Did Packers Love for RAS Start with Ron Wolf?

In the past, I have written about Ted Thompson and Brian Gutenkunst's connection with RAS and their draft picks (you can find those articles here). So I recently had the idea to go further back in time and investigate Ted Thompson's mentor and NFL Hall of Fame GM Ron Wolf.

Editors's Note: This is a guest post by Brian, who helped us out with some NFL Draft profiles this year and wanted to take a shot at writing a different type of post.

Thompson and Gutey are both descendents of the Ron Wolf General Manager Tree. Wolf’s reign with the Packers was from 1991-2000, a time when workout data/combine information was sparse at best and even now, hard to find publicly. With that being said, Kent Lee Platte (the creator of RAS) has done a great job of pulling together whatever he could find and generating some RAS scores from that era.

During that time, Wolf selected 102 players in the draft. Of those 102 there are only 59 publically known RAS scores. It would be great to have more, but it is what it is, as the ol' gunslinger liked to say. Despite the lack of volumes of data, there is still some interesting information that can be gleaned from the RAS scores that Platte was able to compile.

One item lacking is the existence of many 3-cone drill times, which is something the Packers seem to prioritize with their draft picks. Also it sholuld be noted at that time there were few combine workout/preparation facilities which many players now go to in an attempt to better their scores. This is a phenomenom that exploded mostly within the last decade. Most players back in the 90s just worked out on their own, if at all, to prep for the combine. It's easy to assume that if these facilities existed back then, the result would have been much better combine/RAS scores. With all that being said, let’s get on to the numbers.

Below is the average RAS scores at each position Wolf drafted players. In parentheses you will find combined averages for Ted Thompson/Brian Gutekunst draft picks to compare.

Quarterbacks: 6.21 (7.67)

Running backs:  7.99 (7.37)

Tight Ends: 2.64 (6.1)

Offensive line: 5.38 (8)

Wide Receiver: 6.4 (8)

Defensive Line: 7.6 (7.61)

Edge: 6.33 (8.2)

Linebacker: 5.8 (6.33)

Defensive back: 7.15 (7.72)

 

Comparing the numbers, you can see a number of similarities. Quarterback, running back, defensive line, linebacker, and defensive back RAS scores are all similar., especially accounting for the advanced prepration and training players now do.They show how the Packers prioritize athleticism at certain positions (qb, rb, db, dl) and not at others(linebacker).

At first glace, it would seem Wolf did not prioritize athletes as edge players (6.33 RAS), but upon closer examination, he actually did. There are only RAS scores available on five edge defenders from all of Wolf's drafts. One player was JJ Wierenga who was drafted in 1991 in the 11th round (what would be considered a UDFA now). He posted a RAS score of 2.02, which brought down the overall average score.  If you eliminate his score,  the average goes up to a very respectable 7.4.  In addition, you have Jamal Reynolds, a very good athlete coming out of Florida State who ran a 4.68 40 but does not have a RAS score. A full RAS score on Reynolds would have surely brought that number up some more.

Tight end is an interesting exception, although there are RAS scores on only two tight ends drafted by Wolf so the numthe average goes up to a 6.06 which is still not great. What I think it does show is the change in the NFL offenses in the 2000’s. The run game and physicality was de-emphasized while the passing game and athleticism became way more important. You can see those trends developing in  Wolf’s later drafts. Some of those early tackles drafted would end up as guards in the NFL today.

In summary, there does seem to be some level of connection starting with Wolf and continuing with Gutekunstwith regards to  positional value and athletic value by position. Still, everything evolves over time and there have been some obvious changes in how Gutey drafts. For example, Wolf and Thompson had a steadfast rule on not drafting defensive backs under 5’10 ½. Gutekunst has now drafted two corners under 5’10 ½(Alexander and Jean-Charles). Also, TT and Gutey like drafting college tackles and moving them to guard, something Wolf did not do. But overall, the Packers still follow a lot of the same rules and standards established by Wolf. This shows his fingerprints are still all over this organization a full 21 years after his retirement.

 

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (13)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Coldworld's picture

August 08, 2021 at 06:27 pm

I think it in part just illustrates that athleticism has always been a factor, not just since the advent of RAS, but isn’t the sole determinant. Gutekunst spoke today about Barnes in a way that seems to remind us that FOs know that people can test better or worse than film and that film can trump RAS metrics (if not the assessment of actual athleticism.

0 points
0
0
canadapacker's picture

August 08, 2021 at 07:57 pm

In every sport - guys are bigger taller, faster and stronger now than in the 1990's - half a second faster in the world record in the 100 meter dash - and all one needs to look at the size of the guys and some big men can run a 40 yard dash as fast as the "fast men". So it would seem that in these modern times one would look at the measurements. Also data collection and processing is much fast, less labor intensive and more easily transmitted each and every year - and therefore analytics have become a much bigger part of the process - but still nothing beats gut feel and one on one interviews by competent coaches.

0 points
0
0
fastmoving's picture

August 09, 2021 at 03:28 am

Of course is gut feelings are way overated and fools you way more than not. But if you feel good about your gut feeling, thats just a gut feeling too and its even more wrong.
Emotions are a hell of a drug but never beats analytics. Maybe they can help a little bit how you use the numbers if you use the feeling right and a tiny bit.

0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

August 09, 2021 at 01:03 pm

Sleepless night?

0 points
0
0
jont's picture

August 08, 2021 at 08:01 pm

For those who, like me, don't know, "Relative Athletic Scores, a metric and analytics system created by Kent Platte, take player measurements and put them on an easy to understand 0 to 10 scale compared to their position group. A final score is then produced which is also on a 0 to 10 score to show overall athleticism for a draft prospect. This data can be used to chart trends over time, showing that overall athleticism is likely a contributing factor to player success in the NFL."

0 points
0
0
Philarod's picture

August 09, 2021 at 05:25 am

Thank you.
In the article, they should have, at minimum, spelled out the acronym once.

0 points
0
0
ImaPayne2's picture

August 08, 2021 at 08:19 pm

Gutt must of used this system because he stated Gary was his guy in feb way before the combine. I thought wow didnt he was film of him at mich?
If so you would have thought, second or third but not a 12. What a mess. Love? WTF
5'9 safeties to cover 6'3 receivers?

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

August 08, 2021 at 09:21 pm

I believe wolf went by stats. ( The Stat Key System was popular) The RAS creator is Kent Lee Platte. A devoted Lion fan. I doubt Gutey uses anything other then the services they pay for. So if all these tools are available. Why are the draft experts so wrong? I believe Gute's heart; rules his mind. So forget the Film room. The talk is how fast is a player. And Jordy Nelson knew it. His game was speed. When it goes. Chemistry is the only thing left. The other, just might be a players heart. until the end is in sight.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

August 09, 2021 at 07:22 am

They are wrong because metrics are only part of the story. Heart, brain, desire, maturity, instinct and the fact that a one off test will always have players who ace the day and others who have a howler. RAS and other weighting approaches are only one tool. See Gute’s comments on Barnes for a coincidentally timely reminder that what happens on the field remains key even to physical assessments.

0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

August 09, 2021 at 01:25 pm

In 2011, I was lucky enough to spend some time with Ted Thompson. (Dealing with how the NFL was approaching concussion among other medical issues) Ted was very clear that while metrics was at the base of player evaluation. How a player plays will more often than not, trumps the 'numbers'. It's the old saw: "Players make plays" There is a thing called football instinct. Hard to define, but one knows it when they see it. As you say CW, Barnes numbers did not make him a stand out, but once he got on the field you could see it. He is a football player, plain and simple. A perfect example of the failure of RAS and football metrics in general. The scout still reigns supreme.

0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

August 09, 2021 at 03:08 pm

In agreement with both of your comments that playing tape will continue to be the best evaluation tool.I posted about it in a pre-draft thread here several months ago that was discussing the merits of RAS.

In that thread, apart from criticising Bench Press as the only mechanism to measure “strength” , I also made the point that the scored drills of RAS involve the subject being able to operate in a pre-meditated movement pattern - a critical difference between the tests and real football.

While these are good to measure potential (or best case operating capability), they don’t factor in the processing time required to diagnose the required pattern and react, as well as how the subject moves when off-balance (mentally and physically).

Remaining coachable potential is also a factor. It could be argued that current generation first team Alabama alumni don’t make great LATE ROUND fliers - Saban has coached them too well and already gotten the best out of them.

……. Which is all why an individuals play on film will continue to be the most important evaluation tool - and things like RAS are presently best as “supporting evidence”.

0 points
0
0
jont's picture

August 09, 2021 at 02:46 pm

Past performance is no indicator of future results, isn't this the phrase?
I second guess the GM as much as the next guy, but we've got to recognize that he and several staff members study the prospects for months and then take their best shot.
I can't believe Wolf or Belechek or nay of the other star evaluators have some secret metric or trick. At some point, they all have to trust themselves to make the pick.
Then it's up to the player to become the contributor we all hope for.

0 points
0
0
CheesyJord's picture

December 24, 2021 at 09:35 am

Looks Neat!

0 points
0
0