FalcFans Forums

Listening to ESPN radio today they were commenting on the fact that pro teams spend millions and millions of dollars on the combine trials this weekend in Indy and pro scout days where scouts visit upcoming players to run them through drills all to make the correct pick in the draft.Kiper says that there is a 50% success rate in the 1st if a player makes it or not.Then the ESPN announcer asked is it really worth it to invest millions of dollars or should they skip all this stuff and just draft based on game film and of course kiper's book .

Kiper brought up the fact that the Colts do well in the draft and thats how they got bob sanders ,marlin jackson and others.They don't base there draft on these combine drills and after season exhibition games like the senior bowel,hula bowl etc etc...How many players have we seen where there rankings go through the roof based on after season exhibition games and combine drills.Mike Mamula probably is the biggest riser in the draft ,mandarich if I remember right impressed both were incredible busts. I think Kiper said draft football players not players and how they work out.

While this is an exciting time learning about 40 times and how strong some of these players are I can't get to hyped since we need football players who produce on the field rather than work out warriors.There is no substitute for football IQ and how to play the game.

If I was running a franchise and team's personnel department, probably 75% of what I evaluated players would come from game film.

In essence, I would structure my draft board in early January when all the underclassmen declare and before the all-star games. Then I would use the all-star games and the Combine to either confirm or deny what I thought about each player.

I would put a little more stock in the all-star games, because they are players actually going up against each other. This would especially be helpful for players that I believe will need to change positions (e.g. Manny Lawson or Michael Robinson).

Then as for the combine and campus workouts, it would be used to either confirm or deny where I thought this player's athleticism was. Like if I thought from watching film, a guy had 4.4 speed, and he runs a 4.27, it really isn't going to help him. Because at 4.4, I already thought he was faster than 90% of the players out there, so being faster than 98% of the people doesn't constitute much of a feat. But if I think a guy runs a 4.4, but he runs a 4.65, then it might affect it some. But I won't take too much away again, because his game speed is the most important, rather than what he does in shorts. A good example of this is T.O. and Chad Johnson, neither had impressive 40 times when they came out, but are much faster than their 40 times would indicate on the field.

The problem I have with Kiper is that I think he puts too much stock in the postseason workouts and numbers.

If I were a GM what Mel Kiper thought about a player would be the last thing in the world I would consider...

I think there are some helpful things that go on at the combine, but i think parts of it are over-rated...

I think 40 times, though they are a fun stat, are grossly over-rated but you can learn a lot from some of the position drills you see these guys run...

I do believe however that actual game film will tell you more about a player than any drill they run in their underwear at the combine...