2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[CWood21]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Engineers don't build rockets that successfully launch into space because they are paid. They do it successfully because they've studied how for years and years.

Why do we need collaboration if the engineers already know how? To confirm, strengthen and reduce risk.

So...you're telling me that every scout or talent evaluator can guess exactly what they're going to run?  No, they're generally in a ballpark.

[PackFan4Life]

I am pretty good, but for the lower level competition, I need the combine. I do not think the pros always need the combine and can spot a 4.3 versus a 4.6 on the field despite the level of competition. I definitely do.

 

 

[incognito_man]

Just now, PackFan4Life said:

I am pretty good, but for the lower level competition, I need the combine. I do not think the pros always need the combine and can spot a 4.3 versus a 4.6 on the field despite the level of competition. I definitely do.

 

 

Plus the pros have access to other intel besides game film. They know these kids histories. Their track times, their uncles' track times, their gf's cup size, etc.

[Packerraymond]

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

'we' aren't pros.

How long do you want to keep doing this

In today's day with access to cut ups and the internet, as well as youth football up through college programs I don't think this is valid anymore. The major difference between some (key word being some lol) guys on this forum is not what they know but who they knew. I spent 5 years as a recruiting coordinator for an NCAA program starting as an 18 year old and couldn't get a sniff at an internship out of college in a pro department because I wasn't the little brother of Santana Dotson or Charlie Peprah. I just don't like the "they get paid so they know more" argument.

All that being said, back to the point at hand with Davenport. I'm closer to Incog. Davenport has the film, size, production against top competition and obvious tools. He needs a good Senior Bowl and Combine to check those boxes like DRC, McKelvin, DeMarcus Ware, etc... however calling him a top 20 player is totally reasonable because watching him on film it would shock me if he isn't above average in Indy.

 

[CWood21]

8 minutes ago, PackFan4Life said:

I am pretty good, but for the lower level competition, I need the combine. I do not think the pros always need the combine and can spot a 4.3 versus a 4.6 on the field despite the level of competition. I definitely do.

We're talking about a tenth of a second in most cases.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

In today's day with access to cut ups and the internet, as well as youth football up through college programs I don't think this is valid anymore. The major difference between some (key word being some lol) guys on this forum is not what they know but who they knew. I spent 5 years as a recruiting coordinator for an NCAA program starting as an 18 year old and couldn't get a sniff at an internship out of college in a pro department because I wasn't the little brother of Santana Dotson or Charlie Peprah. I just don't like the "they get paid so they know more" argument.

All that being said, back to the point at hand with Davenport. I'm closer to Incog. Davenport has the film, size, production against top competition and obvious tools. He needs a good Senior Bowl and Combine to check those boxes like DRC, McKelvin, DeMarcus Ware, etc... however calling him a top 20 player is totally reasonable because watching him on film it would shock me if he isn't above average in Indy.

That still doesn't change the bigger issue, level of competition.  If he does this against Senior Bowl competition, we can revisit this discussion.  You're essentially making an educated guess based off limited tape.  That's a guess, not a fact.  Do they have a pretty good idea of what they're going to run at the Combine?  Probably, but that still doesn't change that there are going to be players who test better than they appear on tape and vice versa.  I'm not arguing that scouts don't have a good idea of what they're going to test, but saying there aren't outliers in there is false.

[squire12]

Having been in a power 5 athletic department (athletic training and sports medicine staff.....20 years ago), the scouts talk to the staff when they are making their campus rounds in the fall season.  The scouts get intel on what the players are running, lifting, agility scores, jump scores, etc.  They know a great deal about these players well before they become draft eligible.  

The combine is not so much for the testing stuff, it is for the interviews and meetings....the the NFL scouts.

The combine stuff we see on NFL Network and such is not all that new information for the scouts and NFL teams.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

Having been in a power 5 athletic department (athletic training and sports medicine staff.....20 years ago), the scouts talk to the staff when they are making their campus rounds in the fall season.  The scouts get intel on what the players are running, lifting, agility scores, jump scores, etc.  They know a great deal about these players well before they become draft eligible.  

The combine is not so much for the testing stuff, it is for the interviews and meetings....the the NFL scouts.

The combine stuff we see on NFL Network and such is not all that new information for the scouts and NFL teams.

For the record, how many times have we heard about players out-running their 40 times?  Not very often.  Didn't that Ohio State board have Carlos Hyde running a 4.39 40 or something insane like that?  And then he came out and ran a 4.66 forty at the combine.

[MNPackfan32]

4 minutes ago, squire12 said:

 

The combine is not so much for the testing stuff, it is for the interviews and meetings....the the NFL scouts.

The combine stuff we see on NFL Network and such is not all that new information for the scouts and NFL teams.

Bingo. It's an interview. You have a couple job openings and you get almost every qualified applicant in 1 interview setting, why wouldn't they want that. 

[MNPackfan32]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

For the record, how many times have we heard about players out-running their 40 times?  Not very often.  Didn't that Ohio State board have Carlos Hyde running a 4.39 40 or something insane like that?  And then he came out and ran a 4.66 forty at the combine.

No offense, but who the hell watched Carlos Hyde at OSU and thought he ran a 4.39? I refuse to believe anybody actually believed that.

 

Combine is helpful for medical checks and interviews.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, MNPackfan32 said:

No offense, but who the hell watched Carlos Hyde at OSU and thought he ran a 4.39? I refuse to believe anybody actually believed that.

 

Combine is helpful for medical checks and interviews.

I was more or less pointing out the obvious issue with what was presented.  There's a reason why the Combine numbers are considered significantly more truthful than Pro Day numbers.  Numbers tend to be inflated at Pro Days.

[MNPackfan32]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I was more or less pointing out the obvious issue with what was presented.  There's a reason why the Combine numbers are considered significantly more truthful than Pro Day numbers.  Numbers tend to be inflated at Pro Days.

But that's just what the university releases to the media. The pro guys have an accurate time if they were there.

[Shanedorf]

The comment has been made at FF that the scouts don't care as much about the 4.39 vs 4.47 like the draftniks do

The comment was that there are ranges for each position and so long as the guy is within that range, then it doesn't matter down to the hundredths of a second

 

[vegas492]

24 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

The comment has been made at FF that the scouts don't care as much about the 4.39 vs 4.47 like the draftniks do

The comment was that there are ranges for each position and so long as the guy is within that range, then it doesn't matter down to the hundredths of a second

 

I agree with that statement....

John Ross.  I didn't watch much tape of him in college.  Did anyone see him as a top 10 pick in the draft last year?  Or did that 40 time do it for him?

Personally?  I thought the 40 time did it for him.  The little tape I saw said he was fast, but no one guessed he was that fast.  I'm thinking that at least in a few organizations, an outlier like that Combine time, can sway their opinion on a player.

Thinking that also happened with Kevin King after his combine.  I liked his film but man, I was really hooked on him after his combine numbers posted.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

Thinking that also happened with Kevin King after his combine.  I liked his film but man, I was really hooked on him after his combine numbers posted.

Just ranting (not at you), but can we let this rumor die that King had poor tape?  I mean, he was grabby as hell but it wasn't bad tape.  It wasn't great tape, but it wasn't bad tape either.