#12: Danny Shelton, NT, Washington

[Soda]

That's fine and all but, for me, it's the eye-test. I need to see specifically what he looks like in a sweaty uni-tard. I think that outweighs production and combine results.

You pretty much are saying the same thing as the Browns.

 

[Lee]

I know that when I evaluate defensive tackles, some of the first thoughts that come to mind are their ability to run 40 yards in a straight line.

After that, I don't really care.

When he drops into coverage he seems to run faster than 5.6, so i wonder if that was just a bad day, or he gets really slow past 20 yards or what caused such a slow time.

Either way, play always is more important than measurable. Brady ran a 5.2 40 which is crazy slow for a qb, causing him to drop (among other things) to the 6th round. Suggs is another famous example and a fellow D-linemen, one where speed is supposed to matter.

A better example is the 20 yard shuttle. Malcolm brown was considered fast for a ng, ran the shuttle in 4.59 compared to 4.65 for Shelton. Similar speed in a shorter space.

the third D Tackle taken Eddie Goldman ran the shuttle in 4.87 by comparison.

When you examine the combine results, you find he fared well on the shorter running times and shuttle times which is all that really matter for a lineman, on either side of the ball.

 

[The Wizard of Moz]

I tend to believe numbers even if they don't make sense.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

This is the site for you my friend

 

[Soda]

A better example is the 20 yard shuttle. Malcolm brown was considered fast for a ng, ran the shuttle in 4.59 compared to 4.65 for Shelton. Similar speed in a shorter space.

I feel like the 20-yard shuttle is one of the more valuable numbers to look at with d-linemen. If you follow some of those scouting types on Twitter (Josh Norris is a good example), you'll see a lot of these:

I always like to see how these compare from year-to-year. (Nate Orchard just for fun).

 

[crabbyshark]

Who would get tired first trying to play nose tackle? Danny Shelton or Usain Bolt?

Who would get tired first trying to play nose tackle? Danny Shelton or another nose tackle who ran the 40 in less than 5.31? Like Malcolm Brown.

A few “red flags” were noted
-None of the 23 Combine participants who ran the 40-yard dash in 5.31 seconds or slower became 3-year starters

So if Danny Shelton becomes a three year starter, he will be an exception to the rule.

 

[crabbyshark]

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

This is the site for you my friend

Running and moving is related to playing football. I don't have to know why defensive tackles who run the 40 in more than 5.31 seconds fail to become three year starters to know that it's true.

 

[Lee]

Who would get tired first trying to play nose tackle? Danny Shelton or another nose tackle who ran the 40 in less than 5.31? Like Malcolm Brown.

A few “red flags” were noted
-None of the 23 Combine participants who ran the 40-yard dash in 5.31 seconds or slower became 3-year starters

So if Danny Shelton becomes a three year starter, he will be an exception to the rule.

I dont think 40 time has anything to do with ability to be a 3 down starter (not sure what you mean by 3 year starter)

Successful teams platoon their defensive lineman because their body type does have them wear down. It is a semi valid concern, but none of the top NT's can really play more than 75% of the defensive snaps.

 

[crabbyshark]

I dont think 40 time has anything to do with ability to be a 3 down starter (not sure what you mean by 3 year starter)

Successful teams platoon their defensive lineman because their body type does have them wear down. It is a semi valid concern, but none of the top NT's can really play more than 75% of the defensive snaps.

Most people, at this point in time, do not think 40 time has anything to do with ability to become a three year starter. I think it might for reasons that speak to a player's overall physical condition. If the trend continues smart teams should explore it further.

A "starter" according to the site is a guy who starts at least 8 games in a season.

 

[The Wizard of Moz]

Running and moving is related to playing football. I don't have to know why defensive tackles who run the 40 in more than 5.31 seconds fail to become three year starters to know that it's true.

edit: nevermind just saw it, reading it now

I'll try to put in my opinion any red flags I see with the study.

1. "Although flying 20 split and 40 yard-dash results are included in the table, DRAFTMETRICS believes they are of very limited usefulness in assessing the skill set of defensive tackles."

The source came right out and said the utility of it is very limited.

2. "Defensive tackles and nose tackles are lumped together for purposes of this article."

Generally speaking any 1 or 3 technique should weigh less/be faster than any zero technique. Vine Wilfork is a 0 technique. Geno Atkins is a 3 technique. These two players should not be lumped into the same position IMO.

3. "-None of the 23 Combine participants who ran the 40-yard dash in 5.31 seconds or slower became 3-year starters"

A few problems with this. A sample size of 23 over 13 years is way too small to draw conclusive evidence from. Also the total testing group 303 isn't a sample I would feel comfortable with drawing from. Also notice how 37 combine participants did NOT run the 40. The people in this group are very likely to have not run because they knew the results would hurt their draft stock. So you are possibly getting adverse selection of the slowest runners not participating. I would like to see more information on these players.

I would also like to see how many of these 23 players were drafted in each round/undrafted. If 15 of them were undrafted, well then of course they were extremely unlikely to be 3 year starters.

 

[crabbyshark]

edit: nevermind just saw it, reading it now

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/the-combine-chronicles-defensive-tackles/

 

[Lee]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/the-combine-chronicles-defensive-tackles/

From your article:

Although flying 20 split and 40 yard-dash results are included in the table, DRAFTMETRICS believes they are of very limited usefulness in assessing the skill set of defensive tackles.

 

[crabbyshark]

1. "Although flying 20 split and 40 yard-dash results are included in the table, DRAFTMETRICS believes they are of very limited usefulness in assessing the skill set of defensive tackles."

The source came right out and said the utility of it is very limited.

From your article:

Although flying 20 split and 40 yard-dash results are included in the table, DRAFTMETRICS believes they are of very limited usefulness in assessing the skill set of defensive tackles.

He said it was his belief yet still noted it was a red flag. Intellectual honesty FTW.

He also found, contrary to his expectations, that bench press was associated with cornerback success.

2. "Defensive tackles and nose tackles are lumped together for purposes of this article."

Generally speaking any 1 or 3 technique should weigh less/be faster than any zero technique. Vine Wilfork is a 0 technique. Geno Atkins is a 3 technique. These two players should not be lumped into the same position IMO.

3. "-None of the 23 Combine participants who ran the 40-yard dash in 5.31 seconds or slower became 3-year starters"

A few problems with this. A sample size of 23 over 13 years is way too small to draw conclusive evidence from. Also the total testing group 303 isn't a sample I would feel comfortable with drawing from. Also notice how 37 combine participants did NOT run the 40. The people in this group are very likely to have not run because they knew the results would hurt their draft stock. So you are possibly getting adverse selection of the slowest runners not participating. I would like to see more information on these players.

I would also like to see how many of these 23 players were drafted in each round/undrafted. If 15 of them were undrafted, well then of course they were extremely unlikely to be 3 year starters.

It is extremely difficult to make it in the NFL. Here is a list of results. DRAFTMETRICS study goes from 1999-2012.

I think Shelton could be an exception to the rule and said so in my original post.

 

[The Wizard of Moz]

He said it was his belief yet still noted it was a red flag. Intellectual honesty FTW.

He also found, contrary to his expectations, that bench press was associated with cornerback success.


It is extremely difficult to make it in the NFL. Here is a list of results. DRAFTMETRICS study goes from 1999-2012.

I think Shelton could be an exception to the rule and said so in my original post.

Thanks for the link.

First and foremost the statistic is wrong. Michael Brockers is a 3 year starter and ran a 5.31. So Shelton would not be the first.

Secondly I only counted 27 such players in the time frame. I could have skipped over a few, but I don't have time to go back and check.

Of the 27
undrafted- 16
round 1-0
round 2-2
round 3-1
round 4- 2
round 5-2
round 6-2
round 7-2

So 81.4% of all those studied were either not drafted or drafted in the fifth round or later. The only first round pick with a 40 with 5.31 from 99-2012 or higher was Brockers who actually is a 3 year starter. So Danny has a 100% chance of being Michael Brockers.

But really, crappy statistical findings that speak to nothing about Shelton. A bunch of undrafted guys weren't 3 year starters. My guess is that wasn't just because of their 40 times...

 

[AZ_]

Most people, at this point in time, do not think 40 time has anything to do with ability to become a three year starter. I think it might for reasons that speak to a player's overall physical condition. If the trend continues smart teams should explore it further.

A "starter" according to the site is a guy who starts at least 8 games in a season.

Are you trying to say "three-down player?"

That's a far more rational argument to make using athleticism.

 

[Green Demon]

Are you trying to say "three-down player?"

That's a far more rational argument to make using athleticism.

So most likely an argument that he wasn't trying to make then just based on history.