At The Combine

papabear · #1 02-25-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P

At some point you have to draw a line. For somebody it might be 4.8. Then somebody comes behind them and says, well this guy ran a 4.81 are you going to dismiss them for .01 seconds?

I understand that, but I don't think the average person really understands how little difference there is between some of the times and get way to fixated on what amounts to a half step. That can be the difference in being open in the NFL, but at the combine it's probably more indicative of who spent the most time working with a track coach. That is one thing about the combine though. The players know what drills will be there, and it's good to find out who were the ones willing to put in the work to get better at the things they will be tested on. If a guy got confused on how to run the three cone that would probably set off as many alarm bells for me as a 40 that was slightly below par.

I just wish they had some kind of graphic representation to compare two players. I would be more willing to discount a player for a slow ten or twenty yard split then I would for a 40. I'm a guy who loves having speed, but if a LB or RB is a tenth slower then a target time for the forty, but has a great 3 cone and looks good on film, and has a good initial burst...so what on the 40.

I'm not saying I want a CB who runs 4.8, and I don't think the 40 is worthless. It is definitely a tool that can be useful. I just think some people are way to fixated on it. I'm not talking about you Roy, or anyone else her for that matter. You are at least as accurate as the network guys with less information and resources.

mussop · #2 02-25-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

I understand that, but I don't think the average person really understands how little difference there is between some of the times and get way to fixated on what amounts to a half step. That can be the difference in being open in the NFL, but at the combine it's probably more indicative of who spent the most time working with a track coach. That is one thing about the combine though. The players know what drills will be there, and it's good to find out who were the ones willing to put in the work to get better at the things they will be tested on. If a guy got confused on how to run the three cone that would probably set off as many alarm bells for me as a 40 that was slightly below par.

I just wish they had some kind of graphic representation to compare two players. I would be more willing to discount a player for a slow ten or twenty yard split then I would for a 40. I'm a guy who loves having speed, but if a LB or RB is a tenth slower then a target time for the forty, but has a great 3 cone and looks good on film, and has a good initial burst...so what on the 40.

I'm not saying I want a CB who runs 4.8, and I don't think the 40 is worthless. It is definitely a tool that can be useful. I just think some people are way to fixated on it. I'm not talking about you Roy, or anyone else her for that matter. You are at least as accurate as the network guys with less information and resources.

This is why I dont pay much attention to the combine.

barrett · #3 02-25-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

I understand that, but I don't think the average person really understands how little difference there is between some of the times and get way to fixated on what amounts to a half step. That can be the difference in being open in the NFL, but at the combine it's probably more indicative of who spent the most time working with a track coach. That is one thing about the combine though. The players know what drills will be there, and it's good to find out who were the ones willing to put in the work to get better at the things they will be tested on. If a guy got confused on how to run the three cone that would probably set off as many alarm bells for me as a 40 that was slightly below par.

I just wish they had some kind of graphic representation to compare two players. I would be more willing to discount a player for a slow ten or twenty yard split then I would for a 40. I'm a guy who loves having speed, but if a LB or RB is a tenth slower then a target time for the forty, but has a great 3 cone and looks good on film, and has a good initial burst...so what on the 40.

I'm not saying I want a CB who runs 4.8, and I don't think the 40 is worthless. It is definitely a tool that can be useful. I just think some people are way to fixated on it. I'm not talking about you Roy, or anyone else her for that matter. You are at least as accurate as the network guys with less information and resources.

This is why I do pay attention to the combine.

If a guy cannot prepare for the combine and run and test at his best with his future on the line, then he lacks the profesionalism and work ethic to be a very good NFL football player.

James · #4 02-25-2009, 11:15 PM

Probably not the appropriate spot for this post, however; I was perusing the old draft pick value chart, considering some mock draft possibilities, when I realized that either Stafford, Sanchez, or (now a bit more likely) both, will be there at 15. After the 15th pick though, the Jets, Bucs, Bears, and Lions are in some need of a QB. Whether its both or just Sanchez, it would (wouldn't it?) suit the Lions to take the best tackle (J Smith) #1 and trade us their 3rd to move up . . .wouldn't it? Perhaps just dreaming . . .

painekiller · #5 02-26-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

Probably not the appropriate spot for this post, however; I was perusing the old draft pick value chart, considering some mock draft possibilities, when I realized that either Stafford, Sanchez, or (now a bit more likely) both, will be there at 15. After the 15th pick though, the Jets, Bucs, Bears, and Lions are in some need of a QB. Whether its both or just Sanchez, it would (wouldn't it?) suit the Lions to take the best tackle (J Smith) #1 and trade us their 3rd to move up . . .wouldn't it? Perhaps just dreaming . . .

No I find that a very plausible thing to happen.

jppaul · #6 02-26-2009, 01:03 AM

I am personally on the draft Malcolm Jenkins at 15 to be a safety train now.

mussop · #7 02-26-2009, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul

I am personally on the draft Malcolm Jenkins at 15 to be a safety train now.

I would be extremely happy with that!

papabear · #8 02-26-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul

I am personally on the draft Malcolm Jenkins at 15 to be a safety train now.

I'm intrigued by this idea. A guy who was considered a top corner at Safety sounds great on paper. The problem is playing safety is a whole other skill set than playing man coverage type corner. I don't know enough about Jenkins to know if he would make a good safety or not, but there's more to being a safety than just being a slow corner.

BigBull · #9 02-26-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

I'm intrigued by this idea. A guy who was considered a top corner at Safety sounds great on paper. The problem is playing safety is a whole other skill set than playing man coverage type corner. I don't know enough about Jenkins to know if he would make a good safety or not, but there's more to being a safety than just being a slow corner.

He actually played a lot of safety for the Ohio State Buckeyes.

jppaul · #10 02-26-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

I'm intrigued by this idea. A guy who was considered a top corner at Safety sounds great on paper. The problem is playing safety is a whole other skill set than playing man coverage type corner. I don't know enough about Jenkins to know if he would make a good safety or not, but there's more to being a safety than just being a slow corner.

Yeah, PB, but Jenkins also played alot of safety at Ohio State, he wasn't exclusively a corner they moved him around. Come on man, you don't think that I would base drafting him at safety because he was slow. Have a little faith.

I was just thinking after running that time he might actually be around at 15 now.

nunusguy · #11 02-26-2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jppaul

I am personally on the draft Malcolm Jenkins at 15 to be a safety train now.

We just signed our starting FS to a 3-year contract.

mussop · #12 02-26-2009, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

Probably not the appropriate spot for this post, however; I was perusing the old draft pick value chart, considering some mock draft possibilities, when I realized that either Stafford, Sanchez, or (now a bit more likely) both, will be there at 15. After the 15th pick though, the Jets, Bucs, Bears, and Lions are in some need of a QB. Whether its both or just Sanchez, it would (wouldn't it?) suit the Lions to take the best tackle (J Smith) #1 and trade us their 3rd to move up . . .wouldn't it? Perhaps just dreaming . . .

Check this thread out its already been talked about. I still think this is one of our best shots at trading down. No way Detroit drafts a QB first. I just dont believe it. The pick will be Curry or (more likely) Monroe. If one of the top QB's fall they will have to jump in front of a few other teams to assure they get one. Surrendering a 3rd to make sure they get their QB of the future isnt out of the question.

Roy P · #13 02-26-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mussop

Check this thread out its already been talked about.

Surrendering a 3rd to make sure they get their QB of the future isnt out of the question.

I'd love to trade down and get more picks, but let's step back a minute. The Detroit Lions could very well bundle some picks to the Patriots for the opportunity to pay Matt Cassel to play QB. He is the safest QB they could get because they have seen the level of play he's capable of in the NFL.

The San Diego Chargers are behind us with Whitehurst, Voler, and Rivers. Why wouldn't the Lions just trade up to #16 instead of #15? They just need to get ahead of the Jets, right?

papabear · #14 02-26-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P

The San Diego Chargers are behind us with Whitehurst, Voler, and Rivers. Why wouldn't the Lions just trade up to #16 instead of #15? They just need to get ahead of the Jets, right?

That's simple....because we just called the lions and told them that the jets were on the other line. How about you handle the scouting and I handle the trades

Roy P · #15 02-26-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

That's simple....because we just called the lions and told them that the jets were on the other line. How about you handle the scouting and I handle the trades

If you are going to handle the trades, then make the deal with the Jets. That way we don't have to drop down to #20, we only have to drop to #17.

NickO · #16 02-26-2009, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

Probably not the appropriate spot for this post, however; I was perusing the old draft pick value chart, considering some mock draft possibilities, when I realized that either Stafford, Sanchez, or (now a bit more likely) both, will be there at 15. After the 15th pick though, the Jets, Bucs, Bears, and Lions are in some need of a QB. Whether its both or just Sanchez, it would (wouldn't it?) suit the Lions to take the best tackle (J Smith) #1 and trade us their 3rd to move up . . .wouldn't it? Perhaps just dreaming . . .

Shades of Cleveland in 2007. In bad need of a QB, selected Joe Thomas 3rd overall then traded back up to grab Brady Quinn.

Browns Got:
2007 1st Rd Pick (22nd Overall)

Dallas Got:
2007 2nd Rd Pick (36th Overall)
2008 1st Rd Pick (which turned out to be 22nd Overall thanks to Derek Anderson)

So the question is, would the Texans trade back from 15th overall for the Lions 2nd rounder (33rd overall) and their 1st next year? That's a long way to trade back, but remember a couple things:

1) Consensus is there's a lack of top-end talent in the 2009 draft, but good depth
2) The Lions just went 0-16 and are freaking terrible, that could be a top five pick. Hell, Cleveland was freaking terrible and they were willing to gamble (Phil Savage got fired, but whatever)

nunusguy · #17 02-26-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

Whether its both or just Sanchez

Excuse the digression, but can you just imagine the commercial potential of a Texas football franchise that has a Latino QB ?

James · #18 02-26-2009, 07:41 AM

VY would have brought commercial appeal, or even ReBu, the Texans don't care for appeal clearly, which is a good thing in my opinion. In regards to a third not being enough to drop 5 spots, the trusty value chart says we are +100 points in this deal, and; in my opinion are clearly getting the better of the deal considering the talent that will still be available there at 20 . . .just my 2 cents though.

papabear · #19 02-26-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

If a guy cannot prepare for the combine and run and test at his best with his future on the line, then he lacks the profesionalism and work ethic to be a very good NFL football player.

Absolutely. That to me is one of the biggest aspects of the combine.

BigBull · #20 02-26-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

This is why I do pay attention to the combine.

If a guy cannot prepare for the combine and run and test at his best with his future on the line, then he lacks the profesionalism and work ethic to be a very good NFL football player.

I don't think that is a fair assessment of every player who performs poorly at the combine. It could be that their trainer didn't train them properly. Not everyone gets the benefit of training with a trainer like Danny Arnold of Plex. I think nerves play a big role in it too. I mean these young men that mostly come from families with little money know that how they perform could mean millions of dollars in some cases.