Something I Dont Understand In Regards To Drafting

[Urrymonster]

Eh, I kind of understand his point with upside and getting guys who can physically play the position. I just think those overachieving, special team, and glue guys are important to nail down in the draft too. You shouldn't always roll the dice on guys because they could conceivably become a starter.

That's not what he has been saying.

Let's also ignore that players invariably play at different speeds when it pads to their 40 times.

Let's also ignore that the majority of measurables are completely irrelevant to most positions.

Let's also ignore that most players with amazing measurables should blow their college opposition away - yet they often don't

Rather than think "these two players look similar on the stat sheet, let's go with the more phsyically impressive player", start to think "why has this guy who is more physically blessed not peformed at a higher standard?" Anyone can compare 40 times or bench presses and declare that one player is better than the other, yet there is a reason that the guys making the big bucks pick players without the measurables time and again.

[Woodie]

First problem here is that in most categories, Lawrence Wilson was actually superior to Sturdivant.

Here's the numbers from their combine and prodays (I am listing the best of each, although the differences are small anyway).

Lawrence Wilson

Height: 6007

Weight: 229

225 Lb. Bench Reps: 24

40 Yrd Dash: 4.68

20 Yrd Dash: 2.67

10 Yrd Dash: 1.62

Vertical Jump: 32 1/2

Broad Jump: 09'06"

20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.50

3-Cone Drill: 7.08

Quan Sturdivant

Height 6010

Weight: 241 lbs.

Bench press 21

40 Yrd Dash: 4.75

20 Yrd Dash: 2.77

10 Yrd Dash: 1.69

Vertical jump 34.0

Broad jump 09'07"

20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.47

3-Cone Drill: 7.29

So Wilson was stronger, faster, and virtually the same height. The only thing Sturdivant had on him was weight and he can jump slightly better.

Now the stats:

Lawrence Wilson

2010 - led the Big East in tackles with 123. He also added 10.5 tackles for loss and 3.5 sacks for the Huskies this year.

2009 - led the Connecticut in tackles with 140 and had 5 sacks and 11 tackles for a loss.

Quan Sturdivant

2010 - Missed five games with a hamstring injury, Sturdivant finished third on the team with 61 tackles, including 8.5 tackles for losses.

2009 - Led UNC with 79 tackles and was second with 12.0 tackles for losses.

Wilson obviously had much better tackle numbers, whereas Sturdivany had a slight edge in TFL.

So basically, this does not really support a rant on why we took Wilson over Quan. When it comes down to it, both had similar numbers overall, with Wilson having a slight edge. As for being so focused on measurables, that is a great way for a coach and GM to get fired. While height, weight, and speed are are inportant in football, instincts, intelligence, drive, technique, toughness, etc. are much better indicators of success in the NFL. And that doesn't even take into account what a team is looking for in a particular player. For instance, if you play a man defense, then you are much more likely to take a CB that is good at man coverage over a guy with better measurables that struggles in man but excels in zone. There's much more that goes into football than the measurables.

[jramsey4]

Personally I think successful teams draft on potential only when they at reasonably sure of his work ethic. That's how the Cam's separate themselves from the Russel's. If you have a tremendous athlete with a absolute love of the game and will work his tail off to improve I'll take that any day of the week.

[Jangler]

True hence why their college career / numbers should be taken into consideration also along with interviews.

2004 rec 55 yds 849 avg. 15.4 lg 57 tds 13

2005 91 1274 14.0 61 16

2006 70 1015 14.5 62 12

[Fiz]

itt a UNC fan bitches

[Dash Global]

I thought Quan had 4.5 speed.

None the less, he was a top 2-5 ILB prospect.

[Floppin]

Ohh so you were just making up your figures this whole time? Well that explains a lot.

[mountainpantherfan]

I actually get what you are saying and in a lot of ways agree. However I don't agree completely. Look at the league and list who you think are the top 5 players at each position. Let's use QB as an example.

Let's say you list Brady, Rogers, Brees, E Manning and Newton since you are a panthers fan. Now do all five have the exact same height, weight and speed?

Now do MLB or CB or RB. What it takes to be successful at any one position varies. Some positions are more predictable like LT or TE but it still varies.

I am sure that there probably is a medium among each position but if you look at each starter on every team the high and low for each position is probably pretty wide.