kmbryant09 wrote:Cy - I don't really get your argument. The only assessment you've given to Davis that doesn't include his combine is that he has "average or better vision and anything else needed for a RB".
That isn't really helpful. Do you think he breaks a lot of tackles? Do you see him setting up blocks? Is he patient? His numbers don't necessarily prove that, although I personally can't speak to his game tape.
I don't mean to pick on you, I'm just trying to prove a larger point. Just because Player A is more athletic than Player B, that doesn't make him more talented or a better NFL player or prospect. There is a major difference between being an athlete and being an NFL RB. Marshawn Lynch isn't very fast or quick, nor would I guess that he has a great vertical (measuring explosiveness), yet he's one hell of a RB because of his vision, balance, and physicality. None of those 3 things are "tangible" and none of them can be measured by combine stats.
It drives me nuts that you don't quote my posts, as you seem to miss things I have already written. Do you read my posts?
Here is one thing I wrote:
But I explained my feeling that Davis is much more explosive and has a better skillset for the NFL based on his athleticism. I have no idea about all of the other factors, and I will defer to the NFL draft to help me decide this.
To explain further-- many of the things you mentioned (in bold above) are subjective. Therefore, you and I might not agree on them for any prospect available in the NFL draft this year. (However, as someone mentioned, Lynch nailed speed and verticals at the combine)
So my way of mitigating risk is this: I find a threshold that I am comfortable with for athleticism, and I let the NFL draft dictate if the "intangibles" are there. Clearly it is not foolproof, but here is an example...
Step 1: I like RB's who are athletic, as it gives them more opportunities to start and produce. Therefore, I screen RB's at the combine based on what I consider important, such as sub 4.6 40's and other measures of speed and ability to cut.
Step 2: I also prefer RB's who are sturdy, so I might look at height/weight and see a comparison. I might screen RB's based on their current weight and what I guess they can change their weight to be. This usually only removes scat backs or lighter RB's.
This is what you are discussing about with Davis and Ball "based on the combine." Davis is the ideal RB for athleticism, but I have no idea about any other skill he possesses. Ball is at the threshold of where I wouldn't be interested. Had he run a 4.5 (or I think he is capable of a 4.5, based on game speed), I think he might be fast enough to be effective. Had he run a 4.7 or lower, I would probably ignore him completely. As it is now, I am considering him a risk due to his lack of athleticism.
Step 3: I review the NFL draft and see where the RB is drafted. This final step is me using the NFL as a surrogate for my own scouting. It isn't perfect, as Morris and Foster have shown, but it is similar to a practice I hate when misapplied.
Misapplication: Only hiring graduates of an ivy league or top 10 school, with the reasoning being that "they screened the candidates for us, if they can graduate from an ivy league school, they are good enough to work here."
Correct application: Since NFL teams review all
candidates (in contrast to the example above, where many excellent candidates may not even apply to ivy league schools for several different reasons), I believe that I can substitute their judgment for my own with regard to an RB's ability. They watch a lot more tape and are paid for their analysis. They don't always get it right, but I think the draft order can be used as an assurance of ability.
Round 1: IMO, if a RB is taken in the 1st round, I don't think twice about whether he has NFL ability. If he busts, it isn't because he didn't show enough ability in college.
Round 2: I typically use this as an indicator that the RB is special enough to be considered average or above average.
Round 3: IMO, the RB has a flaw that can be overcome, such as an injury risk or lack of speed, but in a good situation they can excel
Round 4: I only take the risk on RB's with injury histories, as I assume a fully healthy RB won't be drafted in the 4th round or later unless they lack NFL ability.
Round 5-7 and UDFA: I let someone else take the risk
Example: If Ball is drafted in the 2nd round, I will overlook his lack of speed. If he drops to the 3rd, I will probably consider him more of a plodder and only draft if it is a great opportunity. If in the 4th or later, since he has no injury concern, I will ignore him until 4th+ round in rookie drafts.
If Davis is drafted in the 2nd round, I will overlook his injury history. If he drops to the 3rd or 4th, due to the injury history, I will take a risk on him, but based on where he goes and in which round, I might not use a first round pick on him. If 5th or higher, I will ignore him until 4th+ rounds in rookie drafts.
So you are right, I don't know if Ball or Davis is a good NFL RB. I haven't done the scouting. But this is my (in process) method of mitigating risk and only selecting players I really like.