zarakotas5

With the exception of Dryheat44, who seems to know players from Div. IV Eastern Middle Podunk State Tech A&M, following NCAA is generally who you happen to catch vs. what you may happen to read from someone else.

SO...What is the breakdown that you base your opinions on?

i.e.: Caught a couple regular season games vs. bowl performance...
prospect reports & combine #'s above all?
watch every game of someone highly-touted?
watch everything in sight
are Mel Kiper, Jr.


Then....

30% college career, 50% bowl game/all-star games, 20% combine

10% college career, 50% reports from media, 20% bowls et al, 20% combine

etc.

This post is sloppy, but I think you get the general idea. I'm just curious by which means that people evaluate the NCAA and by what means they express their feelings.

cstjohn17

I don't watch a lot of games so I use mostly scouting reports, when I do watch a game I try to isolate on 1-2 players. It is difficult because the camera only shows a small percentage of players at a time.

I would say my breakdown is 75% career and scouting reports, 5% is bowl games and 20% is combine (how did they look against similar players)

Ochmed Jones

I used to think almost exactly along your 75%,5% and 20% line. But now it seems that if a guy goes to the combine and tears it up, then regardless of his college production, (ie: Bethel Johnson) teams are taking these guys higher than ever.
Potentail greatness is out weighing actual production.

I think now a days if you have a couple of guys that are similar in size, speed, character and injury history, then teams use actual production to help make the decision. However if one of those guys is a tenth of a second faster than the others; then he is the guy regardless of actual production.

I think a lot of teams are so enamored with speed that they think they can train the player to do the other stuff, ie: catch, block, tackle, once they get him in the program. The adage being let's invest in a guy that can get there fast and then teach him what to do when he gets there as opposed to the guy that knows what to do, but can't get there as fast.

Eventually those that can't be taught are weeded out of the league, (ie: Bethel Johnson) but the team has had to pay a price for the gamble.

One of the things I love about the Pats is they usually gamble like this on day 2. Occasionally they gamble on day 1, but never in the first round. The first round is for production guys only.

PonyExpress

I've focused almost exclusively on D players, and learned a few things by trial and error:

IMO amateur scouts are as likely to be deceived as informed by watching games on TV. The variable quality in coaching, scheme, level of competition makes "college production" an unreliable indicator of NFL success. And even in the so called "big games", against decent competition, the sample size is generally too small in the relevant years to forecast a player's pro performance. For that reason IMO it is unwise to rely on college production over athletic measurables.

Of course there will always be exceptions, players who defy analysis based on heart and grit. But the chances you have correctly identified such a player are minimal. Better to sign him as an UFA than throw away the currency of a draft pick.