PDA

View Full Version : Measurables v. Immeasurables


HoustonFrog
02-24-2007, 11:38 AM
By Pat Forde

DeMeco was an example in here on how the draft can concentrate too much on speed, size, etc.

"Last year, DeMeco Ryans was the sixth linebacker drafted, taken in the second round by the Houston Texans. He was considered a tick slow in the 40 (4.65) and maybe a tad shorter than ideal (6-1). Ryans was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year -- not Houston's No. 1 overall pick Mario Williams (whose measurables were gorgeous, by the way)."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2776319&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1

thunderkyss
02-24-2007, 11:48 AM
By Pat Forde

DeMeco was an example in here on how the draft can concentrate too much on speed, size, etc.


"Last year, DeMeco Ryans was the sixth linebacker drafted, taken in the second round by the Houston Texans. He was considered a tick slow in the 40 (4.65) and maybe a tad shorter than ideal (6-1). Ryans was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year -- not Houston's No. 1 overall pick Mario Williams (whose measurables were gorgeous, by the way)."


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2776319&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1

A tick slower, and a tad shorter..... it's not like were talking about Jones-Drew
or anything.

And as long as people look at this as an either or situation, they'll never win.

Mario also has a lot of intangibles going for him, and while I do love Demeco, I can assure you he'd have gone unnoticed if the big fella wasn't doing his thing in front of him.

Go ask Ray Lewis how he feels about the big rookie that played in front of him, that hasn't got much press at all.

Don't take this the wrong way Frog, but I'm getting tired of people saying Mario didn't do Jack, when we said he was going to open the game up for other players on our defense, and Demeco's DROY year, and Greenwood's performance is exactly what we were talking about.

HoustonFrog
02-24-2007, 12:21 PM
A tick slower, and a tad shorter..... it's not like were talking about Jones-Drew
or anything.

And as long as people look at this as an either or situation, they'll never win.

Mario also has a lot of intangibles going for him, and while I do love Demeco, I can assure you he'd have gone unnoticed if the big fella wasn't doing his thing in front of him.

Go ask Ray Lewis how he feels about the big rookie that played in front of him, that hasn't got much press at all.

Don't take this the wrong way Frog, but I'm getting tired of people saying Mario didn't do Jack, when we said he was going to open the game up for other players on our defense, and Demeco's DROY year, and Greenwood's performance is exactly what we were talking about.

I didn't take it wrong. Don't get me wrong though, I didn't post this as a slight on Mario at all. That wasn't my intention. I posted it because I completely agree with the concept that the combine and scouts have become obsessed with numbers instead of winners. I only picked that quote out because it was more about DeMeco. Some players like VY and Ryans and Colston and many others just have something that translated and you could see it when they played in college. I always use Zach Thomas as a perfect example. Not fast enough, too small, etc but all he did at Tech was make plays and destroy offenses. Dat did it at A&M and he had a pretty good little career in the NFL. If I were a GM or scout I think it would be 90% what I see on film and not what a guy shows me in 40 seconds, laying on the bench or on a test in one week. There are some guys you just see in every play and those are the guys I want around.

Navy_Chris
02-24-2007, 02:08 PM
By Pat Forde

DeMeco was an example in here on how the draft can concentrate too much on speed, size, etc.

"Last year, DeMeco Ryans was the sixth linebacker drafted, taken in the second round by the Houston Texans. He was considered a tick slow in the 40 (4.65) and maybe a tad shorter than ideal (6-1). Ryans was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year -- not Houston's No. 1 overall pick Mario Williams (whose measurables were gorgeous, by the way)."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2776319&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1

People can talk about and druel about measurables all they want. What matters is how they play on the field when gametime comes. The combine is, for the most part, a waste of time. I can see the combine helping a guy that no one's ever heard of, but for a guy's draft stock to plummit just because he had a bad workout at the combine...that's ridicuous.

Look at the tape!! It's that simple.

HoustonFrog
02-24-2007, 02:44 PM
People can talk about and druel about measurables all they want. What matters is how they play on the field when gametime comes. The combine is, for the most part, a waste of time. I can see the combine helping a guy that no one's ever heard of, but for a guy's draft stock to plummit just because he had a bad workout at the combine...that's ridicuous.

Look at the tape!! It's that simple.

Exactly

Wharton
02-24-2007, 04:57 PM
Frankly, I hate combine time.

Personally, the only thing good about the combine is the personal interview. Look the man in the eye. It will tell you everything you need to know.

The rest of it is just a dog and pony show.

Navy_Chris
02-24-2007, 05:01 PM
Frankly, I hate combine time.

Personally, the only thing good about the combine is the personal interview. Look the man in the eye. It will tell you everything you need to know.

The rest of it is just a dog and pony show.

Exactly. Who cares if a guy can stand in his underwear and broad jump into the endzone. What is that supposed to tell an NFL scout?

threetoedpete
02-24-2007, 05:46 PM
I didn't take it wrong. Don't get me wrong though, I didn't post this as a slight on Mario at all. That wasn't my intention. I posted it because I completely agree with the concept that the combine and scouts have become obsessed with numbers instead of winners. I only picked that quote out because it was more about DeMeco. Some players like VY and Ryans and Colston and many others just have something that translated and you could see it when they played in college. I always use Zach Thomas as a perfect example. Not fast enough, too small, etc but all he did at Tech was make plays and destroy offenses. Dat did it at A&M and he had a pretty good little career in the NFL. If I were a GM or scout I think it would be 90% what I see on film and not what a guy shows me in 40 seconds, laying on the bench or on a test in one week. There are some guys you just see in every play and those are the guys I want around.

The numbers aren't the main thing, but to dismiss them out of hand is foolish. If a saftey per say can't break 4.7 in the forty I don't care how much hardware the guy picked up in college, he can't play saftey in the NFL. Peroid. If a lineman can't get close to 5.0 in the forty, he's going to struggle in the NFL. If he's over 5.3...he plays on the right side period. If he doesn't have the fluid body movement to get through the cone drills, he wan't go in the draft. If he has short arms and lacks supior quickness, he's a dead duck in this league. He's a free agent. They are looking for the elite of the elite of football palyers. The combine just gives them another tool to do that. The two guys that just put up 40 on the bench press, shows they have the punch to play in the league inside. You ignore this info to take another guy with the same grade and less strength because ? You're telling me you take the guy with the press clippings instead of the better athlete ? To igonre the numbers means you're going to be drafting on faith instead of facts. Guy can't run, he can't run. He can't bend his hips, pop the guy infront of him, he can't play effectivly in the league on the o-line. Guy is six foot he's six foot. The eye in the sky don't lie and neither do the numbers. Either the guy has the athletic tallent to play or he doesn't. For evey Demeco and David Pollack that defy the numbers, there are litterally a hundred who don't. Just another tool. But in terms to over looking that tool is just being stuborn and setting your club up for drafting over acievers who can't play on the next level. I haven't see that work lately in the league have you ?

HoustonFrog
02-24-2007, 06:51 PM
The numbers aren't the mian thing, but to dismiss them out of hand is foolish. If a saftey per say can't break 4.7 in the forty I don't care how much hard ware the guy picked up in college, he can't play saftey in the NFL. Peroid. If a lineman can't get close to 5.0 in the forty, he's going to struggle in the NFL. If he's over 5.3...he plays on the right side period. If he doesn't have the fluid body movement to get through the cone drills, he wan't go in the draft. If he has short arms and lacks supior quickness, he's a dead duck in this league. He's a free agent. They are looking for the elite of the elite of football palyers. The combine just gives them another tool to do that. The two guys that just put up 40 on the bench press, shows they have the punch to play in the league inside. You ignore this info to take another guy with the same grade and less strength because ? You're telling me you take the guy with the press clippings instead of the better athlete ? To igonre the numbers means you're going to be drafting on faith instead of facts. Guy can't run, he can't run. He can't bend his hips, pop the guy infront of him, he can't play effectivly in the league on the o-line. Guy is six foot he's six foot. The eye in the sky don't lie and neither do the numbers. Either the guy has the athletic tallent to play or he doesn't. For evey Demeco and David Pollack that defy the numbers, there are litterally a hundred who don't. Just another tool. But in terms to over looking that tool is just being stuborn and setting your club up for drafting over acievers who can't play on the next level. I haven't see that work lately in the league have you ?

I get speed and strength being a great attribute. I never said the stats were useless but I'll put my money on a guy who made plays any day of the week. Following your point of view above you'd do what most would on Jerry Rice..too slow...and would have passed. Press clippings and game tape are two different things entirely just like football speed in pads and 40 speed are two different things...VY is an example. Since the draft is 7 rounds I'd dare the guess that there are more guys than you think who slipped and made it in rounds 2-5 compared to can't misses that ended up being average in Rd. 1. I've seen alot more Alexander Wrights (4.09 40) fail compared to guys who have made it on every level. Studying games on the projector will do as much as watching one week at the combine. I'm not asking to ignore a glaring weakness...just not drop guys who made plays because it was a 4.6, not a 4.4.

kastofsna
02-24-2007, 07:28 PM
Look at the tape!! It's that simple.
nope. college players are far from finished products.

Navy_Chris
02-24-2007, 07:48 PM
nope. college players are far from finished products.

The ONLY things I don't like about the combine are the Wonderlic, 40 yd dash, and the broad jump. Everything else is OK to have, but in the end, if i'm faced with 2 RBs who both played outstanding in college, but one runs a 4.4 and one runs a 4.65 at the combine, I'm not basing my decision on a 40 yard dash time. I'm going back to the tape to make my decision. It all comes back to ONE question:

Is this guy a FOOTBALL player?

kastofsna
02-24-2007, 07:53 PM
okie dokie.

Navy_Chris
02-24-2007, 08:02 PM
okie dokie.


Terrell Davis ran around 4.65 at the combine. But he was a FOOTBALL player, he could make people miss. Plain and simple.

The fact that DeAngelo Hall got about $10 Million more in signing bonus money just because of a 4.3 something 40 is absurd. And, how is he as an NFL corner?? Not the best out there. See him try to cover T.O.? Not exactly poetry in motion.

threetoedpete
02-24-2007, 08:23 PM
Terrell Davis ran around 4.65 at the combine. But he was a FOOTBALL player, he could make people miss. Plain and simple.

The fact that DeAngelo Hall got about $10 Million more in signing bonus money just because of a 4.3 something 40 is absurd. And, how is he as an NFL corner?? Not the best out there. See him try to cover T.O.? Not exactly poetry in motion.

Yeah well a lot of your football guys are going to be drafted at WR in the first two rounds. The numbers say...70% of them will bust out. And the Rice example...the guy worked what he had harder than any player of his generation. Hart, you can't judge that on the football feild either. Numbers say you're going to miss on a 4.65 Wide reciever 85 % of the time than you are going to hit a decent player. Rice was self made into an all pro once in a life time WR. His hard work did that. I agree you can't judge hart by the numbers. But just like Ruetgers RB/FB he may want to be a running back...the numbers say he will struggle there.
As far as your Hall example he got the money because his tallent level demanded it. He has rare recovery speed and quick hips and elite speed. May be that is why guys like Petie Faggins fall and Ty Hill guys, like Houston of Arkansas rise. Who would you rather have covering T.O. if your job was on the line with the guy you select...Faggins or Hall. Houston or Hall this year ? Hall has the better body of work. Houston has the greater upside. If it was your job on the line..you'd be doing the same damn thing. To say other wise is just being contrary.

The Pencil Neck
02-24-2007, 08:25 PM
Exactly. Who cares if a guy can stand in his underwear and broad jump into the endzone. What is that supposed to tell an NFL scout?

The broad jump is a great indication of overall explosive power. In other words, it tells you if their muscle composition in their legs is more fast or slow twitch. Somebody with a good broad jump should be able to explode off the ball with more power. Same with the vertical jump.

The Pencil Neck
02-24-2007, 08:35 PM
The ONLY things I don't like about the combine are the Wonderlic, 40 yd dash, and the broad jump. Everything else is OK to have, but in the end, if i'm faced with 2 RBs who both played outstanding in college, but one runs a 4.4 and one runs a 4.65 at the combine, I'm not basing my decision on a 40 yard dash time. I'm going back to the tape to make my decision. It all comes back to ONE question:

Is this guy a FOOTBALL player?


The 40 yard dash might be crap for most players but I think the broad jump is a good indicator of basic athleticism. For linemen, I'd look at their times over the first 10-15 yards and then I'd prefer them coming out of their stances instead of that weird running 3-point stance they get into. Actually, I think most teams DO time them at 10, 20, and 40 yards and take all 3 into consideration.

If you really want to get sticky about it, I'd ditch the bench press (and I'm a powerlifter so you know that's hard for me to say.) If you want to see an upper body lift that translates better to strength for blockers, take a look at the incline bench numbers. The bench press would be an indicator of hand punch if you were blocking totally upright but you should be at an angle and the incline bench simulates that better. A friend of mine was the strength coach at Air Force back during the early 90's (when they had the great running game) and that was what he had those linemen concentrating on wrt upper body.

threetoedpete
02-24-2007, 08:41 PM
The broad jump is a great indication of overall explosive power. In other words, it tells you if their muscle composition in their legs is more fast or slow twitch. Somebody with a good broad jump should be able to explode off the ball with more power. Same with the vertical jump.

I agree with that. Take Tony Ugoh's prefomance there today. The guy with the bad quad went balls out and did the drill. Jumped nine feet. Tells me the guy has heart and he is an athlete. Put on the senior bowl practices tapes, whatch him on the game tape...the numbers don't match the production. OK you two einstiens...Where do you take the guy in the draft ? You take the athlete over the the body of work ? You take Blailock, who by his numbers today put him on the right side only. Maybe at OLG. Or do you gamble on Ugoh's athletism and his chance to play OLT for you and plug a hole ? Let's have a look see at some of your therories in practice there. I mean you hold Zona's 2. They need a left tackle...who do you take ? Blailock or Ugoh ?

threetoedpete
02-24-2007, 08:49 PM
The 40 yard dash might be crap for most players but I think the broad jump is a good indicator of basic athleticism. For linemen, I'd look at their times over the first 10-15 yards and then I'd prefer them coming out of their stances instead of that weird running 3-point stance they get into. Actually, I think most teams DO time them at 10, 20, and 40 yards and take all 3 into consideration.

If you really want to get sticky about it, I'd ditch the bench press (and I'm a powerlifter so you know that's hard for me to say.) If you want to see an upper body lift that translates better to strength for blockers, take a look at the incline bench numbers. The bench press would be an indicator of hand punch if you were blocking totally upright but you should be at an angle and the incline bench simulates that better. A friend of mine was the strength coach at Air Force back during the early 90's (when they had the great running game) and that was what he had those linemen concentrating on wrt upper body.

The forty yard dash is not just about the time they run. It's about how explosive they are the first five steps. How gracfull they look when they are running. They don't have to look like a track star out of the blocks. But you can bet every o line coach there was watching the guys first three steps and had a clock on him for his twenty time. It's just a level playing feild to judge this class of twenty something of the best of the best. Guy looks sloppy running down the field ...you can bet no one is going to throw a first day pick at the guy. Go re watch Joe Thomas run. The guy looked like a full back running down the feild. The guy is an athlete . Brown didn't look bad either. He was more than lumbering down the feild. Looked like a large lean athletic man to me.

The Pencil Neck
02-24-2007, 09:14 PM
The forty yard dash is not just about the time they run. It's about how explosive they are the first five steps. How gracfull they look when they are running. They don't have to look like a track star out of the blocks. But you can bet every o line coach there was watching the guys first three steps and had a clock on him for his twenty time. It's just a level playing feild to judge this class of twenty something of the best of the best. Guy looks sloppy running down the field ...you can bet no one is going to throw a first day pick at the guy. Go re watch Joe Thomas run. The guy looked like a full back running down the feild. The guy is an athlete . Brown didn't look bad either. He was more than lumbering down the feild. Looked like a large lean athletic man to me.

Definitely.

I liked listening to some of Vermiel's comments today. It really showed how he was looking at what you're talking about there. Which guys were bending at the waist and which guys were bending at the knees, which guys were smooth and which guys were jerky.

threetoedpete
02-24-2007, 10:10 PM
Exactly. The pro guys aren't just looking at the drill per say. they're looking at the drill how it translates litterally to what is required of them athleticaly on the football feild. Hip bend, droping the hips while they are shuffling and moving thier feet. How big our their hands. How much explosive power they have in their legs and arms, what kind of leveage do they have in their arms...ect. The overall question they are asking which guys can come in here and put my o-line into the top ten. All these little drills give then the clues to answer which guy goes where and what value are they to me and my football club ? That's why it's an art not a science. In the end you put all the info in a bag stir it up and make you best guess you can as to which guy(s) can get you to the super bowl.

kastofsna
02-25-2007, 01:00 AM
it's funny how many folks point to 2 or 3 players that had poor combine showings (supposedly) and busted out and turned out to be great. that's because there's only 2 or 3. very rarely do great players put up bad triangle numbers. very very rarely.

Honoring Earl 34
02-25-2007, 10:54 AM
I'll tell you what's interesting ... compare Mark Anderson's times last year to Mario's and Wimbley's .

Anderson's are better than both of theirs .

http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2006CombineResults2.php

HoustonFrog
02-25-2007, 12:55 PM
it's funny how many folks point to 2 or 3 players that had poor combine showings (supposedly) and busted out and turned out to be great. that's because there's only 2 or 3. very rarely do great players put up bad triangle numbers. very very rarely.

There is definitely more than 2 or 3. Brady. Montana, Rice, Emmitt, Zach Thomas..there are tons...again, it isn't the numbers per se like they were off the charts slow or weren't strong at all. It is the idea that the guy running a 4.3 is so much better..a round or two better because another ran a 4.5. That is what I don't get. I like to see a guy at a program that produced and had a nose for the ball. Film will get past these things. Honestly, a guy like Mario might end up being a stud but he rose to #1 despite the fact that he had games where he disappeared and that he had a rep of taking plays off. All of that was overlooked because he was an adonis. We will see what happens.

TexansSeminole
02-25-2007, 12:56 PM
A tick slower, and a tad shorter..... it's not like were talking about Jones-Drew
or anything.

And as long as people look at this as an either or situation, they'll never win.

Mario also has a lot of intangibles going for him, and while I do love Demeco, I can assure you he'd have gone unnoticed if the big fella wasn't doing his thing in front of him.

Go ask Ray Lewis how he feels about the big rookie that played in front of him, that hasn't got much press at all.

Don't take this the wrong way Frog, but I'm getting tired of people saying Mario didn't do Jack, when we said he was going to open the game up for other players on our defense, and Demeco's DROY year, and Greenwood's performance is exactly what we were talking about.


I agree 100%.

TexansSeminole
02-25-2007, 01:00 PM
I'll tell you what's interesting ... compare Mark Anderson's times last year to Mario's and Wimbley's .

Anderson's are better than both of theirs .

http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2006CombineResults2.php

Yea...better speed. It works out for him when he is the speedy defensive lineman playing around a bunch of beasts and Pro-bowl linebackers. We weren't looking for the guy who was the role player, we were looking for the beast. We can't get guys in the backfield if our front 4 don't push their blockers back...something that Mario can do. Mark Anderson only lifted the bar 24 times for a defensive lineman that isnt going to get you selected too high.

P.S. Wimbley had equal speed times than him...was a little lower in the 40 inch vert.

Honoring Earl 34
02-25-2007, 01:39 PM
Yea...better speed. It works out for him when he is the speedy defensive lineman playing around a bunch of beasts and Pro-bowl linebackers. We weren't looking for the guy who was the role player, we were looking for the beast. We can't get guys in the backfield if our front 4 don't push their blockers back...something that Mario can do. Mark Anderson only lifted the bar 24 times for a defensive lineman that isnt going to get you selected too high.

P.S. Wimbley had equal speed times than him...was a little lower in the 40 inch vert.

The point was Anderson had a good workout similar to Mario's and Wimbley's .

The difference was he was picked in the 4th rd. they in the 1st .

TexansSeminole
02-25-2007, 01:49 PM
The point was Anderson had a good workout similar to Mario's and Wimbley's .

The difference was he was picked in the 4th rd. they in the 1st .

I'd say that his bench press had alot to do with that. When you start lifting past 30 it shows you have strength AND strength endurance.

Mark Anderson didn't play close to the same number of downs as Mario. I think that's why he slipped to the 4th. Teams must have realized that he probably wouldn't be a starter but a good role player. Chicago was a great team for him to get drafted by.

Honoring Earl 34
02-25-2007, 01:50 PM
I'd say that his bench press had alot to do with that. When you start lifting past 30 it shows you have strength AND strength endurance.

Mark Anderson didn't play close to the same number of downs as Mario. I think that's why he slipped to the 4th. Teams must have realized that he probably wouldn't be a starter but a good role player. Chicago was a great team for him to get drafted by.

With Mario on oneside ... Mark Anderson in the 4th would be a great fit for the Texans .

TexansSeminole
02-25-2007, 01:54 PM
With Mario on oneside ... Mark Anderson in the 4th would be a great fit for the Texans .

Im not so sure about that. With the linebackers we have...stopping the run on that side would be pretty difficult. Put a OT on Anderson and a TE to help seal off and release to....who...Orr? Looks like a long day for our run defense.

Honoring Earl 34
02-25-2007, 02:00 PM
Im not so sure about that. With the linebackers we have...stopping the run on that side would be pretty difficult. Put a OT on Anderson and a TE to help seal off and release to....who...Orr? Looks like a long day for our run defense.

Well the LBs are all measuring short this year ... does'nt mean they can't play ... it means they'll slip .