How important is RAS to you?

I think it should be considered fairly high. NFL players aren't slouches, they need that overall athleticism advantage, especially at the OL.


Read this article then come back with your opinion, with emphasis on our historically poor OL drafting.

https://atbnetwork.com/2022/08/08/cincinnati-bengals-ras-offense/

What I do (or more appropriately, what I would do if I were a scout) is sort the players into tiers based on their play on the field, interviews, intangibles etc (the non workout stuff), and then within those tiers, sort them by RAS.

So if you have two WRs that were similarly productive on the field, good leaders, good interviews etc, but one has a 9.3 RAS and the other has a 7.5 RAS, I'd rate the 9.3 RAS player higher.

I think if a player is productive on the field but puts out an absolutely putrid RAS, it's worth re-considering which tier you're willing to draft that player. Similar for a player that is productive on the field and has a high RAS, maybe you push them a tier higher on your board.

I don't, however, believe having a good RAS score should make you draftable all on its own or move you up the draft board if you do not have the production to make that pick make sense. There are plenty of people who could score a high RAS who don't know the first thing about playing football. You don't want to draft those people.

In short, I would use it to check boxes. "Yep. The fast guy on the field is fast on the track. That makes sense." Or "Yea, that player that looked like he had no lateral agility didn't do well in the agility drills. That makes sense."

If a player looks fast on the field and then runs a 4.6, I'd move WRs who looked fast and tested fast above that player (But I would not move a WR who didn't look fast on the field but looked fast on the track above them, if that makes sense).

(04-01-2023, 02:43 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What I do (or more appropriately, what I would do if I were a scout) is sort the players into tiers based on their play on the field, interviews, intangibles etc (the non workout stuff), and then within those tiers, sort them by RAS.

So if you have two WRs that were similarly productive on the field, good leaders, good interviews etc, but one has a 9.3 RAS and the other has a 7.5 RAS, I'd rate the 9.3 RAS player higher.

I think if a player is productive on the field but puts out an absolutely putrid RAS, it's worth re-considering which tier you're willing to draft that player. Similar for a player that is productive on the field and has a high RAS, maybe you push them a tier higher on your board.

I don't, however, believe having a good RAS score should make you draftable all on its own or move you up the draft board if you do not have the production to make that pick make sense. There are plenty of people who could score a high RAS who don't know the first thing about playing football. You don't want to draft those people.

In short, I would use it to check boxes. "Yep. The fast guy on the field is fast on the track. That makes sense." Or "Yea, that player that looked like he had no lateral agility didn't do well in the agility drills. That makes sense."

If a player looks fast on the field and then runs a 4.6, I'd move WRs who looked fast and tested fast above that player (But I would not move a WR who didn't look fast on the field but looked fast on the track above them, if that makes sense).

You're approach is logical but I think missing a piece.  A good scout simply wouldn't use it as a separator and a check box, but the first prompt to ask "WHY? and WHAT?" are the discrepancies between two players with the same production but vastly different scores / OR two with similar scores but vastly different production.  A scout who can answer those questions is earning their paycheck.

Fans can use it as a check box.....scout need to look deeper.

(04-01-2023, 01:19 PM)Stewy Wrote: You're approach is logical but I think missing a piece.  A good scout simply wouldn't use it as a separator and a check box, but the first prompt to ask "WHY? and WHAT?" are the discrepancies between two players with the same production but vastly different scores / OR two with similar scores but vastly different production.  A scout who can answer those questions is earning their paycheck.

Fans can use it as a check box.....scout need to look deeper.

That's a good point. I guess I'm speaking mostly from a fan's point of view haha. The RAS can be very important for evaluating what a player can do at the next level (especially relative to what they did in college), but I think we all agree it has to be tied with actual production on the field.

The biggest example that comes to mind for me is our 3rd round pick in 2015, Paul Dawson. He was an absolute star in college football, racking up 30 TFLs, 6.5 sacks, 5 interceptions, 8 passes defensed, and 227 tackles in his Junior and Senior seasons. He was being touted as a 1st or 2nd round player based on his game tape. But then the combine happened, where he posted a 1.29 RAS with depressingly bad times and distances in nearly every drill. He improved on a few of them mildly in his pro day, but it was enough to drop him all the way to the bottom of the 3rd round where the Bengals took a chance on him (a lot of Bengals fans were begging for  him in the 2nd round, IIRC). We thought we had a steal, only for him to play just 1 season and some change with the Bengals and only collecting 13 total tackles.

Rumors indicated that he had very poor work ethic and did not seem to understand his role on the field (there's a pretty funny video of him playing beehive football against the Vikings, which allowed the QB to leak out the back for a big gain).

At this point in the NFL, you even begin to wonder if a poor RAS is an indication of poor work ethic because...the combine is an open book test. You know exactly what drills you will be running months or even years ahead of time. If you aren't practicing those drills and end up posting horrific scores, that may be a reflection of your inability to prepare on a grand scale.

Either way, I love the combine because it, in a lot of ways, separates the haves from the have nots like above, but I still think production on the field is king at the end of the day. As long as you don't get carried away (like I fear some may be with Blake Freeland in the 2nd round), RAS is a net positive for anyone who follows the NFL draft.

(04-01-2023, 02:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How important is RAS to you?

I think it should be considered fairly high. NFL players aren't slouches, they need that overall athleticism advantage, especially at the OL.


Read this article then come back with your opinion, with emphasis on our historically poor OL drafting.

https://atbnetwork.com/2022/08/08/cincinnati-bengals-ras-offense/

RAS can't be the be all and end all. Look at Mike Hilton for example.....his RAS was HORRID but he's been one of the best slot DB's in the league for years.

(04-01-2023, 02:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How important is RAS to you?

I think it should be considered fairly high. NFL players aren't slouches, they need that overall athleticism advantage, especially at the OL.


Read this article then come back with your opinion, with emphasis on our historically poor OL drafting.

https://atbnetwork.com/2022/08/08/cincinnati-bengals-ras-offense/

RAS tells you nothing about the player's heart, fortitude, football IQ, love for the game or mental toughness. See John Ross (9.33) and Tom Brady (2.74).

There was a twitter thing that sorted the average ras by position in nfl

(04-01-2023, 10:29 PM)pulses Wrote: RAS can't be the be all and end all. Look at Mike Hilton for example.....his RAS was HORRID but he's been one of the best slot DB's in the league for years.

Hilton's was a 2.39

(04-01-2023, 11:30 PM)Gary Milne Wrote: RAS tells you nothing about the player's heart, fortitude, football IQ, love for the game or mental toughness. See John Ross (9.33) and Tom Brady (2.74).

That comparison means absolutely nothing. Here's a list of the best guys at each position on offense and their RAS....

QB Patrick Mahomes: 8.24
WR Justin Jefferson: 9.69
TE George Kittle: 9.49 (Kelce is a 9.27, but I consider him a WR more than a TE)
RB Derrick Henry: 8.78
LT Trent Williams: 9.64
LG Joel Bitonio: 9.72
C Jason Kelce: 9.50
RG Zack Martin: 9.10
RT Tristan Wirfs: 9.71

You take a bunch of <3 RAS guys who have love of the game, and I will take a bunch of >9 RAS guys (less is fine on a QB, they don't need as much athleticism) and way more often than not my guys will crush your guys. Of course there's outliers and guys who have overcome athletic ability with other skills, there's always going to be outliers. At the end of the day though, being physically more dominant than the other guy is a huge advantage. It doesn't guarantee success, but it sure helps a whole lot more than it hurts.

Traits translate production doesn't. Common saying in scouting circles.

I agree production is an important part of it, but i think the RAS indicates how HIGH a player can possibly go.

You mentioned Paul Dawson, there's always exceptions, that's what the interview and production will help show.

I read an article, can't seem to find it (it had 20 years worth of teams draft picks), but teams drafting Elite RAS guys in the first three rounds have produced more Starters (avg, above avg and Pro-Bowlers) than those that took players that had a Not Elite RAS that resulted mainly in a couple avg to below avg players.

Seems that Detroit and Jaguars have been hitting the high RAS players in the last few years and both teams are on the rise.

While i know it's not the most important part, it seems that it definitely is a factor to consider.

(04-01-2023, 02:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How important is RAS to you?

I think it should be considered fairly high. NFL players aren't slouches, they need that overall athleticism advantage, especially at the OL.


Read this article then come back with your opinion, with emphasis on our historically poor OL drafting.

https://atbnetwork.com/2022/08/08/cincinnati-bengals-ras-offense/

I think game film is important. If RAS matches game film than great but I would not override what a player has done on the field because of some testing or analytic number.

(04-02-2023, 02:18 PM)OSUfan Wrote: I think game film is important. If RAS matches game film than great but I would not override what a player has done on the field because of some testing or analytic number.

I would be very cautious if their RAS is below 8, would need alot of convincing to find out if they are worth drafting high. 

Look at the OT's

1. Blake Freeland — Brigham Young — RAS: 9.90
2. Joe Witt — Northern Michigan — 9.80
3. Darnell Wright — Tennessee — 9.78
4. Earl Bostick Jr. — Kansas — 9.71
5. Broderick — Georgia — 9.57
6. Nick Saldiveri — Old Dominion — 9.45
7. Tyler Steen — Alabama — 9.44
8. Jaelyn Duncan — Maryland — 9.43
9. Cody Mauch — North Dakota State — 9.32
10. Peter Skoronski — Northwestern — 9.29
    

I'd still take Peter in the first if he fell that far, as he's got tape to back up his production, but we don't really need another LT, but Darnell has All Pro RT potential written all over him.

(04-02-2023, 03:52 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I would be very cautious if their RAS is below 8, would need alot of convincing to find out if they are worth drafting high. 

Look at the OT's

1. Blake Freeland — Brigham Young — RAS: 9.90
2. Joe Witt — Northern Michigan — 9.80
3. Darnell Wright — Tennessee — 9.78
4. Earl Bostick Jr. — Kansas — 9.71
5. Broderick — Georgia — 9.57
6. Nick Saldiveri — Old Dominion — 9.45
7. Tyler Steen — Alabama — 9.44
8. Jaelyn Duncan — Maryland — 9.43
9. Cody Mauch — North Dakota State — 9.32
10. Peter Skoronski — Northwestern — 9.29
    

I'd still take Peter in the first if he fell that far, as he's got tape to back up his production, but we don't really need another LT, but Darnell has All Pro RT potential written all over him.

If I were Blake Freeland, I think that I might have went on a diet and learned how to play TE.  There's a good reason why NFL tackles are referred to as 'dancing bears' and not 'dancing giraffes'.  

Seriously, Freeland is an athlete, but there is a reason that he put all of his marbles in on Football over Basketball.  I'd be disappointed in him as THE Tackle selection anywhere earlier than the 4th round.

As for RAS?  Meh, it's just another gimmick.  These guys have literally months to prepare for combine testing once the season ends.  The testing might open some eyes to guys that didn't get many looks if they were from a small school, etc.  When it comes to prospects from major schools that have the benefit of good exposure, you'd better look at those RAS numbers and then go back to the footage and make sure that they agree with one another.  The bottom line is do you want a great football player that also happens to have some athleticism, or do you want an athlete who also happens to be interested in football if he can make a buck at it?

(04-02-2023, 04:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If I were Blake Freeland, I think that I might have went on a diet and learned how to play TE.  There's a good reason why NFL tackles are referred to as 'dancing bears' and not 'dancing giraffes'.  

Seriously, Freeland is an athlete, but there is a reason that he put all of his marbles in on Football over Basketball.  I'd be disappointed in him as THE Tackle selection anywhere earlier than the 4th round.

As for RAS?  Meh, it's just another gimmick.  These guys have literally months to prepare for combine testing once the season ends.  The testing might open some eyes to guys that didn't get many looks if they were from a small school, etc.  When it comes to prospects from major schools that have the benefit of good exposure, you'd better look at those RAS numbers and then go back to the footage and make sure that they agree with one another.  The bottom line is do you want a great football player that also happens to have some athleticism, or do you want an athlete who also happens to be interested in football if he can make a buck at it?

Who knows, he wouldn't be the first OT to switch to TE.  Maybe he views his worth better as a Tackle, We can't speak for him but avg LT's get paid better than avg TE's, usually last longer in the league too.

For a gimmick, it seems to hit more than misses. And ofc some players just don't get it between the ears, it's not designed to measure that (I would think that's why you participate in the interview part. Get into the X's and O's there, not ask what their fav Sub is from Subway). 

That's exactly what you are looking for, a great football player that is also athletic and hasn't peaked yet. If he's not very athletic, but the production is there, then that's when you need to figure out why. Is he master of his craft? How'd they do against other Elite athletes? And find out answers to all those variables.

I used to laugh and think the Combine was nothing more than a pony show, but i can see it's merits now, I think the should do 3, one on East Coast, Central and West coast, the goal is get as many players at possible, There's always players that aren't invited that should have been.