View Full Version : Pre-Draft Procedure Changes (Opinion, Not Actual Facts/News)

04-01-2007, 01:24 AM
Does nyone else think this pre-draft stuff is all ridiculous? WAY too much is put on times and numbers. I know this has been argued to death before, but this thread is to suggest ways to change and fix it. I propose two major changes:

1: Either EVERYONE participates in the combine AND pro days, or you do away with one or the other. I'm tired of people who my have had a bad day at the combine getting in a panick and thinking they need to blow people away at the pro day. I'm also tired of people "standing on their combine times".

The problem is, everyone has off days and on days. So lets say some kid runs a 4.35 at the combine, but going into it everyone questioned his speed. Now suddenly all questions are answered because he ran one fast 40? One he has been SPECIFICALLY training for since the NCAA season ended? What's to say that kid really ISN'T that fast and it was just a case of being super excited and adrenaline pumping knowing that MILLIONS of dollars are on the line? Conversely, if a kid runs a crappy 40 at the combine, like he was expected to run a 4.35 but did a 4.6 or something, what's to say he's REALLY that slow? He could have had a bad day, or maybe a cramp or sore muscles, or hell, maybe something tragic happened recently like he just buried his parents and so he was lacking focus? Maybe he too was over-excited because he knows MILLIONS of dollars are on the line, so he had a lapse in concentration?

If both of those kids had to also do pro days, we would get a better reading, because if the kid that surprised everyone with his speed ran another 4.35 at the pro day then it would show consistancy, and if the guy who ran a 4.6 ran another one, everyone would know he is just slower than originally expected.

Point is, the whole reason there are questions (or praises) on a guy's speed going into the combine is that the people making those projections have gotten their data from the hours upon hours of tape they watched. People don't just pick a guy and label his as a burner or too slow, they are labeled that after extensive tape sudy. So WHY would yu suddenly reneg on that because a guy expected to run a 4.7+ runs a sub 4.4 at the combine? If anything, I would question that because the tape doesn't lie, if he looked slow in the games then he IS slow, a faster than expected 40 means nothing besides he had some great coaching in those 3 months. It just amazes me at how quick people turn around. They go in thinking the knock on the guy is slow and 5 seconds later suddenly those hours and hours of tapes and the opinions of the scouts that labeled him slow are suddenly worthless :confused:


2: If you want to do all these non-football tests (like the 40), why not make them do it in pads? Hell, mae tem do ALL of em in pads. The 40, shuttle, verticle leap, broad jump, 3-cone drill, plus all their positional drills. Everything except the bench press. I mean, it may sound ridiculous, but think about it. All these skills SOMEHOW measure how good a guy will be on the field right? And what will they be wearing on the field? Under Armour shorts and tees? No, they will have on helmets, shoulder pads, knee and thigh pads, and CLEATS (not track shoes). So why not get their times with all of that on? It still wouldn't be an accurate measure of how great a football player he is (except maybe showing how well he can absorb coaching in a short amount of time), but it would be more accurate than having them do the drills almost naked.