Rockytop6;1437905 said:
Good work even if it leaves unanswered questions. Any formula will. Questions like:
Heart?
Instinct?
Intellect?
Functional Strength?
Intangibles?
Bob Lilly, Mr. Cowboy, did not have great weight room strength. I read an article many years ago about him that said however, he had excellent functional strength. Don't ask me to explain it.
Right. Those are vital to a players success. Just like the scheme they're getting drafted into plays a big part.
I remember reading an article in the early 1990's about Jimmy Johnson and how he looked at prospects. He said many things, but one of them that stuck with me was about contact.
Johnson said that contact is a huge part of the game and that you had better get players that not only don't mind the contact... but like it. His theory was that these guys are going to be having lots of contact nearly every day. Some guys simply don't really like the contact, and some do. He talked about one DL prospect who his (the player) college position coach said was really talented, but for some reason kind of shied away from real contact... tried to avoid the really big hits. He was a highly touted prospect, but Jimmy took him off of our draft board. Sure enough, the guy didn't pan out even though he was a high second round pick.
Jimmy would draft guys who relished the hitting. Who loved the contact. Johnson said that getting guys who liked the contact helped insure that they liked playing football and didn't mind mixing it up day after day.
I thought that was interesting at the time and I've always remembered it.
I think finding guys who like to play the game, who like the contact and physical nature of the sport is vital in finding players. Guys who put their heart and soul into the game and like to play and practice. Not guys who see the NFL as a way to get a big paycheck... but rather a chance to make a living doing something they love.
That, along with the things like football intelligence, instincts, etc. that you mentioned, really plays into how well a prospect turns out, IMO.
Of course, physical talent plays into it as well. However, if you have one guy a tad more talented but the other has the instincts, heart, smarts, etc., then I think you go with the slightly less talented guy with all the intangibles.
A good example of this would be Lavar Arrington and Brian Urlacher. Lavar had a slightly better 40 time than Brian, and his testing was overall a tad better (although both were really good). However, the slightly better 40 time of Arrington was more than negated by the fact that he will take more false steps and longer to diagnose a play than Urlacher. While Lavar might have a love for the game... Brian undeniably has a true passion for the sport and I think that shows in the way they play the game.
Several years since both were taken in the first round later, and Brian is everyone's all pro and Lavar is a talented guy who can't seem to play very well and continues to not play within the defensive schemes.
Anyway, that is simply one example. There are many. Phisical traits do mean something, but they clearly only tell half of the story. They say you can't teach speed... well you can't teach a guy to like contact or love the game either. You can't teach them to anticipate a play or have fun in practice.
There's just so much that goes into finding a good player. Sometimes I think a dartboard is the way to go.
