love the one they're with and see things in black and white so stuff like this is going to be freely interpreted and misconstrued and assigned value based on nothing in particular, etc.

Sorry I'm quite cheerful today.

 

So adhering more strictly to prototypes should lead to fewer busts... it would also imply finding few diamonds in the rough in the later rounds b/c prototype players will probably be more highly valued by the rest of the league than non-prototype players, everything else ( production, film grading ) being equal. Personally I would take the philosophy of relying more strongly on prototypes in the early rounds because their is a larger talent pool available...and then progressively relaxing those constraints as the rounds ensue. I'm guessing that's kind of the norm...

Interestingly, Daryl Morey, the analytical GM of the Houston Rockets NBA team, was quoted recently as saying they tend to swing for the fences on draft day, higher-risk/higher-reward. The theory being it's better to go for high upside than average players b/c a roster full of average players gets you nowhere. Of course there's only 5 players on the court in basketball...

 

Agree with everything here.

I think a case could be made for the opposite of what you said at first. In other words I think a case could be made for Morey's philosophy extending to football.

If you adhere to strict prototypes in the mid and late rounds then you know you're going to come away with a higher percentage of players that can play to some extent. You're going to have your roster filled with some meat and potatoes. But if you think the league is driven by STAR players, which basketball almost certainly is and many make the case that football is as well, then perhaps you need to swing for the fences in the high rounds as oppposed to the low rounds.

 

Of course "swinging for the fences" does not necessarily imply grabbing a guy who doesn't fit size prototypes.

In fact just the opposite many consider "swinging for the fences" to be grabbing guys like Calvin Johnson whose physical dimensions and measurements damn near make your eyes bleed. Or perhaps a more appopriate example would be Dontari Poe since pretty much everyone agreed Calvin Johnson was good.

 

Can it not be as simple as having general prototype guidelines depending on position and coach's scheme but the ultimate decision making factor is "is the kid a playmaker?"

 

(Jeff Ireland and Dennis Hickey thanked this post)

 

I'd swing for the fences early personally. I'll take those high risk/high reward guys early because I'm expecting them to make up the bulk of the snap counts and I want playmakers there. The lower rounds are for pet projects and prototypes. These are the guys who fill your roster depth and play special teams. I want those guys to pan out more often because if there's a chance of injury, I want someone who can at least do something on the field to step in.

 

Come on down Telvin Smith!!

 

I'm not sure I'd do it one way or the other. Sometimes it seems appropriate to swing for the fences. Sometimes it seems appropriate to go with the safer prototype.

I'm the type who will talk about how once you get beyond a certain requisite level of arm strength, incremental margins of physical ability don't matter as much as incremental margins of mental/technical ability...and then turn around and fall in love with surprise Combine invitee Dustin Vaughan who hails from West Texas A&M and throws a ball with cartoonish velocity, trajectory and spin.

I had Russell Wilson rated high despite lack of physical prowess and I had Cam Newton rated high because of his immense physical prowess. Might seem a little contradictory to many but to me it makes sense.

 

The problem is the draft is a crapshoot. So what people do when they are serious about whatever gamble they are going to take is try to boil it down to what they know and what they don't know.

Measurements are objective in nature but subjective in the practice of predicting who will or won't be a great football player. Being a "playmaker" is subjective in nature and subjective in the practice of predicting who will or won't be a great football player. So often a lot of weight is put on measurables.

In reality, they should be given equal weight and the strategy for drafting should be changed entirely if you want success long term, IMO. I believe if you need a QB you take the one you feel strongest about with your first pick. If you don't need a QB then the picks you have in rounds 1-3 should be used on BPA regardless of where they are projected to get picked. If you believe Wilson is going to be as great as he is, you take him with your first pick instead of your 3rd. Sure it worked out for Seattle, but for long road success you have to limit variables as much as possible.

If you trade up, it should only be for a QB in those rounds if the price is any other pick in rounds 1-3....no other position is important enough to lose a pick form those rounds in. So for our trade last year, i wouldn't have done it because DJ is not a QB.If we wanted to move form 17 to 13 for example and it cost us a 4th rd pick, then do it regardless of the target position.

 

As a Buckeye fan I would be surprised if Shazier is half the LB David is.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

The draft is made to seem like a crapshoot by NFL GMs. A 50% (or so) failure rate in your hires would get you ****canned in any other industry, especially when you're only staffing 53 jobs.

That's why the teams which move to an analytic system that quantifies player positives and negatives with number values will outperform teams which don't.

As an industry, the NFL has to stop just throwing up its hands and shrugging off the overall dismal performance of its teams in the draft and try new things to make itself better.

 

I agree with fin d. It's a crap shoot. We've another thread debating gabe carimi. That says enough I suppose. I think your best hope is to find 2 starters and hope the rest at least make some impact. At 6 and 7 if they get through training camp then excellent, lets go. If they don't then what did we do wrong. Being far removed from America and college football I rely on some sites for guidance. I've seen walterfootball slated here but I'm not sure of better sites.
On another note, if we pick up a linebacker I'll be quite annoyed. I'd like to see the coaches at least try to up skill our guys first.

 

I disagree.

We're talking about predicting human performance and humans are complex creatures. There's a natural maximum sustainable success rate of the prediction that is far, far, far below 100%.

 

People that say it's a "crap shoot" tend to ignore the process by which 2000+ draft eligible athletes come to be sorted to such a high degree that there are 10 or 15 of them that are regarded to have between 40 and 60% chances of becoming excellent football players at the next level, versus 1800 of them who have at best a 1 to 5% chance of becoming excellent football players.

These people tend to pretend that god just made up a draft board which sorts these 2000 players and we all can wake up and check that board as easily as watching the sunrise. The "consensus" ordering just POOFED into existence by spontaneous combustion.

If it were a true crapshoot then 1st round prospects would only have the same chance of success as UDFAs.

 

Christian Jones too! We need a DT, Timmy J come on down!!!

 

Drafting a great player is a crapshoot and saying that doesn't ignore anything. Just because the entire board got whittled down doesn't mean picking the best players from that group is has defined and accurate process. You seem to forget all the other parts that go into the draft like need and draft order.

Basically you're saying your odds of winning at blackjack increase if among all the various pieces of paper that are*in existence at a given time you actually have a deck of cards. Well duh.

 

ck, just curious how long does it take you to make a post like this ?

 

A lot less time than you'd think.

Reason for asking?

 

i was just curious no reason really


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

Considering there is a pretty real chance neither Starks or Soliai gets resigned, I'd be thrilled with Aaron Donald.

 

I'm with you there. Jernigan was one offensive TD away from some very serious scrutiny. Had FSU lost, there would have been numerous pictures of him sucking oxygen on the sideline during that last Auburn TD drive and questions about his physical conditioning and mental toughness (whether fair or unfair). People would have been wondering if he took his training seriously or else he should have stayed in regardless (which, again, could be fair or it couldn't).

I'm not saying he can't fix what is essentially a fitness issue, but I do think the win helped keep his stock up.

 

To an extent I agree. However you cant take away just how dominate he was against what many people said was the best offensive line in the SEC. Should have been the defensive MVP for the game.

 

I'll say this about Telvin Smith. Supposedly Dennis Hickey is all about team captains and the like. I'm pretty sure Telvin Smith has been the biggest leader on the defense for a few years now.

He's been the one to organize the defense during non-practice time for extra practice and study and whatnot.

 

Why let both Soliai and Stark leave over nothing more than money? Here you have two guys who are each in the top five of DT/NTs and you're purposely going to create a hole in your roster? What crappy kind of personnel management is that by a new administration with $34M in cap to spend?

It'd be different if we were cap-strapped; but these guys both offer versatility that 90% of other DT's don't: the ability to seamlessly transition in-game to a 3-4 situationally and not sacrifice anything at NT. Especially Soliai.

Plus, letting them go now creates a need to draft a guy early, like you say, Clean, instead of leaving as many picks as possible available for the one true volume+quality need on the team—O-Line.

 

I like Telvin Smith a lot. He reminds me of another FSU player that Dennis Hickey took that I liked a lot in Dekoda Watson.

The trade off between the two is Watson was a physical marvel despite being a little thin and lanky for the position. I'm not sure Telvin Smith is the same caliber athlete but we'll see about that.

Telvin Smith plays like the leader he's purported to be. He's smart. He makes all the calls. He corrects people on the field. He recognizes what an offense is trying to do to the defense and tries to make sure the rest of his team are on the same page. He holds himself to a high standard.

What I wish that I would see out of him just a little more often is quicker recognition of route concepts to where he can jump into the passing lanes more often. The frustrating part about it is you know from the way he plays that he's got that in him. He's got the ability. He sees things on film and translates them onto the field. It's just not QUITE quick enough to be the kind of play maker in the passing game that Luke Kuechly is, for example.

Thing is he works so hard and is such an A+ player that way that you end up thinking he may get it.

I think NolePhin15 was exactly right to bring up Telvin as the guy that will come front and center in terms of allowing Dennis Hickey to prove that there is a real difference between the way he looks at linebackers and the way Jeff Ireland looks at them. At about 6'3" and 218 lbs, Telvin Smith stretches the prototypes to their breaking point. You have people talking about moving him to strong safety. I don't buy that. He's not a Kam Chancellor who had plenty of experience playing safety already when he came out. You don't have to make Telvin Smith into what he's not.

 

Agreed. Wait, what's going on here? Lol

Id much rather pay Soliai and Starks then draft OL than pay big $$$ for FA OL help and look for DTs in the draft. Like you said you're just not going to find guys like them in the draft.

 

Aaron Donald DT!

 

How do you see him fitting in Miami? Can he play Mike at his size or do you like him better as an OLB?

 

Doesnt play for FSU = fail lol

 

acc acc acc!!!

 

I worry about him being able to shed off blocks at the next level. He has fantastic awareness and was definitely the vocal leader of the defense along with Lamarcus Joyner though. I havent looked but does anyone know what round he is projected in?

 

It's generally safe to assume that a guy who has drafted or been involved in drafting a specific type of player will continue to do so, I think the reasons are going to be pretty opaque. It could be an overall idea that a certain type of player works "best", or it could be more individualized.

Jeff Ireland had a "prototype" that largely adhered to practicalities. He had size prototypes for front-seven defenders because he was(largely) drafting for a specific coaching staff who preferred a 2-gap front where any of those players could and should be capable of stacking and shedding blockers. Players had a height limit because it corresponds with arm length, which allows that stacking and shedding, and they had higher weight range for their positions because of the style of play.

Dennis Hickey could quite easily be the same general deal. He's been involved in drafting teams for a Tampa-2 or closely stylized version for almost his entire 18-year career with the Bucs. They tended towards smaller front seven players because they were running a defensive scheme predicated on quickness and speed. "Smaller" might not be desirable, but it's less of a problem in those circumstances and at a certain point results in attractive price points for players.

 

That being said, I really like Ryan Shazier and I think he should get a lot of attention from Miami.

He's just so incredibly fast and explosive. He's not an amazing take-on defender, but he's good for the size and the remarkable thing to me is how often guys flat out are unable to draw a bead on him or keep him blocked. The pass rushing element is pretty impressive too how often he can accelerate from a dead stop and nail a quarterback in a delayed blitz.

 

Makes me think Borland could be on our radar.

 

I never said I would want them to leave. Since they will both be Unrestricted, we cannot stop them and we may get outbid.I would like both to stay, but think we need to prepare for the fact both could go. It could be the free agency resources will be spent on the OL, and the draft used to replace the DTs. IMO, there will be better DTs available at 19th than there will be OTs.

 

I think he would play Wheeler's spot.