I thought it would be interesting to see how some of the ILB's & OLB's of this draft stack up against some of todays NFL stars & recent high picks. Here goes...

Name (Hght Wght) Bench - 40yd - 10yd - 20yrd - VJ - BJ - 20ys - 3cone

OLB:
V. Gholston (6-3 263) 37 - 4.58 - 1.53 - 2.65 - 42.0 - 10.5 - 4.40 - 7.12
Q. Groves (6-3 259) 31 - 4.57 - 1.57 - 2.62 - 35.0 - 10.0 - 4.42 - 7.32
C. Avril (6-3 253) 26 - 4.51 - 1.50 - 2.58 - 36.5 - 9.9 - 4.31 - 6.90

D. Ware (6-4 251) 27 - 4.56 - 1.62 - 2.71 - 38.5 - 10.2 - 4.07 - 6.85
S. Merriman (6-4 272) 25 - 4.64 - x - x - 40.0 - 10.1 - 4.21 - x
K. Wimbley (6-4 248) 24 - 4.61 - 1.58 - 2.65 - 38.5 - 10.9 - 4.42 - 6.88
M. Lawson (6-5 238) 23 - 4.43 - 1.53 - 2.53 - 39.5 - 10.4 - 4.18 - 6.90
A. Spencer (6-3 265) 30 - 4.69 - 1.67 - 2.61 - 32.5 - 9.4 - 4.43 - 7.15

ILB:
J. Mayo (6-1 242) 22 - 4.54 - 1.50 - 2.58 - 40.5 - 9.6 - 4.29 - 7.31
J. Goff (6-2 245) 28 - 4.63 - 1.53 - 2.64 - 31.5 - 9.10 - 4.26 - 6.86

A. Hawk (6-1 248) 24 - 4.42 - 1.56 - 2.65 - 40.0 - 9.7 - 3.96 - 6.82
P. Willis (6-1 241) 22 - 4.51 - 1.54 - 2.63 - 39.0 - 9.11 - 4.37 - 7.10
D. Harris (6-2 245) 23 - 4.60 - 1.54 - 2.60 - 33.0 - 9.2 - 4.29 - 7.26
D. Ryans (6-1 236) 23 - 4.65 - 1.60 - 2.68 - 39.0 - 10.9 - 4.17 - 7.19

Observations:
1) Gholston, Groves & Avril all compare favorably to Ware & Merriman, at least from an athletic standpoint.
2) Avril's 10yrd split is pretty crazy- faster than Hawk & Lawson who torched the 40.
3) Gholston's 37 reps is pretty crazy as well- compared to Merriman's 25.
4) Mayo's numbers are comparable to Willis' and Goff's are comparable to Harris' - both of which are better than Demeco Ryans'.

Obviously this is purely a comparison of combine numbers and not football ability but I think it's interesting just the same. I wouldn't mind having any of these guys on the roster next year (for the right price).

Do you have the pre-roid and post-roid splits for Merriman?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Be Afraid Manning, Be Very Afraid.

Mayo posted a 32 inch vertical at the Combine, not 40.5 vertical.

I believe that's around what he put up at his Pro Day, though.

Gholston posted a 4.65 forty at the Combine, not 4.58.

Let's not substitute inflated Pro Day numbers for some prospects, while excluding them from the listed numbers given for others, especially since this is supposed to be a "Combine" comparison. Really, you should only substitute Pro Day numbers (for this comparison), if there is no listed Combine result for a particular drill. IE, Mayo didn't lift at the Combine, so you can use his 22 reps at the Pro Day, but you should include a note.

Also, I already compared Goff's Combine numbers to all other ILB's who've posted numbers at the Combine from 2000-2008:

*** The reported numbers have changed since that comparison. They are now listing Goff's Combine 10 split at 1.50, which is faster than either Willis or Harris.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OK, you got numbers. How about posting all the LBs numbers, not just the all pros?? There are likely alot of noname guys with similar numbers I am guessing, which means...you know.

Mayock reported that VJ numbers at the combine were all off by 4-5 inches because someone screwed up setting up the contraption in Indy. The VJ numbers from pro days are more valid when comparing 2008 prospects to those of past seasons. Mayo had a VJ close to 40" at the UT pro day.

No doubt. And, all the more reason not to use Pro Day VJ numbers in comparison to those actually posted at the 2008 Combine...

They are seemingly more valid in comparison to numbers posted during previous workouts, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you're effectively handicapping players who've only recorded a VJ at the 2008 Combine, as there is a known discrepancy in the numbers.

Also, Pro Day results (IE: forty times) have been notably inflated over the years, so comparison's can be a little murky if you only include the Pro Day numbers given for certain players. For instance, the OP list Gholston's Pro Day forty time, while listing Patrick Willis' Combine forty. What's the problem here? Patrick Willis recorded a 4.37 forty at his Pro Day, which is a substantial upgrade over the 4.51 he ran at the Combine.

So, I'll again say that it's not an entirely accurate comparison, especially if you're going to include Pro Day results for some players, while excluding the listed Pro Day results for others.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pro day 40s have been inflated for years, usually by about .1 seconds. I don't see the same problem with pro day VJs.

I know. That's actually something I just pointed out.

The argument here is that you shouldn't include Pro Day numbers for some players (Gholston), while excluding listed Pro Day numbers for others (Willis), since Pro Day numbers have been inflated over the years.

I'm not really arguing the validity of those Pro Day VJ's, only that they aren't accurately comparable to VJ numbers recorded at the 2008 Combine, especially since we know the VJ numbers recorded at that 2008 Combine weren't gathered correctly. So, you're effectively handicapping those players who've only recorded 2008 Combine VJ's.



You understand the points I'm making here, right?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sedman- Feel free to post combine numbers for everyone but I don't have the data- I posted the numbers that I had.

If you don't want to count Pro Day VJs, that your decision. I see no reason to exclude them. To me the combine #s are invalid. The 2008 prospects are competing as much with the past as with eachother. IOW, we know certain standards must be met athletically for a prospect to have a legit chance to become a star, and we know this from tracking past years. So the combine #s tell me nothing. The Pro Day #s tell me more, because i can compare them with pro day #s from the past. For those prospects foolish enough not to redo their VJs, despite the fact the inaccuracy at the combine is common knowledge, I guess we can charitably add 4-5 inches in order not to "penalize" them, if that's what you're afraid of. 4-5 inches is the number Mayock mentioned, I believe.