Why combine numbers don't tell the whole story (1 Viewer)

If you go back and look at combine results, you'll see that quite a few players who pop off the screen in the NFL as freaks of nature also had incredible workout numbers. Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Reggie Bush, and LaDainian Tomlinson come to mind. But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field. I don't think there is any one single explanation for why guys with average speed and hops are able to dominate on gameday, but I do think I've picked up on a few important factors. While things like speed and explosiveness play an important role in determining a player's effectiveness, there are other important qualities such as foot quickness, instincts, and overall efficiency of movement (i.e. a player who is "smooth" or "fluid" and can change directions with no delay and no lost momentum). If you watch the first few plays on this Crabtree highlight reel, you'll see numerous examples:http://youtu.be/WivYeNzmnxs?t=59sCrabtree has just average speed, but he has exceptional foot quickness. He can snap off his routes instantly and has an innate knack for making people miss. When looking at the 2012 rookie WR class, I saw similar things from Rueben Randle. He is not a special athlete on paper. Decent size at 6'2" 210, but only ran 4.55 at the combine and jumped only 31" in the vertical leap. You would be tempted to say that he's a bad athlete, but when you watch the clips you get a different impression. While he might not have the juice of a workout wonder like Jerome Simpson or Stephen Hill, he compensates with foot quickness, fluidity, and instincts. The best example is this play beginning at 0:43 in this video:http://youtu.be/UdZ-SEnx0xU?t=42sIn one short gain Randle...1. Easily separates from the corner with his suddenness.2. Spins away from a gang of tacklers.3. Sets up the next tackler and jukes him in the open field. Randle was a first team All-SEC wide receiver and routinely destroyed coverage by some of the most athletic DBs in college football. I'd argue that he has special athletic qualities, but that these are easily overlooked because there are presently no drills or tests that quantify them. You can easily measure speed with a stopwatch and you can test explosiveness by looking at speed and jumps, but there's really no way to measure foot quickness or economy of motion. And I think these are really the hallmark traits of guys like Crabtree, Foster, and McCoy. They aren't fast. They aren't explosive. But they're smooth athletes with very efficient movement skills and exceptional instant quickness. And this is never going to show up in the workout numbers.

Isn't that what the cone drill measures?

'zilladog said:

Isn't that what the cone drill measures?

Click to expand...

In theory...probably. I'm not sure how well it works though.

I think if you look long enough, you can easily find a video or two of even bad receivers looking good.Like the effort here though, good stuff OP! Maybe you're on to something.

Alfred Morris had a 4.67 in the 40 which made him undraftable in many scouts eyes. But how do you measure a back's ability to truck people and refuse to go down? Even the strength tests don't really measure that.

'Warrior said:

I think if you look long enough, you can easily find a video or two of even bad receivers looking good.

Click to expand...

There's some truth in that. I've been following the draft for years and while I definitely don't consider myself a professional, I do think I've developed a certain level of expertise just from evaluating so many players. I am not saying that I always get it right, but there are certain players that I NEVER liked (i.e. Damian Williams, Rejus Benn) and certain players that I scooped up in almost all of my leagues (i.e. Andre Roberts, Rueben Randle). Why do I like some players, but not others who appear very similar on paper? I'm just trying to put some of that into words. And basically what I'm saying is that two players who have identical 40 times and vertical leaps can be wildly different in terms of fluidity, agility, foot quickness, and some of the other things that play a role in determining success.

These two statements are the simplest things I look for in prospects:Guys who aren't fast better be able to change directions without losing much ground.Guys who aren't fast and can't change directions without losing much ground better be strong and/or powerful.

'Jewell said:

Alfred Morris had a 4.67 in the 40 which made him undraftable in many scouts eyes. But how do you measure a back's ability to truck people and refuse to go down? Even the strength tests don't really measure that.

Click to expand...

You just have to watch the tape and to have seen it on tape.With guys like Alfred Morris and Arian Foster, they were just in the right place at the right time. Ben Tate IR-ed in 2010, and Roy Helu IR-ed this past season.

Combines won't tell you how a player responds under pressure.

It amazes me that we need a thread like this, but...sadly, we do.

'MAC_32 said:

It amazes me that we need a thread like this, but...sadly, we do.

Click to expand...

I don't get your post. Threads discussing this part of fantasy football are enjoyale to me. Discussing player characteristics that aren't measurable, rather something that you see, they " catch your eye". Then you can observe these players further to see if it was just that 1 game, 1 play, or do they have the unmeasurable "it". Maybe i just have a different interpretation of the OP, or you just figure this is obvious and not worth discussing.

Another thing you don't get from the combine is composure, or leadership. I mentioned Russell Wilson attributes in another thread. The combine doesn't give you a sense of his field presence, or leadership skills that really help make him successful. If you saw him playing in the in college, these things really stuck out though.

'EBF said:

'Warrior said:

I think if you look long enough, you can easily find a video or two of even bad receivers looking good.

Click to expand...

There's some truth in that. I've been following the draft for years and while I definitely don't consider myself a professional, I do think I've developed a certain level of expertise just from evaluating so many players. I am not saying that I always get it right, but there are certain players that I NEVER liked (i.e. Damian Williams, Rejus Benn) and certain players that I scooped up in almost all of my leagues (i.e. Andre Roberts, Rueben Randle). Why do I like some players, but not others who appear very similar on paper? I'm just trying to put some of that into words. And basically what I'm saying is that two players who have identical 40 times and vertical leaps can be wildly different in terms of fluidity, agility, foot quickness, and some of the other things that play a role in determining success.

Click to expand...

Andre Roberts had good measurables, though. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=81529&draftyear=2010&genpos=WR

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

'Raider Nation said:

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

Click to expand...

Moore ran a 4.43 40 and showed great speed in college. His 3-cone and short shuttle times weren't bad either.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=71022&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

Click to expand...

Moore ran a 4.43 40 and showed great speed in college. His 3-cone and short shuttle times weren't bad either.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=71022&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR

Click to expand...

And all of that equaled getting drafted in round 5. Report from the combine:

Moore has the height, hands, and mentality to develop into a quality backup possession-type receiver in the NFL. However, at this time still needs to put on some more weight and would really benefit from gaining a step of initial quickness. Takes too long to reach top speed and will struggle to gain separation on underneath patterns. Is tough and productive making catches over the middle. Has the length, ball skills and top-end speed to potentially make some plays vertically. Flashes the ability to be a good run blocker and needs to be a little more nasty. Moore carries a Day 3 grade.

Click to expand...

He has clearly shown more than what was expected from him.

There are exceptions, but 40 time still is pretty important for RBs. The average 40 time for RBs at the combine is about 4.55. Just over half of all RBs run slower than a 4.55, but how many of the top 24 dynasty RBs were slower than 4.55? I count about four: Arian Foster, Alfred Morris, Stevan Ridley, and maybe Frank Gore. (Vick Ballard, Shonn Greene, Mark Ingram, and BenJarvus Green-Ellis were also slower than 4.55). And Gore was slowed by an injury.Only about 12% of RBs run a 4.40 or faster at the combine. But how many of the top 24 dynasty RBs ran a 4.40 or faster? I count at least eight: Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, DeMarco Murray, Ryan Mathews, Darren McFadden, and Maurice Jones-Drew. (Reggie Bush and Ben Tate also ran 4.40 or faster, though Bush did it at his Pro Day.)So it looks like a RB who runs a 4.40 or less is almost 10x more likely to become a top dynasty RB than a RB who runs slower than a 4.55 (on average). RBs who run over a 4.55 are more than 4x more common than RBs who run 4.40 or less, but there are about half as many of them among the top dynasty RBs.

'replacements said:

Another thing you don't get from the combine is composure, or leadership. I mentioned Russell Wilson attributes in another thread. The combine doesn't give you a sense of his field presence, or leadership skills that really help make him successful. If you saw him playing in the in college, these things really stuck out though.

Click to expand...

I think field presence, instincts and decision making are the biggest factors that aren't determined at the combine. How a RB sees holes and reacts to them. Which "move" they decide to make on a tackler to make him miss. How good of balance they have to keep their footing. A lot of similar reasoning for other positions as well.

'replacements said:

'MAC_32 said:

It amazes me that we need a thread like this, but...sadly, we do.

Click to expand...

I don't get your post. Threads discussing this part of fantasy football are enjoyale to me. Discussing player characteristics that aren't measurable, rather something that you see, they " catch your eye". Then you can observe these players further to see if it was just that 1 game, 1 play, or do they have the unmeasurable "it". Maybe i just have a different interpretation of the OP, or you just figure this is obvious and not worth discussing.

Click to expand...

If they did the drills in full pads on different surfaces after running through a gauntlet for more than 2 hours it'd have some relevance.

'steveski said:

'replacements said:

Another thing you don't get from the combine is composure, or leadership. I mentioned Russell Wilson attributes in another thread. The combine doesn't give you a sense of his field presence, or leadership skills that really help make him successful. If you saw him playing in the in college, these things really stuck out though.

Click to expand...

I think field presence, instincts and decision making are the biggest factors that aren't determined at the combine. How a RB sees holes and reacts to them. Which "move" they decide to make on a tackler to make him miss. How good of balance they have to keep their footing. A lot of similar reasoning for other positions as well.

Click to expand...

Most of this stuff is picked up in collegiate performance though. If a back can do the things you mention it shows up in his stats. Combine + college stats + character and medical history = 95%+ of what you need to know.

'MAC_32 said:

'replacements said:

'MAC_32 said:

It amazes me that we need a thread like this, but...sadly, we do.

Click to expand...

I don't get your post. Threads discussing this part of fantasy football are enjoyale to me. Discussing player characteristics that aren't measurable, rather something that you see, they " catch your eye". Then you can observe these players further to see if it was just that 1 game, 1 play, or do they have the unmeasurable "it". Maybe i just have a different interpretation of the OP, or you just figure this is obvious and not worth discussing.

Click to expand...

If they did the drills in full pads on different surfaces after running through a gauntlet for more than 2 hours it'd have some relevance.

Click to expand...

Well said MAC. The combine is well positioned for what it is, but game film is all you need. If you want to talk with a player, it's a great opportunity. Finish your reviews prior to the dog-and-pony show, what you are looking for has already taken place.

'MAC_32 said:

'replacements said:

'MAC_32 said:

It amazes me that we need a thread like this, but...sadly, we do.

Click to expand...

I don't get your post. Threads discussing this part of fantasy football are enjoyale to me. Discussing player characteristics that aren't measurable, rather something that you see, they " catch your eye". Then you can observe these players further to see if it was just that 1 game, 1 play, or do they have the unmeasurable "it". Maybe i just have a different interpretation of the OP, or you just figure this is obvious and not worth discussing.

Click to expand...

If they did the drills in full pads on different surfaces after running through a gauntlet for more than 2 hours it'd have some relevance.

Click to expand...

Full pads, different surfaces, gauntlet for more than two hours = college performance.Combine = figuring out how college performance will or won't translate to the NFL.If you're measuring college performance right and have the measurements from the combine all the subjective hooha about pad level and speed in and out of cuts and blah blah blah is already accounted for most of the time. There are exceptions, there are gray areas and there's still plenty of art since the sample sizes are small. But there's no need for mysticism.

If something jumps off the page as odd at the combine vs. what the player did on the field then all that means is I would go back to the film room and watch more tape to try to figure out why.

College production and combine numbers alone aren't going to tell you why Damian Williams is crap and Andre Roberts isn't. The numbers are a good starting point, but any system that treats players like nothing more than a collection of data points is always going to miss certain things. There are always guys like Meachem, Q Morgan, and Heyward-Bey who look like stars if you put too much emphasis on the numbers, but can't actually play.

'MAC_32 said:

If something jumps off the page as odd at the combine vs. what the player did on the field then all that means is I would go back to the film room and watch more tape to try to figure out why.

Click to expand...

Totally agree that some people have a knack for seeing in the game film what's revealed by the combine measurements and can make good estimates based on what their eyes see. Of course there are many more people who think they 'see' things right, but are actually terrible at it. For players between the truly awful and the truly elite you can find literally any scouting report you want to on them. And in general it's a sign of an immature profession using faulty processes when the 'experts' are in wide disagreement.So my point is: why would anyone take the chance on subjective data, or at least why would they rely on it, when the combine gives you the same information to a much greater degree of precision and without subjective bias?

Likewise, a large majority of what you'd want to know about a college player's on-field performance is revealed in his college stats. Why rely on your interpretation of what happened, when there are numbers that tell you?

I'm not saying there's no room for film. There are gray areas. There are fluky stats from small sample sizes (esp at WR) and from a player being used in a limited role. Sometimes the scheme under- or overstates a player's numbers. Some players have a bad attitude. Some players are tweeners and take some coaching imagination to see how they'd fit into the NFL. And etc. Those things can be seen on film.

I'm also not saying I've got all this worked out. I've got a universal algorithm and some good performance metrics that seem to generate accurate comps, but in a perfect world you'd adjust every pass, every carry, and every catch to account for the quality of the defense it happened against. You'd have data going back decades instead of 15 years. You'd take the Pro Football Focus methodology of grading every player on every play and apply it to every single pro prospect to generate collegiate performance measures for players outside the skill positions. I'd love to have the resources to build something that robust, but I don't.

But I am saying that the numbers reveal a lot more than most people give them credit for and if you're rigorous in applying an algorithm to NCAA performance and combine measures you can eliminate a lot of the bias and lack of quality that comes with subjective inputs.

One thing the combine does is put every player on the same field for the same tests. Not that they all do all the tests but all the WRs seem to run the gauntlet. I'm always leery of the 'I'll run my 40 at my pro day (on my field's really fast track)' guys.40 yard dash for instance.It will tell you who the fastest is in a straight line. Not that I give a #### about that one. 40 yard dash is such a bad indicator. Some guys are prepped on how to come off the blocks for the test but who the hell lines up in that position on the football field. If they wanted to test that, they should line up as the do on the field.

'EBF said:

College production and combine numbers alone aren't going to tell you why Damian Williams is crap and Andre Roberts isn't. The numbers are a good starting point, but any system that treats players like nothing more than a collection of data points is always going to miss certain things. There are always guys like Meachem, Q Morgan, and Heyward-Bey who look like stars if you put too much emphasis on the numbers, but can't actually play.

Click to expand...

I only use numbers and I don't think Heyward-Bey and Meachem look like stars. Meachem was fairly close, but DHB looks downright poor. Quincy Morgan is much tougher call, but I'd lean against someone that looks like him if they came into the league today. He's most similar to Michael Crabtree (the definition of a borderline guy for me), but with some added disadvantages.If someone like Meachem, Crabtree or Morgan could be had in the 2nd or 3rd round (NFL) it might be a pretty hard to make the call. But the first round or pick thirty-three? No way.

'lod01 said:

One thing the combine does is put every player on the same field for the same tests. Not that they all do all the tests but all the WRs seem to run the gauntlet. I'm always leery of the 'I'll run my 40 at my pro day (on my field's really fast track)' guys.

Click to expand...

I agree with all that, but as you alluded to the numbers don't always reflect how the player actually functions on the field. And that's kind of what I was getting at with the first post. I don't disagree with what Rob is saying, but I think a system that relies purely on the numbers will be less effective than a system that incorporates the numbers and the right kind of subjective analysis.

FWIW... just did the comps for Meachem, and DHB came up in the same group:Robert MeachemTorrey SmithTaylor PriceDarrius Heyward-BeyCraig DavisThree first-round busts, one second round bust and a somewhat limited, but still useful, one-trick pony. Smith might actually justify his draft position, but I'd much rather have taken a few shots at a boom/bust WR1 in the later rounds.

'Xue said:

'EBF said:

'Warrior said:

I think if you look long enough, you can easily find a video or two of even bad receivers looking good.

Click to expand...

There's some truth in that. I've been following the draft for years and while I definitely don't consider myself a professional, I do think I've developed a certain level of expertise just from evaluating so many players. I am not saying that I always get it right, but there are certain players that I NEVER liked (i.e. Damian Williams, Rejus Benn) and certain players that I scooped up in almost all of my leagues (i.e. Andre Roberts, Rueben Randle). Why do I like some players, but not others who appear very similar on paper? I'm just trying to put some of that into words. And basically what I'm saying is that two players who have identical 40 times and vertical leaps can be wildly different in terms of fluidity, agility, foot quickness, and some of the other things that play a role in determining success.

Click to expand...

Andre Roberts had good measurables, though. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=81529&draftyear=2010&genpos=WR

Click to expand...

Yeah, he might not be the best example.Someone like Antonio Brown embodies what I'm talking about. On paper...a very average athlete. On the field, very athletic.

'EBF said:

Someone like Antonio Brown embodies what I'm talking about. On paper...a very average athlete. On the field, very athletic.

Click to expand...

This is a great example of when film is useful IMO. I didn't recognize Brown or the others below when they came into the league because there really hadn't been many players like them in a number of years and there's nothing that stands out. And since there was a 'hole' in my data the film-watchers were at an advantage. AJ Green was in another hole so I wasn't comfortable with him either -- and missed out in one league where I could have drafted him.

But the beauty of the comps process is once you have several players who are similar you get a really good feel for how their game will translate to the NFL even if you don't completely understand why they're good (my best guess is that these guys have good vision and hands and are quicker in space than the #2 or #3 CBs covering them).

Regardless, here are the comps for Antonio Brown:

Troy Edwards

Golden Tate (IMO would be the best of the bunch if the Seahawks threw more)

Lance Moore

Jeremy Kerley

Antonio Brown

Randall Cobb

Like I said, I can't tell you why those guys are good players -- nothing stands out in the data. But I don't need to know why, really. Now that I've got a bunch of comps I feel pretty comfortable that guys like these make great NFL WR2s and if one of them lands on a passing team they'll be able to put up solid numbers. So when the next one comes (S Bailey?) I'll be waiting.

However, notice that if these guys are on bad passing teams (Kerley) or asked to be a #1WR or both (Edwards) they really aren't going to have much value.

'wdcrob said:

But the beauty of the comps process is once you have several players who are similar you get a really good feel for how their game will translate to the NFL even if you don't completely understand why they're good

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of merit in what you're doing, but I also know that popping numbers into the calculator is how you end up thinking that guys like Marcus Easley, Alex Green, and Stephen Hill are good prospects. Not to say that your hit rate isn't good overall or that it isn't better than someone who just goes off gut feel alone, but if those are the guys who come out smelling like roses then I've got to question the system a little bit. I think the best system would probably involve combining the kind of thing you do with a little more subjective evaluation.

'EBF said:

'wdcrob said:

But the beauty of the comps process is once you have several players who are similar you get a really good feel for how their game will translate to the NFL even if you don't completely understand why they're good

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of merit in what you're doing, but I also know that popping numbers into the calculator is how you end up thinking that guys like Marcus Easley, Alex Green, and Stephen Hill are good prospects. Not to say that your hit rate isn't good overall or that it isn't better than someone who just goes off gut feel alone, but if those are the guys who come out smelling like roses then I've got to question the system a little bit. I think the best system would probably involve combining the kind of thing you do with a little more subjective evaluation.

Click to expand...

Well, all three of those guys were boom/bust plays. And for the most part I didn't pay much for Easley or Green. Easley would also get screened out today FWIW.Hill was definitely a swing for the fences. I had some of the same questions you did based on him only have 40-some catches. But he's a guy who if he'd hit would have hit really big. I also own Felix in eleven leagues and still like his profile if you want to talk about big misses.So yes, no system is perfect.I've also thought about adding some film watching, but I'm not convinced I have any skill for it and think it'd be easy to add more bias than I did value.

'wdcrob said:

Likewise, a large majority of what you'd want to know about a college player's on-field performance is revealed in his college stats. Why rely on your interpretation of what happened, when there are numbers that tell you?

Click to expand...

Don't agree with this at all. College stats can serve as a starting point if you're just sitting down to study a prospect, but that's all they really are. What they do on the field tells a lot more about how their game will translate than anything else. The other big pieces surround effort and work ethic, neither of which are things that can be measured in combine drills.

'wdcrob said:

'EBF said:

'wdcrob said:

But the beauty of the comps process is once you have several players who are similar you get a really good feel for how their game will translate to the NFL even if you don't completely understand why they're good

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of merit in what you're doing, but I also know that popping numbers into the calculator is how you end up thinking that guys like Marcus Easley, Alex Green, and Stephen Hill are good prospects. Not to say that your hit rate isn't good overall or that it isn't better than someone who just goes off gut feel alone, but if those are the guys who come out smelling like roses then I've got to question the system a little bit. I think the best system would probably involve combining the kind of thing you do with a little more subjective evaluation.

Click to expand...

Well, all three of those guys were boom/bust plays. And for the most part I didn't pay much for Easley or Green. Easley would also get screened out today FWIW.Hill was definitely a swing for the fences. I had some of the same questions you did based on him only have 40-some catches. But he's a guy who if he'd hit would have hit really big. I also own Felix in eleven leagues and still like his profile if you want to talk about big misses.So yes, no system is perfect.I've also thought about adding some film watching, but I'm not convinced I have any skill for it and think it'd be easy to add more bias than I did value.

Click to expand...

I think the stuff you put out there is interesting for the most part. I think it does a pretty good job of determining what type of player a prospect might be. However, like I said in the OP, it's just been my experience that the numbers aren't always an accurate description of what a player brings to the table. A guy like Donald Brown is an obvious example for me. I'm not sure how your system would've rated him, but on the surface he checks off a lot of boxes. Massive production. First round grade. Workout warrior. And yet he's a really average player. Guys like this are a real monkey wrench in any system that doesn't involve some kind of subjective analysis.And in the same vein you have a guy like Chad Johnson who had poor overall workout numbers, yet looked like dynamite on the field. He's another walking billboard for why the workout numbers alone just don't consistently do a great job of describing the player's abilities.

'Raider Nation said:

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

Click to expand...

Moore ran a 4.43 40 and showed great speed in college. His 3-cone and short shuttle times weren't bad either.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=71022&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR

Click to expand...

And all of that equaled getting drafted in round 5. Report from the combine:

Moore has the height, hands, and mentality to develop into a quality backup possession-type receiver in the NFL. However, at this time still needs to put on some more weight and would really benefit from gaining a step of initial quickness. Takes too long to reach top speed and will struggle to gain separation on underneath patterns. Is tough and productive making catches over the middle. Has the length, ball skills and top-end speed to potentially make some plays vertically. Flashes the ability to be a good run blocker and needs to be a little more nasty. Moore carries a Day 3 grade.

Click to expand...

He has clearly shown more than what was expected from him.

Click to expand...

One horrible scouting report.

'ZWK said:

There are exceptions, but 40 time still is pretty important for RBs. The average 40 time for RBs at the combine is about 4.55. Just over half of all RBs run slower than a 4.55, but how many of the top 24 dynasty RBs were slower than 4.55? I count about four: Arian Foster, Alfred Morris, Stevan Ridley, and maybe Frank Gore. (Vick Ballard, Shonn Greene, Mark Ingram, and BenJarvus Green-Ellis were also slower than 4.55). And Gore was slowed by an injury.Only about 12% of RBs run a 4.40 or faster at the combine. But how many of the top 24 dynasty RBs ran a 4.40 or faster? I count at least eight: Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, DeMarco Murray, Ryan Mathews, Darren McFadden, and Maurice Jones-Drew. (Reggie Bush and Ben Tate also ran 4.40 or faster, though Bush did it at his Pro Day.)So it looks like a RB who runs a 4.40 or less is almost 10x more likely to become a top dynasty RB than a RB who runs slower than a 4.55 (on average). RBs who run over a 4.55 are more than 4x more common than RBs who run 4.40 or less, but there are about half as many of them among the top dynasty RBs.

Click to expand...

Instead of looking at the who has been successful and who has been not and then looking at 40 times, why not look at 40 times first and see how many are successful and how many are not.I think this thread is about finding the exceptions, not the rules.

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

Click to expand...

Moore ran a 4.43 40 and showed great speed in college. His 3-cone and short shuttle times weren't bad either.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=71022&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR

Click to expand...

And all of that equaled getting drafted in round 5. Report from the combine:

Moore has the height, hands, and mentality to develop into a quality backup possession-type receiver in the NFL. However, at this time still needs to put on some more weight and would really benefit from gaining a step of initial quickness. Takes too long to reach top speed and will struggle to gain separation on underneath patterns. Is tough and productive making catches over the middle. Has the length, ball skills and top-end speed to potentially make some plays vertically. Flashes the ability to be a good run blocker and needs to be a little more nasty. Moore carries a Day 3 grade.

Click to expand...

He has clearly shown more than what was expected from him.

Click to expand...

One horrible scouting report.

Click to expand...

.... last word.

game tape is the best scouting tool. I would venture to say that most college player rankings are all but settled prior to their workouts at the combine. Combine is more of a media event now.

'Raider Nation said:

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

Click to expand...

Moore ran a 4.43 40 and showed great speed in college. His 3-cone and short shuttle times weren't bad either.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=71022&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR

Click to expand...

And all of that equaled getting drafted in round 5. Report from the combine:

Moore has the height, hands, and mentality to develop into a quality backup possession-type receiver in the NFL. However, at this time still needs to put on some more weight and would really benefit from gaining a step of initial quickness. Takes too long to reach top speed and will struggle to gain separation on underneath patterns. Is tough and productive making catches over the middle. Has the length, ball skills and top-end speed to potentially make some plays vertically. Flashes the ability to be a good run blocker and needs to be a little more nasty. Moore carries a Day 3 grade.

Click to expand...

He has clearly shown more than what was expected from him.

Click to expand...

One horrible scouting report.

Click to expand...

.... last word.

Click to expand...

Feel free to pick and choose what you want to believe.If Kendall Wright played in the SEC without Griffin, his scouting report would read the same thing.

If Tyler Bray had started the whole season, Moore would have been a higher draft pick. Moore averaged 99.2 yards and scored 4 TDs the final 5 games in which Tyler Bray started. Extrapolated over 13 games, that's 1290 yards and 10 TDs.

I don't watch college football and don't do my own analysis of draft prospects. Just from watching NFL games it seems like a significant portion of getting open for a receiver is just being in the right place at the right time. Knowing when to "sit down" in a zone and making the same hot read as your QB seems to be a major factor. And that's all mental; I suspect it's why guys like Donald Driver are still catching balls at 37.Even in man coverage I think getting open is a lot more mental than than most people think. And there's nothing in the combine to measure that, including the intelligence test. I think you can learn a lot about a players' mental makeup by watching games.

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'Xue said:

'Raider Nation said:

'EBF said:

But there are also lots of successful NFL players who don't really have special athletic qualities on paper. LeSean McCoy, Michael Crabtree, Reggie Wayne, Arian Foster, and AJ Green are great examples. These guys don't have special measurables, but when you watch them in the NFL it's clear that they have special abilities on the football field.

Click to expand...

Denarius Moore was the first guy I thought of, reading that description.Doesn't have special size, speed or quickness, and doesn't run the most precise routes you've ever seen. But somehow, about 4 or 5 times a game, you look up and he's five strides past his defender. The separation he gets is crazy, given his skill set on paper.

Click to expand...

Moore ran a 4.43 40 and showed great speed in college. His 3-cone and short shuttle times weren't bad either.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=71022&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR

Click to expand...

And all of that equaled getting drafted in round 5. Report from the combine:

Moore has the height, hands, and mentality to develop into a quality backup possession-type receiver in the NFL. However, at this time still needs to put on some more weight and would really benefit from gaining a step of initial quickness. Takes too long to reach top speed and will struggle to gain separation on underneath patterns. Is tough and productive making catches over the middle. Has the length, ball skills and top-end speed to potentially make some plays vertically. Flashes the ability to be a good run blocker and needs to be a little more nasty. Moore carries a Day 3 grade.

Click to expand...

He has clearly shown more than what was expected from him.

Click to expand...

One horrible scouting report.

Click to expand...

.... last word.

Click to expand...

Feel free to pick and choose what you want to believe.If Kendall Wright played in the SEC without Griffin, his scouting report would read the same thing.

If Tyler Bray had started the whole season, Moore would have been a higher draft pick. Moore averaged 99.2 yards and scored 4 TDs the final 5 games in which Tyler Bray started. Extrapolated over 13 games, that's 1290 yards and 10 TDs.

Click to expand...

MustGet

Last

Word

The combiine is a great measure of pure athletic skill and suspect one at showing football skill. There generally takws a baseline of athletc skill to play in the NFL and that's normally the important thing to figure about a prospect at the combine. Athletic ability does not mean football talented. Too many people used talented to mean athletic leaving out the stuff the combine really is not strong at measuring. One thing that I really look for is a mismatch of what a player loos like athletically on the football field and what he measures. Essentially why does a slow looking player turn a good atheltic profile? and why does a fast looking player turn in a mediocore one? When I say athletic profile, I mean the complete picture the multiple measured events. i am worried when I see a guy truly excel at something and then is poor at other seemingly related tasks.