xgeoff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 185
firebee":2dbzflbu said:McGruff":2dbzflbu said:xgeoff":2dbzflbu said:Aaron Curry was good for a while. And nothing is 100%. Archie Griffin won two heismans. Was terrible in the NFL. I'd go with game film over measurables any day of the week though.
I'd go with both. JMO, but game film indicates the floor of a player, but measurables indicate potential ceiling. You've got to have both working hand in hand.
I think you use measurables to gauge what you saw on film and get a comparison on players with similar measurables and abilities. A lot of the measurables at the combine give false impressions though. Sure some guy runs a 4.4 and the other runs a 4.5 until they get pads on and then the 4.5 guy is leaving the 4.4 guy in the dust on downfield routes or the guy with the 40 inch vertical is getting outplayed on the ball by a guy with a 36 inch vertical. I value play over measurable tests because measurables don't tell you have fast a player reacts, how they carry pads or what kind of coordination they have in regards to motion, hand-eye, balance, targets in motion, etc. Pretty much, measurables are good for determining who might be a better athlete between guys that have similar abilities, traits and styles.
So this is a really good point, which is that some guys perform vastly different in pads. I feel that a lot of guys who run fast at the combine don't have 'game speed'. It's the pads, and it's also doing athletic moves when you're surrounded by huge guys in helmets and pads trying to lay you out.