DropKickFlutie
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 9,574
- Reaction score
- 9,155
There's a correlation between measurables and who is good/great at football, but having good/great measurables do not ensure one is good at football. I would would argue that bad measurables almost alway guarantee a player won't be able to play at an NFL level.
1. Can you please share a source? I don't believe there is a correlation at all between combine metrics and who is good or not. Again, here's an example. A Tyreek Hill is an all pro and also super fast, but it's saying 1 out of 200 super fast guys are all pros compared with 1 out of 400 guys with mediocre-speed guys are good. Or 1 out of 100 high jumpers are all pros so look at jump metrics. The hit rate is so low it's basically worthless to use as a reason to draft. Using the combine metric is total fool's gold to make any sort of projection. Maybe this is why the Pats drafts sucked from 2013-2019, using low IQ John Carroll thinking.
2. Your second sentence I agree with. Having a beyond-poor combine metric makes it harder to succeed but again there are tons of examples of people who succeeded with poor combine results: Jerry Rice, Barry Sanders, Tom Brady (pretty much the best players of all time!). Meyers and Bourne here, Wynn being too short or short arms, etc. So even then you can't just rule out guys, again it should be about the core skill for their position and whether they can perform.
3. The Chad Jackson example doesn't prove your point. It proves my point. There are a bunch of knuckleheads, or guys who don't know how to get open, like Chad Jackson or NKeal Harry. But because they fit some dumb combine metric or size metric they get elevated even though they can't get open in the NFL. Bill Walsh had it right. He would literally put a WR in a workout and see if a player could beat a CB. That's the most important draft check by far. Not some dumb 40 time or how high they can jump.
Last edited: