Texas Pro Day (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

You guys are tools if you are going to draft based on Vert Jump. Basically you are suggesting that the top of this class is all busts.

I don't think vertical leap numbers are conclusive evidence that a player will or won't succeed. William Green and Domanick Davis have shown as much. However, this year's results do lead me to believe that my initial feeling that these three backs are overrated was somewhat correct. I think they're solid players, but they're not the best RBs that I have seen in the past few classes.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Going back to an earlier example, I would have been flat out brutal being forced to take the one-step-jump-off-two-feet excersize, but I would have been hell at having momentum and going off of one foot.  My brother (as referenced) would be the exact oppositte.  To me, it isn't fair to try and quantify vertical jumping when some people do better when jumping in a differing fashion, a la a change in "technique".

The Vert jump as measured by scouts in football is a 2 foot jump. It is a standard one step into a 2 foot plant and jump off of 2 feet. There is no 1 foot jumping in the Vert jump. It is set up to be uniform like this now to reduce the confusion you are talking about now.Are you seeing this performed differently places?

You're either missing the point or not conceding it. People jump different ways. THe two footed vertical jump, aside from being arbitrary at best for a RB, may well test "explosiveness." However, the fact that I may crab-walk better than you doesn't display that I have better balance. IT is one tool of many, and it should't be taken as the end-all that it seems to be thought of here. Cedric Benson's one-step-two-footed-vertical-jump is less than some of his peers. Fair enough. My contention, with which many agree, is that the one-foot-two-footed-vertical-jump is hardly an indicator of anything relevant.

 

[Colin Dowling]

You guys are tools if you are going to draft based on Vert Jump. Basically you are suggesting that the top of this class is all busts.

I don't think vertical leap numbers are conclusive evidence that a player will or won't succeed. William Green and Domanick Davis have shown as much. However, this year's results do lead me to believe that my initial feeling that these three backs are overrated was somewhat correct. I think they're solid players, but they're not the best RBs that I have seen in the past few classes.

What? So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated." ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was. I would suspect that every scout, to a man,would contend that a 40 time is much more important than a vertical jump. Does that make these guys overrated EXCEPT that they're better than Jones? Or are you only sporting data that fits your pre-made conclusion?Colin

 

[pinequick]

So he could jump 40" if he improved his technique? Please. Vertical leap is a measure of fast twitch muscle ability and leg strength. Those are two pretty important things for a RB to have. A 33" leap doesn't mean Benson won't succeed, but it's not on par with what the best RB prospects in recent years have done.

William Green - 42"

LaDainian Tomlinson - 40.5"

Michael Bennett - 39.5"

Clinton Portis - 39"

Lee Suggs - 38.5"

Tatum Bell - 38.5"

Kevin Jones - 38"

Steven Jackson - 38"

Julius Jones - 37.5"

Rudi Johnson - 37.5"

Brian Westbrook - 37"

TJ Duckett - 37"

DeShaun Foster - 35.5"

Onterrio Smith - 35.5"

Larry Johnson - 33"?

Domanick Davis - 31.5"

No Data:

Deuce McAllister

Kevan Barlow

Chris Perry

I don't know about you, but I pay attention to trends. If most of the best RBs in recent classes have had good vertical leaps then I think it follows that vertical leap is worth looking at when analyzing a RB prospect. Benson's 33" leap is very mediocre, especially compared with top backs from recent drafts. This doesn't prove anything, but it suggests that he may be a below average athlete for an elite RB prospect.

I'm a little confused by your post, Funk. In it you are including players drafted in 3rd and 4th rounds, while excluding others drafted in the 2nd round or very close to where some of the people are on your list. IE: You include Portis, but leave off Betts and Mo Morris (who were taken within 5 slots of Portis). You include Davis and Onterrio, but leave off Pinner, Fargas, Musa Smith, Chris Brown. Did these guys have poor VL?

I guess the word prospect might be throwing me off.

I'm including player who were top prospects and players who have since become starters for their NFL teams.

Come on--quit skewing the results. If you have the data, post it. If Betts, Mo Morris, Pinner, Fargas, Musa, and C. Brown all have verts of 40"+, then it blows your point out of the water. If they are under 35", then your point may hold water.But you have to provide the WHOLE PICTURE to be able to make that assessment.

 

[EBF]

What? So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated." ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was.

Colin

Wrong. The times from Benson's workout posted on NFL.com are generous to say the least. TheNFLexperts.com has a more accurate picture of the day's events. If you have access to that site then I suggest you check it out. As for KJ, he ran in the 4.5 range during his second workout. That's faster than Benson's times. For the record, Benson couldn't hold KJ's jock. Anquan Boldin and Marquise Walker have similar 40 speed. I'll let you guess which one is faster and more explosive with the pads on.

I would suspect that every scout, to a man,would contend that a 40 time is much more important than a vertical jump. Does that make these guys overrated EXCEPT that they're better than Jones? Or are you only sporting data that fits your pre-made conclusion?

A difference of 5 tenths in the 40 is relatively negligible. A difference of 5" in the VJ and 1 foot in the BJ is quite a bit more telling. Kevin Jones performed substantially better than every top back in this class when it comes to the jumps. His 40 time was slightly worse than those posted by Brown and Williams, but the difference is roughly 5 tenths of a second, which doesn't seem all that significant.

 

[EBF]

Come on--quit skewing the results. If you have the data, post it. If Betts, Mo Morris, Pinner, Fargas, Musa, and C. Brown all have verts of 40"+, then it blows your point out of the water. If they are under 35", then your point may hold water.

But you have to provide the WHOLE PICTURE to be able to make that assessment.

You either aren't reading or understanding what I typed. I'll make it very clear:- I did not say that every RB prospect with a good vertical leap will develop into a good pro.

- I said that an overwhelming majority of the RB prospects from the past few drafts who have developed into starters also happened to have vertical leaps of at least 35", with the average being closer to 37".

 

[EBF]

Scout.com's TheNFLexperts.com is reporting that individual team times on Benson all came in at 4.61 or worse.

 

[Colin Dowling]

What?    So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated."  ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was. 

Colin

Wrong. The times from Benson's workout posted on NFL.com are generous to say the least. TheNFLexperts.com has a more accurate picture of the day's events. If you have access to that site then I suggest you check it out. As for KJ, he ran in the 4.5 range during his second workout. That's faster than Benson's times. For the record, Benson couldn't hold KJ's jock. Anquan Boldin and Marquise Walker have similar 40 speed. I'll let you guess which one is faster and more explosive with the pads on.

I would suspect that every scout, to a man,would contend that a 40 time is much more important than a vertical jump.  Does that make these guys overrated EXCEPT that they're better than Jones? Or are you only sporting data that fits your pre-made conclusion?

A difference of 5 tenths in the 40 is relatively negligible. A difference of 5" in the VJ and 1 foot in the BJ is quite a bit more telling. Kevin Jones performed substantially better than every top back in this class when it comes to the jumps. His 40 time was slightly worse than those posted by Brown and Williams, but the difference is roughly 5 tenths of a second, which doesn't seem all that significant.

I'm losing all kinds of....not "respect", but something (similar) that I can't pinpoint based on your recent posts. I'd encouarage you to read your last 10 posts or so and realize exactly how much you are skewing things, using stats that only suit your conclusions, and offering only half the picture. I expect more from someone who has shown quality football knowledge in the past.You want to point out that Benson is "slow" but then go to the ditch defending Kevin Jones, who was slower. You want to point out that Benson's low vertical is a big deal but Jones half-second-slow 40 time isn't. It doesn't add up, and frankly, its a little sad.

Colin

 

[Colin Dowling]

Scout.com's TheNFLexperts.com is reporting that individual team times on Benson all came in at 4.61 or worse.

GBNReport has it differently...

(7:00 PM): Horns Benson makes case; jury still out... Texas RB Cedric Benson, perhaps the last top 10 prospect for the 2005 draft to be tested this spring, reportedly ran his 40 in an 'acceptable' 4.51 at today's Longhorns' pro day in Austin. Benson may get some points as he was running at a solid 225 pounds on a slow track, but he still came up a tad slower than Auburn RBs Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams, both of whom ran unfer 4.50 at last month's scouting combine in Indianapolis. The three are in a tight race to be the highest graded RB for this year's draft.

 

[EBF]

Even if the NFL.com numbers are correct, that's right on par with what KJ ran in his second workout last year. I'll take a push in the 40 and a huge advantage in the jumps. The only place I'm hanging is in your imagination. I supported Kevin Jones last year and he followed through with a great rookie campaign: 4.7 YPC, 1k rushing yards, and a Pro Bowl alternate spot. Benson isn't as talented as KJ and he won't touch his YPC numbers as a rookie. His only hope to outproduce Jones is if he carries the ball 300+ times.

 

[pgreenfan]

wow this has really turned into a pissing match, at least one side of it is consistent.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Even if the NFL.com numbers are correct, that's right on par with what KJ ran in his second workout last year. I'll take a push in the 40 and a huge advantage in the jumps.

The only place I'm hanging is in your imagination. I supported Kevin Jones last year and he followed through with a great rookie campaign: 4.7 YPC, 1k rushing yards, and a Pro Bowl alternate spot. Benson isn't as talented as KJ and he won't touch his YPC numbers as a rookie. His only hope to outproduce Jones is if he carries the ball 300+ times.

I thought we were talking predraft rankings? You're the plantiff here, with an apparent bone-to-pick with Benson. Jones had a very nice rookie year and I expect it to continue. However, its worth pointing out that if Benson goes 4.0ypc on 330 carries and Jones goes 4.7 on 280 carries, Benson will be thought of more highly on both Fantasy Statboards and the NFL Rushing board. I also can't figure out why this seems so personal to you. Its like your Kevin Jones himself or something....I can just imagine 2007, when we're all 2 years older and you're defying anyone to suggest that Adrian Peterson is a more highly rated prospect than Jones. Benson hasn't played in the NFL yet, so trying to compare his "rooke season" (which hasn't happened yet) to Jones rookie season is stupid.

COlin

 

[EBF]

I'm losing all kinds of....not "respect", but something (similar) that I can't pinpoint based on your recent posts.  I'd encouarage you to read your last 10 posts or so and realize exactly how much you are skewing things, using stats that only suit your conclusions, and offering only half the picture.

I'm not skewing anything. I presented a case and no one has presented evidence otherwise. I said the best RBs from recent draft classes have generally had vertical leap numbers that are much better than Benson's. This is true.

I expect more from someone who has shown quality football knowledge in the past

If you're arguing against someone who has shown quality football knowledge then maybe that should be a hint that you've taken the wrong stance on this issue. I've made few ridiculous claims in this thread. I merely laid out some data and made a case for my opinions. You'll note that I never said Benson will bust or that this workout is the nail in his coffin. I think it's a bad omen and I certainly don't think he'll be as good a pro as Kevin Jones, but those don't seem like absurd claims.

You want to point out that Benson is "slow" but then go to the ditch defending Kevin Jones, who was slower.  You want to point out that Benson's low vertical is a big deal but Jones half-second-slow 40 time isn't.  It doesn't add up, and frankly, its a little sad.

Colin

I don't think I brought up Kevin Jones and if I did I certainly didn't do so in order to mention his speed. I think I said a long time ago that the 40 time isn't what worries me about Benson. It's the numbers in the other drills that stand out as being marginal.

 

[placeholder10391]

Will you girls stop flirting and post something worthwhile?TIA

 

[Colin Dowling]

I'm not skewing anything. I presented a case and no one has presented evidence otherwise. I said the best RBs from recent draft classes have generally had vertical leap numbers that are much better than Benson's. This is true.

Fair enough. I'll also offer that some of the worst RBs of recent years have had vertical leap numbers that are much better than all of their peers including Benson and excepting LT2.

I expect more from someone who has shown quality football knowledge in the pastIf you're arguing against someone who has shown quality football knowledge then maybe that should be a hint that you've taken the wrong stance on this issue. I've made few ridiculous claims in this thread. I merely laid out some data and made a case for my opinions. You'll note that I never said Benson will bust or that this workout is the nail in his coffin. I think it's a bad omen and I certainly don't think he'll be as good a pro as Kevin Jones, but those don't seem like absurd claims.

How have I taken the wrong stance? On what? On his vertical? My stance has been that it doesnt matter. Your stance is that an afterthought of a statistic is an indicator in "trend" belying his future. However, that stance didnt include all RBs and it certainly didn't include the fact that guys with very good verticals are also prone to sucking.

I don't think I brought up Kevin Jones and if I did I certainly didn't do so to mention his speed. I think I said a long time ago that the 40 time isn't what worries me about Benson. It's the numbers in the other drills that stand out as being marginal.

Your last 3 or 4 posts have been about Jones and how Benson couldn't hold his jock.Colin

 

[EBF]

My stance has been that it doesnt matter.  Your stance is that an afterthought of a statistic is an indicator in "trend" belying his future. 

Exactly. If most of the recent RB prospects who developed into starting RBs have had vertical leaps above 35" then I think you can start to make a case for this trait being significant. You'll note that I never specifically said that Benson will fail because of his leap, but rather suggested that he may lack an athletic quality that most of the most successful recent RB prospects have had. This doesn't seem absurd to me.

However, that stance didnt include all RBs and it certainly didn't include the fact that guys with very good verticals are also prone to sucking.

It included what I can find. Again, I never said that every RB with a good vertical leap will be good. I merely said that the majority of the starting RBs who recently entered the league also happened to have had good vertical leaps.

Your last 3 or 4 posts have been about Jones and how Benson couldn't hold his jock.

Colin

Yes. That's because you said this:

What?  So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated." ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was.

I had only mentioned Jones in passing until you decided to bring him into the discussion. Then you decided to blame me for talking about him.

 

[fatness]

A small amount of data about 1 thing over a 3-year period is not enough to draw any reliable conclusions on, unless the subject is sex. I'd say dig up this information for the top 20 RB's drafted each of the last 10 years, look at what you've got, and see what conclusions are there.Or change the subject to sex.

 

[Colin Dowling]

EBf, I've had a couple more beers, so I'm more lucid now. I apologize for getting heated up. Your points have some weight. Personally, I think that the "Vertical Jump Theory" (which I have named and will credit to you now and in the future ) isn't worth much more than a passing glance. However, as stated, you make some good points and I value your analysis.

Colin

P>S>

Perry had a 34.5" VJ.

Betts had a 38" VJ Link

Morris had a 36.5" VJ Link

 

[Christo]

EBf, I've had a couple more beers, so I'm more lucid now. I apologize for getting heated up. Your points have some weight. Personally, I think that the "Vertical Jump Theory" (which I have named and will credit to you now and in the future ) isn't worth much more than a passing glance. However, as stated, you make some good points and I value your analysis.

Colin

P>S>

Perry had a 34.5" VJ.

Betts had a 38" VJ Link

Morris had a 36.5" VJ Link

I wouldn't worry about it. While the "VJ Theory" may hold water, EBF hasn't provided a data sample large enough to support his conclusion. If this was the NBA I might be worried. I've seen a lot of Benson the past few years (which is a lot more than anyone can say about Brown) and he's going to be a quality player in the NFL even if he can't dunk the football after a TD.

 

[EBF]

EBf, I've had a couple more beers, so I'm more lucid now. I apologize for getting heated up. Your points have some weight. Personally, I think that the "Vertical Jump Theory" (which I have named and will credit to you now and in the future ) isn't worth much more than a passing glance. However, as stated, you make some good points and I value your analysis.

Colin

P>S>

Perry had a 34.5" VJ.

Betts had a 38" VJ Link

Morris had a 36.5" VJ Link

No problem. Vertical leap certainly isn't a perfect predictor of success, but it's something I've started looking at more lately.

 

[Bojang0301]

What?    So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated."  ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was. 

Colin

Wrong. The times from Benson's workout posted on NFL.com are generous to say the least. TheNFLexperts.com has a more accurate picture of the day's events. If you have access to that site then I suggest you check it out. As for KJ, he ran in the 4.5 range during his second workout. That's faster than Benson's times. For the record, Benson couldn't hold KJ's jock. Anquan Boldin and Marquise Walker have similar 40 speed. I'll let you guess which one is faster and more explosive with the pads on.

I would suspect that every scout, to a man,would contend that a 40 time is much more important than a vertical jump.  Does that make these guys overrated EXCEPT that they're better than Jones? Or are you only sporting data that fits your pre-made conclusion?

A difference of 5 tenths in the 40 is relatively negligible. A difference of 5" in the VJ and 1 foot in the BJ is quite a bit more telling. Kevin Jones performed substantially better than every top back in this class when it comes to the jumps. His 40 time was slightly worse than those posted by Brown and Williams, but the difference is roughly 5 tenths of a second, which doesn't seem all that significant.

Arn't those "generous" NFL.com guys the same ones that never gave Kevin Jones a 4.5 even in his second workout last year?

 

[EBF]

What?     So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated."  ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was. 

Colin

Wrong. The times from Benson's workout posted on NFL.com are generous to say the least. TheNFLexperts.com has a more accurate picture of the day's events. If you have access to that site then I suggest you check it out. As for KJ, he ran in the 4.5 range during his second workout. That's faster than Benson's times. For the record, Benson couldn't hold KJ's jock. Anquan Boldin and Marquise Walker have similar 40 speed. I'll let you guess which one is faster and more explosive with the pads on.

I would suspect that every scout, to a man,would contend that a 40 time is much more important than a vertical jump.  Does that make these guys overrated EXCEPT that they're better than Jones? Or are you only sporting data that fits your pre-made conclusion?

A difference of 5 tenths in the 40 is relatively negligible. A difference of 5" in the VJ and 1 foot in the BJ is quite a bit more telling. Kevin Jones performed substantially better than every top back in this class when it comes to the jumps. His 40 time was slightly worse than those posted by Brown and Williams, but the difference is roughly 5 tenths of a second, which doesn't seem all that significant.

Arn't those "generous" NFL.com guys the same ones that never gave Kevin Jones a 4.5 even in his second workout last year?

They were generous with Benson's times. I don't know whether or not they were generous with KJ's times.

 

[Bojang0301]

What?     So, their vertical jump numbers aren't good so they're "overrated."  ALL of them are faster than your darling Kevin Jones was. 

Colin

Wrong. The times from Benson's workout posted on NFL.com are generous to say the least. TheNFLexperts.com has a more accurate picture of the day's events. If you have access to that site then I suggest you check it out. As for KJ, he ran in the 4.5 range during his second workout. That's faster than Benson's times. For the record, Benson couldn't hold KJ's jock. Anquan Boldin and Marquise Walker have similar 40 speed. I'll let you guess which one is faster and more explosive with the pads on.

I would suspect that every scout, to a man,would contend that a 40 time is much more important than a vertical jump.  Does that make these guys overrated EXCEPT that they're better than Jones? Or are you only sporting data that fits your pre-made conclusion?

A difference of 5 tenths in the 40 is relatively negligible. A difference of 5" in the VJ and 1 foot in the BJ is quite a bit more telling. Kevin Jones performed substantially better than every top back in this class when it comes to the jumps. His 40 time was slightly worse than those posted by Brown and Williams, but the difference is roughly 5 tenths of a second, which doesn't seem all that significant.

Arn't those "generous" NFL.com guys the same ones that never gave Kevin Jones a 4.5 even in his second workout last year?

They were generous with Benson's times. I don't know whether or not they were generous with KJ's times.

He ran more then once and they said it was between 4.51 and 4.59. Seems like NFL experts are the ones that are not generous enough. Brown's official time was 4.48 not 4.5. Infact some scouts had him at low 4.4 level even breaking into the 4.3's.

 

[jurb26]

Going back to an earlier example, I would have been flat out brutal being forced to take the one-step-jump-off-two-feet excersize, but I would have been hell at having momentum and going off of one foot.  My brother (as referenced) would be the exact oppositte.  To me, it isn't fair to try and quantify vertical jumping when some people do better when jumping in a differing fashion, a la a change in "technique".

The Vert jump as measured by scouts in football is a 2 foot jump. It is a standard one step into a 2 foot plant and jump off of 2 feet. There is no 1 foot jumping in the Vert jump. It is set up to be uniform like this now to reduce the confusion you are talking about now.Are you seeing this performed differently places?

You're either missing the point or not conceding it. People jump different ways. THe two footed vertical jump, aside from being arbitrary at best for a RB, may well test "explosiveness." However, the fact that I may crab-walk better than you doesn't display that I have better balance. IT is one tool of many, and it should't be taken as the end-all that it seems to be thought of here. Cedric Benson's one-step-two-footed-vertical-jump is less than some of his peers. Fair enough. My contention, with which many agree, is that the one-foot-two-footed-vertical-jump is hardly an indicator of anything relevant.

Of course some people are better one leg jumpers and others are better 2 leg jumpers. Thats wasn't my point and isn't really relevent to this topic though. Football scouts only measure 2 leg jumps. The Vert jump is standardized into a 2 foot jump as is the broad jump. They have decided this, not me. I never once said it was the be all end all. I am mearly pointing out the manor for which it is tested and applications.I would imagin that the scouts and people who are investing millons of dollars on the guys care about thejm for a specific reason though. So is is odd to me that you are down playing it so much.

 

[wornson]

NFL. com article by Pat Kirwan talks about the vertical leap and other test to measure explosiveness. Kinda what was being discussed in this thread but more complete and focus on IDP.The numbers are starting to pile up from the NFL Scouting Combine results, Pro Days and the private workouts, so it is understandable if you are starting to get the idea that the NFL draft process is paralysis by analysis. That's not completely the case, since the grading of game tapes is still the most critical issue in scouting draftees, but a lot can be predicted by studying the measurable numbers that are being compiled. Previously I discussed comparing the 40-yard dash times to the 20-yard short shuttle times so that there was a better understanding of quickness and change of direction vs. straight-line speed. Now I want to dive into another athletic dimension that has relevance, especially to defensive coaches: explosion and power. As one very successful defensive coordinator in the NFL said the other day on my Sirius Radio show, "We are always looking for explosive athletes who can deliver a blow, be great tacklers and meet force with greater force." It is amazing what can be done with athletes that have rare measurables in this area if they are also good football players. Some test results are best when the number is low, like the 40-yard dash, the 20-yard short shuttle and the three-cone drill. There are other tests when the result is higher the score is better and those tests can tell us lots about explosiveness and power. The vertical leap, standing broad jump and the bench press are measurables where more is better. I don't like to isolate one test score because it is too limited, but an overall score can tell us something about the athlete. One way I filter through all the eligible draft picks is to find the players that have a combined result of 70 or higher when I combine the vertical leap, standing broad jump and bench press test. As an illustration, if an athlete had a 40-inch vertical leap, a 10-foot standing broad jump and 20 reps on the 225-pound bench press test, he would have a combined score of 70. Those who know something about jumping, leaping and throwing weight around can see that 70 is an excellent combined score. There is no reason to look to the results of athletes who do not have a high draft grade because, for the most part, they have already indicated they aren't good enough football players on the field. After filtering them out, I went looking for those prospects with a good playing grade and a score over 70. I then filter out the weight-room guys who have 40 reps on the bench and an 18-inch vertical and a 7-foot broad jump. There's a place for a strong guy in a weight room, but he's not the guy most defensive coaches is looking for. Along the same line of thinking, a basketball-type player with a 42-inch vertical leap and an 11-foot broad jump but just nine reps on the bench also falls out -- he can't deliver a blow when he gets there. There's a place for the guy with springs in his legs, but he's not complete either. Here are the defensive players with very good football grades who also got to the magic number of 70 used to sort out the best of the best in the area of explosive/powerful athletes. These guys can get there and bring it. NAME SCHOOL POS. VERTICAL LEAP BROAD JUMP BENCH PRESS TOTAL Luis Castillo Northwestern DT 34½ 10-foot-10 32 77 Shawne Merriman Maryland DE/LB 40 10-foot-1 25 75 Demarcus Ware Troy State DE/LB 38½ 10-foot-2 27 75 Derek Wake Penn State LB 45½ 10-foot-10 20 75 Darryl Blackstock Virginia Tech LB 39 10-foot-6 25 74 David Pollack Georgia DE/LB 37 10-foot 25 72 Bryant McFadden Florida State CB 38½ 10-foot-10 23 72 Justin Tuck Notre Dame DE/LB 38½ 9-foot-10 24 72 Fabian Washington Nebraska CB 41½ 10-foot-9 18 70 NOTE: A few defensive athletes have not completed their testing and I will update this list a week before the draft. The results are rounded off. As you can see, a score of 70 or better is tough to get, but if a team factors in explosiveness, then this can be very important to them. Derek Ware from Penn State doesn't have the playing grade that Merriman, Pollack or Blackstock have, but he may be worth a higher draft pick than originally anticipated because he can explode and move like a guy many defensive coaches are looking for. Derek Wake's combined power numbers should turn some heads. There are a number of athletes who just missed the 70 mark that warrant mention, including several defensive backs: Barrett Rudd, LB, Nebraska (69); Justin Miller, CB, Clemson (67); Kevin Burnett, LB, Tennessee (67); Carlos Rogers, CB, Auburn (66); Dominique Foxworth, CB, Maryland (65). Finally, it is important for the personnel people to pay attention to what type of players the coaches are looking and it is important for the coaches to pay attention to the type of athletes the scouts have found. There should be no arguments when a good defensive football player comes back with a score of 70-plus on my grading sheet. I used to send the coaches a list of all the former draft picks around the NFL who had a score of 70 or higher and that usually got their attention.

 

[Joe Bryant]

EBf, I've had a couple more beers, so I'm more lucid now.  I apologize for getting heated up.  Your points have some weight.  Personally, I think that the "Vertical Jump Theory" (which I have named and will credit to you now and in the future  ) isn't worth much more than a passing glance.  However, as stated, you make some good points and I value your analysis.

Colin

P>S>

Perry had a 34.5" VJ.

Betts had a 38" VJ Link

Morris had a 36.5" VJ Link

No problem. Vertical leap certainly isn't a perfect predictor of success, but it's something I've started looking at more lately.

Great discussion, Guys. Enjoyed it. J

 

[jurb26]

I think this article is of great relevance.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/8322692

This helps to explain why the Vert and Broad jumps are measured and important. Like some have been saying. Its a tool to measure explosivness.

For those who don't link links:

How to measure power and explosion      By Pat KirwanNFL.com Senior Analyst (March 24, 2005) -- The numbers are starting to pile up from the NFL Scouting Combine results, Pro Days and the private workouts, so it is understandable if you are starting to get the idea that the NFL draft process is paralysis by analysis. That's not completely the case, since the grading of game tapes is still the most critical issue in scouting draftees, but a lot can be predicted by studying the measurable numbers that are being compiled. NFL Network NFL Network Analysis, opinions, features and more!    Download Super Bowl XXXIX radio broadcasts and highlights to your MP3 player!   Field Pass Listen LIVE to NFL games, plus watch video news and features of your favorite team.  Previously I discussed comparing the 40-yard dash times to the 20-yard short shuttle times so that there was a better understanding of quickness and change of direction vs. straight-line speed. Now I want to dive into another athletic dimension that has relevance, especially to defensive coaches: explosion and power. As one very successful defensive coordinator in the NFL said the other day on my Sirius Radio show, "We are always looking for explosive athletes who can deliver a blow, be great tacklers and meet force with greater force." It is amazing what can be done with athletes that have rare measurables in this area if they are also good football players. Some test results are best when the number is low, like the 40-yard dash, the 20-yard short shuttle and the three-cone drill. There are other tests when the result is higher the score is better and those tests can tell us lots about explosiveness and power. The vertical leap, standing broad jump and the bench press are measurables where more is better. I don't like to isolate one test score because it is too limited, but an overall score can tell us something about the athlete. One way I filter through all the eligible draft picks is to find the players that have a combined result of 70 or higher when I combine the vertical leap, standing broad jump and bench press test. As an illustration, if an athlete had a 40-inch vertical leap, a 10-foot standing broad jump and 20 reps on the 225-pound bench press test, he would have a combined score of 70. Those who know something about jumping, leaping and throwing weight around can see that 70 is an excellent combined score. There is no reason to look to the results of athletes who do not have a high draft grade because, for the most part, they have already indicated they aren't good enough football players on the field. After filtering them out, I went looking for those prospects with a good playing grade and a score over 70. I then filter out the weight-room guys who have 40 reps on the bench and an 18-inch vertical and a 7-foot broad jump. There's a place for a strong guy in a weight room, but he's not the guy most defensive coaches is looking for. Along the same line of thinking, a basketball-type player with a 42-inch vertical leap and an 11-foot broad jump but just nine reps on the bench also falls out -- he can't deliver a blow when he gets there. There's a place for the guy with springs in his legs, but he's not complete either. Here are the defensive players with very good football grades who also got to the magic number of 70 used to sort out the best of the best in the area of explosive/powerful athletes. These guys can get there and bring it. NAME  SCHOOL  POS.  VERTICAL LEAP  BROAD JUMP  BENCH PRESS  TOTAL  Luis Castillo  Northwestern  DT  34½  10-foot-10  32  77  Shawne Merriman  Maryland  DE/LB  40  10-foot-1  25  75  Demarcus Ware  Troy State  DE/LB  38½  10-foot-2  27  75  Derek Wake  Penn State  LB  45½  10-foot-10  20  75  Darryl Blackstock  Virginia Tech  LB  39  10-foot-6  25  74  David Pollack  Georgia  DE/LB  37  10-foot  25  72  Bryant McFadden  Florida State  CB  38½  10-foot-10  23  72  Justin Tuck  Notre Dame  DE/LB  38½  9-foot-10  24  72  Fabian Washington  Nebraska  CB  41½  10-foot-9  18  70  NOTE: A few defensive athletes have not completed their testing and I will update this list a week before the draft. The results are rounded off. As you can see, a score of 70 or better is tough to get, but if a team factors in explosiveness, then this can be very important to them. Derek Ware from Penn State doesn't have the playing grade that Merriman, Pollack or Blackstock have, but he may be worth a higher draft pick than originally anticipated because he can explode and move like a guy many defensive coaches are looking for.     Derek Wake's combined power numbers should turn some heads.      There are a number of athletes who just missed the 70 mark that warrant mention, including several defensive backs: Barrett Rudd, LB, Nebraska (69); Justin Miller, CB, Clemson (67); Kevin Burnett, LB, Tennessee (67); Carlos Rogers, CB, Auburn (66); Dominique Foxworth, CB, Maryland (65). Finally, it is important for the personnel people to pay attention to what type of players the coaches are looking and it is important for the coaches to pay attention to the type of athletes the scouts have found. There should be no arguments when a good defensive football player comes back with a score of 70-plus on my grading sheet. I used to send the coaches a list of all the former draft picks around the NFL who had a score of 70 or higher and that usually got their attention.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think this article is of great relevance.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/8322692

This helps to explain why the Vert and Broad jumps are measured and important. Like some have been saying. Its a tool to measure explosivness.

For those who don't link links:

How to measure power and explosion     By Pat KirwanNFL.com Senior Analyst (March 24, 2005) -- The numbers are starting to pile up from the NFL Scouting Combine results, Pro Days and the private workouts, so it is understandable if you are starting to get the idea that the NFL draft process is paralysis by analysis. That's not completely the case, since the grading of game tapes is still the most critical issue in scouting draftees, but a lot can be predicted by studying the measurable numbers that are being compiled. NFL Network NFL Network Analysis, opinions, features and more!    Download Super Bowl XXXIX radio broadcasts and highlights to your MP3 player!  Field Pass Listen LIVE to NFL games, plus watch video news and features of your favorite team.  Previously I discussed comparing the 40-yard dash times to the 20-yard short shuttle times so that there was a better understanding of quickness and change of direction vs. straight-line speed. Now I want to dive into another athletic dimension that has relevance, especially to defensive coaches: explosion and power. As one very successful defensive coordinator in the NFL said the other day on my Sirius Radio show, "We are always looking for explosive athletes who can deliver a blow, be great tacklers and meet force with greater force." It is amazing what can be done with athletes that have rare measurables in this area if they are also good football players. Some test results are best when the number is low, like the 40-yard dash, the 20-yard short shuttle and the three-cone drill. There are other tests when the result is higher the score is better and those tests can tell us lots about explosiveness and power. The vertical leap, standing broad jump and the bench press are measurables where more is better. I don't like to isolate one test score because it is too limited, but an overall score can tell us something about the athlete. One way I filter through all the eligible draft picks is to find the players that have a combined result of 70 or higher when I combine the vertical leap, standing broad jump and bench press test. As an illustration, if an athlete had a 40-inch vertical leap, a 10-foot standing broad jump and 20 reps on the 225-pound bench press test, he would have a combined score of 70. Those who know something about jumping, leaping and throwing weight around can see that 70 is an excellent combined score. There is no reason to look to the results of athletes who do not have a high draft grade because, for the most part, they have already indicated they aren't good enough football players on the field. After filtering them out, I went looking for those prospects with a good playing grade and a score over 70. I then filter out the weight-room guys who have 40 reps on the bench and an 18-inch vertical and a 7-foot broad jump. There's a place for a strong guy in a weight room, but he's not the guy most defensive coaches is looking for. Along the same line of thinking, a basketball-type player with a 42-inch vertical leap and an 11-foot broad jump but just nine reps on the bench also falls out -- he can't deliver a blow when he gets there. There's a place for the guy with springs in his legs, but he's not complete either. Here are the defensive players with very good football grades who also got to the magic number of 70 used to sort out the best of the best in the area of explosive/powerful athletes. These guys can get there and bring it. NAME  SCHOOL  POS.  VERTICAL LEAP  BROAD JUMP  BENCH PRESS  TOTAL  Luis Castillo  Northwestern  DT  34½  10-foot-10  32  77  Shawne Merriman  Maryland  DE/LB  40  10-foot-1  25  75  Demarcus Ware  Troy State  DE/LB  38½  10-foot-2  27  75  Derek Wake  Penn State  LB  45½  10-foot-10  20  75  Darryl Blackstock  Virginia Tech  LB  39  10-foot-6  25  74  David Pollack  Georgia  DE/LB  37  10-foot  25  72  Bryant McFadden  Florida State  CB  38½  10-foot-10  23  72  Justin Tuck  Notre Dame  DE/LB  38½  9-foot-10  24  72  Fabian Washington  Nebraska  CB  41½  10-foot-9  18  70  NOTE: A few defensive athletes have not completed their testing and I will update this list a week before the draft. The results are rounded off. As you can see, a score of 70 or better is tough to get, but if a team factors in explosiveness, then this can be very important to them. Derek Ware from Penn State doesn't have the playing grade that Merriman, Pollack or Blackstock have, but he may be worth a higher draft pick than originally anticipated because he can explode and move like a guy many defensive coaches are looking for.    Derek Wake's combined power numbers should turn some heads.      There are a number of athletes who just missed the 70 mark that warrant mention, including several defensive backs: Barrett Rudd, LB, Nebraska (69); Justin Miller, CB, Clemson (67); Kevin Burnett, LB, Tennessee (67); Carlos Rogers, CB, Auburn (66); Dominique Foxworth, CB, Maryland (65). Finally, it is important for the personnel people to pay attention to what type of players the coaches are looking and it is important for the coaches to pay attention to the type of athletes the scouts have found. There should be no arguments when a good defensive football player comes back with a score of 70-plus on my grading sheet. I used to send the coaches a list of all the former draft picks around the NFL who had a score of 70 or higher and that usually got their attention.

Thanks Jurb,I like Kirwan a lot but I think he blows it by including bench press reps in formula. That has zero to do with explosiveness and is more a function of arm length and chest size. That totally skews the entire thing he's talking IMO. I could buy into what he's sayign if he'd do the same thing but come up with a threshold number that is the Vert and broad jumps added together. Throwing the stupid bench press reps ruins it.

On that line, I still think a bench press "explosion" type test would be great. Dunno how you'd do it, maybe in a Smith machine or something. But it would be basically on your back on the bench as normal and it would be how high you could thrust the 225 upward. You'd get a measure like vertical leap. That would be much more indicative of translatable strength.

J

 

[jurb26]

Thanks Jurb,

I like Kirwan a lot but I think he blows it by including bench press reps in formula. That has zero to do with explosiveness and is more a function of arm length and chest size. That totally skews the entire thing he's talking IMO. I could buy into what he's sayign if he'd do the same thing but come up with a threshold number that is the Vert and broad jumps added together. Throwing the stupid bench press reps ruins it.

On that line, I still think a bench press "explosion" type test would be great. Dunno how you'd do it, maybe in a Smith machine or something. But it would be basically on your back on the bench as normal and it would be how high you could thrust the 225 upward. You'd get a measure like vertical leap. That would be much more indicative of translatable strength.

J

I agree Joe. The bench just doesn't seem like it should warrent the same amount of importance in this formula. Bench is more a measure of explosive strength while the other 2 are measures of explosive athletic ability. There is a difference.Maybe a simple reduction in its value would help. For example, lower the threshold and take only half the bench reps (or value). This would give the more athletic attributes greater focus in the formula.

 

[Chase Stuart]

[Curtis Martin follower] So what do we think of Benson's vision and patience? I'll take that over measurables every day. [/Curtis Martin follower]

 

[-OZ-]

Thanks Jurb,

I like Kirwan a lot but I think he blows it by including bench press reps in formula. That has zero to do with explosiveness and is more a function of arm length and chest size. That totally skews the entire thing he's talking IMO. I could buy into what he's sayign if he'd do the same thing but come up with a threshold number that is the Vert and broad jumps added together. Throwing the stupid bench press reps ruins it.

On that line, I still think a bench press "explosion" type test would be great. Dunno how you'd do it, maybe in a Smith machine or something. But it would be basically on your back on the bench as normal and it would be how high you could thrust the 225 upward. You'd get a measure like vertical leap. That would be much more indicative of translatable strength.

J

I agree Joe. The bench just doesn't seem like it should warrent the same amount of importance in this formula. Bench is more a measure of explosive strength while the other 2 are measures of explosive athletic ability. There is a difference.Maybe a simple reduction in its value would help. For example, lower the threshold and take only half the bench reps (or value). This would give the more athletic attributes greater focus in the formula.

Bench press works a LOT better for linemen than any skill position. They're really the only ones trying to outmuscle their opponent, on every play. The other positions may block, but that's generally more a matter of technique than even for linemen. (not saying technique isn't vital for the line, it is, but strength is more important for them than other positions). Maybe on linemen it's 60% technique, 40% strength, with other positions it's 75/25 or something like that. I mean, for example, if Duckett's weakness is blocking, it isn't for a lack of strength.For the rest, who are simply trying to avoid getting hit, it seems to me that bench press may help show the ability to break tackles, but maybe not as well as other things. Of course a Goal-line RB/FB will need more strength than the slashing runner.

I'd say you need to put a weight on each test for the position.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

OK after reading this thread it's clear to me that:

A) Colin knows what makes Benson a good back, as does Hawk. Others...eh...not so much. They understand that he was kicking #### against defenses that were stacking the middle in an extreme way in order to make Vince Young throw because the DCs knew Texas' WRs ran terrible routes and that the TEs were Young's best receiving options.

B) Hawk knows a good deal about Texas' talent and scholarship/graduation situation. Others...eh...not so much...but that doesn't stop 'em from spouting off about Texas supposed "lack" of NFL prospects.

C) The enigmatic "vertical jump" topic has reared it head on the internet yet again, bringing with it the usual requisite amount of myth, misinformation, and frankly, ignorance of the subject.

Technique has very little to do with vert jumping. The only technique you can use if it is even a technique at all is to be sure to swing your arms in rhythm with your jumping motion.

Wrong.

There is a great deal that can be done to improve vertical jump ability by improving technique. For example, front row players in volleyball, who have to perform hundreds of "max-effort" blocking jumps each game from flat-footed positions, side-stepping approaches, and "swing" or "dynamic blocking" approaches are taught techniques that markedly improve not only how high they jump, but how quickly they get up.

Great gains in explosiveness can also be made in relatively short time periods with properly managed plyometric training programs. The test is fairly subjective.

Where is the contradiction?

Jurb...I found a different, IMO more obvious contradiction than the one Colin pointed out.You stated :

There is no technique that will make you jump higher.

...and then went on to say in the very next sentence:

You can max your potential in these events by simply doing them right

According to your first statement, if you did the test 10 times on the same guy, and he hurled his body upward a different way each time, the results would be the same every time. Your next sentence, however, says that there's a "right" way. This would indicate that there are some folks with poor technique, and some with perfect form, and people falling into every other part of the spectrum. Can't have it both ways.

They were generous with Benson's times. I don't know whether or not they were generous with KJ's times.

Benson's times don't fit what you think of him based on his VL, so the timers must have conspired to be generous with his times.

TheNFLexperts.com has a more accurate picture of the day's events

Really? From what pool do they draw more credibility than the NFL and everyone else who reported Benson in the 4.51-4.59 range?

 

[fatgirlsrock]

[Curtis Martin follower] So what do we think of Benson's vision and patience? I'll take that over measurables every day. [/Curtis Martin follower]

Then you must be in love with Caddy, by far the best vision of any back in this class.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

A link to this thread was posted on a message board at Hornfans.com. http://forums.hornfans.com/php/wwwthreads/...5&o=0&fpart=allThey thought the VJ stuff about Cedric Benson was pretty hilarious. Here is the perfect response, posted by Zona Horn:

I played safety at a small college and my stats in the 40, vertical and horizontal leap, and bench press reps were equal to or better than Ced's in each case (I was also about the same size - 6'0" and 218). So, if I were 10 years younger and played TB for the Horns the past four years behind that O Line, how would I have done? Best guess is I would have averaged about 2 yards per carry and the Horns would have won about 6-7 games. This assumes the existence of some magical force required Mack to start me and keep him from getting fired or lynched for doing so. It also assumes I wouldn't have gotten hurt getting hit 30+ times per game (good TB's are perhaps the most durable players on the field). Why would this be the case? Well, for one, athleticism does not always equate to football ability. See Emmit Smith, Zach Thomas, Jerry Rice, etc. Second, while the measurements at the combine are a fairly decent proxy for athletic ability, they can't replicate actual performance on the playing field, i.e. how agile someone is in traffic, what kind of moves they have, how quick they are in a non-standard environment (i.e. on the field, not in the shuttle drill), field vision and body control, field speed, etc. There are lots of guys with straight line speed who (1) can't see the hole, much less hit it, (2) can't avoid tacklers in traffic or the open field, (3) have no natural or instictive moves to avoid defenders, (4) are not powerful with the ball, etc. In short, Ced is a great back and a great "on the field" athlete who, barring injury, will be a good-to-great pro, even if his measurables are not much better than average for a college football player.

This from another poster:

Damn! His pro career is over before it even started. 4 years of proving himself on the field as a RB with power and durability have been wasted. Who cares about 4 1000 yd seasons in the Big 12? Ced shouldn't have spent so much time working on his football skills. Instead, he should have been practicing his vertical leap. What a cryin' shame.

This:

straight-line speed but can't hit the hole? reminds me of good ole Victor Ike...He ran a 10.something 100m and was a phenomenal athlete by every other measurable standard. Cedric beat him out as a frosh, didn't he? You'd think that with the success of low round RB's with "substandard" speed/size/etc., the NFL would finally get a clue.

This:

How did he look throwing the out route?

And finally, this:

Cedric can't hit a 7-iron very straight, either. And don't get me started on his breaststroke.

I'm kinda partial to the last one.

 

[EBF]

Texas fans think Benson will be a good pro? Shocking!Seriously though, I understand that there's more to football than measurables. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore the numbers. I think the numbers for Benson are sub par and I have factored this into my evaluation of him.I also find it funny when people try to validate a draft prospect by pointing to his college stats. A lot of players put up great stats in college. Few of them become impact NFL players.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

My thoughts:1) I like the VJ Theory. It's not perfect, but it's something to help separate some similar players.2) I think Benson is overrated myself, and won't be in the top 3 RBs from this class. I guess we'll see. 3) Don't some of us have a sig bet going about all 3 RBs not going in the top 15 picks? Who's in that?

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Texas fans think Benson will be a good pro? Shocking!

Well, there was quite a bit more to those quotes than "Dang, I saw Cedric play in college. He was good, so he'll be good in the pros".

I also find it funny when people try to validate a draft prospect by pointing to his college stats. A lot of players put up great stats in college. Few of them become impact NFL players.

Out of all that quoted text there was exactly one short mention of his college stats. I find it funny that you would pick out that one line to use in an effort to dismiss and invalidate the group of fans most knowledgeable about Cedric Benson, at a school rich with history of talented, hard-nosed running backs.If you think Cedrick Benson isn't a supremely talented running back, well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but you're just showing how little you know about how well he fared against defenses designed primarily around stopping him. You're also showing how little you know about the strengths that make him successful.

So be it.

I'm not gonna be foolish enough to try to predict which back will be taken 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, but I would bet my house there's not some GM who's gonna make his decision between two backs by comparing their VJ. It's MUCH more likely he'd break that tie using something tangible in football terms, like say...oh I don't know...yards and TDs, and consider against whom they were scored.

You don't think he'll be an impact player somewhere? Hide and watch.

 

[Bojang0301]

Anybody who has actually seen Benson and Brown play knows who is the better back... that is all.

 

[EBF]

I haven't read this thread in a while so I could be wrong, but I don't think I ever claimed that Benson will be a bust. For the record, I think he's a solid prospect. I like his vision and his balance. He also shows more quickness than he's usually given credit for. However, he's not perfect and he's not one of the best RBs I've seen in the past few years. I think he compares to Domanick Davis, except a little bit bigger and faster, but not as good at catching the ball. I think he'll be a solid workhorse in the NFL, but I don't think he'll be a great YPC guy and I don't think he's a lock to be a top fantasy back. With that said, I'm probably leaning towards him as the #2 back on my board behind Cadillac. I think Benson is a bit smoother and more athletic than Ronnie Brown, although the two players are very close in my mind at this moment. Rankings aside, Benson's workout numbers were mediocre. I'm a proponent of looking past the numbers, but I also understand their importance. Trends never guarantee an outcome, but they are certainly worth tracking. I've noticed a small trend with vertical leap numbers and NFL RB success. It doesn't mean Benson won't be a great NFL back, but the fact that few RBs with poor VJ numbers have excelled in the past few years is something to consider when evaluating him. As for the statistics, I already mentioned that those are of secondary importance. I primarily evaluate players based on scouting reports and what I see with my own two eyes. I consider statistics after that, but if a guy looks great or terrible then I'm inclined to ignore his numbers. A lot of good players are stuck in lousy systems and a lot of bad players are able to put up monster stats because college teams are comprised of amateurs who generally won't get more than a sniff by NFL personnel people.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

A lot of good players are stuck in lousy systems

I give you Greg Davis, Offensive Coordinator, University of Texas Football.

 

[Chitown Mole]

I've live in Houston so I've seen them both run in every single game. I just can't see Benson and Dom Davis as a good comparison. Davis is a slashing nifty runner who relies on his quick cutting and doesn't have the ability to run over people. The only thing they have in common is the slow straight line speed and they are both short. Davis ran 4.63 and is a midget at 5'9". Benson ran a bit faster and is nearly as short (5'10"), but otherwise I just can't see how you can compare their running styles.

 

[Hawk]

I also find it funny when people try to validate a draft prospect by pointing to his college stats. A lot of players put up great stats in college. Few of them become impact NFL players.

This is simply absurd. A "lot" of players did not put up the stats Benson did, he is top 10 all time in college football history in rushing yards, and probably TD's too (no time to check). Most of that top 10 were good pros. And Cedric is no Ron Dayne who falls down when someone puts a finger on him, he gains tons of yards after contact.Benson is not the greatest RB ever, but he will be a very solid pro because of his excellent vision, burst (not top end speed), balance, and most importantly, his toughness and relentlessness. You're gonna miss the boat on Cedric big time.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

...he gains tons of yards after contact.Benson is not the greatest RB ever, but he will be a very solid pro because of his excellent vision, burst (not top end speed), balance, and most importantly, his toughness and relentlessness. You're gonna miss the boat on Cedric big time.

Hawk speaks the truth, as usual.Obviously, he's not much of a breakaway threat, but CB will make his money with the YAC. He finishes his runs leaning forward. He's as tough as anyone I've ever seen in this regard. If he doesn't get anything, there just isn't anything there. He always gets the extra 1 or 2 yards in the first half. In the second half, that tends to turn into 3, 4, 5 or more extra yards. That adds up, boys. Give him even a decent O-Line and a somewhat credible passing threat, and he's gonna light it up.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't want to get drawn into this pissing contest any more than I have to, but I feel compelled to make a couple of points related the EBF Vertical Jump Theory:1. Going off the data EBF provided, my sense is that he doesn't have anywhere near enough data to be able to draw any statistically valid inferrences at all. I will admit that I'm not an expert on this particular statistic, so I don't know its variance, but I'm still guessing that you need more than a couple of dozen observations to map out a statisically significant relationship between VJ and NFL performance.2. EBF's data cannot possibly support the conclusion he implicitly wants to draw. On several occasions, he's stated that the overwhelming majority of quality NFL starters had good VJs. That statement seems true given the data weve seen. The problem is that that statement doesn't tell us anything interesting. If you show me a quality NFL starting RB, I guess I could infer that his VJ was probably pretty good, but none of us give a rip about that. What we want to do is to be able to infer from the VJ something about this person's future NFL performance, and to do that you need to consider not just the guys with good VJs who went on to become stars (Clinton Portis), but also the guys with good VJs who went on to become turds (William Green). In order to know whether the VJ is a good predictor of NFL success, I need to know how often somebody kills the VJ and then busts in the NFL. In other words, EBF has provided us with evidence that allows to view a rusher's NFL success and infer something about their VJ, but we want to view a player's VJ and infer something about his NFL success; EBF is looking at this exactly backwards. I am guessing that if you had a sizable sample of runners and you regressed something measuring "NFL success" on college stats, 40 times, shuttle drills, VJ, etc., we would all find it amusing that we're actually worried about a guy's VJ.

 

[ILoveMyLions]

1) I like the VJ Theory. It's not perfect, but it's something to help separate some similar players.

This is where I stand. It is a measurable and a test performed. It may help me separate some very similar rated RBs if all things are equal or close.I don't think we can say that if a RB doesn't jump 35 or higher, then he won't be elite. That's ridiculous. I'm sure there are backs in the NFL now who don't live up to those standards and they produce.But there does seem to be a trend that it is one factor that helps determine a top RB. I think we all can agree that the 40 is overrated, then perhaps the VJ is underrated...just a thought...

 

[ConstruxBoy]

1) I like the VJ Theory. It's not perfect, but it's something to help separate some similar players.

This is where I stand. It is a measurable and a test performed. It may help me separate some very similar rated RBs if all things are equal or close.I don't think we can say that if a RB doesn't jump 35 or higher, then he won't be elite. That's ridiculous. I'm sure there are backs in the NFL now who don't live up to those standards and they produce.

But there does seem to be a trend that it is one factor that helps determine a top RB. I think we all can agree that the 40 is overrated, then perhaps the VJ is underrated...just a thought...

Exactly. As an example, in one of Drugrunner's minimal WR threads, he talks about the VJs of some backs from a couple of years ago. One RB who had a great VJ, over 40 I think, was Omar Easy. Now, has Easy done much in his NFL career? Not at all. But he is behind Homes, Richardson and Larry Johnson. So if I was picking some scrub RB to pick up in a dynasty league in the hopes that maybe they are a late bloomer, I've got some indicator that Easy has some explosive legs. That may be all the edge I need. He could also be stocking shelves next week. At that level, I like using VJ as a measurement along with others to separate guys.

 

[EBF]

I don't want to get drawn into this pissing contest any more than I have to, but I feel compelled to make a couple of points related the EBF Vertical Jump Theory:

1. Going off the data EBF provided, my sense is that he doesn't have anywhere near enough data to be able to draw any statistically valid inferrences at all. I will admit that I'm not an expert on this particular statistic, so I don't know its variance, but I'm still guessing that you need more than a couple of dozen observations to map out a statisically significant relationship between VJ and NFL performance.

2. EBF's data cannot possibly support the conclusion he implicitly wants to draw. On several occasions, he's stated that the overwhelming majority of quality NFL starters had good VJs. That statement seems true given the data weve seen. The problem is that that statement doesn't tell us anything interesting. If you show me a quality NFL starting RB, I guess I could infer that his VJ was probably pretty good, but none of us give a rip about that. What we want to do is to be able to infer from the VJ something about this person's future NFL performance, and to do that you need to consider not just the guys with good VJs who went on to become stars (Clinton Portis), but also the guys with good VJs who went on to become turds (William Green). In order to know whether the VJ is a good predictor of NFL success, I need to know how often somebody kills the VJ and then busts in the NFL. In other words, EBF has provided us with evidence that allows to view a rusher's NFL success and infer something about their VJ, but we want to view a player's VJ and infer something about his NFL success; EBF is looking at this exactly backwards.

I am guessing that if you had a sizable sample of runners and you regressed something measuring "NFL success" on college stats, 40 times, shuttle drills, VJ, etc., we would all find it amusing that we're actually worried about a guy's VJ.

I agree that the sample size is small. I'm not trying to claim that I found the magical formula here. I just think VJ is a measurable that's often overlooked. As for your second point, I mildly disagree. If the vast majority of the RBs in the NFL have VJs over 35" then I'm inclined to believe that a VJ over 35" indicates the presence of some physical skill or combination of physical skills that is integral to success for an NFL RB. If a RB prospect does not have a VJ over 35" then perhaps he lacks one of the necessary physical skills. This would be important to know.

 

[EBF]

I also find it funny when people try to validate a draft prospect by pointing to his college stats. A lot of players put up great stats in college. Few of them become impact NFL players.

This is simply absurd. A "lot" of players did not put up the stats Benson did, he is top 10 all time in college football history in rushing yards, and probably TD's too (no time to check). Most of that top 10 were good pros. And Cedric is no Ron Dayne who falls down when someone puts a finger on him, he gains tons of yards after contact.Benson is not the greatest RB ever, but he will be a very solid pro because of his excellent vision, burst (not top end speed), balance, and most importantly, his toughness and relentlessness. You're gonna miss the boat on Cedric big time.

Few players are given the opportunities that Benson was given. Assuming a decent number of carries, I tend to look at YPC more than I look at total yards. A RB can't control how many times his coach decides to hand him the ball. What he can control is what he does with the touches he's given. Benson had a great career YPC, but so did a lot of other backs. Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Marion Barber, Ciatrick Fason, Vernand Morency, and JJ Arrington all have career YPC averages that are comparable to Benson's. If they had played four years behind the UT o line and carried the ball 1,000+ times then they probably would've put up very good numbers.

 

[placeholder10391]

As a guy with the 1.01 and 1.02 in my dynasty draft, I am now leaning towards Cadillac at #1 and Benson at #2 - even though many have Ronnie Brown as #1.This is gonna be a tough decision, but will probably be made easier based on situation...

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Texas fans think Benson will be a good pro? Shocking!

Seriously though, I understand that there's more to football than measurables. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore the numbers. I think the numbers for Benson are sub par and I have factored this into my evaluation of him.

I also find it funny when people try to validate a draft prospect by pointing to his college stats. A lot of players put up great stats in college. Few of them become impact NFL players.

EBF, have you watched the highlight reels for Benson & Brown? They are of course highlights, but Benson sure looked like a better football player to me.