WR Metric Study

Post-Combine Update (February 25, 2013)

It’s still early in the process, and the data will likely change several more times as we inch closer to April. However, I wanted to update the numbers so we could get a general feel of what we’re dealing with at the wide receiver position.

This particular study is geared primarily to the “outside” or “big” wide receiver. I have another group comprised of slot and inside types complete, but I haven’t had the opportunity to format the data tables yet. Additionally, I’m working on other specific studies relating to the OL, DE, LB and CB positions. They will all be finished soon.

As far as this years crop of receivers is concerned, there wasn’t a single prospect that competed at the combine that qualified for the “Top Prospect’ category. There were 5 that made the “Solid Prospect” list. They are Mark Harrison, Marcus Davis, Cordarrelle Patterson, Chris Harper and Da’Rick Rogers. Since Mark Harrison only carried a Production Ratio of 47.59, he technically didn’t make the cut. At some point, I’ll take him out of the list, but I wanted to include him this time so everyone could see how he compares to other players from an explosive perspective.

The “High Risk” category again produced the most interesting results. Compared to years past, a high percentage of 2013 prospects made the list. In case you forgot, the only criteria I used for this group is Explosive Power and Twitch. First, it includes players that scored less than 0.85 in the Explosive Power metric. Secondly, it required a Twitch greater than 1.15. I’ve sorted the players by their respective Twitch, from highest to lowest. Justin Hunter, DeAndre Hopkins and Terrence Williams are the most highly rated players that are included. As mentioned before, it’s not a guarantee to fail in the NFL level. However, there is a much greater risk of bust potential in this group and caution should be used.

I’ve included this years data in the tables below in the Pre-Combine Introduction.

Pre-Combine Introduction (February 6, 2013)

The Combine starts in a few weeks, and today we're going to look at the WR position from a different perspective. It's obviously an area of need for Buffalo, and there will be several prospects in the this years class that should be able to help the team.

While most talent evaluators refer exclusively to the tape, I prefer to focus on the physical metrics. The tape is obviously the first and most widely used evaluation tool, but most people can't tell the difference in a player who is flashing versus another who isn't. Our eyes trick us, and they do it all the time. I realize there is nothing a player will perform at the combine (or pro day) that will come close to what he'll be challenged with on an NFL field. This study isn't an "end-all." It's just another tool in the evaluation process.

For the purposes of this study, I looked at 780 players from the 2000-2012 NFL Drafts. The metrics I used to compile my measurements are the same as you’d receive at the NFL combine. I used Height, Weight, 40 Yard Dash, 10 & 20 Yard Splits, 3-Cone Drill, Short Shuttle, Vertical Jump, and Broad Jump. I utilized these metrics and combined them together through simple formulas to come up with a unique way of analyzing prospects.

Data

Players in Study	Position	NFL Drafts
816	WR	2000 - 2013

The results of the study:

Top WR Prospects

Yr	#	Name	School	HT	WT	40	10	SS	3 C	BJ	Vert	Speed	ExPwr	Mass	PR
07	2	Calvin Johnson	Georgia Tech	6.42	239	4.35	1.52	4.03	6.82	11.58	42.5	133.50	1.03	37.23	110.61
05	61	Vincent Jackson	N. Colorado	6.38	241	4.46	1.56	4.00	6.98	10.75	39.0	121.82	0.96	37.37	140.64
10	24	Dez Bryant	Oklahoma St	6.17	224	4.52	1.52	4.46	7.10	11.08	38.0	107.33	0.93	36.30	122.99
10	UD	Danario Alexander	Missouri	6.38	218	4.46	1.57	4.12	6.83	11.08	41.5	110.19	0.91	34.17	101.84
10	UD	Victor Cruz	UMass	5.96	206	4.47	1.56	4.17	6.96	10.42	41.5	103.20	0.90	34.56	80.08
12	43	Stephen Hill	Georgia Tech	6.30	215	4.36	1.49	4.48	6.88	11.08	39.5	118.99	0.89	34.13	89.77
03	60	Tyrone Calico	Middle TN	6.30	223	4.34	1.63	4.26	6.73	10.58	38.0	125.71	0.89	35.40	99.46
01	190	Kevin Kasper	Iowa	6.00	199	4.42	1.54	3.73	6.56	10.50	43.5	104.28	0.89	33.17	82.89
06	UD	Miles Austin	Monmouth	6.18	215	4.47	1.56	4.14	7.09	10.25	40.5	107.71	0.89	34.79	93.85
05	27	Roddy White	UAB	6.10	207	4.45	1.51	4.01	7.12	10.50	41.0	105.57	0.88	33.93	101.09
10	101	Mike Williams	Syracuse	6.12	221	4.53	1.52	4.31	6.90	9.67	39.5	104.96	0.88	36.11	85.98
04	3	Larry Fitzgerald	Pittsburgh	6.23	225	4.43	1.53	4.28	6.94	10.25	36.5	113.73	0.87	36.12	102.52
11	58	Torrey Smith	Maryland	6.06	204	4.41	1.51	4.13	6.72	10.50	41.0	107.87	0.87	33.66	82.24
12	227	Rishard Matthews	Nevada	6.01	217	4.44	1.56	4.19	6.88	10.25	36.0	111.68	0.87	36.11	80.48
06	119	Brandon Marshall	UCF	6.37	229	4.52	1.60	4.31	6.96	10.00	37.0	109.73	0.86	35.95	85.07

The first group is comprised of players I consider to be the top prospects. I’ve sorted them from highest to lowest by the Explosive Power (ExPwr) Ratio, a metric comprised of a player’s height, weight, vertical jump and broad jump. It attempts to quantify how much power and explosion a player can physically generate in his play. Each one of these players scored greater than 0.85 in this ratio. Obviously, higher is better.

I also used a few other filters in this sort. In addition to the Explosive Power Ratio, each prospect had a Speed Score greater than 100. I also required a 3-Cone time less than 7.15 and a Production Ratio (PR) greater than 80.00. For the Production Ratio, I calculated each players final season of production as a percentage of their teams total passing yards and passing touchdowns.

When I look at the results, I prefer not to categorize any of the players as elite, low risk, etc.. Instead, I want to see how these players have performed at the NFL level, and if they’ve outperformed their draft position. In my opinion, there are two players (Calico & Kasper) that haven’t. As the 190th selection, Kasper wasn’t much of a reach. He actually had somewhat of a productive career as a kick returner. Calico had some injury issues with his knee, but he should be considered nothing short of a bust. There are a couple of other players, Rishard Matthews and Stephen Hill, that haven’t been in the league long enough to form a solid conclusion. The others have proven to be studs.

While Calvin Johnson topping the list may not surprise you, the ability of this metric to identify stars like Victor Cruz and Miles Austin along with rising star Danario Alexander before they even hit an NFL field gives you a good idea of what kind of conclusions can be drawn from the data.

Solid WR Prospects

Yr	#	Name	School	HT	WT	40	10	SS	3 C	BJ	Vert	Speed	ExPwr	Mass	PR
13		Mark Harrison	Rutgers	6.25	231	4.46	1.58	4.33	6.99	10.75	38.5	116.76	0.94	36.96	47.59
13		Marcus Davis	Virginia Tech	6.25	233	4.56	1.63		7.15	10.00	39.5	107.78	0.93	37.28	59.51
13		Da’Rick Rogers	TN Tech	6.17	217	4.52	1.57	4.06	6.71	11.00	39.5	103.98	0.91	35.17	70.62
13		C. Patterson	Tennessee	6.14	216	4.42	1.55			10.67	37.0	113.19	0.87	37.18	67.49
13		Chris Harper	Kansas State	6.08	229	4.55	1.55	4.39	6.89	9.67	35.5	106.86	0.87	37.66	50.55
01	52	Chris Chambers	Wisconsin	5.97	210	4.33	1.49	4.00	6.92	11.17	45.0	119.48	0.99	35.16	67.72
03	3	Andre Johnson	Miami (FL)	6.17	230	4.41	1.53	4.10	6.96	10.75	42.0	121.62	0.99	37.28	60.80
11	59	Greg Little	North Carolina	6.20	231	4.51	1.53	4.21	6.80	10.75	40.5	111.67	0.97	37.26	67.54
11	26	Jon Baldwin	Pittsburgh	6.36	228	4.49	1.58	4.34	7.07	10.75	42.0	112.20	0.95	35.85	65.26
11	6	Julio Jones	Alabama	6.22	220	4.34	1.50	4.25	6.66	11.25	38.5	124.02	0.92	35.37	62.54
10	UD	Donald Jones	Youngstown	6.03	214	4.46	1.54	4.20	6.90	9.92	41.0	108.17	0.90	35.49	66.55
12	UD	Dale Moss	S. Dakota St	6.29	213	4.51	1.61	4.13	6.35	10.83	41.5	102.97	0.90	33.86	57.35
10	UD	Scott Long	Louisville	6.18	216	4.46	1.49	4.09	6.45	10.25	41.5	109.18	0.90	34.95	51.21
11	132	Kealoha Pilares	Hawaii	5.81	199	4.42	1.50	4.11	6.85	10.42	40.5	104.28	0.88	34.25	59.37
06	36	Chad Jackson	Florida	6.06	213	4.32	1.51	4.03	6.74	10.17	38.5	122.31	0.87	35.15	78.08
09	UD	Eron Riley	Duke	6.27	206	4.29	1.48	4.24	6.71	11.17	40.0	121.64	0.87	32.85	76.27
05	10	Mike Williams	USC	6.38	229	4.56	1.66	4.23	6.95	10.25	36.5	105.93	0.87	35.89	75.68
02	20	Javon Walker	Florida State	6.23	210	4.38	1.53	4.05	6.86	10.50	39.5	114.12	0.86	33.71	59.13
09	7	D. Heyward Bey	Maryland	6.13	210	4.25	1.44	4.18	6.80	10.50	38.5	128.73	0.86	34.26	55.99
12	13	Michael Floyd	Notre Dame	6.21	220	4.47	1.59	4.37	7.11	10.17	36.5	110.21	0.85	35.43	77.79
09	30	Kenny Britt	Rutgers	6.23	218	4.50	1.56	4.47	6.98	10.33	37.0	106.33	0.85	34.99	65.92
12	UD	Toney Clemons	Colorado	6.17	210	4.40	1.53	4.33	6.93	10.67	37.5	112.06	0.85	34.04	61.15
06	252	Marques Colston	Hofstra	6.38	224	4.50	1.60	4.44	6.96	10.25	37.0	109.25	0.85	35.11	53.92
09	84	Mike Wallace	Ole Miss	6.03	199	4.28	1.43	4.27	6.90	10.75	40.0	118.61	0.85	33.00	53.19

With the exception of the Production Ratio (PR), the same filters used to determine the top prospects were used in this group. These players all had a PR greater than 50.00 but less than the 80.0, and they are sorted from highest to lowest according to the Explosive Power Ratio.

The results aren’t as good, but they still offer some intrigue. There are three players (Dale Moss, Toney Clemons, Eron Riley) where I was forced to use their pro-day data since they weren’t invited to the NFL Combine. I use the combine data when it’s available. Another prospect, Donald Jones, will probably surprise many. I’m certainly in the minority, but I’m not prepared to give up on his game yet. From an athletic standpoint, there are only a few players in the league who can match his physical tools.

High Risk WR Prospects

Yr	#	Name	School	HT	WT	40	10	SS	3 C	BJ	Vert	Speed	Twitch	ExPwr	PR
13		DeAndre Hopkins	Clemson	6.08	193	4.57	1.59	4.50		9.58	36.0	98.12	1.31	0.82	78.60
13		Tyrone Goard	E. Kentucky	6.30	205	4.50	1.53	4.39	6.90	10.25	36.0	99.88	1.26	0.78	79.28
13		Aaron Melette	Elon	6.17	217	4.56	1.56	4.41	7.11	10.25	33.5	102.16	1.25	0.81	109.50
13		B. Kaufman	E. Washington	6.42	216	4.67	1.59	4.44	7.11	9.58	33.5	90.83	1.25	0.75	84.68
13		Lanear Sampson	Baylor	5.92	204	4.46	1.53	4.38	7.10	9.92	33.5	103.11	1.25	0.78	32.24
13		Marques Wilson	Washington St	6.25	194	4.51	1.51	4.51	1.51	10.17	34.5	93.78	1.22	0.73	75.89
13		Kenny Stills	Oklahoma	6.04	194	4.38	1.53	4.35		10.33	33.5	105.42	1.22	0.75	58.59
13		Ace Sanders	South Carolina	5.58	173	4.58	1.55	4.37	6.81	9.75	32.0	78.63	1.22	0.68	48.19
13		Terrance Williams	Baylor	6.17	209	4.52	1.52	4.32	7.01	9.92	32.5	100.14	1.20	0.76	76.67
13		Justin Hunter	Tennessee	6.33	196	4.44	1.54	4.33		11.33	39.5	100.87	1.19	0..82	54.30
13		Ryan Swope	Texas A&M	6.02	205	4.34	1.47	4.25	6.76	10.42	37.0	115.56	1.18	0.83	50.76
13		Darius Johnson	SMU	5.75	179	4.60	1.57	4.33		9.08	32.0	79.96	1.16	0.66	56.98
12	5	Justin Blackmon	Oklahoma St	6.06	207	4.46	1.53	4.38	7.13	10.25	35.0	104.63	1.25	0.81	75.23
04	9	Reggie Williams	Washington	6.30	225	4.56	1.58	4.34	7.01	9.92	36.0	104.08	1.16	0.84	81.32
07	23	Dwayne Bowe	LSU	6.18	221	4.51	1.53	4.35	6.81	10.42	33.0	106.84	1.22	0.83	70.25
07	27	Robert Meachem	Tennessee	6.17	214	4.39	1.51	4.31	6.97	10.08	37.5	115.24	1.20	0.84	83.57
04	29	Michael Jenkins	Ohio State	6.37	217	4.44	1.54	4.30	6.91	10.50	36.0	111.68	1.16	0.83	66.13
12	33	Brian Quick	Appalachian	6.30	220	4.53	1.47	4.23	7.10	9.92	34.0	104.49	1.16	0.80	96.85
08	34	Devin Thomas	Michigan St	6.14	215	4.40	1.47	4.26	7.15	10.50	28.0	114.72	1.19	0.76	82.42
08	36	Jerome Simpson	Coastal Car.	6.13	199	4.42	1.47	4.52	7.08	11.33	37.5	104.28	1.45	0.83	119.11
08	38	Jordy Nelson	Kansas State	6.21	217	4.51	1.50	4.35	7.03	10.25	31.0	104.90	1.25	0.78	99.27
08	42	Eddie Royal	Virginia Tech	5.79	184	4.39	1.46	4.34	7.07	10.33	36.0	99.08	1.28	0.76	41.51
07	44	Sidney Rice	S. Carolina	6.28	200	4.51	1.47	4.34	7.09	9.92	39.5	96.68	1.27	0.79	75.11
08	53	Limas Sweed	Texas	6.31	215	4.48	1.54	4.33	7.14	10.67	35.0	106.75	1.19	0.82	65.63
08	58	Dexter Jackson	Appalachian	5.78	182	4.33	1.50	4.38	6.81	10.17	29.5	103.55	1.28	0.68	53.58
10	60	Golden Tate	Notre Dame	5.85	192	4.42	1.51	4.34	7.12	10.00	35.0	100.61	1.23	0.77	88.53
12	63	Reuben Randle	LSU	6.23	210	4.43	1.52	4.33	6.99	10.67	31.0	109.05	1.21	0.77	81.04
11	64	Randall Cobb	Kentucky	5.85	191	4.46	1.56	4.34	7.08	9.58	33.5	96.54	1.18	0.73	75.19
07	73	Jacoby Jones	Lane College	6.21	210	4.50	1.53	4.31	7.03	10.75	34.0	102.42	1.18	0.81	86.23
07	75	Laurent Robinson	Illinois State	6.17	199	4.38	1.46	4.28	6.83	10.58	39.0	108.14	1.22	0.82	57.58
07	79	Mike Walker	UCF	6.13	209	4.35	1.54	4.39	6.92	10.08	36.5	116.74	1.25	0.82	91.99
08	81	Early Doucet	LSU	6.01	209	4.59	1.56	4.55	7.34	9.50	34.5	94.17	1.39	0.79	33.88
10	90	Taylor Price	Ohio	6.03	204	4.40	1.50	4.34	6.82	9.58	37.0	108.86	1.24	0.80	50.11
09	91	Deon Butler	Penn State	5.86	182	4.31	1.47	4.48	7.01	9.83	34.5	105.49	1.41	0.71	54.80
12	92	T.Y. Hilton	FIU	5.80	183	4.34	1.53	4.36	7.03	9.92	35.5	103.16	1.23	0.74	83.92
08	95	M. Manningham	Michigan	5.97	181	4.59	1.50	4.27	7.34	9.75	32.0	81.56	1.17	0.67	89.02
10	99	Mardy Gilyard	Cincinnati	5.98	187	4.61	1.53	4.40	6.92	8.67	39.0	82.81	1.27	0.72	57.88
09	99	Juaquin Iglesias	Oklahoma	6.06	210	4.44	1.56	4.40	7.22	9.67	34.5	108.07	1.24	0.79	43.12
07	99	Johnie Higgins	UTEP	5.94	186	4.48	1.53	4.32	6.62	10.17	37.5	92.35	1.19	0.76	79.95
08	106	Marcus Smith	New Mexico	6.11	211	4.51	1.50	4.42	7.10	9.25	26.5	106.84	1.32	0.71	61.64
10	107	Macus Easley	Connecticut	6.22	210	4.39	1.52	4.60	6.94	10.25	34.0	113.08	1.48	0.79	81.72
10	108	Jacoby Ford	Clemson	5.73	186	4.22	1.46	4.44	7.00	9.58	33.5	117.30	1.38	0.73	68.50
09	124	Louis Murphy	Florida	6.19	203	4.32	1.48	4.45	6.95	9.75	34.5	116.57	1.37	0.75	43.07
08	136	Kenneth Moore	Wake Forest	5.88	195	4.47	1.50	4.30	7.09	10.00	28.0	97.69	1.20	0.70	76.90
07	142	Steve Breaston	Michigan	6.03	192	4.46	1.49	4.29	6.90	10.33	33.0	97.05	1.20	0.73	35.48
07	146	Aundra Allison	East Carolina	6.02	198	4.39	1.43	4.25	6.81	10.58	37.0	106.62	1.22	0.81	54.17
10	156	David Reed	Utah	6.01	191	4.56	1.56	4.38	6.95	9.50	37.0	88.35	1.22	0.74	66.17
04	164	P.K. Sam	Florida State	6.28	210	4.54	1.56	4.32	7.05	10.42	34.5	98.86	1.16	0.79	40.20
08	171	Marcus Henry	Kansas	6.29	207	4.55	1.53	4.30	7.08	10.50	38.0	96.60	1.17	0.82	54.58
10	177	Carlton Mitchell	South Florida	6.23	215	4.46	1.52	4.55	6.96	10.17	36.0	108.67	1.43	0.82	47.89
08	182	Kevin Robinson	Utah State	5.95	202	4.69	1.59	4.77	7.31	9.58	27.5	83.50	1.58	0.69	80.31
10	191	Dezmon Briscoe	Kansas	6.25	207	4.66	1.60	4.57	7.10	9.58	33.0	87.79	1.37	0.73	76.82
05	192	Dante Ridgeway	Ball State	5.93	212	4.57	1.57	4.39	7.27	9.75	33.0	97.21	1.22	0.80	117.99
09	194	Brandon Gibson	Wa. State	6.03	206	4.59	1.63	4.54	6.94	9.42	34.0	92.82	1.31	0.76	68.75
10	197	Trindon Holliday	LSU	5.43	166	4.21	1.50	4.48	6.54	9.67	42.0	105.68	1.38	0.77	NA
10	198	David Gettis	Baylor	6.25	217	4.43	1.54	4.41	6.94	10.25	34.5	112.69	1.27	0.81	46.28
12	206	LaVon Brazill	Ohio	5.88	192	4.48	1.57	4.37		9.83	35.0	95.33	1.20	0.76	69.65
08	215	Justin Harper	Virginia Tech	6.28	213	4.56	1.54	4.43	7.03	10.00	28.5	98.53	1.29	0.72	52.45
09	224	Demetrius Byrd	LSU	6.02	196	4.35	1.47	4.52	7.08	9.75	31.5	109.48	1.45	0.71	38.64
03	231	Talman Gardner	Florida State	6.05	205	4.44	1.54	4.43	7.54	9.67	34.5	105.50	1.29	0.77	50.77
09	233	S. Stroughter	Oregon State	5.78	189	4.54	1.50	4.28	7.03	9.17	30.0	88.98	1.18	0.68	60.12
09	243	Marko Mitchell	Nevada	6.29	218	4.43	1.50	4.33	7.04	9.67	32.0	113.21	1.23	0.76	83.48
08	246	Mario Urratia	Louisville	6.44	232	4.59	1.53	4.44	7.07	9.58	30.0	104.54	1.31	0.76	22.21

This is my favorite list in the study, and three filters were used in it. First of all, it includes players that had an Explosive Power Ratio less than 0.85. Secondly, they all scored greater than 1.15 in the Twitch Ratio. The Twitch Ratio is a simple measurement that uses the short shuttle and the 10 yard split with a constant subtracted to make the result easier to read. It attempts to quantify a players change-of-direction ability, or football speed. Finally, these players were all drafted. The list is sorted by their original draft position, from highest to lowest.

Since there are some studs (Jordy Nelson, Sidney Rice, Randall Cobb, etc) in this category, I almost labeled it “Boom or Bust.” However, there are far more busts (Marcus Easley, Reggie Williams, Mike Walker, etc) in the list than booms. I’ve highlighted the players I consider to be busts in dark orange. Players in green have been to a Pro Bowl. There are some players (Brian Quick, LaVon Brazill, Justin Blackmon, T.Y. Hilton) included that haven’t been in the league long enough to be fully evaluated yet. If I was a GM, I would use caution before I drafted a player in this group.

2013 WR Prospects

Name	School	PR
Kevin Norrell	Stony Brook	131.43
Rico Richardson	Jackson State	118.20
Aaron Mellette	Elon	109.50
Tavon Austin	West Virginia	100.36
Charles Johnson	Grand Valley State	99.66
Stedman Bailey	West Virginia	94.61
Anthony Amos	Middle Tennessee	94.51
Eric Rogers	Cal Lutheran	92.74
Jasper Collins	Mount Union	90.31
Tyron Laughinghouse	St. Augustine	88.31
Quintin Sims	Tennessee Martin	84.75
Brandon Kaufman	Eastern Washington	84.68
Martel Moore	Northern Illinois	83.44
Mike Edwards	UTEP	80.51
Emory Blake	Auburn	79.49
Tyrone Goard	Eastern Kentucky	79.28
Christopher Slaughter	Fort Valley State	79.27
DeAndre Hopkins	Clemson	78.60
Terrance Williams	Baylor	76.67
Marquess Wilson	Washington State	75.89
Keenan Allen	California	75.64
Xavier Boyce	Norfolk State	75.57
Alan Bonner	Jacksvonville State	75.13
Luke Tasker	Cornell	74.31
Chad Bumphis	Mississippi State	72.69
Quinton Patton	Louisiana Tech	72.46
Markus Wheaton	Oregon State	71.90
Da’Rick Rogers	Tennessee Tech	70.62
Ryan Spadola	LeHigh	69.78
Cordarrelle Patterson	Tennessee	67.49
Corey Fuller	Virginia Tech	60.47
Marcus Davis	Virginia Tech	59.51
Conner Vernon	Duke	58.72
Cobi Hamilton	Arkansas	58.64
Kenny Stills	Oklahoma	58.59
Darius Johnson	SMU	56.98
Josh Boyce	TCU	55.90
Alec Lemon	Syracuse	55.40
Justin Hunter	Tennessee	54.30
Marcus Sales	Syracuse	54.24
LaRod King	Kentucky	53.83
Darrin Moore	Texas Tech	51.75
Robert Woods	USC	51.26
Ryan Swope	Texas A&M	50.76
Chris Harper	Kansas State	50.55
Ace Sanders	South Carolina	48.19
Tavarres King	Georgia	48.12

Finally, I’ve included the Production Ratios for the top rated prospects in the 2013 class. Since Tavon Austin and Cordarrelle Patterson contributed so much in the run game, I included those numbers in their ratio. Once we have the Combine and/or Pro Day data, we’ll be able to include them in the study and project how they should do in the NFL. I’ll also include another study comprised of slot / inside type receivers.

Tony Wiltshire

Tony.Wiltshire@gmail.com

@TonyWiltshire