McFadden Short shuttle (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

Thats your body of evidence?!?!?! Also, there is a difference between ignoring, and valuing accordingly.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

Thats your body of evidence?!?!?! Also, there is a difference between ignoring, and valuing accordingly.

Well, it's far superior to the "body of evidence" you've provided to contradict EBF.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

It surprised me how fast Edge ran the 40

 

[Burning Sensation]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

Thats your body of evidence?!?!?! Also, there is a difference between ignoring, and valuing accordingly.

Well, it's far superior to the "body of evidence" you've provided to contradict EBF.

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

 

[switz]

Its not even the team he goes to as much as where he gets drafted. It speaks volumes if Smith was the 4th RB drafted in a class this deep at RB. I dont care if he fell an inch or two short of an average vertical if NFL scouts deem him worthy of a 2nd round pick.

When it comes to judging talent, combine results, etc. I trust the guys who get paid by NFL teams alot more than myself or anybody on a FF message board.

You're thinking is FLAWED.Where a guy gets drafted is not about where "NFL scouts" in general rank him, just where NFL scouts of ONE TEAM rank him. Team matters a lot.

So, say SD drafts him as the 4th RB off the board, that's tremendously positive evidence that the guy is talented, as SD is very good at evaluating RBs. On the other hand, say it's CLE that drafts him as the 4th RB off the board... well, that's not so positive, as CLE has shown time and again they are terrible at evaluating college RBs for NFL ability.

So, team matters. Where are guy is drafted only represents the thinking of one team's scouts, not NFL scouts in general. Pre-draft rankings are a much better indicator of NFL scouts "consensus" opinion on players.

Hmnnn. Not sure a guy who called out someone saying they had FLAWED thinking should use a flawed reasoning.In the nine seasons since Cleveland has returned to the NFL they have used two first day picks on RBs. Travis Prentice was taken eight years ago by then GM Dwight Clark and then six years ago the Browns used a late first round selection on William Green. The current front office with GM Phil Savage took over three years ago. He has only drafted two RBs in three years using a fifth round pick on Jerome Harrison who made the team and is currently a backup and a sixth round pick on Lawerence Vickers who played in the Pro Bowl last year as a FB. Savage hasn't needed to use a first day pick on a RB since he's done an excellent job landing free agent RBs.

He first signed Chester Taylor to an offer sheet and forced the Ravens to match him and pay extra to keep Taylor. That forced Taylor to leave the next year to Minnesota where he turned into a thousand yard rusher. Savage then traded a defensive lineman to Denver and got Reuben Droughns who rushed for over a thousand yards. The first RB to rush for a thousand yards in twenty years for Cleveland. Then last year Savage signed Jamal Lewis from the Ravens and Lewis ran for more yards than any Cleveland RB since 1968 and Hall of Fame RB Leroy Kelly. So I'd have to say if you think that the Browns have shown they can't draft RBs based on what Dwight Clark did eight years ago or what Butch Davis did six years ago that you would be incorrect. See the current Browns GM Phil Savage and his track record for how things have changed.

Please re-read what I posted. I never said CLE hasn't been good at evaluating "already successful NFL RBs" or even "college FBs", but rather "college RBs"... and while Savage took over three years ago, scouting and ranking a player goes far beyond just the GM. Unless you believe that Savage fired all the scouts and hired an entirely new team, the likelihood is that CLE still has a number of scouts on their payroll that have impacted their terrible track record at drafting RBs.If Jerome Harrison is the best RB they've drafted in the past 3 years... are you really going to argue that's a good track record???

 

[switz]

Have to say I was a bit suprised to see Jerome Harrison's name mixed in with McFadden. He is quick but is small and not fast.

I apologize in advance for the hijack but both of your sources suck. Harrison ran a 4.47 40 at the combine. http://www.beachthe.net/?cat=45 - look just over half way down the page. I only remember because he wasn't supposed to beat Calhoun who was also in his group of RBs.

That being said, I lost patience with Harrison over a year ago and dropped him in my dynasty league. How could he not at least steal some carries away from an undrafted Jason Wright.

You are right in that his "adjusted" 40 time was 4.47 - but what he actually ran was 4.52 on his first attempt and 4.51 on his second. Actual Combine resultsI don't go by adjusted times because they are arbitrary.

 

[switz]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

Thats your body of evidence?!?!?! Also, there is a difference between ignoring, and valuing accordingly.

Well, it's far superior to the "body of evidence" you've provided to contradict EBF.

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Part of it is in this thread. It's in post #61:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8409041

Lots of it is in many other threads as well and has been discussed at length in the past. There are VERY strong correlations to the assertions being made. Ignore them if you want.

Thats your body of evidence?!?!?! Also, there is a difference between ignoring, and valuing accordingly.

Well, it's far superior to the "body of evidence" you've provided to contradict EBF.

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

Can you quote where i said i ignore combine numbers? All i said was i value where a player is drafted far more than his vertical, and i was accused of ignoring facts.

 

[switz]

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

Can you quote where i said i ignore combine numbers? All i said was i value where a player is drafted far more than his vertical, and i was accused of ignoring facts.

Here is what EBF said:

There's a big difference between saying that most elite RB prospects do well in the vertical leap and saying most prospects who do well in the vertical leap are good prospects. Those are two very different statements.

Good combine numbers don't ensure success, but relatively few backs are successful without good combine numbers. This typically holds true in the 40, vertical leap, and broad jump.

Your retort has been:

Point being i wouldn't avoid Smith because of his combine numbers. Where Smith goes in the draft is going to dictate where he gets taken in rookie drafts. If he goes to the Broncos in the 2nd round, he is a top 4 rookie pick. If he goes to the Vikings in the 5th, he doesnt go in the first two rounds.

Basically, you say combine numbers are meaningless there. While EBF is making the argument that the measurables DO matter, but he also said they aren't the only thing that matters.

There just seems to be either misunderstanding of what's been posted, or deliberate misrepresentation going on. I'm guessing the prior, as both you and EBF are very knowledgeable posters.

To sum it up, here's a hypothetical... if DEN drafts player X in the second round, but player X ran a 4.6-40 and jumped 23" at the combine, would you really think DEN knew what it was doing in drafting that player? I know that's an extremely bad combine, and I highly doubt DEN would draft player X in the second round with those measurements. But if that was the case, would you stand by your argument that draft position > measurables?

 

[Maroney=Speed]

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

Can you quote where i said i ignore combine numbers? All i said was i value where a player is drafted far more than his vertical, and i was accused of ignoring facts.

Here is what EBF said:

There's a big difference between saying that most elite RB prospects do well in the vertical leap and saying most prospects who do well in the vertical leap are good prospects. Those are two very different statements.

Good combine numbers don't ensure success, but relatively few backs are successful without good combine numbers. This typically holds true in the 40, vertical leap, and broad jump.

Your retort has been:

Point being i wouldn't avoid Smith because of his combine numbers. Where Smith goes in the draft is going to dictate where he gets taken in rookie drafts. If he goes to the Broncos in the 2nd round, he is a top 4 rookie pick. If he goes to the Vikings in the 5th, he doesnt go in the first two rounds.

Basically, you say combine numbers are meaningless there. While EBF is making the argument that the measurables DO matter, but he also said they aren't the only thing that matters.

There just seems to be either misunderstanding of what's been posted, or deliberate misrepresentation going on. I'm guessing the prior, as both you and EBF are very knowledgeable posters.

To sum it up, here's a hypothetical... if DEN drafts player X in the second round, but player X ran a 4.6-40 and jumped 23" at the combine, would you really think DEN knew what it was doing in drafting that player? I know that's an extremely bad combine, and I highly doubt DEN would draft player X in the second round with those measurements. But if that was the case, would you stand by your argument that draft position > measurables?

College stats/career, Competition/Conference =50%Combine=10%

Nfl Draft round=20%

NFL team=20%

So McFadden has a score of 60 going into the draft, if He gets drafted by NE, maybe McFadden scores out at 80 or so.

I would not be happy with McFadden going to NE.

But it's all what you think is a good place for said RB going. This is just a rough idea. What does ye think?

 

[Burning Sensation]

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

Can you quote where i said i ignore combine numbers? All i said was i value where a player is drafted far more than his vertical, and i was accused of ignoring facts.

Here is what EBF said:

There's a big difference between saying that most elite RB prospects do well in the vertical leap and saying most prospects who do well in the vertical leap are good prospects. Those are two very different statements.

Good combine numbers don't ensure success, but relatively few backs are successful without good combine numbers. This typically holds true in the 40, vertical leap, and broad jump.

Your retort has been:

Point being i wouldn't avoid Smith because of his combine numbers. Where Smith goes in the draft is going to dictate where he gets taken in rookie drafts. If he goes to the Broncos in the 2nd round, he is a top 4 rookie pick. If he goes to the Vikings in the 5th, he doesnt go in the first two rounds.

Basically, you say combine numbers are meaningless there. While EBF is making the argument that the measurables DO matter, but he also said they aren't the only thing that matters.

There just seems to be either misunderstanding of what's been posted, or deliberate misrepresentation going on. I'm guessing the prior, as both you and EBF are very knowledgeable posters.

To sum it up, here's a hypothetical... if DEN drafts player X in the second round, but player X ran a 4.6-40 and jumped 23" at the combine, would you really think DEN knew what it was doing in drafting that player? I know that's an extremely bad combine, and I highly doubt DEN would draft player X in the second round with those measurements. But if that was the case, would you stand by your argument that draft position > measurables?

Yes, i would assume the scouts that where responsible for player X getting drafted in the 2nd round have taken into account his low 40 time. Although i couldnt imagine a team drafting a RB in the 2nd who only had a 23" vertical.Take all RB's drafted over the last 8 years or so and rank them in order of best combine numbers from each year. Then rank them in order of where they were drafted. Take the top 3 from each category, which group would you prefer?

 

[gianmarco]

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

Can you quote where i said i ignore combine numbers? All i said was i value where a player is drafted far more than his vertical, and i was accused of ignoring facts.

Here is what EBF said:

There's a big difference between saying that most elite RB prospects do well in the vertical leap and saying most prospects who do well in the vertical leap are good prospects. Those are two very different statements.

Good combine numbers don't ensure success, but relatively few backs are successful without good combine numbers. This typically holds true in the 40, vertical leap, and broad jump.

Your retort has been:

Point being i wouldn't avoid Smith because of his combine numbers. Where Smith goes in the draft is going to dictate where he gets taken in rookie drafts. If he goes to the Broncos in the 2nd round, he is a top 4 rookie pick. If he goes to the Vikings in the 5th, he doesnt go in the first two rounds.

Basically, you say combine numbers are meaningless there. While EBF is making the argument that the measurables DO matter, but he also said they aren't the only thing that matters.

There just seems to be either misunderstanding of what's been posted, or deliberate misrepresentation going on. I'm guessing the prior, as both you and EBF are very knowledgeable posters.

To sum it up, here's a hypothetical... if DEN drafts player X in the second round, but player X ran a 4.6-40 and jumped 23" at the combine, would you really think DEN knew what it was doing in drafting that player? I know that's an extremely bad combine, and I highly doubt DEN would draft player X in the second round with those measurements. But if that was the case, would you stand by your argument that draft position > measurables?

Yes, i would assume the scouts that where responsible for player X getting drafted in the 2nd round have taken into account his low 40 time. Although i couldnt imagine a team drafting a RB in the 2nd who only had a 23" vertical.Take all RB's drafted over the last 8 years or so and rank them in order of best combine numbers from each year. Then rank them in order of where they were drafted. Take the top 3 from each category, which group would you prefer?

Reading your post here shows to me that you're really not understanding the point trying to made. The argument being made is NOT to take a guy based on combine. Essentially, I'll try to break this into 4 categories.1. High draft spot, good combine #s (i.e., no red flags like low vertical, slow 40, etc.)--Good potential

2. Low draft spot, good combine #s -- Risky proposition.

3. High draft spot, poor combine #s -- Risky proposition

4. Low draft spot, poor combine #s -- Very risky proposition.

I don't think there is any argument about #'s 1 and 4 above. However, the point trying to be made is that #3 is something to be cautious about. You are choosing to ignore the fact that a player drafted highly that has sub-standard combine #'s is a pretty risky pick. However, your counter is trying to say that someone is trying to argue that #2 above is a better choice, which is NOT the case. Both have to be taken into consideration. It seems you have no problems with #1, #2, and #4 above as you like #1 and would avoid #2 and #4. However, in the case of #3, you seem to think they are the same in terms of prospect to succeed as group #1 and they are not.

However, no one is trying to say that #2 above (good combine, poor draft spot) is better than #3 (poor combine, good draft spot), but rather that BOTH raise red flags and have higher risk compared to guys in category #1 above. Don't know how else to explain it.

Both combine #'s and draft position are very important tools in figuring out prospects for success at the next level. Choosing to ignore one or the other can be a mistake. You seem to understand that re: draft position but don't seem to get it re: combine #'s. Just as someone would be foolish to draft someone based on combine #'s but ignoring their draft position, I think it's just as foolish to draft someone based on draft position and ignoring combine #'s. You seem to want to do the latter. No one is saying one of those options is better than the other---they are both not ideal.

 

[switz]

The argument being made is NOT to take a guy based on combine. Essentially, I'll try to break this into 4 categories.1. High draft spot, good combine #s (i.e., no red flags like low vertical, slow 40, etc.)--Good potential2. Low draft spot, good combine #s -- Risky proposition. 3. High draft spot, poor combine #s -- Risky proposition4. Low draft spot, poor combine #s -- Very risky proposition.I don't think there is any argument about #'s 1 and 4 above. However, the point trying to be made is that #3 is something to be cautious about. You are choosing to ignore the fact that a player drafted highly that has sub-standard combine #'s is a pretty risky pick. However, your counter is trying to say that someone is trying to argue that #2 above is a better choice, which is NOT the case. Both have to be taken into consideration. It seems you have no problems with #1, #2, and #4 above as you like #1 and would avoid #2 and #4. However, in the case of #3, you seem to think they are the same in terms of prospect to succeed as group #1 and they are not. However, no one is trying to say that #2 above (good combine, poor draft spot) is better than #3 (poor combine, good draft spot), but rather that BOTH raise red flags and have higher risk compared to guys in category #1 above. Don't know how else to explain it.Both combine #'s and draft position are very important tools in figuring out prospects for success at the next level. Choosing to ignore one or the other can be a mistake. You seem to understand that re: draft position but don't seem to get it re: combine #'s. Just as someone would be foolish to draft someone based on combine #'s but ignoring their draft position, I think it's just as foolish to draft someone based on draft position and ignoring combine #'s. You seem to want to do the latter. No one is saying one of those options is better than the other---they are both not ideal.

 

[switz]

Although i couldnt imagine a team drafting a RB in the 2nd who only had a 23" vertical.

And that's exactly the point being made... it would surprise me if Kevin Smith was a high second round pick - heck even a lower second round pick. His measurables just don't stack up to what most 2nd round RBs look like.

Take all RB's drafted over the last 8 years or so and rank them in order of best combine numbers from each year. Then rank them in order of where they were drafted. Take the top 3 from each category, which group would you prefer?

Well, I'm not going to go through all that work to prove your point. If you want to post the numbers then I'll tell you which group I prefer. But even then, that's not TRULY what's for discussion... what you would need to do to argue draft position > combine is find all the top RBs, and then show their combine numbers and point out how many sub-par combine performances wee negated by being drafted highly. That's a case I don't think you can make.

 

[happy_donut]

If you add 1.5" to the verticals, you'll see that most of this year's top RB prospects meet the minimums. I don't think we can really eliminate any of these guys solely based on the numbers, but the numbers suggest that we might need to be wary of Jamaal Charles, Ray Rice, and Kevin Smith.

Ray Rice Pro DayRay Rice

VJ - 39.5"

BJ - 10"1'

SS - 4.17

60 Shuttle - 11.22

40, Bench, 3 cone - DNP

From the Pro Day Discussion Thread.

Ray Rice is an interesting prospect. Sorry for the hijack, but I didn't think this needed it's own thread.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

If you add 1.5" to the verticals, you'll see that most of this year's top RB prospects meet the minimums. I don't think we can really eliminate any of these guys solely based on the numbers, but the numbers suggest that we might need to be wary of Jamaal Charles, Ray Rice, and Kevin Smith.

Ray Rice Pro DayRay Rice

VJ - 39.5"

BJ - 10"1'

SS - 4.17

60 Shuttle - 11.22

40, Bench, 3 cone - DNP

From the Pro Day Discussion Thread.

Ray Rice is an interesting prospect. Sorry for the hijack, but I didn't think this needed it's own thread.

Thanks for posting. But no big deal really. There just numbers. It's were Rice gets drafted.

 

[EBF]

Ray RiceVJ - 39.5"BJ - 10"1'SS - 4.17

That's a monster workout if the numbers are accurate.

 

[ditka85]

Ray RiceVJ - 39.5"BJ - 10"1'SS - 4.17

That's a monster workout if the numbers are accurate.

Does this alter where you have Rice at all EBF?

 

[Wildman]

If you add 1.5" to the verticals, you'll see that most of this year's top RB prospects meet the minimums. I don't think we can really eliminate any of these guys solely based on the numbers, but the numbers suggest that we might need to be wary of Jamaal Charles, Ray Rice, and Kevin Smith.

Ray Rice Pro DayRay Rice

VJ - 39.5"

BJ - 10"1'

SS - 4.17

60 Shuttle - 11.22

40, Bench, 3 cone - DNP

From the Pro Day Discussion Thread.

Ray Rice is an interesting prospect. Sorry for the hijack, but I didn't think this needed it's own thread.

The safest back in this draft and my #2 RB in the RSP, which I will have finished tomorrow and ready for download 4/1...

 

[happy_donut]

Ray RiceVJ - 39.5"BJ - 10"1'SS - 4.17

That's a monster workout if the numbers are accurate.

That's why I included a link I'm also interested in how this changes your view of RR....

I think you can draw the following conclusions: When you're looking at RB prospects, you should look for players who run under 4.50 in the 40, jump over 35" in the vertical leap, jump at least 9'10" in the broad jump, and have a shuttle time of 4.28 or better. There's some margin for error, but most of the elite pro running backs exceeded these minimums.

 

[Chaos Commish]

If you add 1.5" to the verticals, you'll see that most of this year's top RB prospects meet the minimums. I don't think we can really eliminate any of these guys solely based on the numbers, but the numbers suggest that we might need to be wary of Jamaal Charles, Ray Rice, and Kevin Smith.

Ray Rice Pro DayRay Rice

VJ - 39.5"

BJ - 10"1'

SS - 4.17

60 Shuttle - 11.22

40, Bench, 3 cone - DNP

From the Pro Day Discussion Thread.

Ray Rice is an interesting prospect. Sorry for the hijack, but I didn't think this needed it's own thread.

The safest back in this draft and my #2 RB in the RSP, which I will have finished tomorrow and ready for download 4/1...

Since 1.1 seems out of reach in both my leagues that have rookie drafts, I'm now more interested in 1.4 because of Rice. I halfway expect one of the big three to land in a questionable spot and fall to 1.4, and if not, I have no problem owning Rice. I can't rate him as high as you do, but EBF sees him in a tier of his own after the first three, and I think I have him in a tier with Mendenhall and Stewart (while still stubbornly keeping McFadden above the fray).

 

[Burning Sensation]

I know, NFL scouts have nothing on EBF's vertical theory. You guys want to draft Chris Johnson over Mcfadden because he jumped higher, be my guest.

Can you quote where EBF said that vert was the be all and end all of RB evaluation?? I seem to be missing that post when I read through this thread.

Can you quote where i said i ignore combine numbers? All i said was i value where a player is drafted far more than his vertical, and i was accused of ignoring facts.

Here is what EBF said:

There's a big difference between saying that most elite RB prospects do well in the vertical leap and saying most prospects who do well in the vertical leap are good prospects. Those are two very different statements.

Good combine numbers don't ensure success, but relatively few backs are successful without good combine numbers. This typically holds true in the 40, vertical leap, and broad jump.

Your retort has been:

Point being i wouldn't avoid Smith because of his combine numbers. Where Smith goes in the draft is going to dictate where he gets taken in rookie drafts. If he goes to the Broncos in the 2nd round, he is a top 4 rookie pick. If he goes to the Vikings in the 5th, he doesnt go in the first two rounds.

Basically, you say combine numbers are meaningless there. While EBF is making the argument that the measurables DO matter, but he also said they aren't the only thing that matters.

There just seems to be either misunderstanding of what's been posted, or deliberate misrepresentation going on. I'm guessing the prior, as both you and EBF are very knowledgeable posters.

To sum it up, here's a hypothetical... if DEN drafts player X in the second round, but player X ran a 4.6-40 and jumped 23" at the combine, would you really think DEN knew what it was doing in drafting that player? I know that's an extremely bad combine, and I highly doubt DEN would draft player X in the second round with those measurements. But if that was the case, would you stand by your argument that draft position > measurables?

Yes, i would assume the scouts that where responsible for player X getting drafted in the 2nd round have taken into account his low 40 time. Although i couldnt imagine a team drafting a RB in the 2nd who only had a 23" vertical.Take all RB's drafted over the last 8 years or so and rank them in order of best combine numbers from each year. Then rank them in order of where they were drafted. Take the top 3 from each category, which group would you prefer?

Reading your post here shows to me that you're really not understanding the point trying to made. The argument being made is NOT to take a guy based on combine. Essentially, I'll try to break this into 4 categories.1. High draft spot, good combine #s (i.e., no red flags like low vertical, slow 40, etc.)--Good potential

2. Low draft spot, good combine #s -- Risky proposition.

3. High draft spot, poor combine #s -- Risky proposition

4. Low draft spot, poor combine #s -- Very risky proposition.

I think low draft spot is a MUCH bigger red flag than a bad vertical.

 

[EBF]

Ray RiceVJ - 39.5"BJ - 10"1'SS - 4.17

That's a monster workout if the numbers are accurate.

Does this alter where you have Rice at all EBF?

Well, it's tough to justify ranking him any higher than 1.04. Those top three guys are pretty good and they're all going to be picked before Rice. Yet Rice has the best running style in this draft, ideal bulk for the position, and apparently an elite set of physical skills. It's quite possible that he'll be the best back in this draft. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see it play out that way. I have 1.02 in one league and 1.03 in two leagues. I'll consider taking Rice that high. Like I said, I look for RBs who meet the following requirements:- Productive when given opportunities in college- Pass the eyeball test- Good workout numbers- Good draft pedigreeRay Rice fits the bill. What this news tells me is that he shouldn't be picked any lower than 1.04 and is quite possibly the top RB prospect available despite his relatively low draft profile. The one sticking point with him is his weight. The first round guys all have him by 10-30 pounds, which is significant. Teams may view Rice as a change of pace guy and that could kill his value. But if he gets a real shot to be a starter, I'll be very surprised if he disappoints.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Ray RiceVJ - 39.5"BJ - 10"1'SS - 4.17

That's a monster workout if the numbers are accurate.

To recapMcFadden'sVJ=35.5BJ=10.8SS=4.10I see Rice moving up and going before Stewart in rook drafts. Rice will go between 20-31.F.Jones 20-31. Stewart will most likey be the 5th or 6th back taken, most likey. But I think Rice may go 3th in most drafts.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Its not even the team he goes to as much as where he gets drafted. It speaks volumes if Smith was the 4th RB drafted in a class this deep at RB. I dont care if he fell an inch or two short of an average vertical if NFL scouts deem him worthy of a 2nd round pick.

When it comes to judging talent, combine results, etc. I trust the guys who get paid by NFL teams alot more than myself or anybody on a FF message board.

You're thinking is FLAWED.Where a guy gets drafted is not about where "NFL scouts" in general rank him, just where NFL scouts of ONE TEAM rank him. Team matters a lot.

So, say SD drafts him as the 4th RB off the board, that's tremendously positive evidence that the guy is talented, as SD is very good at evaluating RBs. On the other hand, say it's CLE that drafts him as the 4th RB off the board... well, that's not so positive, as CLE has shown time and again they are terrible at evaluating college RBs for NFL ability.

So, team matters. Where are guy is drafted only represents the thinking of one team's scouts, not NFL scouts in general. Pre-draft rankings are a much better indicator of NFL scouts "consensus" opinion on players.

Hmnnn. Not sure a guy who called out someone saying they had FLAWED thinking should use a flawed reasoning.In the nine seasons since Cleveland has returned to the NFL they have used two first day picks on RBs. Travis Prentice was taken eight years ago by then GM Dwight Clark and then six years ago the Browns used a late first round selection on William Green. The current front office with GM Phil Savage took over three years ago. He has only drafted two RBs in three years using a fifth round pick on Jerome Harrison who made the team and is currently a backup and a sixth round pick on Lawerence Vickers who played in the Pro Bowl last year as a FB. Savage hasn't needed to use a first day pick on a RB since he's done an excellent job landing free agent RBs.

He first signed Chester Taylor to an offer sheet and forced the Ravens to match him and pay extra to keep Taylor. That forced Taylor to leave the next year to Minnesota where he turned into a thousand yard rusher. Savage then traded a defensive lineman to Denver and got Reuben Droughns who rushed for over a thousand yards. The first RB to rush for a thousand yards in twenty years for Cleveland. Then last year Savage signed Jamal Lewis from the Ravens and Lewis ran for more yards than any Cleveland RB since 1968 and Hall of Fame RB Leroy Kelly. So I'd have to say if you think that the Browns have shown they can't draft RBs based on what Dwight Clark did eight years ago or what Butch Davis did six years ago that you would be incorrect. See the current Browns GM Phil Savage and his track record for how things have changed.

Please re-read what I posted. I never said CLE hasn't been good at evaluating "already successful NFL RBs" or even "college FBs", but rather "college RBs"... and while Savage took over three years ago, scouting and ranking a player goes far beyond just the GM. Unless you believe that Savage fired all the scouts and hired an entirely new team, the likelihood is that CLE still has a number of scouts on their payroll that have impacted their terrible track record at drafting RBs.If Jerome Harrison is the best RB they've drafted in the past 3 years... are you really going to argue that's a good track record???

Let me get this correct. You are saying that the Browns have shown "time and time again that they are terrible for evaluating college RBs for NFL ability." based on TWO RBs drafted over three years? Futhermore the TWO RBs drafted were selected in the fifth and sixth rounds and both made the team and still reside on the roster but of the TWO RBs ONE made the Pro Bowl last year. THAT is your definition of TERRIBLE ability to evaluate college RBs? Channelling Saturday Night Live, REALLY???

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Its not even the team he goes to as much as where he gets drafted. It speaks volumes if Smith was the 4th RB drafted in a class this deep at RB. I dont care if he fell an inch or two short of an average vertical if NFL scouts deem him worthy of a 2nd round pick.

When it comes to judging talent, combine results, etc. I trust the guys who get paid by NFL teams alot more than myself or anybody on a FF message board.

You're thinking is FLAWED.Where a guy gets drafted is not about where "NFL scouts" in general rank him, just where NFL scouts of ONE TEAM rank him. Team matters a lot.

So, say SD drafts him as the 4th RB off the board, that's tremendously positive evidence that the guy is talented, as SD is very good at evaluating RBs. On the other hand, say it's CLE that drafts him as the 4th RB off the board... well, that's not so positive, as CLE has shown time and again they are terrible at evaluating college RBs for NFL ability.

So, team matters. Where are guy is drafted only represents the thinking of one team's scouts, not NFL scouts in general. Pre-draft rankings are a much better indicator of NFL scouts "consensus" opinion on players.

Hmnnn. Not sure a guy who called out someone saying they had FLAWED thinking should use a flawed reasoning.In the nine seasons since Cleveland has returned to the NFL they have used two first day picks on RBs. Travis Prentice was taken eight years ago by then GM Dwight Clark and then six years ago the Browns used a late first round selection on William Green. The current front office with GM Phil Savage took over three years ago. He has only drafted two RBs in three years using a fifth round pick on Jerome Harrison who made the team and is currently a backup and a sixth round pick on Lawerence Vickers who played in the Pro Bowl last year as a FB. Savage hasn't needed to use a first day pick on a RB since he's done an excellent job landing free agent RBs.

He first signed Chester Taylor to an offer sheet and forced the Ravens to match him and pay extra to keep Taylor. That forced Taylor to leave the next year to Minnesota where he turned into a thousand yard rusher. Savage then traded a defensive lineman to Denver and got Reuben Droughns who rushed for over a thousand yards. The first RB to rush for a thousand yards in twenty years for Cleveland. Then last year Savage signed Jamal Lewis from the Ravens and Lewis ran for more yards than any Cleveland RB since 1968 and Hall of Fame RB Leroy Kelly. So I'd have to say if you think that the Browns have shown they can't draft RBs based on what Dwight Clark did eight years ago or what Butch Davis did six years ago that you would be incorrect. See the current Browns GM Phil Savage and his track record for how things have changed.

Please re-read what I posted. I never said CLE hasn't been good at evaluating "already successful NFL RBs" or even "college FBs", but rather "college RBs"... and while Savage took over three years ago, scouting and ranking a player goes far beyond just the GM. Unless you believe that Savage fired all the scouts and hired an entirely new team, the likelihood is that CLE still has a number of scouts on their payroll that have impacted their terrible track record at drafting RBs.If Jerome Harrison is the best RB they've drafted in the past 3 years... are you really going to argue that's a good track record???

Let me get this correct. You are saying that the Browns have shown "time and time again that they are terrible for evaluating college RBs for NFL ability." based on TWO RBs drafted over three years? Futhermore the TWO RBs drafted were selected in the fifth and sixth rounds and both made the team and still reside on the roster but of the TWO RBs ONE made the Pro Bowl last year. THAT is your definition of TERRIBLE ability to evaluate college RBs? Channelling Saturday Night Live, REALLY???

 

[switz]

Reading your post here shows to me that you're really not understanding the point trying to made. The argument being made is NOT to take a guy based on combine. Essentially, I'll try to break this into 4 categories.

1. High draft spot, good combine #s (i.e., no red flags like low vertical, slow 40, etc.)--Good potential

2. Low draft spot, good combine #s -- Risky proposition.

3. High draft spot, poor combine #s -- Risky proposition

4. Low draft spot, poor combine #s -- Very risky proposition.

I think low draft spot is a MUCH bigger red flag than a bad vertical.

Really? Terrell Davis, Frank Gore, Curtis Martin, Willie Parker and Priest Holmes all would disagree with you.And William Green, Blair Thomas, KiJana Carter all would indicate that draft position is NOT a very good indicator of success.

 

[switz]

Its not even the team he goes to as much as where he gets drafted. It speaks volumes if Smith was the 4th RB drafted in a class this deep at RB. I dont care if he fell an inch or two short of an average vertical if NFL scouts deem him worthy of a 2nd round pick.

When it comes to judging talent, combine results, etc. I trust the guys who get paid by NFL teams alot more than myself or anybody on a FF message board.

You're thinking is FLAWED.Where a guy gets drafted is not about where "NFL scouts" in general rank him, just where NFL scouts of ONE TEAM rank him. Team matters a lot.

So, say SD drafts him as the 4th RB off the board, that's tremendously positive evidence that the guy is talented, as SD is very good at evaluating RBs. On the other hand, say it's CLE that drafts him as the 4th RB off the board... well, that's not so positive, as CLE has shown time and again they are terrible at evaluating college RBs for NFL ability.

So, team matters. Where are guy is drafted only represents the thinking of one team's scouts, not NFL scouts in general. Pre-draft rankings are a much better indicator of NFL scouts "consensus" opinion on players.

Hmnnn. Not sure a guy who called out someone saying they had FLAWED thinking should use a flawed reasoning.In the nine seasons since Cleveland has returned to the NFL they have used two first day picks on RBs. Travis Prentice was taken eight years ago by then GM Dwight Clark and then six years ago the Browns used a late first round selection on William Green. The current front office with GM Phil Savage took over three years ago. He has only drafted two RBs in three years using a fifth round pick on Jerome Harrison who made the team and is currently a backup and a sixth round pick on Lawerence Vickers who played in the Pro Bowl last year as a FB. Savage hasn't needed to use a first day pick on a RB since he's done an excellent job landing free agent RBs.

He first signed Chester Taylor to an offer sheet and forced the Ravens to match him and pay extra to keep Taylor. That forced Taylor to leave the next year to Minnesota where he turned into a thousand yard rusher. Savage then traded a defensive lineman to Denver and got Reuben Droughns who rushed for over a thousand yards. The first RB to rush for a thousand yards in twenty years for Cleveland. Then last year Savage signed Jamal Lewis from the Ravens and Lewis ran for more yards than any Cleveland RB since 1968 and Hall of Fame RB Leroy Kelly. So I'd have to say if you think that the Browns have shown they can't draft RBs based on what Dwight Clark did eight years ago or what Butch Davis did six years ago that you would be incorrect. See the current Browns GM Phil Savage and his track record for how things have changed.

Please re-read what I posted. I never said CLE hasn't been good at evaluating "already successful NFL RBs" or even "college FBs", but rather "college RBs"... and while Savage took over three years ago, scouting and ranking a player goes far beyond just the GM. Unless you believe that Savage fired all the scouts and hired an entirely new team, the likelihood is that CLE still has a number of scouts on their payroll that have impacted their terrible track record at drafting RBs.If Jerome Harrison is the best RB they've drafted in the past 3 years... are you really going to argue that's a good track record???

Let me get this correct. You are saying that the Browns have shown "time and time again that they are terrible for evaluating college RBs for NFL ability." based on TWO RBs drafted over three years? Futhermore the TWO RBs drafted were selected in the fifth and sixth rounds and both made the team and still reside on the roster but of the TWO RBs ONE made the Pro Bowl last year. THAT is your definition of TERRIBLE ability to evaluate college RBs? Channelling Saturday Night Live, REALLY???

I think you are still suffering from reading comprehension issues. While Savage is only 3 years into his stint as GM, how many scouts are still there from previous regimes? Quite a few.You also seem to have a difficult time differentiating between RB and FB - they are different positions.

You must be a big CLE fan to be taking this so personally...

 

[SayWhat?]

Its not even the team he goes to as much as where he gets drafted. It speaks volumes if Smith was the 4th RB drafted in a class this deep at RB. I dont care if he fell an inch or two short of an average vertical if NFL scouts deem him worthy of a 2nd round pick.

When it comes to judging talent, combine results, etc. I trust the guys who get paid by NFL teams alot more than myself or anybody on a FF message board.

You're thinking is FLAWED.Where a guy gets drafted is not about where "NFL scouts" in general rank him, just where NFL scouts of ONE TEAM rank him. Team matters a lot.

So, say SD drafts him as the 4th RB off the board, that's tremendously positive evidence that the guy is talented, as SD is very good at evaluating RBs. On the other hand, say it's CLE that drafts him as the 4th RB off the board... well, that's not so positive, as CLE has shown time and again they are terrible at evaluating college RBs for NFL ability.

So, team matters. Where are guy is drafted only represents the thinking of one team's scouts, not NFL scouts in general. Pre-draft rankings are a much better indicator of NFL scouts "consensus" opinion on players.

Hmnnn. Not sure a guy who called out someone saying they had FLAWED thinking should use a flawed reasoning.In the nine seasons since Cleveland has returned to the NFL they have used two first day picks on RBs. Travis Prentice was taken eight years ago by then GM Dwight Clark and then six years ago the Browns used a late first round selection on William Green. The current front office with GM Phil Savage took over three years ago. He has only drafted two RBs in three years using a fifth round pick on Jerome Harrison who made the team and is currently a backup and a sixth round pick on Lawerence Vickers who played in the Pro Bowl last year as a FB. Savage hasn't needed to use a first day pick on a RB since he's done an excellent job landing free agent RBs.

He first signed Chester Taylor to an offer sheet and forced the Ravens to match him and pay extra to keep Taylor. That forced Taylor to leave the next year to Minnesota where he turned into a thousand yard rusher. Savage then traded a defensive lineman to Denver and got Reuben Droughns who rushed for over a thousand yards. The first RB to rush for a thousand yards in twenty years for Cleveland. Then last year Savage signed Jamal Lewis from the Ravens and Lewis ran for more yards than any Cleveland RB since 1968 and Hall of Fame RB Leroy Kelly. So I'd have to say if you think that the Browns have shown they can't draft RBs based on what Dwight Clark did eight years ago or what Butch Davis did six years ago that you would be incorrect. See the current Browns GM Phil Savage and his track record for how things have changed.

Please re-read what I posted. I never said CLE hasn't been good at evaluating "already successful NFL RBs" or even "college FBs", but rather "college RBs"... and while Savage took over three years ago, scouting and ranking a player goes far beyond just the GM. Unless you believe that Savage fired all the scouts and hired an entirely new team, the likelihood is that CLE still has a number of scouts on their payroll that have impacted their terrible track record at drafting RBs.If Jerome Harrison is the best RB they've drafted in the past 3 years... are you really going to argue that's a good track record???

Let me get this correct. You are saying that the Browns have shown "time and time again that they are terrible for evaluating college RBs for NFL ability." based on TWO RBs drafted over three years? Futhermore the TWO RBs drafted were selected in the fifth and sixth rounds and both made the team and still reside on the roster but of the TWO RBs ONE made the Pro Bowl last year. THAT is your definition of TERRIBLE ability to evaluate college RBs? Channelling Saturday Night Live, REALLY???

I think you are still suffering from reading comprehension issues. While Savage is only 3 years into his stint as GM, how many scouts are still there from previous regimes? Quite a few.You also seem to have a difficult time differentiating between RB and FB - they are different positions.

You must be a big CLE fan to be taking this so personally...

In all honesty because I'm curious, how do you know how many scouts still remain in the Browns, or any, organization from the previous regime?

 

[Burning Sensation]

Reading your post here shows to me that you're really not understanding the point trying to made. The argument being made is NOT to take a guy based on combine. Essentially, I'll try to break this into 4 categories.

1. High draft spot, good combine #s (i.e., no red flags like low vertical, slow 40, etc.)--Good potential

2. Low draft spot, good combine #s -- Risky proposition.

3. High draft spot, poor combine #s -- Risky proposition

4. Low draft spot, poor combine #s -- Very risky proposition.

I think low draft spot is a MUCH bigger red flag than a bad vertical.

Really? Terrell Davis, Frank Gore, Curtis Martin, Willie Parker and Priest Holmes all would disagree with you.And William Green, Blair Thomas, KiJana Carter all would indicate that draft position is NOT a very good indicator of success.

Draft position is not a very good indicator? Given one of two choices, either the first RB drafted or the RB with the best combine numbers, i will take the first RB drafted EVERY time, and its not even close.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Its not even the team he goes to as much as where he gets drafted. It speaks volumes if Smith was the 4th RB drafted in a class this deep at RB. I dont care if he fell an inch or two short of an average vertical if NFL scouts deem him worthy of a 2nd round pick.

When it comes to judging talent, combine results, etc. I trust the guys who get paid by NFL teams alot more than myself or anybody on a FF message board.

You're thinking is FLAWED.Where a guy gets drafted is not about where "NFL scouts" in general rank him, just where NFL scouts of ONE TEAM rank him. Team matters a lot.

So, say SD drafts him as the 4th RB off the board, that's tremendously positive evidence that the guy is talented, as SD is very good at evaluating RBs. On the other hand, say it's CLE that drafts him as the 4th RB off the board... well, that's not so positive, as CLE has shown time and again they are terrible at evaluating college RBs for NFL ability.

So, team matters. Where are guy is drafted only represents the thinking of one team's scouts, not NFL scouts in general. Pre-draft rankings are a much better indicator of NFL scouts "consensus" opinion on players.

Hmnnn. Not sure a guy who called out someone saying they had FLAWED thinking should use a flawed reasoning.In the nine seasons since Cleveland has returned to the NFL they have used two first day picks on RBs. Travis Prentice was taken eight years ago by then GM Dwight Clark and then six years ago the Browns used a late first round selection on William Green. The current front office with GM Phil Savage took over three years ago. He has only drafted two RBs in three years using a fifth round pick on Jerome Harrison who made the team and is currently a backup and a sixth round pick on Lawerence Vickers who played in the Pro Bowl last year as a FB. Savage hasn't needed to use a first day pick on a RB since he's done an excellent job landing free agent RBs.

He first signed Chester Taylor to an offer sheet and forced the Ravens to match him and pay extra to keep Taylor. That forced Taylor to leave the next year to Minnesota where he turned into a thousand yard rusher. Savage then traded a defensive lineman to Denver and got Reuben Droughns who rushed for over a thousand yards. The first RB to rush for a thousand yards in twenty years for Cleveland. Then last year Savage signed Jamal Lewis from the Ravens and Lewis ran for more yards than any Cleveland RB since 1968 and Hall of Fame RB Leroy Kelly. So I'd have to say if you think that the Browns have shown they can't draft RBs based on what Dwight Clark did eight years ago or what Butch Davis did six years ago that you would be incorrect. See the current Browns GM Phil Savage and his track record for how things have changed.

Please re-read what I posted. I never said CLE hasn't been good at evaluating "already successful NFL RBs" or even "college FBs", but rather "college RBs"... and while Savage took over three years ago, scouting and ranking a player goes far beyond just the GM. Unless you believe that Savage fired all the scouts and hired an entirely new team, the likelihood is that CLE still has a number of scouts on their payroll that have impacted their terrible track record at drafting RBs.If Jerome Harrison is the best RB they've drafted in the past 3 years... are you really going to argue that's a good track record???

Let me get this correct. You are saying that the Browns have shown "time and time again that they are terrible for evaluating college RBs for NFL ability." based on TWO RBs drafted over three years? Futhermore the TWO RBs drafted were selected in the fifth and sixth rounds and both made the team and still reside on the roster but of the TWO RBs ONE made the Pro Bowl last year. THAT is your definition of TERRIBLE ability to evaluate college RBs? Channelling Saturday Night Live, REALLY???

I think you are still suffering from reading comprehension issues. While Savage is only 3 years into his stint as GM, how many scouts are still there from previous regimes? Quite a few.You also seem to have a difficult time differentiating between RB and FB - they are different positions.

You must be a big CLE fan to be taking this so personally...

Switz, your wrong on a number of things. Triggermen make draft choices not the scouts. The Browns scouting department told Butch Davis to take Richard Seymour with the third pick but Butch didn't listen to them. He selected Gerard Warren. So the assumption that scouts make draft decisions isn't correct, that is flawed. Second, their was a complete scouting overhaul when Savage took over four years ago. He has only drafted two RBs. He correctly evaluated Vickers talent and promptly put him into a role of a FB and changed his position to FB. Jerome Harrison is still on the team. He's the only RB drafted by the Browns in three years to still hold the position of RB.This is the list of the RBs drafted in the 05 draft taken after Harrion to put Phil's RB evaluative skills into proper context.

145 Jerome Harrison Browns Washington State

12 5 31 163 David Kirtman Seahawks USC

13 6 1 170 Wali Lundy Texans Virginia

14 6 11 180 Lawrence Vickers Browns Colorado

15 6 26 195 J.D. Runnels Bears Oklahoma

16 7 32 240 Cedric Humes Steelers Virginia Tech

17 7 38 246 Quinton Ganther Titans Utah

The only player to, sic, 'hit' out of that steller group was Vickers and Lundy. Harrison is the ONLY RB to still be on the roster of the team that drafted him. So when placed into proper context do you still consider that to be terrible evauation of college RB ability?

 

[switz]

In all honesty because I'm curious, how do you know how many scouts still remain in the Browns, or any, organization from the previous regime?

Their web siteZac Bocian College Scout 5 years

Jake Hallum Senior Scout 3 years

Jim Jauch College Scout, East 4 years

Daniel Jeremiah National Scout 1 years (joined after last year's draft)

Kevin Kelly College Scout, Midwest 7 years

Richard Long Research & Development Scout 6 years

Robert Morris College Scout, Southwest 6 years

Chisom Opara College Scout, Southeast 3 years

Pat Roberts National Scout 3 years

Bobby Vega College Scout 3 years

Bob Welton College Scout, West 4 years

6 of 10 precede Savage's regime. Green (1st) drafted in '02, Suggs (3rd) in '03, Echemandu (7th) in '04, Harrison (5th) in '06.

Of the 4 RBs drafted in the past 5 drafts, only one is still with the team. They've had glaring needs at RB since before they drafted Green, and they never were able to solve them through the draft. The fact that the team went out and attempted to sign Taylor, and then signed Lewis indicates to me they felt they were better off taking a semi-established NFL talent than going after one in the draft.

It does appear that Jim Jauch replaced the scout that was responsible primarily for scouting Green and Suggs.

My post wasn't really an attack on CLE, but just to point out that just because one team drafts a player at a certain position doesn't mean the NFL in general views that player as highly, nor that it's an indication the player will be good. I could have used WRs and DET, and someone would have pointed to Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, ignoring Mike Williams and Charles Johnson. Anywho...

 

[switz]

Switz, your wrong on a number of things. Triggermen make draft choices not the scouts. The Browns scouting department told Butch Davis to take Richard Seymour with the third pick but Butch didn't listen to them. He selected Gerard Warren. So the assumption that scouts make draft decisions isn't correct, that is flawed.

Where did I say that the scouts make the final decision??? But they do present scouting reports to the team, and follow a grading system the team uses to stack players in overall rankings.

Second, their was a complete scouting overhaul when Savage took over four years ago.

Not true... there were some changes made, but over half the scouts currently in place were scouts for the team prior to Savage's regime.

He has only drafted two RBs. He correctly evaluated Vickers talent and promptly put him into a role of a FB and changed his position to FB. Jerome Harrison is still on the team. He's the only RB drafted by the Browns in three years to still hold the position of RB.

You do realize that Vickers has played FB since HS, don't you? You keep citing him as a great example of Savage's RB drafting skills - but he's a fullback, not an RB. And in the dying position of FB in the NFL, Vickers made the ProBowl as a second alternate... not exactly high praise.

The only player to, sic, 'hit' out of that steller group was Vickers and Lundy. Harrison is the ONLY RB to still be on the roster of the team that drafted him. So when placed into proper context do you still consider that to be terrible evauation of college RB ability?

You are really taking this much too personally. You also need to check your facts before attacking me ...

 

[Wildman]

Ray RiceVJ - 39.5"BJ - 10"1'SS - 4.17

That's a monster workout if the numbers are accurate.

Does this alter where you have Rice at all EBF?

Well, it's tough to justify ranking him any higher than 1.04. Those top three guys are pretty good and they're all going to be picked before Rice. Yet Rice has the best running style in this draft, ideal bulk for the position, and apparently an elite set of physical skills. It's quite possible that he'll be the best back in this draft. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see it play out that way. I have 1.02 in one league and 1.03 in two leagues. I'll consider taking Rice that high. Like I said, I look for RBs who meet the following requirements:- Productive when given opportunities in college- Pass the eyeball test- Good workout numbers- Good draft pedigreeRay Rice fits the bill. What this news tells me is that he shouldn't be picked any lower than 1.04 and is quite possibly the top RB prospect available despite his relatively low draft profile. The one sticking point with him is his weight. The first round guys all have him by 10-30 pounds, which is significant. Teams may view Rice as a change of pace guy and that could kill his value. But if he gets a real shot to be a starter, I'll be very surprised if he disappoints.

Yep, and without going into detail about his skills I and just doing the anecdotal stuff I like to think about the fact that Rice killed a very fast South Florida defense in consecutive years. In between those times, no other RB even gained 100 yards. He actually gained 200 in each showing and one of them was just 3 days after he had a high carry game. His coach was a former defensive guy at UM when the Hurricanes were still a powerhouse. Schiano knows a think or two about good backs. Brian Leonard is a quality football player. He wasn't great in fantasy football as a rookie, but he kept the offense somewhat competitive as the fill-in for Jackson behind an o-line that was struggling and Rice was clearly a step up from him. I think Rice is only going to get better, but he shows real maturity as a runner between the tackles that many backs don't have until they've been the NFL for a few years.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

In all honesty because I'm curious, how do you know how many scouts still remain in the Browns, or any, organization from the previous regime?

Their web siteZac Bocian College Scout 5 years

Jake Hallum Senior Scout 3 years

Jim Jauch College Scout, East 4 years

Daniel Jeremiah National Scout 1 years (joined after last year's draft)

Kevin Kelly College Scout, Midwest 7 years

Richard Long Research & Development Scout 6 years

Robert Morris College Scout, Southwest 6 years

Chisom Opara College Scout, Southeast 3 years

Pat Roberts National Scout 3 years

Bobby Vega College Scout 3 years

Bob Welton College Scout, West 4 years

6 of 10 precede Savage's regime. Green (1st) drafted in '02, Suggs (3rd) in '03, Echemandu (7th) in '04, Harrison (5th) in '06.

Of the 4 RBs drafted in the past 5 drafts, only one is still with the team. They've had glaring needs at RB since before they drafted Green, and they never were able to solve them through the draft. The fact that the team went out and attempted to sign Taylor, and then signed Lewis indicates to me they felt they were better off taking a semi-established NFL talent than going after one in the draft.

It does appear that Jim Jauch replaced the scout that was responsible primarily for scouting Green and Suggs.

My post wasn't really an attack on CLE, but just to point out that just because one team drafts a player at a certain position doesn't mean the NFL in general views that player as highly, nor that it's an indication the player will be good. I could have used WRs and DET, and someone would have pointed to Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, ignoring Mike Williams and Charles Johnson. Anywho...

I understand. I think that you simply were/are mistaken in using Cleveland as an example when using hte term terrible in evaluating college RB talent. Butch Davis basically overtook the HC/GM hats and at first he only held the HC hat in name but he took Dwight Clark out of the loop immediately and implemented his own GM, forget his name. So the Butch Davis drafts didn't use the Browns scouting department advice. Butch felt he had done college recruiting and that he knew many of the NFL prospects from first hand evaluations so he ignored his scouting department. He is the one responsible for taking guys with shady charector and it was because he prided himself on how he went into Miami and personally recuited prospects from the wrong side of the tracks becuase Miami was under probation when he took over and he was without enough scholarships. He made the GLARING mistake of thinking the NFL was like college recuiting or he could discipline grown NFL men like college kids so he took chances on low charector guys like Gerard Warren and William Green and even made a big show of how he had personally tried to rectuit those guys for Miami but he finally got his guy.Their were reports of Butch completely ignoring Clark in the Browns War Room and of Dwight getting up in disgust and leaving. So honestly. You are mistaken in using any Browns scouting evidence against Phil Savage or stating the 'BROWNS' are terrible in evaluting college NFL talent.

This is the entire history of Phil Savage as an NFL GM, all with the Browns. Two listed as RBs, one who he turned into a FB. The only other RB that Phil Savage drafted was Jerome Harrison and he's the only RB still on an NFL roster listed as a RB from that draft whom Phil could have selected.

Year No. Round Pick Player Name Position College

2007 1 1 3 3 Joe Thomas T Wisconsin

2 1 22 22 Brady Quinn QB Notre Dame

3 2 21 53 Eric Wright DB Nevada-Las Vegas

4 5 3 140 Brandon McDonald DB Memphis

5 6 26 200 Melila Purcell DE Hawaii

6 7 3 213 Chase Pittman DE Louisiana State

7 7 24 234 Syndric Steptoe WR Arizona

2006 1 1 13 13 Kamerion Wimbley LB Florida State

2 2 2 34 D'Qwell Jackson LB Maryland

3 3 14 78 Travis Wilson WR Oklahoma

4 4 13 110 Leon Williams LB Miami (FL)

5 4 15 112 Isaac Sowells G Indiana

6 5 12 145 Jerome Harrison RB Washington State

7 5 20 152 DeMario Minter DB Georgia

8 6 11 180 Lawrence Vickers RB Colorado

9 6 12 181 Baba Oshinowo DT Stanford

10 7 14 222 Justin Hamilton DB Virginia Tech

2005 1 1 3 3 Braylon Edwards WR Michigan

2 2 2 34 Brodney Pool DB Oklahoma

3 3 3 67 Charlie Frye QB Akron

4 4 2 103 Antonio Perkins DB Oklahoma

5 5 3 139 David McMillan DE Kansas

6 6 2 176 Nick Speegle LB New Mexico

7 6 29 203 Andrew Hoffman DT Virginia

8 7 3 217 Jon Dunn T Virginia Tech

I would not say that is terrible.

 

[switz]

I understand. I think that you simply were/are mistaken in using Cleveland as an example when using hte term terrible in evaluating college RB talent. Butch Davis basically overtook the HC/GM hats and at first he only held the HC hat in name but he took Dwight Clark out of the loop immediately and implemented his own GM, forget his name. So the Butch Davis drafts didn't use the Browns scouting department advice. Butch felt he had done college recruiting and that he knew many of the NFL prospects from first hand evaluations so he ignored his scouting department. He is the one responsible for taking guys with shady charector and it was because he prided himself on how he went into Miami and personally recuited prospects from the wrong side of the tracks becuase Miami was under probation when he took over and he was without enough scholarships. He made the GLARING mistake of thinking the NFL was like college recuiting or he could discipline grown NFL men like college kids so he took chances on low charector guys like Gerard Warren and William Green and even made a big show of how he had personally tried to rectuit those guys for Miami but he finally got his guy.

Their were reports of Butch completely ignoring Clark in the Browns War Room and of Dwight getting up in disgust and leaving. So honestly. You are mistaken in using any Browns scouting evidence against Phil Savage or stating the 'BROWNS' are terrible in evaluting college NFL talent.

I agree that Butch was AWFUL, and the primary reason that the Browns drafts during his tenure were bad. And perhaps the Browns were a bad example, but _ignoring regime changes_ their history provided a good example of how a team drafting a player isn't an indication of the players talent.

This is the entire history of Phil Savage as an NFL GM, all with the Browns. Two listed as RBs, one who he turned into a FB. The only other RB that Phil Savage drafted was Jerome Harrison and he's the only RB still on an NFL roster listed as a RB from that draft whom Phil could have selected.

Year No. Round Pick Player Name Position College

2007 1 1 3 3 Joe Thomas T Wisconsin

2 1 22 22 Brady Quinn QB Notre Dame

3 2 21 53 Eric Wright DB Nevada-Las Vegas

4 5 3 140 Brandon McDonald DB Memphis

5 6 26 200 Melila Purcell DE Hawaii

6 7 3 213 Chase Pittman DE Louisiana State

7 7 24 234 Syndric Steptoe WR Arizona

2006 1 1 13 13 Kamerion Wimbley LB Florida State

2 2 2 34 D'Qwell Jackson LB Maryland

3 3 14 78 Travis Wilson WR Oklahoma

4 4 13 110 Leon Williams LB Miami (FL)

5 4 15 112 Isaac Sowells G Indiana

6 5 12 145 Jerome Harrison RB Washington State

7 5 20 152 DeMario Minter DB Georgia

8 6 11 180 Lawrence Vickers RB Colorado

9 6 12 181 Baba Oshinowo DT Stanford

10 7 14 222 Justin Hamilton DB Virginia Tech

2005 1 1 3 3 Braylon Edwards WR Michigan

2 2 2 34 Brodney Pool DB Oklahoma

3 3 3 67 Charlie Frye QB Akron

4 4 2 103 Antonio Perkins DB Oklahoma

5 5 3 139 David McMillan DE Kansas

6 6 2 176 Nick Speegle LB New Mexico

7 6 29 203 Andrew Hoffman DT Virginia

8 7 3 217 Jon Dunn T Virginia Tech

I would not say that is terrible.

I don't think Savage is a bad GM at all. That wasn't my intention with my post. I guess it's probably best to leave it at tat, and let our regularly scheduled program resume.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I wasn't trying to hijak. You just made a statement with gross innaccuracies from my close understanding of the Browns ability to judge talent.

And many may not have been aware of what Butch Davis did to torpedo the Browns scouting department. They honestly don't deserve criticism of anything during the Davis regime. It got soo bad that the own tried to hire Ron Wolf to help Butch but Davis and then Butch basically told Ron Wolf to take a hike. Carmen Policy knew Davis was a train wreck and was able to convince Wolf to come out of retirement to assist Butch. When Butch refused Carmen resigned and that pretty much sealed the fate of the Browns till Savage was able to revive the team.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/foot...12/wolf.browns/

Wolf's brief tenure in Cleveland will end soon

Posted: Monday April 12, 2004 10:01PM; Updated: Monday April 12, 2004 10:04PM

Ron Wolf's brief tenure as a Cleveland Browns "personnel specialist'' is apparently over. A league source said Monday night that Wolf is working out a settlement with the team and his resignation will be announced soon.

One of the most respected personnel evaluators in recent NFL history, Wolf came out of retirement in late January to join the Browns' front office as a part-time personnel consultant. The unusual arrangement allowed him to work from his home in Annapolis, Md., and paid him a reported $750,000 salary for an 18-month commitment.

Wolf could not be reached for comment, but his imminent departure is not considered a surprise given that he was brought to Cleveland by Browns president Carmen Policy, who last week announced he will resign his position on May 1. Policy hired Wolf to give head coach Butch Davis a proven outside talent evaluator to lean on, but from all indications, the former Green Bay general manager's expertise was scarcely used.

Davis never seemed fully comfortable with the idea of Wolf's role, and at last month's NFL annual meeting in Palm Beach, Fla., the Browns coach openly minimized Wolf's role in Cleveland's offseason moves, which included the signing of new starting quarterback Jeff Garcia.

"I don't think his opinion had any bearing whatsoever on what transpired [this offseason],'' Davis told reporters at the owners meeting.

Asked specifically if Wolf's opinion was sought in the team's decision to replace starting quarterback Tim Couch with Garcia, Davis said: "No, it really wasn't. He had an opinion. ... He gave an opinion about our quarterbacks the same way he had an opinion about our left guards.''

Wolf's assessment earlier this offseason was that the Browns were in "good shape'' at quarterback with Couch and backup Kelly Holcomb on the roster. That's an opinion Davis never shared, and he aggressively pursued Garcia once the San Francisco 49ers cut their incumbent quarterback.

Wolf was brought in to help the Browns' evaluate the free-agent crop, but Davis said he couldn't think of anyone the team has signed who was recommended by Wolf.

"Since we signed all these guys, he's been on vacation [in Florida],'' Davis said.

With Policy and Wolf both on the way out, and new team president John Collins being brought in only to oversee the business side of the club's operations, Davis has done a remarkable job of consolidating power for a coach who won a mere five games last season. With Policy out of the picture, Davis will report directly to team owner Randy Lerner and have unquestioned and complete control over the team's football operations.

Davis received a two-year contract extension through 2007 from the Browns and Policy earlier this offseason in conjuncture with Wolf's hiring, a move that was seen as a carrot at the end of the stick for the Browns' fourth-year head coach. But if there was any real chance of Davis sharing some of his personnel power with Wolf, those visions quickly evaporated, as Wolf's expected occasional presence at the team complex never materialized.

Wolf retired from the NFL after the 2000 season, which concluded his successful nine-year run as the Packers' general manager. His greatest legacy will be his foresight in trading for quarterback Brett Favre in early 1992.

Butch Davis felt he knew more about evaluating NFL talent than Ron Wolf. That should tell you how much he valued opinions other than himself. And the only talent Butch was able to draft was Kellen Winslow whom Butch had personally recruited to Miami. Ofcourse Butch paid a second round draft pick to move up ONE slot in that draft and may go down as the only NFL executive other than the Ford family that got suckered by Matt Millen.

 

[gianmarco]

Reading your post here shows to me that you're really not understanding the point trying to made. The argument being made is NOT to take a guy based on combine. Essentially, I'll try to break this into 4 categories.

1. High draft spot, good combine #s (i.e., no red flags like low vertical, slow 40, etc.)--Good potential

2. Low draft spot, good combine #s -- Risky proposition.

3. High draft spot, poor combine #s -- Risky proposition

4. Low draft spot, poor combine #s -- Very risky proposition.

I think low draft spot is a MUCH bigger red flag than a bad vertical.

Really? Terrell Davis, Frank Gore, Curtis Martin, Willie Parker and Priest Holmes all would disagree with you.And William Green, Blair Thomas, KiJana Carter all would indicate that draft position is NOT a very good indicator of success.

Draft position is not a very good indicator? Given one of two choices, either the first RB drafted or the RB with the best combine numbers, i will take the first RB drafted EVERY time, and its not even close.

B.S.,I don't know if you're just trying to be difficult or if you are really missing the point each time. Why do you keep countering every argument with "I'll take draft over combine". I haven't seen a single post that has advocated taking a player with better combine numbers over a higher drafted player. You're mixing apples and oranges. Draft spot is absolutely a big factor in choosing a player. But it is not the ONLY factor. And if a team reaches on a player early in the draft that has poor combine numbers, you should be very suspicious in predicting success for that player. At the same time, you should be suspicious of a player with great combine #'s that falls in the draft. You continue to argue that you have no reservations choosing a player selected high in the draft no matter what his combine #'s are and there has been evidence presented that shows how the top producers meet a certain minimum at the combine.

If you want me to consider what you're saying as fact, then what needs to be done is something like this:

1. Compile a list of all RB's over the last 10 yrs that were selected in the first 3 rounds that did NOT meet the minimum requirements that EBF posted. (<4.5 40 time, >35" vertical, > 9'10" broad jump)

2. Of those RB's, how many finished in the top 20 in terms of fantasy production at any point in their career and how many times.

I doubt there are going to be too many RB's that fit those criteria, but if you can find these RB's that did NOT meet those minimum #'s but were still selected early and went on to put up at least one top 20 fantasy season (pretty gracious cutoff), then I will believe what you are saying that draft position is much more important than combine and that we can ignore the #'s if a RB is taken high enough.

I don't think it will be easy to do, but would provide some valuable insight into just how valuable combine vs. draft position really is.

I will submit that it would also be interesting to see how many RB's were drafted in the 4th round or later that met all 3 of those combine requirements and how many of those went on to be productive (i.e., good combine/low draft guys). However, since that is really only a claim that you keep making (incorrectly) as a retort since no one has actually said that those are RB's they would prefer, it's not as pertinent to the disagreement at hand. But, to be complete, that would be worthwhile doing and then comparing the 2 groups to see if one is better than the other (good combine/low draft vs. bad combine/high draft).

Without doing the above, you just haven't brought any evidence that your position (ignoring combine #'s if a player is drafted high enough) is actually accurate.

 

[switz]

1. Compile a list of all RB's over the last 10 yrs that were selected in the first 3 rounds that did NOT meet the minimum requirements that EBF posted. (<4.5 40 time, >35" vertical, > 9'10" broad jump)2. Of those RB's, how many finished in the top 20 in terms of fantasy production at any point in their career and how many times.Without doing the above, you just haven't brought any evidence that your position (ignoring combine #'s if a player is drafted high enough) is actually accurate.

Criteria -1. < 4.5 402. > 35" Vert3. > 9'10" BroadFYI:William Green : 4.6 40, 42" V, 10'1" Broad - Failed criteria #1Cedric Benson: 4.51 40, 33" Vert, 9'8" Broad - failed all three criterii