Why combine numbers aren't useless

[anks106]

Every year around combine time we hear about how the combine is overrated (it is), the numbers don't matter (ah, but they do!), and how all that matters is whats on tape (well, sort of).

I think I look at the combine differently than most. This is the one time we get to see how fast a guy can be when he trains at it full force, or how strong, or the combination of size and speed. We all say that once a guy gets into the NFL he has access to resources to allow him to reach his physical potential. I look at the combine and say okay this guy was lacking a second gear on tape but he ran a 4.4, maybe our strength and conditioning can get that out of him.

I think it is misused when someone sees a guy who doesn't have great speed run a 4.4 and thinks oh, the tape lied (perfect example here imo is Leon Hall).

Just figured I throw this out there given we will hear the words "these numbers don't mean anything" a lot soon.. and to that I humbly say "they don't mean anything yet, but their meaning will come in time"

 

[SuperSpck]

They're fun numbers to have...
but with all of the participants training for these very specific events they don't hold as much measurement as they may have had in previous years (well, decades at this point).

So the numbers mean something, but do they mean much in terms of measuring potential football prowess?

I like the heights and weights stuff though. Especially with O-lineman. What's their college bio say? What'd they weight in at the combine at? What will they report to camp as?

 

[Spielman]

I look at the combine and say okay this guy was lacking a second gear on tape but he ran a 4.4, maybe our strength and conditioning can get that out of him.

I think the opposite... that this is a trap coaches constantly fall into. They see a guy who looks very athletic at the combine, putting up great numbers, compare to the tape where he wasn't all that impressive and think "This guy just hasn't been coached right. We can do better!" Usually the answer isn't that the guy wasn't coached right, but that he just doesn't have the football instincts or desire (or something else that isn't measurable) to succeed. There are, of course, exceptions, but I think this scenario plays out on a regular basis.

Where I think the numbers are valuable is in working as a check on performance. If a guy has played well, but runs an exceptionally slow 40 time for his position or looks bad in whatever drill, it's probably an indicator that he's not that well suited for the next level.

Maybe my perception is colored by watching Mike Martz drafts for years, but after seeing guys like Jacoby Shepherd taken because he was athletic and had a great hip swivel despite not playing much in college, and Milton Wynn taken because of his athleticism and then cut before playing a down, or Travis Scott taken because he looked awesome in drills despite not having played that much at ASU, or... Well, you get the idea. It's not that I'm bitter or anything. Except that I am.

 

[WisconsinCard]

When I watch the 40 times I always think to myself yeah but what does he run with the pads on. If a guy runs a 4.3 in shorts but a 4.5 in pads, then he is a 4.5 guy. If a guy runs 4.5 in shorts and a 4.5 in pads then he also is a 4.5 guy.

Perfect example is Tim Hightower. I think he might be just as fast in shorts as he is in pads. He was reported to be slow, because of his 40 times but when we see him in pads he looks "fast" enough. I am not saying he's a speedster, but fast enough.

 

[TigToad]

I totally agree.

Another thing I find amusing is when commentators go back to a player's combine numbers a couple years into their career. "Player XXX is really a great receiver considering he only ran a 4.xxx 40 time".

Its ironic that what a guy does in shorts over a couple days before they are even drafted carries so much weight the rest of their career. Watch a guy run down a player or have that break away speed and you see the intangibles that a .1 second can't account for. (over 40 yards for crying out loud)

When I watch the 40 times I always think to myself yeah but what does he run with the pads on. If a guy runs a 4.3 in shorts but a 4.5 in pads, then he is a 4.5 guy. If a guy runs 4.5 in shorts and a 4.5 in pads then he also is a 4.5 guy.

Perfect example is Tim Hightower. I think he might be just as fast in shorts as he is in pads. He was reported to be slow, because of his 40 times but when we see him in pads he looks "fast" enough. I am not saying he's a speedster, but fast enough.

 

[anks106]

I'm not saying you draft a guy based on athletics when he couldn't produce. Quite the opposite, I'm saying if you have a guy who has great instincts but not speed and he runs a 4.4, then you might be able to get that speed out of him. You can't train instincts, but the combine is a measure of how much speed/strength you can train.

 

[Sandan]

I'm not saying you draft a guy based on athletics when he couldn't produce. Quite the opposite, I'm saying if you have a guy who has great instincts but not speed and he runs a 4.4, then you might be able to get that speed out of him. You can't train instincts, but the combine is a measure of how much speed/strength you can train.

I agree with except the "Can't train instincts". Sure you have to have the natural skills but sure you can train instincts.

I was watching Jerry Sullivan do it with David Boston. He was teaching him how to give the DB less warning when coming off the line at the snap. I understand exactly what JS was teaching, I do all the time. He was talking about how not to telegraph the arms coming up to redirect the CB, to me its a pal strike and I mean it was exactly the same and I talked to JS about it later.

What you can't do is measure that with a stopwatch. Just as you can't measure how good a DE is at predicting the snap based on the body lang of the OL. If he is good at doing that then he will appear to 'play faster' than his measureable suggest.

You can't measure that which is why some players come from nowhere and some are busts. However if they have something you most definatly train it.

 

[Shogun]

The combine is not useless and is actually quite helpful, but it has become a bit overhyped and has somehow expected to be the end all, be all of draft evaluation by the casual observer.

 

[Sandan]

An NFL event, over hyped

 

[JeffGollin]

The Combine is helpful in that:

1. it provides accurate measurables - i.e. there are always 3 or 4 players who are much lighter or shorter than their college stats claim they are.

2. It positively flags a handful of players you never heard of (or didn't think were very good) and forces you to revisit the scouting reports or tapes.

3. But most important, surprisingly good forty yard times can turn a "gritty overachiever" normally drafted in the mid-to-late rounds, into a legitimate 1st day (or even 1st round) prospect.

(Ditto for other measurables that can change misperceptions about a player - i.e. a good bench press number for a player thought to be weak in the upper body. Or a terrific vertical jump for a player thought to be "unathletic" or "unexplosive")

Many coaches and scouts play up the interview sessions; however, the current CW is that these prospects are coached to give prepackaged responses to typically dicey questions that are expected - so it takes a creative interviewer to get a kid to reveal something genuine about himself.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

The Combine is helpful in that:

1. it provides accurate measurables - i.e. there are always 3 or 4 players who are much lighter or shorter than their college stats claim they are.

2. It positively flags a handful of players you never heard of (or didn't think were very good) and forces you to revisit the scouting reports or tapes.

3. But most important, surprisingly good forty yard times can turn a "gritty overachiever" normally drafted in the mid-to-late rounds, into a legitimate 1st day (or even 1st round) prospect.

(Ditto for other measurables that can change misperceptions about a player - i.e. a good bench press number for a player thought to be weak in the upper body. Or a terrific vertical jump for a player thought to be "unathletic" or "unexplosive")

Many coaches and scouts play up the interview sessions; however, the current CW is that these prospects are coached to give prepackaged responses to typically dicey questions that are expected - so it takes a creative interviewer to get a kid to reveal something genuine about himself.

add: Last chance to do complete medicals before draft.

 

[Skkorpion]

One more thing, from an unlikely combine defender, me. I remember Joe Bugel saying he needed to see on offensive linemen in his shorts to really tell if a guy would make a good offensive line prospect. (And there is meat-market parade in shorts that most of the players hate.)

It showed his body build and the way the mass was distributed. Bugel wanted guys with big muscular butts and legs and was less worrried about upper body. It worked for Bugel.

 

[Jasper]

Combines are like a bull auction. It just shows how good a physical specimen is.
40 times are also weird. One can have 10 people with stopwatches and you might have 10 different times. 0.1 second? 40 yards isn't 0.1 sec something like a difference of a few inches? In a WR and DB challenge I think the setup and positioning is more important. Remember the Fitz 1yd TD against Sheldon Brown? You don't see that kind of jukeing in the combine.

 

[perivolaki]

Many coaches and scouts play up the interview sessions; however, the current CW is that these prospects are coached to give prepackaged responses to typically dicey questions that are expected - so it takes a creative interviewer to get a kid to reveal something genuine about himself.

Ya there are ways to get around that. I heard that some coaches have the tape set and when the player comes in they imediately shut off the lights and start the tape running.

The plays on the tape are the plays where the player screwed up or was less than stellar.

Then they stop the tape and ask the player what happened or what went wrong on that play. Then they start the tape again and look at another bad play.

I have to laugh a little thinking of these already nervous players being confronted with their worst moments. The hard part for the player is you never know what plays they're going to show. I got to think all the preperation in the world has got to go out the window when they have you locked in that room and being confronted with the things you'd most like to forget.

What they don't want to hear is a kid blaming his teamates or coaches or the scheme. They want them to take ownership of the mistake. The best answer would probably be I screwed up my footwork but I listened to my coach and worked hard and corrected it the next game, something like that.

 

[lauraw]

this is a GREAT post! im learning so much