Credit to Lance Roffers of CanesInsight. This is specific to high school translation to college success but I thought the draft types here might be interested in it. Certainly there has to be upward correlation as well.
Mostly I am convinced that analytics continue to be woefully underutilized compared to traditional scouting methods. There needs to be more of a blend of the two.
Interesting here is quickness required at the quarterback position, specifically the short shuttle drill. You don't want to be looking at slow footed guys. I'm not sure what Tannehill's short shuttle number was. I couldn't find that data. Maybe he was smart enough not to run it at the combine or his pro day.
Roffers found the greatest correlation at defensive tackle: "Perhaps the one position above all others, where if you post elite athleticism numbers, you are probably going to be a college star is DT. Only the Pac-12 (with two players) and Tim Settle (Virginia Tech) had even one below-average athlete at the position make All-Conference. The best course of action at this position seems to be to get 260-280 pound athletic freaks and let them gain weight and keep their athleticism."
That result is more impressive when you consider that Tim Settle is hardly a lousy athlete. Just the opposite. They had him fielding punts in practice at Virginia Tech. Settle gets so fat and sloppy he probably tested at an inflated weight.
Roffers says wide receiver translates the worst from test numbers to production: "The only position group of the entire study that didn’t show a high correlation between athletic testing and P5 All-Conference performance was the WR group. Much like the data regarding the NFL Combine showed little correlation, so to does the HS data."
I'm not shocked at that. I have mentioned recently that I have been fooled time and again, going back decades.
https://www.canesinsight.com/threads/college-footballs-legs-race-part-1.145029/
Mostly I am convinced that analytics continue to be woefully underutilized compared to traditional scouting methods. There needs to be more of a blend of the two.
Interesting here is quickness required at the quarterback position, specifically the short shuttle drill. You don't want to be looking at slow footed guys. I'm not sure what Tannehill's short shuttle number was. I couldn't find that data. Maybe he was smart enough not to run it at the combine or his pro day.
Roffers found the greatest correlation at defensive tackle: "Perhaps the one position above all others, where if you post elite athleticism numbers, you are probably going to be a college star is DT. Only the Pac-12 (with two players) and Tim Settle (Virginia Tech) had even one below-average athlete at the position make All-Conference. The best course of action at this position seems to be to get 260-280 pound athletic freaks and let them gain weight and keep their athleticism."
That result is more impressive when you consider that Tim Settle is hardly a lousy athlete. Just the opposite. They had him fielding punts in practice at Virginia Tech. Settle gets so fat and sloppy he probably tested at an inflated weight.
Roffers says wide receiver translates the worst from test numbers to production: "The only position group of the entire study that didn’t show a high correlation between athletic testing and P5 All-Conference performance was the WR group. Much like the data regarding the NFL Combine showed little correlation, so to does the HS data."
I'm not shocked at that. I have mentioned recently that I have been fooled time and again, going back decades.
https://www.canesinsight.com/threads/college-footballs-legs-race-part-1.145029/