GM advice - Measurables vs Tape

[AU-panther]

Every year after the combine people start to get excited over certain players that measure well at the combine and we start to move those players up the board.  

I know some people weigh the measurable more and others look at the tape more, what are your opinions?

 Here are my thoughts...

I think you have to look at the production first.

If a player can't produce at the college level (against lesser talent) what makes you think he is going to produce at the pro level (against greater talent)?

If a player can't produce when he is auditioning for a big pay day what makes you think he is going to produce after he gets paid?

Personally I think coaches and GMs fall in love with the measurables, and ego comes into play, and they feel like they can "coach them up".  I think coaches and GMs would do a better job of drafting if they checked their ego at the door.

Does this mean I think measurables aren't important?  Not at all, I actually think they are extremely important.  Measurables are a tool that helps you predict a players ability to transfer their college success to the pro level.   Just because a player is extremely successful at the college level there is no guarantee he will be successful at the pro level.  There are certain break points where their physical limitations, or effort, hold them back at the next level.  

For example, can a Safety with 4.7 speed be successful at the college level?  Of course he can.  Can a Safety with 4.7 speed be successful at the pro level?  Its possible, but much more unlikely.  At the next level he is going up against players that are a tier higher in athletic ability.  Does that mean a safety a with 4.3 speed is the best prospect?  Of course not.  Give me the safety with the best tape, who also has enough speed to give him a good chance of succeeding a the next level.

Great tape and 4.7 speed - No thanks

Bad tape and 4.3 speed - No thanks

Great tape and 4.5 speed -  yes please

So why are you going to draft a player with the odds stacked against them?  Here again I think ego comes into play.  There are no bonus points for finding that player that is an exception to the rule.  Nobody cares that you "outsmarted" 31 other teams.

Drafting is a practice that you will miss more than you hit.  Its like going to the casino, all the odds are stacked against you, stick to the bets that have the best odds. 

Stick to college players with great college production, who have good enough measurables to transition to the next level.  Your job isn't to prove everyone wrong, with your sleeper pick, or to prove the measurables people wrong.  Your job is to reduce your misses.  Your draft picks are your best, almost only, way to get players that outplay their contract.    Don't waste that opportunity trying to prove everyone wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

[Snake]

I think it's a educated guess. Both matter and that why certain players succeed. Tom Brady had a horrible combine and showed a bunch of limitations. His college tape showed a improving QB but put up against someone like Vince Young or Carson Palmer he looked pedestrian. Brady just had a work ethic and intelligence to overcome his limitations. Same goes for a bunch of players. 

[pantherclaw]

The tape should be how anyone grades players. 

The idea of the combine is to bring attention to players who are not as well known. When a player puts up a good workout, the scouts then go back to the tape, to see if the athetism translates onto the field. If it doesn't,  then you don't worry about said player. If it shows up on tape, then ya got something. 

Can't go by the workout routine alone. 

"They all look good in shorts"

[panthers55]

Actually the most important part of the combine are the interviews. Measurables and production are important if the recruit has the desire and attitude to succeed. Truth is most folks at the combine have the skills to play at the next level but not all have the attitude. Guys like Josh Gordon had the skills and abilities to the extent that he has had multiple opportunities to play but has failed repeatedly. If there is a fallacy for coaches or teams is downplaying attitude and assuming that the players are simply young and once in the NFL they will change and suddenly mature.  

[Toomers]

[run-run-pass-punt]

If there was a formula for consistent predictable success in the draft, it wouldn't be the lottery that it is.

The bottom line is that not that many players are going to cut it at the highest level.

[Wes21]

Game film 1st and foremost.  Workouts should only be used to add perspective to what is seen on film. A guy with great measurable that doesn’t show it on film, just means that despite being blessed with all of the advantages from god, he still isn’t a very good football player.

I do believe in measurables to establish minimums, though.

[MMA]

Orlando Brown JR: Great tape, 5.85 sec 40 yd. 

[mc52beast]

Derrick Brown is a good example. Had a monster year but sucked at the Combine. Look at the tape, maybe players dominate simply because of scheme, gotta make sure who you’re drafting will fit your scheme.

[Wes21]

12 minutes ago, mc52beast said:

Derrick Brown is a good example. Had a monster year but sucked at the Combine. Look at the tape, maybe players dominate simply because of scheme, gotta make sure who you’re drafting will fit your scheme.

The film doesn't suggest Brown would be great in the underwear olympics.  He's a big guy who wins with size and power.  If he goes in and puts up 14 bench reps, you throw up a red flag.  But when he posts nearly 30, you put a check mark next to "the power is real."

[AU-panther]

5 hours ago, Wes21 said:

The film doesn't suggest Brown would be great in the underwear olympics.  He's a big guy who wins with size and power.  If he goes in and puts up 14 bench reps, you throw up a red flag.  But when he posts nearly 30, you put a check mark next to "the power is real."

He won with power in college though.  How many DTs in the pros pressure the QB with his measurables?

Here's a hint, he would be an exception.