NYG currently have the 5th most athletic roster by RAS

I'm surprised Stafford doesn't put them into negative territory.

In comment 16523492 christian said:

Quote:

I'm surprised Stafford doesn't put them into negative territory.

they are basically negative. i think the average nfl player is 7.5 or something close to that so they are basically 10% below avg as a roster.

Quote:

After final cuts, they might even jump their highly rated 2023 roster.

If last year's roster was highly rated as to RAS...

on the field game intelligence?

have an RAS score that really dragged down the whole class?

In comment 16523541 gridirony said:

Quote:

on the field game intelligence?

that shows up at the end of the season as a W-L record

Granted I'm just looking at last years playoff teams but would be nice to see if there is any historical correlation to team success and RAS.

And our OL, WR, TE and ER groups got some serious upgrades and investments.

We lost Barkley and McKinney but I am not sure those respective positional units went down that much in the aggregate.

What is holding this team back from becoming competitive?

In comment 16523582 BH28 said:

Quote:

Granted I'm just looking at last years playoff teams but would be nice to see if there is any historical correlation to team success and RAS.

In my humble opinion, RAS defines good athletes, which does not always correlate with good football players. If a guy is both, he's a top end player. If he's only one, I'd rather have the player than the athlete. I'd guess a guy like Simmons has a high RAS, but can't find a position that he excells at.

In comment 16523549 Bill in UT said:

Quote:

have an RAS score that really dragged down the whole class?

If they don’t asterisk him for testing injured, Nubin’s numbers were horrific.

between team athletic score and w's?

seems like with KC 13th, and BUF, BAL, and SF so low, it's not that meaningful.

I mean all things being equal I'd rather have athletic players, but I'd much rather win and it doesn't seem the two are closely related - at least by this stat. for overall team score.

Only the Eagles in the top 10 teams seem like a lock to make the playoffs

In comment 16523582 BH28 said:

Quote:

Granted I'm just looking at last years playoff teams but would be nice to see if there is any historical correlation to team success and RAS.

there's lots of data correlating RAS and individual success. not sure there's any correlation between team success and RAS, other than having a high team RAS probably means you skew towards having more 90th percentile players who are hopefully having individual success.

Quote:

Kent Lee Platte @MathBomb There are 1,920 players on NFL rosters currently who posted a #RAS. Of those, 81.35% are rated 5.00 or above, with only 18.65% rated below average. A whopping 45.21% are above 8.00, in that elite range for athletic ability when compared to their peers.

How Important are NFL Combine Performances? - ( New Window )

In comment 16523587 ThomasG said:

Quote:

And our OL, WR, TE and ER groups got some serious upgrades and investments. We lost Barkley and McKinney but I am not sure those respective positional units went down that much in the aggregate. What is holding this team back from becoming competitive?

Nothing.

In comment 16523593 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

between team athletic score and w's? seems like with KC 13th, and BUF, BAL, and SF so low, it's not that meaningful. I mean all things being equal I'd rather have athletic players, but I'd much rather win and it doesn't seem the two are closely related - at least by this stat. for overall team score. Only the Eagles in the top 10 teams seem like a lock to make the playoffs

these are their rosters right now, not the rosters that won last year, so we can check back in 10 months. kc lost at least a couple of their top ras athletes in sneed/gay.

teams are at 90 man rosters so there's also a lot of distortion compared to what the final 53's will be - the takeaway right now isnt any specific correlation but as mentioned in the OP a seeming preference in roster construction. over 90 players (or however many did enough testing to qualify) this FO seems to trend towards athletes.

In comment 16523595 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 16523587 ThomasG said: Quote: And our OL, WR, TE and ER groups got some serious upgrades and investments. We lost Barkley and McKinney but I am not sure those respective positional units went down that much in the aggregate. What is holding this team back from becoming competitive? Nothing.

The world is our oyster.

In comment 16523587 ThomasG said:

Quote:

And our OL, WR, TE and ER groups got some serious upgrades and investments. We lost Barkley and McKinney but I am not sure those respective positional units went down that much in the aggregate. What is holding this team back from becoming competitive?

________
What is holding them back is that the RAS scores don’t mean crap. The Giants need football players - not athletes. This is not a decathlon.

In comment 16523853 Ivan15 said:

Quote:

In comment 16523587 ThomasG said: Quote: And our OL, WR, TE and ER groups got some serious upgrades and investments. We lost Barkley and McKinney but I am not sure those respective positional units went down that much in the aggregate. What is holding this team back from becoming competitive? ________ What is holding them back is that the RAS scores don’t mean crap. The Giants need football players - not athletes. This is not a decathlon.

not exactly right.

if you are a player with an RAS score about 5.00 your odds of making a roster are more than 4x better than a player below 5.00.

if you are above 90th percentile, your odds of making a pro bowl are like 5-10x.

a team RAS score with 90 players on it being higher is a few steps removed, but presumably if we combined the data the giants have a high score because they have more players rostered above the 90th percentile than other teams.

As they have 2 of the top 4 QBs in the game.

I’m sure they’ll take their chances.

In comment 16524256 Chris684 said:

Quote:

As they have 2 of the top 4 QBs in the game. I’m sure they’ll take their chances.

probably, though im sure both wish they still had some of the athletes they've lost on their roster to cap decisions the last few years. bills and bengals have both lost more than they gained in FA 2 years in a row including a bunch of big $ ($10m+) guys like Tremaine Edmunds, Jessie Bates, Jonah Williams, Mixon, Diggs, Tredavious White, Gabe davis, mitch morse, etc.

I like the fact you think about things like this, but it seems like you want this conclusion to be true "the more athletic the team, the better the on-field results" but when we see the most successful teams in the league the past few years, not all among the most athletic (by RAS) the conclusion loses credibility and athleticism seems like an interesting data point which you can draw no conclusions about on its own. Given the choice, sure you want players to be athletic. it's just common sense given a choice of athletic or not you would want someone to be athletic, but again it does not seem to be a predictor of any type of team success.

Also, without reading a definition it seems like athleticism is a wide spectrum. if it's JPP athletic awesome, if it's John Ross athletic (and he was drafted 9th overall because of his speed and probably athleticism), not so awesome (assuming those two scored high - who knows).

In comment 16524477 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

I like the fact you think about things like this, but it seems like you want this conclusion to be true "the more athletic the team, the better the on-field results" but when we see the most successful teams in the league the past few years, not all among the most athletic (by RAS) the conclusion loses credibility and athleticism seems like an interesting data point which you can draw no conclusions about on its own. Given the choice, sure you want players to be athletic. it's just common sense given a choice of athletic or not you would want someone to be athletic, but again it does not seem to be a predictor of any type of team success. Also, without reading a definition it seems like athleticism is a wide spectrum. if it's JPP athletic awesome, if it's John Ross athletic (and he was drafted 9th overall because of his speed and probably athleticism), not so awesome (assuming those two scored high - who knows).

pj, i like the fact that you take the time to read/think about these things too but i think you are reading into conclusions im not making.

in the binary is it better to have better athletes than not? i think so because i think it raises ceiling. top players are more often top athletes. of course plenty of top testing athletes aren't top players but way fewer top players are poor testing athletes. if i play blackjack i dont think im necessarily going to win just because the odds are better than other games, but better odds make it more likely.

does athleticism guarantee anything in terms of results? of course not which is why i've never posted that it does or endorsed simply drafting whoever has the best RAS score.

also judging last years results against teams current 90 player rosters with probably 60+ out of the 90 having not played for those teams last year makes no sense. to judge last year's results we'd want to look at last year's 53 man RAS scores, or probably even better the RAS scores weighted to actual snaps played.

if you had the 2023 roster RAS scores before the season began that would be equivalent to now and a better picture perhaps of how RAS for a team correlates to success. if at all. and of course I acknowledged all things being equal you would always want the more athletic player, but all things are almost never equal.

It just seems like you have a strong opinion on it, because any time anyone points out the most athletic teams don't have successful on-field results you defend the RAS score or athleticism in general.

Since I began watching football teams have been enamored with athleticism - it used to be called the workout warrior - the Mike Mamula's, John Ross's or Justin Gilbert's of the world who were great athletes and crushed the combine, but not always great football players.

if there was some way to include athleticism with a "what we see on the tape" and a wonderlic, attitude/work ethic/coachability rating, and even other data points into a holistic grade then maybe RAS could be a data element to help predict on-field success, but for now it seems like it only predicts who can win a race or jump the highest, etc. IMO

In comment 16524491 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

It just seems like you have a strong opinion on it, because any time anyone points out the most athletic teams don't have successful on-field results you defend the RAS score or athleticism in general.

what i have a strong opinion on is that being a very flawed interpretation of this data since this year's rosters aren't last years players/results.

if i had the scores of last years rosters to compare to last year's results id post that and take whatever conclusions come from that (i dont have that data).

this is the data i saw posted and worth sharing, and my conclusion re nyg from this data is exactly what i said in the first sentence of the OP:

Quote:

NYG currently have the 5th most athletic roster by RAS Eric on Li : mute : 5/23/2024 4:54 pm obviously not the end all be all but clearly this FO buys into athletic testing.

if i had the data to prove or disprove the other conclusions being wrongly assumed re last year id post that, but i dont have it.