30dive Posted April 14, 2006 Posted April 14, 2006 We are seeing so many players values rise "because of good/great workouts" not to mention a number of players who have had their value drop due to less than stellar workouts. So I must ask the question: Is it better to go with those players who have performed at a top level each and every Saturday over the past couple seasons and then for whatever reason does not perform well during his "workout" or is it best to go with those who have not been top performers on Saturday and now have come on like gang busters in controlled workouts in front of NFL coaches?
K-9 Posted April 14, 2006 Posted April 14, 2006 We are seeing so many players values rise "because of good/great workouts" not to mention a number of players who have had their value drop due to less than stellar workouts. So I must ask the question: Is it better to go with those players who have performed at a top level each and every Saturday over the past couple seasons and then for whatever reason does not perform well during his "workout" or is it best to go with those who have not been top performers on Saturday and now have come on like gang busters in controlled workouts in front of NFL coaches? 662189[/snapback] The answer to that is so ridiculously obvious it won't surprise me when the gurus on this BB respond incorrectly. GO BILLS!!!
eball Posted April 14, 2006 Posted April 14, 2006 The answer to that is so ridiculously obvious it won't surprise me when the gurus on this BB respond incorrectly. GO BILLS!!! 662190[/snapback] Funniest thing I've read today.
Dibs Posted April 15, 2006 Posted April 15, 2006 The answer to that is so ridiculously obvious it won't surprise me when the gurus on this BB respond incorrectly. GO BILLS!!! 662190[/snapback] If only this guy would enlighten us more often. 145 post in nearly 4 years...just think of the contribution to the collective intellegence...
K-9 Posted April 15, 2006 Posted April 15, 2006 If only this guy would enlighten us more often. 145 post in nearly 4 years...just think of the contribution to the collective intellegence... 662550[/snapback] Were you around when we all used to post on the Rochester D&C bb? Before Scott took up the cause and created this site? Thought not. Many of us were posting and sharing collective intelligence when you were still in your cyber diapers so spare me the BS about how many posts anyone has as a level of Stadium Wall bona fides, ok? GO BILLS!!!
Nanker Posted April 15, 2006 Posted April 15, 2006 Now THIS has the makings for one Excellent Thread!
obie_wan Posted April 15, 2006 Posted April 15, 2006 We are seeing so many players values rise "because of good/great workouts" not to mention a number of players who have had their value drop due to less than stellar workouts. So I must ask the question: Is it better to go with those players who have performed at a top level each and every Saturday over the past couple seasons and then for whatever reason does not perform well during his "workout" or is it best to go with those who have not been top performers on Saturday and now have come on like gang busters in controlled workouts in front of NFL coaches? 662189[/snapback] go with the workout warrior, especially if they don't upset the TEAM building 3 or 4 years of on field production is just a mirage
Tasker Posted April 15, 2006 Posted April 15, 2006 go with the workout warrior, especially if they don't upset the TEAM building 3 or 4 years of on field production is just a mirage 662813[/snapback] Leaving the flame wars and snap stuff, I think the reason that workouts can shoot players up is because the NFL game is bigger, stronger, faster, and more intelligent than the college game. The best college players don't become the best pro players, so you need to evaluate more than just their college performance. Players who show NFL caliber or better speed and strength have an improved chance of translating their skills to the NFL. So when a player shows in workouts performance that exceeds how you had evaluated that player's performance, that certainly improves their valuation. Winston Justice was a highly rated Tackle, but blocking college players successfully isn't a good enough indicator of future ability. Studying film and examining performance are probably most valuable, but when you see a guy that big do a vertical jump that high, you get an improved understanding of his explosive lower body strength that potentially could have been underestimated to that point. That strength will be valuable in run blocking and pass blocking, and gives you an idea that the player has the physical tools to continue to express his talents as his opponents get bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled. Vernon Davis was a very fast and talented tight end before his workouts, and everyone realized his physical ability. But he is able to do different things if he is faster than all linebackers and most DBs. Watching him play at Maryland doesn't necessarily give the frame of reference to know how fast he is, but running a 4.3 40 lets you know that he is off the tight end charts. If that was a 4.4-4.5 40 he would still be fast for someone that big, but less likely to use his speed to blow past NFL players. All that said, I think workout numbers can be valuable, but I think in most cases they are slightly over valued, and a player can be much much better understood by evaluating their football performance over 3 or 4 college seasons.
obie_wan Posted April 16, 2006 Posted April 16, 2006 Leaving the flame wars and snap stuff, I think the reason that workouts can shoot players up is because the NFL game is bigger, stronger, faster, and more intelligent than the college game. The best college players don't become the best pro players, so you need to evaluate more than just their college performance. Players who show NFL caliber or better speed and strength have an improved chance of translating their skills to the NFL. So when a player shows in workouts performance that exceeds how you had evaluated that player's performance, that certainly improves their valuation. Winston Justice was a highly rated Tackle, but blocking college players successfully isn't a good enough indicator of future ability. Studying film and examining performance are probably most valuable, but when you see a guy that big do a vertical jump that high, you get an improved understanding of his explosive lower body strength that potentially could have been underestimated to that point. That strength will be valuable in run blocking and pass blocking, and gives you an idea that the player has the physical tools to continue to express his talents as his opponents get bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled. Vernon Davis was a very fast and talented tight end before his workouts, and everyone realized his physical ability. But he is able to do different things if he is faster than all linebackers and most DBs. Watching him play at Maryland doesn't necessarily give the frame of reference to know how fast he is, but running a 4.3 40 lets you know that he is off the tight end charts. If that was a 4.4-4.5 40 he would still be fast for someone that big, but less likely to use his speed to blow past NFL players. All that said, I think workout numbers can be valuable, but I think in most cases they are slightly over valued, and a player can be much much better understood by evaluating their football performance over 3 or 4 college seasons. 662821[/snapback] YEAH- and Mike Mamula can run really fast for a DL- but he can't tackle anyone and is out of football. same with Joey H. Had a great senior bowl camp which vaulted him from 2nd round to #3. 3 years of tapes didn't lie.
Tasker Posted April 16, 2006 Posted April 16, 2006 YEAH- and Mike Mamula can run really fast for a DL- but he can't tackle anyone and is out of football. same with Joey H. Had a great senior bowl camp which vaulted him from 2nd round to #3. 3 years of tapes didn't lie. 663257[/snapback] Right, you can't ignore football results, and you can't count workout performance and times and reps more than tape of people playing football. But on tape a guy who is a very good football player and seems very fast can be a different NFL guy if it turns out that fast and athletic guy runs 4.3. instead of 4.4 or if he jumps 41" instead of 37" he is going to be able to adjust to the NFL even more quickly. 4.3 is better than 4.4 when all things are equal. But your point can't be any more important that taking an athlete instead of a football player is just silly, no matter how fast he runs or high he jumps. Workout results can be used to split hairs between players who seem very similar on tape.
Astrobot Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 4.3 is better than 4.4 when all things are equal. I'm not disagreeing, but ever figure out the difference between a 4.3 TE and a 4.4 CB? A 4.3 40-yard dash is 9.30 yards per second, or 27.9 feet. A 4.4 40-yard dash is 9.09 yards per second, or 27.2 feet. The difference is .7 feet, or 8". The difference is even more minimized when you and your defender are just starting up.
BillnutinHouston Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 go with the workout warrior, especially if they don't upset the TEAM building 3 or 4 years of on field production is just a mirage 662813[/snapback]
Pyrite Gal Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Right, you can't ignore football results, and you can't count workout performance and times and reps more than tape of people playing football. But on tape a guy who is a very good football player and seems very fast can be a different NFL guy if it turns out that fast and athletic guy runs 4.3. instead of 4.4 or if he jumps 41" instead of 37" he is going to be able to adjust to the NFL even more quickly. 4.3 is better than 4.4 when all things are equal. But your point can't be any more important that taking an athlete instead of a football player is just silly, no matter how fast he runs or high he jumps. Workout results can be used to split hairs between players who seem very similar on tape. 663266[/snapback] You are right on target Task. The foolish thing here for anyone really making draft choices would be to fall for the notion that there is an either/or choice between workout stats and college production. Both are factors which are significant and should be evaluated in light of a players' showings in the other (and other areas). A player can have monstrous workout numbers but a good professional evaluator will not evaluate a player highly solely on his Combine production, but also if a player put up impressive numbers in college against Division 8BBB teams but had lousy workout numbers then a good evaluator would also downgrade his "real" college production numbers. There certainly are folks like Mike Mamula who were workout warriors that foolishly were picked in the 1st due to the hype and they flamed out completely. Hpwever, there are also players like Jason Peters who had so-so college production and good workout numbers (though he had lousy Wonderlic scores) who all teams were scared off from in the draft but the Bills were smart enough to sign him as a UDFA, evaluate that he was capable of being an NFL starter at OT where he never played or produced at all in college and now he is our RT starter. Certainly one can have the pseudo argument on this internet site based on a false premise and given this false choice I would also tend to choose career production over glossy combine numbers, but when it comes down to what I hope my team really does it would be to both give an appropriate weight to combine showings and to college production. Though I am happy to take the college production side in the false dichotomy presented in this thread, when it comes down to evaluating what the Bills do in real life, i will probably be quite happy to see them take a Combine mutant who had lousy college production numbers if there is a credible case to be made that his college used a scheme which did not fit this player's talents or he had college coaches who did not have the skill that his pro coaches will have.
Buftex Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Quite a conundrum! I think of Corey Moore and Erik Flowers, and I really can't come up with an opinion. When the Bills drafted Moore in the 4th round in 2000, I thought it was the steal of the century. He was a tremendous college player, who seemed to have everything going for him (heart, desire, athletic skill) but was undersized. One of my all-time favorite college players. Draftniks were divided on him. He ended up being a complete waste of a pick. After Buffalo let him go, I think he was let go by the Bengals and Dolphins, with very little playing time. IIIRC he was out of the NFL by the end of training camp in 2001. If I recall, he had some off the field issues too...wasn't he shot in the thigh or something? Maybe I am losing my mind... Erik Flowers, on the other hand, was a pretty mediocre college player, but wowed everyone, including John Butler in workouts. As we all know, he was the worst first round pick in recent Bills history...while I believe he is still in the NFL, he has become a journeymen, hardly worthy of a first round selection...
30dive Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 This is were I thought this might go....I just get a little concerned about excitment created over a guy who can run and jump, in the combines, etc. and now is on everyones radar, however, when it was time to play on Saturday he was just another guy hoping to get the opportunity to play on Sundays. Sure NFL coaches do have the ability to identify players who have not fully matured and look to have a promising furture in the NFL and that most certainly must be taken into account, but I think I want the player who was tops coming out of college and then did fair to good as opposed to the OK college player who was great at the comnbine/workouts.
Recommended Posts