Why NFL Combine Numbers 'Don't Matter'
I ran into an interesting article from SmartFootball.com that linked to a Wall Street Journal piece by Jonah Lehrer on the ineffectiveness of relying on the physical measurements taken at the NFL Combine to choose your players. It essentially talks about how well people will perform when they know they're being tested, but over the long term, those results won't necessarily be constant.
In other words, just because a player will run hard, lift hard, jump high or whatever during the combine testing, it doesn't mean that he'll continue to do that once he's been paid. The story quotes a study by economists from the University of Louisville that concluded that there's no "consistent statistical relationship between the results of players at the Combine and subsequent NFL performance." According to the WSJ article,
The NFL Scouting Combine requires players to perform various mental and physical tasks -- and seems to be a poor predictor of their performance on the field.
The reason maximal measures are such bad predictors is rooted in what these tests don't measure. It turns out that many of the most important factors for life success are character traits, such as grit and self-control, and these can't be measured quickly.
Consider grit, which reflects a person's commitment to a long-term goal. Levels of grit consistently predict levels of achievement, such as graduation from West Point and success in the National Spelling Bee.
The problem, of course, is that students don't reveal their levels of grit while taking a brief test... Grit can only be assessed by tracking typical performance for an extended period. Do people persevere, even in the face of difficulty? How do they act when no one else is watching? Such traits often matter more than raw talent. We hear about them in letters of recommendation, but hard numbers take priority.
The larger lesson is that we've built our society around tests of performance that fail to predict what really matters: what happens once the test is over.
I think this is an interesting article and one that is relevant as we talk about potential prospects for the NFL Draft. We spend a lot of time talking about a player's 'measurables' - which do matter despite the conclusion the economists came to in their study, but they are not the be-all and the end-all of how good a football player a person is going to be. We all know this of course, but the numbers from the Combine still get spit out over and over. So-and-so ran slower than expected; so-and-so got this on the Wonderlic; we'd be stupid to take so-and-so because of this or that.
These things can help a team make decisions on who to take, and can help you identify which bubble players might be worth looking at because you do need a certain type of athlete on an NFL field. But at the end of the day, teams had better be looking hard and long at the type of person that prospect is - how hard he works, how hard he's worked to get there, and what he'll do to succeed in the NFL.
Taking the best pure athlete at a position without taking into account his grit and determination can be a very dangerous proposition. At the other end of the spectrum, passing on a player based purely on his shortcomings from the physical or mental testing at the Combine or Pro-Day can be a very foolish thing to do as well. Players have their stock rise and fall precipitously based on these results and we see it every year - someone that tested extremely well will go early and most likely bust. Someone that everyone had forgotten about because of poor testing will catch on with a team and produce like crazy.
Here is that one guy Tom Brady's pre-draft scouting report:
Positives: Good height to see the field. Very poised and composed. Smart and alert. Can read coverages. Good accuracy and touch. Produces in big spots and in big games. Has some Brian Griese in him and is a gamer. Generally plays within himself. Team leader.
Negatives: Poor build. Very skinny and narrow. Ended the '99 season weighing 195 pounds and still looks like a rail at 211. Looks a little frail and lacks great physical stature and strength. Can get pushed down more easily than you'd like. Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush. Lacks a really strong arm. Can't drive the ball down the field and does not throw a really tight spiral. System-type player who can get exposed if he must ad-lib and do things on his own.
Summary: Is not what you're looking for in terms of physical stature, strength, arm strength and mobility, but he has the intangibles and production and showed great Griese-like improvement as a senior. Could make it in the right system but will not be for everyone.
Note the physical negatives. Lacks mobility. Can't avoid the rush. Lacks a really strong arm. Does not throw a really tight spiral. Well - if teams had paid more attention to the key words "very poised and composed," "smart and alert," "can read coverages," "good accuracy and touch," and "produces in big spots and big games," things might have turned out differently for Brady and the NFL as a whole. He was instead taken in the 6th round on a hunch by Bill Bilichick. Some freaking hunch. Brady has made his career on the above-mentioned attributes and he's got the most key intangible that exists: he's clutch. His lack of physical prowess hasn't hurt him all that much.
Keep that in mind as we get close to the draft - only three short weeks away!
37 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ha! I say again HAH!!!!!
Sounds like Locker’s scouting report, only Locker has a better arm.
Still would rather have Pouncey, then Locker, and Phil Taylor, and the Williams Wall, and, and, and…
Fuck the offseason!
I don't mean to disparage Locker, but that's the opposite of his scouting report.
Great build, very mobile, not very poised, not accurate, can not read coverages, makes bad throws.
If Locker succeeds, it won’t be because teams overlooked his passing skills due to physical deficits.
by abender20 on Apr 8, 2011 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
agreed
plus locker seems to have difficulty
produc(ing) in big spots and in big games, i.e. holiday bowl 2010.
I'll see your 2010 Apple Cup and "raise" you the 2-10 2010 Cougars.
Though they played on the road, it was a rivalry game, and the Cougars were a somewhat improved from the past year, they still were a pretty bad team, therefore Locker should have excelled. Instead, he threw an interception in the end zone and fumbled on a 4th and goal against them.
As bad as that was,
It wasn’t even his worst game of the year.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
Agreed, but
it was the biggest game of the year, and he threw for something like 56 yards on 16 attempts. he also ran 13 times for 83 yards and a TD. If I am Pete Carrol, I look at this game and say ‘damn, they basically gave up on his throwing ability in the biggest game of the year and reverted to him running the ball.’ thats not the qb’s job.We need a passer not a rusher. This game, for these reasons, speaks volumes to me. QB’s have to be able to throw well on the mentally toughest game of the year. You have to have that skill set to succeed at the next level.
I was agreeing with you.
Basically saying that he also has difficulty producing in “regular” games as well. That is, the numbers he put up in the Holiday Bowl were so bad they ought to have been a career worst. But they weren’t even a season worst.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
Again, if you watched the game, you would see that his receivers were never open.
Nebraska’s corners are too good (heck, one of them is probably going to be a top-10 draft pick) and the Huskies’ receivers are too bad. They were constantly bullied out of bounds by the Nebraska corners and didn’t do anything. Unless you’re suggesting that Locker should have just randomly heaved the ball up hoping for his receivers to somehow get over to catch it, they were basically forced to use the running game more.
I think it must be noted
That Tom Brady is perhaps the biggest outlier in the history of the NFL Draft.
The other thing is that Brady may not have a “cannon” but he is able to make all the throws and his straight line speed sucks but he’s a very fluid athlete with superb footwork (lateral agility).
So, while I appreciate the conveyance that the Draft/scouting is not a science, I think it’s unfair to discount the fact that Tom Brady may not be John Elway physically, but his physical skills are not a liability by any means. He clearly (pictures wise) was a kid who knew how to play QB but hadn’t grown into his body yet. I don’t think this same concept applies to an Andy Dalton, Christian Ponder, Greg McElroy as the simple eye ball test doesn’t apply to these guys as it did with Brady, who literally looked like a 13 year old boy in his combine photos.
just so no one thinks I am
I am not making a case for Dalton, Ponder, McElroy or whoever. I just thought Brady was a perfect example of this because his physical stats were terrible but he had the ideal intangibles – poise, pocket presence, could read the d, leader, gamer, etc. I don’t think that any QB has all those qualities in this years draft.
Just making the point that you can’t always look at the physical aspect of it. Agreed though, that Brady is the biggest outlier of the last few decades.
And besides, no matter the extent to which he's an outlier, the league missing on him is worth a look
at why & how to see if anything could be learned from it. I’ve thought for a while one of the most interesting implications his story holds, and Warner’s holds, is the question of how many guys could become an all-time great but never do, not because of factors of self but factors of circumstance, expectation and perception? I wouldn’t even know how to ballpark something like that, but I’m sure they’re not the only ones.
Head of catering.
Something else about Brady
His first couple years really highlighted his Negatives from that scouting report. He got hit a lot, and threw a pretty crappy spiral. Luckily, he was on a REALLY good team that made him better, plus he put in the work to improve his mechanics, plus he had coaches, ownership, and fans who saw the potential in him.
by Jackrabbit5683 on Apr 8, 2011 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Holy Brian Russell.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Apr 8, 2011 2:56 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think it's funny that many academics might readily agree with this article yet live and die by GRE results (which also correlate poorly with any number of outcome measures)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I think this study misses the point of the combine
Let me give an example. Lets say you have a defensive end who weighs 260 lbs and posts a 35" (freak of nature) vertical jump. If you see something like that, you can say with an extreme level of confidence that this is a player who will explode off the snap and have very high speed in his first couple steps. Does this mean he’s a sure-fire prospect? Absolutely not, because there are dozens of dimensions for what makes a person a successful NFL player.
The purpose of the combine is to make insights one at a time about specific physical capability which on their own have shown strong correlation to NFL success in one specific area. Its not meant to be taken on the whole.
Yeah, I agree
I noted that too – I dont think their “conclusion” is necessarily right – you do need to take the Combine numbers into account.
I think the greater point of the combine is medical.
It originated as a centralized effort for medical examinations since each team wanted to perform a physical on a player. The value is in identifying any red flags that didn’t show up on tape. It’s more about weeding players out than about ranking them according to athleticism.
Head of catering.
Seems to me,
at it’s best, the combine confirms what NFL personnel see on game film. At it’s worst, makes them go back and re-evaluate.
Taken in and of itself as a measure of an athlete’s football ability, seems to be a favorite of fans generally speaking (or lazy talent evaluators).
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
I knew it - I always thought measurables (from the combine) were hideously over-rated.
Another outlier from the same team: Wes Welker. 5’9", 185lbs. 4.65s 40.
“Out of high school, Welker was not recruited much as he was considered to be too small to play at the college level.”
“Despite being undrafted, Welker has had a successful career to date. Only one player in NFL history, Gale Sayers, had more all-purpose yards in his first three NFL seasons than Welker did with the Dolphins; Welker holds the Dolphins’ all-time records for total kickoff returns, kickoff return yardage, and total punt returns. Welker, who led the league in receptions in 2007 (tied with T.J. Houshmandzadeh) and 2009, also holds the three highest single season reception totals in Patriots history,1 and is the only receiver in NFL history to record at least 110 receptions in three consecutive seasons (and, in fact, in any three seasons). He has also been selected to the Pro Bowl and/or All-Pro Team in each of his first three seasons with the Patriots.”
Isn't evaluation based solely on the combine kind of a non-argument?
I mean if the league was run by 32 Al Davis’ I could see it. This is kind of a non-story because it paints an incomplete picture. The combine is an imperfect method for evaluating basic physical characteristics sought by NFL teams. Nothing more, nothing less.
by farmer cam on Apr 8, 2011 5:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
yeah, it's not groundbreaking research
but i think i was just trying to illustrate that sometimes people – fans/draftniks, whoever, get enamored with combine numbers and project people base on that. It’s something that tends to happen before the draft every year.
The grit passage reads like satire.
Nevermind the literally thousands of people with grit by the bucketful who couldn’t hope to touch the football field because they are too small and too slow. Regarding economists and these studies, Lisa Simpson said it best when referring to the playground: “As usual, the playground has the facts right, but missed the point entirely.”
Seems like this straw man is torn asunder every year around this time. The fact that no one drafts based entirely on Combine results is wholly ignored. The fact that the other principle source of information, scouting, is also incredibly fallible and lacks even the basic objectivity of the Combine is also wholly ignored.
Instead of deriding the Combine, people should just accept that attempting to project the career of a 21-23 year old is all but impossible. Things happen. People change, mentally and physically. Baseball, a much simpler and easier to project sport, has a multi-tiered minor league to vet players, and no respectable analyst would attempt to project a player’s entire career from their showing in A ball. As with all things football, the draft, the process of evaluating young talent, is imprecise. Sometimes you luck into Tom Brady. Sometimes a superstar talent turns out to be a brittle doper.
by John Morgan on Apr 8, 2011 5:50 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Rumor has it the NFL is working on a 'grit' metric
Jim Mora Jr. heads up the advisory board.
good counter argument
Hey, weren’t you the head cheese here once upon a time?
I do believe that certain bench marks are implied in the" combine is over rated" argument. No one is drafting a 5’8" 250 lb offensive guard or a WR with a club foot.
And maybe the combine helps establish those bench marks (more specifically of coarse). While those bench marks might be essential in separating the men from the boys so to speak it does not separate the football players from the athletes.
If they were really interested in figuring that out they’d have these guys running football drills in football pads. The game is not played in spandex running shorts and track shoes.
If they’re looking for measurables why not find measurables that count? Is getting a 40 time in pads that hard? How about employing a positional based check down test instead of the Wonder whatever it’s called?
I think the combine has become mostly pomp. Maybe teams figure out where to spend their millions during personnel workouts and extensive scouting and leave the combine for the Kiper’s and Davis’ to argue over.
by vertigoman on Apr 9, 2011 9:37 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think its meant more as comparison between players in the class
than actually predicting succes at the next level. It seems to me its the media and general public that really make this big deal out of combine results and start changing their mocks because of some workout warrior nobody’s ever heard of. There are a few exceptions but mainly its to see where the prospects relate physically to one another. If the tape shows a scout something the combine is unlikely to totally change that perception. On the other hand it does bring to the fore some of the physically talented players without that big name recognition and cause scouts to go back to the tape. The combine is just a rung on the ladder of talent evaluation and without comprehensive scouting the numbers shouldnt hold much sway.
One key factor
The physical attribute that I think is as important as any, which they don’t measure at the combine, is a high pain threshold. And I can’t think of a good way to test for it directly without being, you know, unethical and stuff. But I’m serious about this; I’ll bet there are a good number of players who don’t live up to their potential because of difficulties coping with the intense pain that is part of life in the NFL.
by Suburban Shocker on Apr 8, 2011 7:28 PM PDT reply actions
if your going to pay someone
Possibly millions of dollars, I could imagina letting them train their asses off to prove at least that they have some “want to” in their system. If you can’t test the intangibles, one may as well test their preparation.
by RawkEmHawkEmBirdbots on Apr 8, 2011 8:46 PM PDT reply actions
I never get tired of this
<img src=“”http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Frostbite43/?action=view¤t=tom-brady-scout-combine.jpg" target="_blank">
"/>

by 

































