Mike Richardon pro day Reminder

[Bostonian1962]

Yes, he looked pretty good on Friday. For some reason he wasn't considered a fast, quick athlete coming out.

Richardson pro day :

40 - 4.48
20 - 2.61
10 - 1.47
Shuttle - 4.05
3-Cone - 6.27

Compared to some of the other CB coming out (some combine, some pro day, whatever NFLDraftScout had) :

Revis :

40 - 4.38
20 - 2.49
10 - 1.46
Shuttle - 4.08
3-Cone - 6.56

Hall :

40 - 4.39
20 - 2.52
10 - 1.45
Shuttle - 4.07
3-Cone - 6.50

Houston :

40 - 4.43
20 - 2.52
10 - 1.50
Shuttle - 4.12
3-Cone - 6.94

Wright :

40 - 4.36
20 - 2.51
10 - 1.48
Shuttle - 4.23
3-Cone - 6.93

Richardson's 40 was the worst but his Shuttle and 3 Cone were the best of all as his 10 was second best.

Nice post. I enjoy these types of comparisons, and some would say that the quickness drills like the shuttle and 3-Cone are actually the most important. So far, I like the kid.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He makes this team. A$ante or no A$ante.

 

[RayClay]

Thats good to know,now I'll pay more attention to Dry Heat. I used to watch alot of collage football.Sometimes my observations were good (J.Taylor) sometimes not so good I told people if we could only draft Rick Mirer in 1993 we'ed be great.

BFan is on the draft like white on rice and Dryheat seems very knowledgeable, but i really don't know the draft experts here well since I had no time this spring since i was just starting Grad school.

There's a poster named Peachhead who I think posts here who used to post personal evaluations of prospects starting in the fall at KFFL.

He doesn't post much anymore, but He really gives you a "book" on players apart from the scout sites we all see.

And he seems like a real nice guy.

 

[notex]

Just curious...how do his #'s compare to asantes

 

[BelichickFan]

Just curious...how do his #'s compare to asantes

Well, remember that the further back you go the more likely to be comparing apples to oranges . . . that said :

Richardson pro day :
40 - 4.48
20 - 2.61
10 - 1.47
Shuttle - 4.05
3-Cone - 6.27

Samuel Combine :
40 - 4.49
20 - 2.66
10 - 1.59
Shuttle - 4.14
3-Cone - 6.95

It's very consistent that the longer distances are worse for Richardson but he's sickeningly quick in all these numbers - and not just with the Notre Dame "short cones". Look at the 10 and Shuttle too.

For fun I'll add Hobbs :

Hobbs Combine :
40 - 4.45
20 - 2.60
10 - 1.57
Shuttle - 4.08
3-Cone - 6.80

Interesting that Hobbs had a GREAT shuttle too.

 

[sg14]

The useless factoid of the week,,

Supposedly when the Pats selected Richardson on Draft Day, he was selected in record time, not a single other player was selected with less time "off the clock".

Sure looks like a BB defensive back, quick.

 

[Vern]

Well, remember that the further back you go the more likely to be comparing apples to oranges . . . that said :

Richardson pro day :
40 - 4.48
20 - 2.61
10 - 1.47
Shuttle - 4.05
3-Cone - 6.27

Samuel Combine :
40 - 4.49
20 - 2.66
10 - 1.59
Shuttle - 4.14
3-Cone - 6.95

It's very consistent that the longer distances are worse for Richardson but he's sickeningly quick in all these numbers - and not just with the Notre Dame "short cones". Look at the 10 and Shuttle too.

For fun I'll add Hobbs :

Hobbs Combine :
40 - 4.45
20 - 2.60
10 - 1.57
Shuttle - 4.08
3-Cone - 6.80

Interesting that Hobbs had a GREAT shuttle too.

And Meriweather?

 

[DaBruinz]

And Meriweather?

Meriweather:
Only did the 20 yard shuttle at his Pro-Day (4.42),but is was worse than his Combine number (4.33).

40 - 4.47
20 - 2.61
10 - 1.53

20 yard shuttle - 4.33
3 Cone: 7.06

Vertical - 35"

 

[lapatsfan]

Don't rely too heavily on combine/workout stats. A player's performance on the field is what really counts and I thought Richardson played very well.

 

[BelichickFan]

Don't rely too heavily on combine/workout stats. A player's performance on the field is what really counts and I thought Richardson played very well.

Of course what happens on the field is what matters but numbers are important too - you know, how fast are you - and, again, at draft time a tenth of a second matters a lot. Rightly or wrongly. It's way too simplistic to say the numbers mean everything - and it's just as simplistic to say they mean nothing.

 

[lapatsfan]

Of course what happens on the field is what matters but numbers are important too - you know, how fast are you - and, again, at draft time a tenth of a second matters a lot. Rightly or wrongly. It's way too simplistic to say the numbers mean everything - and it's just as simplistic to say they mean nothing.

I agree with you. I'm just saying that number only look good on paper, while game day performance is what really matters.

 

[BelichickFan]

I agree with you. I'm just saying that number only look good on paper, while game day performance is what really matters.

Thankfully we all agree that he's looked good so far. You never know, he may have been made to look bad at ND thanks to Weis' sh!tty defense - a CB can be made to look bad if he's expecting help from a Safety that comes late. Anyway, Richardson has gotten some positive mentions from camp then looked good in the game - that's what make me start this thread, his performance made me say "hmmm" then I remembered he had excellent quickness numbers and looked them up.

 

[PonyExpress]

I agree with you. I'm just saying that number only look good on paper, while game day performance is what really matters.

This is a common misconception. Much of the reason some prospects excel and other fail in the NFL is their athletic ability. There is a tendency by some fans, especially those less familiar with the draft process, to downgrade the importance of athletic ability as measured in drills. This is the natural response of people lacking a comfort level with new data. You would be surprised to learn that a prospect's performance in pre-draft athletic workouts in the vast majority of cases is a better predictor of NFL success than college production. The quality of coaching and scheme in the college ranks is so variable that often great athletes are not properly trained or their abilities are not properly utilized. Raw athletic ability, and a willingness to learn and sacrifice for success, are the base line of NFL success. That physical ability is reflected in pre draft drills. How to judge those drills, and which ones matter for each position, is the mystery. But the mystery can be solved, and has been by quality front offices some interested fans.

 

[lapatsfan]

This is a common misconception. Much of the reason some prospects excel and other fail in the NFL is their athletic ability. There is a tendency by some fans, especially those less familiar with the draft process, to downgrade the importance of athletic ability as measured in drills. This is the natural response of people lacking a comfort level with new data. You would be surprised to learn that a prospect's performance in pre-draft athletic workouts in the vast majority of cases is a better predictor of NFL success than college production. The quality of coaching and scheme in the college ranks is so variable that often great athletes are not properly trained or their abilities are not properly utilized. Raw athletic ability, and a willingness to learn and sacrifice for success, are the base line of NFL success. That physical ability is reflected in pre draft drills. How to judge those drills, and which ones matter for each position, is the mystery. But the mystery can be solved, and has been by quality front offices some interested fans.

The bottom line is that the draft selection process is not an exact science. How many first round busts have there been? As we all know, many guys with great college careers and combine numbers do not succeed in the NFL. In contrast, many late-round draft picks (and undrafted free agents) have great careers. I don't "lack a comfort level with new data", I just don't rely too heavily on data that I feel is not a 100% indicator of the expected end result.

 

[Bostonian1962]

http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts#ND
If you look at these ND 3-cone scores, you will see an interesting trend:
Brady Quinn, QB: 6.79
Derek Landri, DT: 7.08
Mike Richardson, CB: 6.27
Marcus Freeman, TE: 6.83

These scores were if not the best, in the top 2 or 3 for their positions in the whole country. While these players are athletic on their own merit, it seems likely that the "tiny" cones contributed to this scoring anomaly, and that ND gamed the system.

I used ice cream cones for my run and still pulled some horrendous times. What up?

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

Mike Richardson was valuable because he was drafted in the 6th round. Prospects are evaluated before they get a chance to perform in the NFL. So the scouts use equalizing drills and interviews. All game tape is not equal. A late round pick is not very likely to make a team. That is the reality of the NFL. When it does happen we hear about it every time they play so we don't realize that it is rare for one to have a long career as a backup let alone be a stndout.

 

[lapatsfan]

I used ice cream cones for my run and still pulled some horrendous times. What up?

LOL... Did you use waffle or sugar cones?

 

[PonyExpress]

The bottom line is that the draft selection process is not an exact science. How many first round busts have there been? As we all know, many guys with great college careers and combine numbers do not succeed in the NFL. In contrast, many late-round draft picks (and undrafted free agents) have great careers. I don't "lack a comfort level with new data", I just don't rely too heavily on data that I feel is not a 100% indicator of the expected end result.

Many of the players drafted in the late rds who go on to succeed exhibit exceptional athleticism in certain pre-draft drills. BF brought Richardson to our attention as an example of that. Many of the high rd picks who fail exhibit marginal athleticism in certain pre-draft drills. The challenge is to understand which drills are pertinent to which positions, and what is the benchmark score at each drill for each position. The fact that teams make mistakes is not proof that pre-draft drills are folly, and the draft a crap-shoot. Those mistakes illustrate that some teams understand how to prioritize and sort pre-draft information better than others.

 

[patchick]

Don't rely too heavily on combine/workout stats. A player's performance on the field is what really counts and I thought Richardson played very well.

You can't rely too highly on any one factor -- performance on the field among them. A college WR's production often tells you more about his team's offense than about him. And if performance on the field were all that really counted, the Patriots would never have dreamed of drafting Matt Cassel, who had less than 200 yards passing in his whole college career...but terrific measurables. (How 'bout a 6'4" 222 lb. QB with a 34" vertical and a 4.06 shuttle?)

Film, measurables, workouts, interviews, candid chats with coaches, etc. etc. It all counts. And even so you just get it to the level of a weighted crapshoot.

 

[BelichickFan]

Just to show I'm open minded I just drafted Dwayne Jarrett in my fantasy draft - production over 40 times, baby