But how many guys in the past have tested poorly at the combine....or at least had their draft stock plummet after a bad showing and went on to outperform a lot of other players at their position in the NFL? I gotta believe that number is pretty high.
I've never understand the allure of auto racing at all. I love cars and I love driving fast....I don't see entertainment in watching others do it...especially in the four left turn circuit that is NASCAR.
Metcalf will be a great one trick pony If he can’t do anything else. Mike Wallace the second. On the right team a one trick pony can be dangerous.
The thing is, Wallace was significantly lighter and had better horizontal movement. The problem with Mike is that he could never pace himself enough. If he would have slowed down some in his routes and worked to sell them more he probably could have developed into a pretty lethal weapon. Sometimes fast players can become better receivers as they age because they can no longer rely on that raw speed.
I think that's part of where the value of the Combine comes in. If you have two players at the same position - say WR - you've ranked pretty evenly (size, speed, hands, route-running), if WR1 can pump out 20 reps and has a 40" vertical, that can tip the decision in his favor if WR2 did 10 reps and jumped 34".
And in the inverse, guys that seemingly came out of nowhere to crush the combine only to fail as a professional. It's a tough question to quantify because of the varying success rates regardless of whether or not the combine even existed. Plus, the biggest factor for the large majority of players is the situation where they get drafted into. That alone has the ability to decide a players career arc.
What if WR1 outperformed WR2 at the combine but WR2 outperformed WR1 on the field in college? I realize game film isn't apples to apples because different schools face different competition. But I'd very curious to see the weight that is put on the combine versus gamefilm by the average GM or scout.
Hopefully every GM is smart enough to give the tape more weight. But I know when the Steelers put too much weight on the combine they wind up with players like Bud Dupree.
Any scout I have ever spoke to has said the game film first, then the combine to confirm or reject suspicions.
But I think we've seen a lot of instances where they don't. The Bears once drafted a defensive lineman that did absolutely nothing in college but there was a video of him jumping out of a swimming pool...and the Bears GM at the time Jerry Angelo wasted a pick on him. The HOF is filled with a lot of guys that were told they were too small, too slow, couldn't catch, couldn't block, hands are too small, arms are too short, and so on.
I'd think any scout would have to think that logically. But I just gotta wonder when they are in the war room and it's time....how often the combine bounces back into their mind....or they see a guy that's an inch taller or has longer arms....and it influences the decision.
And you will probably still wonder about that until they throw the first shovel full of dirt on your casket.
Just wild speculation on my part, but when these guys get drafted out of the blue off of shit like you were saying (pool jumping), I honestly think ownership or a positional coach is begging the GM to make that happen. It's so far from the normal thinking of how to evaluate players that a rube with too much money or a coach that got the job by being the head coach's brother in-law seems like the more likely culprit.
I can totally see that. Probably....but a few of those types of guys seem to get drafted every year. When it's a low pick by a team with fewer needs late in the draft I don't question it. Because sometimes you can afford to take a risk. But we've seen teams do it that have holes on their roster.
I go by game tape first. Maybe I'm from the Bill Parcells school of thinking, but give me guys who are football players.