I know I wrote Football player versus Super Athlete but tough to determine where the threshold is between the two.
You've gotten me thinking about this a bit.
It seems to me that "athleticism" (testing numbers) could be factor in prospect evaluations in a couple different ways.
For instance, in a general sense, if a prospect "tests" more athletic than he looks on tape, it could be a matter of poor technique/footwork, etc. that's hindering him from being able to get the most out of his inherent physical abilities. Or, it could be that a lack of understanding what he's seeing on the field, and/or an inability to process the information coming at him fast enough, effectively renders his "athleticism" moot. The former may be a coachable "flaw"; the latter perhaps not.
Tested athleticism may also provide some feel for a prospect's ceiling for a specific
role.
As a relatively easy example, does an interior OL need to achieve the same level in short-shuttle and 3-cone testing that an OT must? And does the blocking scheme (zone v. man) make a difference in what type of measurables are most pertinent?
Another example is DB.
To me, a DB's primary job is
not to prevent a pass from being caught. It's to prevent a pass from being
thrown in his direction in the first place -
then to prevent the completion (if thrown), and
then to prevent YAC (if caught).
It may be that different minimum testing levels apply to the different CB
roles. For instance, a prospect who's being considered as boundary CB candidate may not need to test as high in the shuttle/3-cone as a CB who's being considered for a slot role.
A significant portion of NFL WRs who have primarily (and successfully) worked the boundary and deep routes actually didn't post more extrordinary shuttle and 3-cone times. So, for a CB prospect who has demonstrated an elite understanding of football and routes, and elite and accurate "read speed", relatively ordinary agility/speed testing numbers may be acceptable since he'll likely be able to discourage a lot of passes from being thrown in his direction in a boundary CB role, even when "left on an island" without safety help. He still may be vulnerable in occasional man-coverage matchups with WRs who
do possess elite agility, but that's where good deep-safety help comes in. Butler may be an example of this.
OTOH, many of the WRs who primarily work short and interior routes from the slot possess elite agility - both in testing and applied on the field (e.g., Edelman). So, the lack of natural (tested) agility that may be acceptable for a boundary CB prospect may not pass muster for a slot/nickel CB prospect. [
However, in terms of roster-building from a wider perspective, if you can find a CB prospect who may be almost as good at boundary coverage as one of your starting boundary CBs, AND one or the other of your boundary CBs has the agility to play the slot, for some nickel substitution situations, this #3 boundary CB may be able to come in to cover that boundary in order to allow the starting boundary CB to cover the slot for that play or series.]
I mean, ideally you'd want ALL of your DBs to test in/near an elite range in agility numbers in order to enhance their role-versatility and enhance the secondary's ability to disguise coverages. However, due to external constraints, it's exceedingly difficult to assemble a crew of athletically elite DBs who also know what the hell they're doing. So, the tradeoff in terms of draft prospects (at least those who are typically available to the Pats, given how far back in line they typically begin to get their earliest selection opportunities) is often between the lesser athlete who seems to know what he's doing and the relatively "raw", elite athlete who may need a lot of coaching (IOW, signing multiple UDFAs may represent more opportunity to find a coachable athlete at DB than drafting one similar prospect in the 4th or 5th rounds).
Of course, with boundary CBs, there's also the limiting "intangible" (meaning "not quantifiable") of what I refer to as "handedness". A player may be a brilliant boundary CB on the
left side but mediocre on the
right side (and vice versa) if his level of "handedness" restricts his ability to master the reverse footwork and body positioning that's required to play the opposite boundary.
For a long time, the Pats had difficulty in finding guys with the appropriate "handedness" for the right boundary and put players over there even if they didn't have quite enough athletic ability to handle the position without safety help over the top (which partly explains Arrington's tenure). After the acquisition of Rowe last season, the Pats had
two players with the ability to play the right side very well (Ryan and Rowe),
and the agility (at a tested level, at least) to play the slot/nickel role. With the acquisition of Gilmore and the departure of Ryan, they still have two. Butler, of course, may be the odd man out in this group.
