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.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.