4 Comments
May 6Liked by Kevin Cole

Really enjoying these, so I hope that you do continue with more regular pods during the offseason. If you determine a more regular schedule for pods, would you consider creating a post soliciting subscribers for questions? Even if you have an outline of topics prepared, I'd love to get a sneak preview and a chance to build questions around a theme you have in mind.

One that I thought about while listening to this one: Have there been any attempts to adjust for positional value of roles within positions (slot WR vs. X WR, outside corner vs. slot corner, etc.?) Same question for your plus-minus metrics. I know it would shrink the samples even more, but if there were thresholds applied for snap counts in these various roles, what might it look like?

Thanks again for these and all the great content this year!

Expand full comment
author

Also, great idea on soliciting questions. Maybe I'll do that as an incentive for paid subscribers, rather than paywall portions of the pod.

Expand full comment
author

You can further split the numbers that build into surplus value by something like percentage of snaps in the slot. What's interesting is that my Plus/Minus numbers give stronger relative credit to slot players on both sides of the ball than if you calculated surplus value based on contracts. Slot guys like Kupp and ARSB are starting to close the gap with contracts, but the NFL has definitely been willing to pay a premium to outside guys, even with equal-or-weaker production. It was somewhat reflected in Kupp's first extension, which wasn't too expensive

Expand full comment

Thanks for the insight there, as the draft coverage from this year in particular really got me thinking about it. We'd always gotten a bit of projection on OL with analysts classifying guys as likely OT, OG, C and adjusting evals/ranks accordingly, but really feels like this year there was even more projection on outside/inside WR and CB...with a lot of assumptions baked in that may not be up-to-date or even as precise as they're implied to be. Doesn't quite feel as simple as the OT --> OG --> C stuff.

Expand full comment