College production vs. Combine/Pro days

Discussion in 'NFL Forum' started by Bearstuff, Apr 15, 2014.

  1. Bearstuff

    Bearstuff Yes, in the woods.
    Staff Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    Inside Slant: Projections based on college
    April, 10, 2014
    APR 10
    AM ET
    (Another in an Inside Slant series that will appear regularly during the 2014 offseason.)

    The accolades pop off the page. In many ways, Georgia's Aaron Murray is the most prolific passer in the history of the SEC. No quarterback has completed more passes for more yards or touchdowns, and Murray is the only quarterback in conference history to throw for at least 3,000 yards in four consecutive seasons.

    As the NFL draft approaches, however, Murray is not viewed as a top prospect. His success in the conference best linked to NFL-level play has been trumped by concerns about his size and, temporarily, his recovery from a torn ACL. ESPN's Scouts Inc. rates him a fifth-round prospect [​IMG], citing his measurements at the February scouting combine -- just over 6 feet, 207 pounds and with 9[-inch hands -- as impediments to throwing from an NFL pocket.

    Murray represents the 2014 embodiment of an annual draft debate. What is more predictive of NFL success: college production or projected athletic ability, as manifested in combine measurements?

    There are countless anecdotal illustrations of this argument, ranging from the infamousMike Mamula -- a 1995 combine star whose football skills were more limited -- to Clay Matthews, who produced twice as many sacks as an NFL rookie in 2009 than he did in four seasons at USC. Recently, a group of college professors worked to inject some hard numbers into the discussion via a study of 640 drafted prospects over a three-year period from 2002-04.

    Their results were instructive. College production, averaged per game and scaled based on competition level, was at least twice and in some cases three times more indicative of NFL success than athletic ability. In fact, said Georgia professor Brian J. Hoffman, combine numbers added nothing to the accuracy of projections that college production hadn't already accounted for.

    "If it were up to me," Hoffman said, "I would certainly [tell general managers] to ignore the combine. Completely ignore the combine. My concern is that, if anything, it leads you astray more often than helps bring you a good player. There are some exceptions, particularly with a player like [New Orleans Saints tight end] Jimmy Graham, who played only one season and so you have less data. But focusing on college performance seems a much more reliable approach. In general, college performance will tell you what you need to know."

    This should be no surprise in the business world, where past performance and experience are far more valued than aptitude tests and measurements. In professions requiring physical skills, of course, hiring managers feel compelled to project aptitude. The combine is the primary NFL vehicle for that task, but this study suggests its results are at best redundant.

    At the same time, it's important to acknowledge the limitations of this data, which can beviewed in detail here. It doesn't ensure a player will be successful if he put up big numbers at a BCS school, nor does it mean he will flop if he didn't.

    Matthews, who managed 5.5 sacks in his college career, is the perfect example. The Green Bay Packers put faith in their physical evaluation of Matthews, as well as their analysis of his play even when he didn't record sacks or tackles, and were rewarded with a pass-rusher who is on a Hall of Fame track (50 sacks in 69 games).

    In sum, the study showed that the statistical correlation between college production and NFL success is 0.3, which is about the same as the correlation between high school grade-point averages and college grade-point averages. In other words, NFL teams have plenty of additional analysis to complete beyond college production.

    In any event, there are some important thoughts to be gleaned here. First, if the data compiled via the combine's athletic measurements has proved statistically worthless, it seems time to reconsider the nature and substance of the drills. The results, as Hoffman said, are more likely to cause a draft mistake than contribute to a successful choice.

    Second, it is another reminder to look closer at players like Murray. Hoffman noted the inherent bias of working at the school Murray played for, but the study suggests Murray's production merits more weight than NFL teams typically assign.

    "I don't think this tells us absolutely that a player will do it in the NFL if he's done it in college," Hoffman said. "But it also doesn't make a lot of sense to say they probably can't do it in the league consistently based on these physical measurements. There are always going to be exceptions, but when you look at a guy like Aaron Murray or Drew Brees, so-called undersized guys who were shattering records in college while playing in a pro-style offense, you look at the data and suspect he would have a better chance to succeed than NFL teams might think."
  2. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    Member of the Month DBS Writer

    Nov 4, 2006
    Likes Received:
    THis is what worries me about Emery, he seems less enamoured w/Tape then he does combine #'s.

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Jan 19, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Why you say that, K. Long. He is an exception as he had limited plays in college but a NFL bloodline and he had the physical traits, did not have much tape so had to go to the numbers.

Share This Page

  • About Us was founded in 1996. In 2005 it was created into a site for the fans of the Chicago Bears. We have become the biggest fan websites with over 10,000 members and climbing! We reformatted the site in 2013, to it's current layout. We are NOT Affiliated with the NFL, or Chicago Bears. We are a website of hardcore fans! Thanks for checking us out and come back often. We are the voice of Bears fans!
  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation

  • Buy us a Beer!

    The publisher works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best designs, and all the other bells and whistles. We have a pretty robust server, and more comes out of my pocket than you would imagine. Care to buy us a beer? We'd really appreciate it! After all, belonging to this is awesome, and it's free! I'm glad to foot the bill, but I do appreciate any help to keep the lights on. Become a Super Fan!