2018 nfl combine thread

[QuattroCane]

I love Walton. That said, remember this when you see Lo doing all kinds of supernatural things on the field next year. He's no ordinary Freshman. Cat is special, I believe more so than anyone since Willis and Frank. Time will tell.

I think a lot of us have forgotten what a true five star back is like, no disrespect to Walton or anyone else.

 

[SayWhat]

Short answer, the combine can make a team pick one guy over another when they're torn between who to target. It is a small portion of the entire selection process, but when it's close, the combine can make the difference.

A place the player can really bomb the event is in the interview process.

 

[Calinative]

Never said it didn't matter, I said it can help guys to a certain degree but it isn't the main determining factor in what gets guys drafted or not, unless they're borderline 6-7th rounders. GM's can use it to drive the value of a guy down which they do on purpose sometimes so they can get a player at a lower price tag.

You know who used to worship combine workout numbers & valued it over game film? Al Davis. It's the reason why a bust like Darius Heyward Bey got drafted so high, he killed it at the combined but his film showed he had no business being drafted in the 1st round.

Bums like EJ Manuel, Jake Locker & Blaine Gabbert all tested great at the combine, as soon as they hit league people who correctly evaled them immediately knew they couldn't play & would bust.

**** even a great GM like Ozzie Newsome messed up & trusted workout numbers over tape when he drafted Breshad Perriman. Perriman tested off the charts, but anybody who watched him at UCF knew he wasn't no 1st round WR. He was fast as **** but had bricks for hands & limited route running ability. I'm a Ravens fan I watch every game & see Perriman get out physicaled by smaller DB's who aren't half as fast as him because he can't play a lick.

The overwhelming majority of GM's, personnel executives & HC's will tell you themselves tape supersedes all. Combine confirms what's already been seen. The tape is the story, combine numbers are the footnotes.

Al Davis also drafted MANY Probowlers/All pros/HOFers using his approach of getting elite athletes and turned it into 3 Superbowls ALL while he was GM. Secondly in his later days, Al got way to caught up in the 40 time specifically, even though thats like the 4th most important thing. The Broad Jump, 3 Cone, Shuttle, and Vert all need to be used in combo with the 40 time to determine an athleticism score. And secondly you can set baselines in the performances to successfully predict if a player is most likely to become starter/probowler/all pro.

....For example for EDGE rushers, you'd look to see what his broad jump and bend score (calculation using 3cone and height) are. Looking at a 4 yr sample, For a 43DE under 22.5 yrs old you'd look for a 9'9" broad jump and a good bend score (equivalent to a 6'5" guy getting a 7.2 or better in the 3 cone). Of the players in the 4 yr sample that met both requirements, 87% of the players recorded at least 20 sacks in their rookie contract and 37% recorded at least 32 sacks in their rookie contract. of the players 22.5 or younger that FAILED to reach 9'9" on the broad jump, only 7% have recorded at least 20 sacks in their contract year and NONE have recorded 32. Just about every NFL team is using or beginning to use analytics such as this

Anyways i fully understand FILM is #1. But the Combine is definitely important - ESPECIALLY in a players draft stock. If You suck at your combine, like Orlando Brown did, you can easily drop multiple rounds. And if you show out at the combine like guys that run elite 40s, it will almost certainly raise your stock, that just how it is and will continue to be....just like how QBs with elite size and arm strength like Josh Allen will continue to be drafted highly...even if they absolutely sucked in college

 

[Calinative]

Matt Miller put out a post combine full mock:

Buccaneers - Round 3 - Pick 69 (Nice) - Mark Walton, RB (6th RB taken)
Cincinnati - Round 3 - Pick 77 - Chad Thomas, EDGE (8th EDGE taken)
Cleveland - Round 4 - Pick 101 - RJ McIntosh, DL (11th DL taken)
Arizona - Round 4 - Pick 134 - Kendrick Norton, DL (15th DL taken)
Arizona - Round 5 - Pick 152 - Chris Herndon, TE (7th TE taken)
Houston - Round 6 - Pick 214 - KC McDermott, OG (14th OG taken)
Cleveland - Round 7, Pick 219 - Braxton Berrios, WR (28th WR taken)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...matt-millers-7-round-predictions-post-combine

These are probably literally the best our guys could hope to be drafted, with the exception of Berrios, who will hope to be a 6th rounder...but this class is pretty solid at WR in the middle and later rounds (terrible at the top though).

 

[Calinative]

Yea we definately disagree. Because you likely put more on the "combine/workouts" when im a FILM GUY. This is part of the reason there are so much GARBAGE scouts and gms in the NFL...that guys like Allen Hurns go undrafted.

Ok for example...your all in on this VERT as well. Chad is **** near 6'6 with long *** Arms..does his vert really really matter anywhere other than the off season when hes playing pickup basketball games?.

You put wayyyyyy to much stock in the combine for Chad or lineman on the whole...it aint that serious. That film doesnt lie...he was disruptive when ask to do things in our scheme. Alot of the same things he'll be ask to do in the NFL. Him being 10 pds lighter, only to have to put those 10 pds right back on when drafted doesnt make much sense either way. I'll say he had an avg combine...didnt hurt himself at all. Likely interviewed well, and showed different abilities that they may have not expected. I know it was a sight to see a 6'5 280 guy show ability to turn and drop in the flats and catch a ball cleanly...even if he wouldnt be looked at as an OLB.

This happens EVERY YEAR on this board..Guys downplay our guys in the draft only to claim them later in some bazaar NFL U thing when they perform well in the nfl. Not saying you...

Im not all in on his vert as an indicator he will fail. in fact for DEs the vert isn't as important as the Broad Jump, 3 cone, and probably 40. But it is still a factor in determining his athleticism and explosiveness. for DEs it is incredibly important to be athletic, whether you want to admit it or not. Guys that are young and have huge Broad Jumps and low 3 cone drill scores are typically good.

 

[bshaw28]

- Mark Walton did okay. Nothing great. Literally did below average (for RBs) for everything - from measurements to drills. However i don't think anyone really was expecting him to be some stud in the 40 or the jumps and ****, and we knew he was relatively short with solid thickness. Honestly comparing the two combines, Mark Walton basically was a SLIGHTLY less athletic Duke Johnson. Walton 5/8ths of an inch taller, 5lbs lighter, same arm length, same hand size, 4.60 40 compared to Dukes 4.54. Walton had a 31.5" vert to Dukes 33.5". and Walton had 118" Broad jump to Dukes 121". Crazy how close they were in everything. ...and both had ankle injuries. ...Duke went 3rd, but I think Walton might go 4th. Not a bad day for Walton, but not a good one either.

I agree Walton is a lot closer to Duke than I would have thought. But Walton's combine was also closer to other recent RB's that went undrafted.

Here's their - weight, 40, vertical, broad jump

Duke - 207, 4.54, 33.5", 121"
Walton - 202, 4.60, 31.5", 118"
Cooper - 205, 4.60, N/A, 114"
Berry - 211, 4.58, 33.5", 120"
J James - 215, 4.58, 36", 115"
M James - 223, 4.53, 35", 115"
L Miller - 212, 4.34, 33", N/A

Mike James was probably the only guy without injury concerns. Berry & Cooper had ACL's. Miller had shoulder issues. Duke, Walton had ankles. & Javarris James had ankle & neck issues.

The big difference comes in with their on-field production:

Duke (3rd Round) - 6.7 ypc
Miller (4th Round) - 5.7 ypc
Berry (Undrafted) - 5.4 ypc
Cooper (Undrafted) - 5.1 ypc
Walton (???) - 5.1 ypc
M James (6th Round) - 4.4 ypc
J James (Undrafted) - 4.3 ypc

Duke was a playmaker and Miller had elite speed. Mike James was not a great runner, but was versatile and got drafted because he ran a 4.53 at 223 lbs.

I think Walton gets drafted late, but I think his production + combine is much closer to Damien Berry & Graig Cooper.

 

[Calinative]

I agree Walton is a lot closer to Duke than I would have thought. But Walton's combine was also closer to other recent RB's that went undrafted.

Here's their - weight, 40, vertical, broad jump

Duke - 207, 4.54, 33.5", 121"
Walton - 202, 4.60, 31.5", 118"
Cooper - 205, 4.60, N/A, 114"
Berry - 211, 4.58, 33.5", 120"
J James - 215, 4.58, 36", 115"
M James - 223, 4.53, 35", 115"
L Miller - 212, 4.34, 33", N/A

Mike James was probably the only guy without injury concerns. Berry & Cooper had ACL's. Miller had shoulder issues. Duke, Walton had ankles. & Javarris James had ankle & neck issues.

The big difference comes in with their on-field production:

Duke (3rd Round) - 6.7 ypc
Miller (4th Round) - 5.7 ypc
Berry (Undrafted) - 5.4 ypc
Cooper (Undrafted) - 5.1 ypc
Walton (???) - 5.1 ypc
M James (6th Round) - 4.4 ypc
J James (Undrafted) - 4.3 ypc

Duke was a playmaker and Miller had elite speed. Mike James was not a great runner, but was versatile and got drafted because he ran a 4.53 at 223 lbs.

I think Walton gets drafted late, but I think his production + combine is much closer to Damien Berry & Graig Cooper.

except Berry weighed 9lbs more, which is a HUGE difference at that position especially given they were like the same height. So clearly Berry was the better athlete of the two, just like Duke is the better athlete. However Duke is also the similar height and weight. Graig Cooper is an okay comparison, except you were wrong about his 40 time being a 4.60, it was actually a 4.65s. Cooper wasn't as good of an athlete as Walton.

All in all, Walton and Duke are the most comparable, with EVERYTHING being close, from weight, arm length, and hand size to all the jumps and 40 times and the injuries.

as far as production, Cooper is the most similar to walton, as Berry had far fewer attempt than both. Also, Cooper was used as a receiver much more silmilarly to Walton than Berry was, who essentially wasn't at all. Secondly Walton is FAR superior to both in Touchdowns. However when you look at Duke johnson compared to Walton, They both had 26 Rushing TDs (Duke on more carries and better ypa) and similarish Reception stats (high ypc)

 

[Awsi Dooger]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
A few words of wisdom for the dummies in this thread who think Combine performances really determine where a player gets drafted.

Meanwhile, here's the definition of tape: "I watched football players play football."

Wow. Now that's amazing. Unimaginable sophistication.

I always have to laugh when scouts or analysts tout tape. Somehow they fail to recognize that tape has an absolutely abysmal record. It is failed conventional wisdom at its most blatant. There is no time delay from college to pro. The same number of players on the field. Same basic sport. Everything is out in the open as opposed to concealed in the back room, forcing guesswork. Yet the failure rate is astronomical. In any other profession if the connect percentage was similar to football and tape, every person involved in the hiring practice would have been fired long ago.

And tape absolutely does lie. That's the most laughable supposed truism of all. The flop rate would be next to nothing if tape didn't lie. For example, when scouts fail to recognize situational influence or the sucker nature of late bloomers, then tape could not be more misleading. I hated it when the Dolphins drafted Ryan Tannehill because it almost guaranteed that the franchise would be stuck in neutral for as long as he was allowed to hang around. I posted prior to the draft on Finheaven that he was never going to be great, no matter what his stature or arm strength looked like. That's what scouts fixate on, the stuff that they prioritize in the glorious tape. Tannehill looked the part but his resume screamed what he was, and that something was wrong. Great NFL quarterbacks aren't playing wide receiver in college, or failing to start a season opener at quarterback until beyond their 23rd birthday. It was a sucker selection based on tape analysis alone.

I posted before that draft that Tannehill's upside was 12th in the league. Six years later and I've never seen any reason to detour from that. It's the beauty of big picture focus as opposed to tape obsession.

Plus it saves so much time. That's what always enables me to chuckle. I can be more accurate despite devoting only a fraction of the time.

And then you have the geniuses who rely on outliers. They'll scramble for some example like Tannehill who did fully pan out into greatness. As always, lotsa luck with that mindset.

One thing to look for to defeat tape is to find guys who previously have been great, the top of their age group forever, but then failed to fully show it on tape recently. Those kids can be immense value. Everything tends to drift back to the beginning. I've spotlighted it for years on various forums, the kids who were 5 star recruits exiting high school but then didn't fully pan out, for whatever reason. That approach has been greeted with scoffs but lately it earned greater acceptance since kids like Carl Lawson quickly flourish in the pros.

I've never been a huge fan of Mike Mayock since he's been nothing but tape...tape...tape. However, someone apparently put a bug in his ear because recently he has detoured from tape just enough, and now he's mentioning the kids who were 5 star recruits and might offer hidden value. This week at the combine he highlighted 5 star status from virtually every kid who qualified. I'd darn sure take a chance on an Andrew Brown or Chad Thomas than some similarly rated late blooming stiff.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

BTW, with edge rushers the analytics have been demonstrated to overwhelm tape reliance. Drills like vertical jump, standing broad jump and 3-cone reveal whether or not you have explosiveness combined with agility.

In recent years many citizen scouts have put together a formula using those characteristics that has destroyed subjective tape emphasis. It is called the Waldo Formula. Both recent Dolphin edge rush number one picks -- Dion Jordan and Charles Harris -- flunked the Waldo criteria. They were dismissed as simply not explosive enough, and so far that has panned out.

 

[BoxingRobes]

BTW, with edge rushers the analytics have been demonstrated to overwhelm tape reliance. Drills like vertical jump, standing broad jump and 3-cone reveal whether or not you have explosiveness combined with agility.

In recent years many citizen scouts have put together a formula using those characteristics that has destroyed subjective tape emphasis. It is called the Waldo Formula. Both recent Dolphin edge rush number one picks -- Dion Jordan and Charles Harris -- flunked the Waldo criteria. They were dismissed as simply not explosive enough, and so far that has panned out.

JuMosq on Twitter kind of ripped off the formula from some oldheads on footballsfuture, but he's been great in disseminating this throughout.

the hit rate for EDGE players with sub 6.90 3Cone is f'n insane Combine that with other measures, and you can adequately determine what will be at the least a productive pass rusher on a per dollar basis (most expensive state to acquire is the sack). You've just narrowed down your R1 board and targeted some late round guys with some singular measure. I wouldn't take a non-force player in R1 on the edge. You can watch all the tape you want...and maybe you get a solid player, but my player will likely be better. Think the Jaguars would like to go back and take Vic Beasley over Dante Fowler (who is "solid" by every definition)? Think the Jets would take Melvin Ingram over Quentin Coples now? Think teams would have left Vinny Curry, Brian Robinson, KGB, Cliff Avril slide out of R1 now? I mean, the data shows they were going to be productive and they are.

On the flipside...the hit rate for OL with sub4.44 shuttles is pretty **** high...

The metrics don't force anyone to dismiss film and "can they actually play"...that is kind of a pre-requisite...but metrics certain help you cut the bull****. Want a slot guy? Not every white guy is putting together 3Cone and Short Shuttle scores in the 95th percentile...but if you want a slot guy, that is what they have. Sure, Cooper Kupp doesn't have that, but Cooper Kupp also was one of the most productive WR in the history of CFB. He can play.

As Zach Whitman has pinnted on twitter...

Not all good athletes are good players
Very few poor athletes are good players
Most great players are great athletes

btw - to my dude gogeta...you mention Allen Hurns...the metrics actually would have supported him being drafted. WR has a high hit rate on phenom scores and age adjusted production...Hurn's career had a comparable early on to Robert Woods, who was drafted in R2 the year prior to Hurns graduating. The production metrics say Hurns probably should have been a 2nd o 3rd round choice. Metrics would have helped you here.

On the flip side...lets see how Calvin Ridley pans out. I've not liked him in college...but a lot of what the numbers say about him help support my assertion. Breakout age was over 20 years old (thats 40th percentile). SPARQ score is horrendous and borderline undraftable. Age adjusted production numbers are really really bad. But...can he play? Sure. I've seen some really poor comps out there for Ridley...Jared Abberderis and Sammie Stroughter after his poor combine. But, then I've also seen him projected as a Top 10 selection the entire off-season. My comparison is more of a DeDe Westbrook type. Overage, below average athlete with some talent, but ultimately more of a 3rd option, 2nd option on a team with a ton of injuries. 3rd/4th round type.

Who do I like at WR...Courtland Sutton, DJ Chark, DJ Moore, ESB from Notre Dame...I'd wager money they end up better than Ridley in the league and all will likely be drafted after him. On the flipside...I hate Christian Kirk's film...but the metrics project strong to a Golden Tate type career...and that's pretty great. Lets see how this year's crop turns out in a few years and we can bump this, I suppose.

Also, I'd take Harold Landry over Bradley Chubb...Sam Hubbard/James Daniels will outperform their draft slot.

 

[gogeta4]

Meanwhile, here's the definition of tape: "I watched football players play football."

Wow. Now that's amazing. Unimaginable sophistication.

I always have to laugh when scouts or analysts tout tape. Somehow they fail to recognize that tape has an absolutely abysmal record. It is failed conventional wisdom at its most blatant. There is no time delay from college to pro. The same number of players on the field. Same basic sport. Everything is out in the open as opposed to concealed in the back room, forcing guesswork. Yet the failure rate is astronomical. In any other profession if the connect percentage was similar to football and tape, every person involved in the hiring practice would have been fired long ago.

And tape absolutely does lie. That's the most laughable supposed truism of all. The flop rate would be next to nothing if tape didn't lie. For example, when scouts fail to recognize situational influence or the sucker nature of late bloomers, then tape could not be more misleading. I hated it when the Dolphins drafted Ryan Tannehill because it almost guaranteed that the franchise would be stuck in neutral for as long as he was allowed to hang around. I posted prior to the draft on Finheaven that he was never going to be great, no matter what his stature or arm strength looked like. That's what scouts fixate on, the stuff that they prioritize in the glorious tape. Tannehill looked the part but his resume screamed what he was, and that something was wrong. Great NFL quarterbacks aren't playing wide receiver in college, or failing to start a season opener at quarterback until beyond their 23rd birthday. It was a sucker selection based on tape analysis alone.

I posted before that draft that Tannehill's upside was 12th in the league. Six years later and I've never seen any reason to detour from that. It's the beauty of big picture focus as opposed to tape obsession.

Plus it saves so much time. That's what always enables me to chuckle. I can be more accurate despite devoting only a fraction of the time.

And then you have the geniuses who rely on outliers. They'll scramble for some example like Tannehill who did fully pan out into greatness. As always, lotsa luck with that mindset.

One thing to look for to defeat tape is to find guys who previously have been great, the top of their age group forever, but then failed to fully show it on tape recently. Those kids can be immense value. Everything tends to drift back to the beginning. I've spotlighted it for years on various forums, the kids who were 5 star recruits exiting high school but then didn't fully pan out, for whatever reason. That approach has been greeted with scoffs but lately it earned greater acceptance since kids like Carl Lawson quickly flourish in the pros.

I've never been a huge fan of Mike Mayock since he's been nothing but tape...tape...tape. However, someone apparently put a bug in his ear because recently he has detoured from tape just enough, and now he's mentioning the kids who were 5 star recruits and might offer hidden value. This week at the combine he highlighted 5 star status from virtually every kid who qualified. I'd darn sure take a chance on an Andrew Brown or Chad Thomas than some similarly rated late blooming stiff.

Tannehil was drafted because of Mike Sherman nothing else. No scout work..nothing..Mike Sherman

 

[Tony Perps]

Calinative and awsi dooger teaming up for an absolutely awful performance.

 

[Calinative]

JuMosq on Twitter kind of ripped off the formula from some oldheads on footballsfuture, but he's been great in disseminating this throughout.

the hit rate for EDGE players with sub 6.90 3Cone is f'n insane Combine that with other measures, and you can adequately determine what will be at the least a productive pass rusher on a per dollar basis (most expensive state to acquire is the sack). You've just narrowed down your R1 board and targeted some late round guys with some singular measure. I wouldn't take a non-force player in R1 on the edge. You can watch all the tape you want...and maybe you get a solid player, but my player will likely be better. Think the Jaguars would like to go back and take Vic Beasley over Dante Fowler (who is "solid" by every definition)? Think the Jets would take Melvin Ingram over Quentin Coples now? Think teams would have left Vinny Curry, Brian Robinson, KGB, Cliff Avril slide out of R1 now? I mean, the data shows they were going to be productive and they are.

On the flipside...the hit rate for OL with sub4.44 shuttles is pretty **** high...

The metrics don't force anyone to dismiss film and "can they actually play"...that is kind of a pre-requisite...but metrics certain help you cut the bull****. Want a slot guy? Not every white guy is putting together 3Cone and Short Shuttle scores in the 95th percentile...but if you want a slot guy, that is what they have. Sure, Cooper Kupp doesn't have that, but Cooper Kupp also was one of the most productive WR in the history of CFB. He can play.

As Zach Whitman has pinnted on twitter...

Not all good athletes are good players
Very few poor athletes are good players
Most great players are great athletes

btw - to my dude gogeta...you mention Allen Hurns...the metrics actually would have supported him being drafted. WR has a high hit rate on phenom scores and age adjusted production...Hurn's career had a comparable early on to Robert Woods, who was drafted in R2 the year prior to Hurns graduating. The production metrics say Hurns probably should have been a 2nd o 3rd round choice. Metrics would have helped you here.

On the flip side...lets see how Calvin Ridley pans out. I've not liked him in college...but a lot of what the numbers say about him help support my assertion. Breakout age was over 20 years old (thats 40th percentile). SPARQ score is horrendous and borderline undraftable. Age adjusted production numbers are really really bad. But...can he play? Sure. I've seen some really poor comps out there for Ridley...Jared Abberderis and Sammie Stroughter after his poor combine. But, then I've also seen him projected as a Top 10 selection the entire off-season. My comparison is more of a DeDe Westbrook type. Overage, below average athlete with some talent, but ultimately more of a 3rd option, 2nd option on a team with a ton of injuries. 3rd/4th round type.

Who do I like at WR...Courtland Sutton, DJ Chark, DJ Moore, ESB from Notre Dame...I'd wager money they end up better than Ridley in the league and all will likely be drafted after him. On the flipside...I hate Christian Kirk's film...but the metrics project strong to a Golden Tate type career...and that's pretty great. Lets see how this year's crop turns out in a few years and we can bump this, I suppose.

Also, I'd take Harold Landry over Bradley Chubb...Sam Hubbard/James Daniels will outperform their draft slot.

Yeah WR heavily uses Breakout Age, which is why a 24 year old WR like Calvin Ridley (or however old he is) isn't not projected by analytics to be that good. (btw Ahmmon Richards had his "Breakout Yr" this year at like 20 and some change. ..so well on the way of being dominant on Tape and anayltics, which is undeniably the goal)

Purely off analytics, top wrs are likely:
DJ Moore > Christian Kirk > Courtland Sutton > James Washington > Michael Gallup

Bradley Chubbs 3-cone was dissapointing, But if you are going off analytics, Marcus Davenport is the best by far imo. 6'6" running 7.20s 3-cone is about as impressive as Landrys 6.88s 3-cone at 6'3" and he did it at 12lbs heavier. AND he got an extra 5" in the broad jump. Sam hubbard did well too as did Kylie Fitts and Trevon Young

 

[Calinative]

Calinative and awsi dooger teaming up for an absolutely awful performance.

how?
EDGE rush productivity (sacks) has been shown to be heavily correlated to 3-cone drill (when factoring in height/weight) and Broad Jump/Vertical jumps.

 

[bshaw28]

except Berry weighed 9lbs more, which is a HUGE difference at that position especially given they were like the same height. So clearly Berry was the better athlete of the two, just like Duke is the better athlete. However Duke is also the similar height and weight. Graig Cooper is an okay comparison, except you were wrong about his 40 time being a 4.60, it was actually a 4.65s. Cooper wasn't as good of an athlete as Walton.

All in all, Walton and Duke are the most comparable, with EVERYTHING being close, from weight, arm length, and hand size to all the jumps and 40 times and the injuries.

as far as production, Cooper is the most similar to walton, as Berry had far fewer attempt than both. Also, Cooper was used as a receiver much more silmilarly to Walton than Berry was, who essentially wasn't at all. Secondly Walton is FAR superior to both in Touchdowns. However when you look at Duke johnson compared to Walton, They both had 26 Rushing TDs (Duke on more carries and better ypa) and similarish Reception stats (high ypc)

Good call on Coopers 4.65 40. I think I had his Pro Day 40. Cooper also ran 6.66 3 Cone, which is ridiculous.

It'll be interesting to see what Walton does at Miami's Pro Day. Duke was listed at 206, but showed up at 207 at the combine. I think he tried to put on weight to show he could be a 3 Down back (which I don't think he ever was going to be in the NFL). Duke cut weight to 203 and ran 2 4.47's at his pro day. Berry cut 4 lbs. from the combine at his pro day and ran a 4.53 while Cooper cut 9 lbs. and ran a 4.66. Walton cut weight to 202 from the 205 he was listed at for the combine, I'm assuming to run a faster 40. It'll be interesting to see if Walton runs again or stands on his combine numbers .at Pro Day

PRODUCTION - to me, THIS is where there's a HUGE difference. I agree it's hard to compare overall numbers because it's largely based on the amount of carries they got. That's why I think it's best to look at yds per carry, and carries per td. Better to look at the averages than the overall totals.

You can split stats a million different ways - but staying consistent with these RB's you can easily see Walton FEASTED on weaker teams more than any other RB. I threw in Yearby since they were on the same team for 2 years so it's the most apples to apples comparison.

Here's some stats that show the HUGE gap between how Walton just racked up his stats vs. weaker teams

1) Career Attempts - Yards - YPC - TD's - Attempts Per TD

Walton
- vs. Non-P5 - 111 for 984 yds, 8.2 ypc, 15 TD's, 7.4
- vs. P5 - 283 for 1,081 yds, 3.8 ypc, 11 TD's, 25.7

Yearby
- vs. Non-P5 - 108 for 795 yds, 7.4 ypc, 7 TD's, 15.4
- vs. P5 - 285 for 1,324 yds, 4.6 ypc, 7 TD's, 40.7

Cooper
- vs. Non-P5 - 74 for 390 yds, 5.3 ypc, 3 TD's, 17.0
- vs. P5 - 391 for 1,993 yds, 5.1 ypc, 10 TD's, 39.1

Berry
- vs. Non-P5 - 34 for 267 yds, 7.9 ypc, 2 TD's, 17.0
- vs. P5 - 249 for 1,248 yds, 5.0 ypc, 11 TD's, 22.6

Duke
- vs. Non-P5 - 64 for 526 yds, 8.2 ypc, 6 TD's, 10.7
- vs. P5 - 462 for 2,993 yds, 6.5 ypc, 11 TD's, 23.1

There's just such a huge difference in the stats Walton puts up vs. Power 5 and Non-Power 5 teams. And the gap is so much wider than any other RB.


2) Vs Power 5 YPC & Attempts Per TD

- Walton - 3.8 ypc, 25.7
- Yearby - 4.6 ypc, 40.7
- Berry - 5.0 ypc, 22.6
- Cooper - 5.1 ypc, 39.1
- Duke - 6.5 ypc, 23.1

Walton has the lowest ypc by 0.8 yds, and Duke & Berry scored TD's at a higher rate


3) Difference Non-P5 vs. P5 - YPC & Attempts Per TD

- Walton - 4.1 ypc, 18.3
- Yearby - 2.7 ypc, 25.3
- Berry - 2.9 ypc, 5.6
- Cooper - 0.2 ypc, 14.4
- Duke - 1.7 ypc, 12.4

Walton has the lowest ypc difference by a huge margin, and 2nd biggest difference in TD rate


4) % of their Career stats that came vs. Non-P5 teams

- Walton - Attempts (28%), Yards (46%), TD's (58%)
- Yearby - Attempts (27%), Yards (38%), TD's (50%)
- Berry - Attempts (12%), Yards (18%), TD's (15%)
- Cooper - Attempts (16%), Yards (16%), TD's (23%)
- Duke - Attempts (12%), Yards (15%), TD's (23%)

About 1/2 of Walton's career Yards & TD's came vs. Non-P5 teams


5) The % of career games averaging 3.5 yds or less
- Walton - 18 of 30 - 60%
- Yearby - 9 of 37 - 24%
- Berry - 0 of 21 - 0%
- Cooper - 9 of 43 - 21%
- Duke - 6 of 33 - 18%

This is what confuses me about Walton fans. He was just straight up not good in a majority of the games he played. His % of games under 3.5 ypc is just so much higher than any other RB in the draft (Or any draft for that matter...that I've looked at....and I've looked at a lot). If anyone knows a RB that's worse, I'll be impressed. I got tired of looking.


6) Games in range of their Career Average. You'd think if Walton's career ypc is 5.1, then most of his games would be in that 4-6 ypc range. I took 1.5 yds on either side of each RB's career ypc to see how many games they had in that range. So a 5.1 career ypc = 3.6 - 6.6 ypc range

- Walton - (5.1 ypc, 3.6 - 6.6) - 4 of 30 - 13%
- Yearby - (5.4 ypc, 3.9 - 6.9) - 16 of 37 - 43%
- Berry - (5.4 ypc, 3.9 - 6.9) - 13 of 21 - 62%
- Cooper - (5.1 ypc, 3.6 - 6.6) - 25 of 43 - 58%
- Duke - (6.7 ypc, 5.2 - 8.2) - 11 of 33 - 33%

Walton's career "average" ypc is very misleading since he was almost never close to it. Walton almost always had a huge game or a bad game, but rarely just had a "good" game. He's wildly inconsistent. This is another stat where I haven't found a RB that's even close to such a low %, but would be interested if anyone knows of one.

 

[Calinative]

Good call on Coopers 4.65 40. I think I had his Pro Day 40. Cooper also ran 6.66 3 Cone, which is ridiculous.

It'll be interesting to see what Walton does at Miami's Pro Day. Duke was listed at 206, but showed up at 207 at the combine. I think he tried to put on weight to show he could be a 3 Down back (which I don't think he ever was going to be in the NFL). Duke cut weight to 203 and ran 2 4.47's at his pro day. Berry cut 4 lbs. from the combine at his pro day and ran a 4.53 while Cooper cut 9 lbs. and ran a 4.66. Walton cut weight to 202 from the 205 he was listed at for the combine, I'm assuming to run a faster 40. It'll be interesting to see if Walton runs again or stands on his combine numbers .at Pro Day

PRODUCTION - to me, THIS is where there's a HUGE difference. I agree it's hard to compare overall numbers because it's largely based on the amount of carries they got. That's why I think it's best to look at yds per carry, and carries per td. Better to look at the averages than the overall totals.

You can split stats a million different ways - but staying consistent with these RB's you can easily see Walton FEASTED on weaker teams more than any other RB. I threw in Yearby since they were on the same team for 2 years so it's the most apples to apples comparison.

Here's some stats that show the HUGE gap between how Walton just racked up his stats vs. weaker teams

1) Career Attempts - Yards - YPC - TD's - Attempts Per TD

Walton
- vs. Non-P5 - 111 for 984 yds, 8.2 ypc, 15 TD's, 7.4
- vs. P5 - 283 for 1,081 yds, 3.8 ypc, 11 TD's, 25.7

Yearby
- vs. Non-P5 - 108 for 795 yds, 7.4 ypc, 7 TD's, 15.4
- vs. P5 - 285 for 1,324 yds, 4.6 ypc, 7 TD's, 40.7

Cooper
- vs. Non-P5 - 74 for 390 yds, 5.3 ypc, 3 TD's, 17.0
- vs. P5 - 391 for 1,993 yds, 5.1 ypc, 10 TD's, 39.1

Berry
- vs. Non-P5 - 34 for 267 yds, 7.9 ypc, 2 TD's, 17.0
- vs. P5 - 249 for 1,248 yds, 5.0 ypc, 11 TD's, 22.6

Duke
- vs. Non-P5 - 64 for 526 yds, 8.2 ypc, 6 TD's, 10.7
- vs. P5 - 462 for 2,993 yds, 6.5 ypc, 11 TD's, 23.1

There's just such a huge difference in the stats Walton puts up vs. Power 5 and Non-Power 5 teams. And the gap is so much wider than any other RB.


2) Vs Power 5 YPC & Attempts Per TD

- Walton - 3.8 ypc, 25.7
- Yearby - 4.6 ypc, 40.7
- Berry - 5.0 ypc, 22.6
- Cooper - 5.1 ypc, 39.1
- Duke - 6.5 ypc, 23.1

Walton has the lowest ypc by 0.8 yds, and Duke & Berry scored TD's at a higher rate


3) Difference Non-P5 vs. P5 - YPC & Attempts Per TD

- Walton - 4.1 ypc, 18.3
- Yearby - 2.7 ypc, 25.3
- Berry - 2.9 ypc, 5.6
- Cooper - 0.2 ypc, 14.4
- Duke - 1.7 ypc, 12.4

Walton has the lowest ypc difference by a huge margin, and 2nd biggest difference in TD rate


4) % of their Career stats that came vs. Non-P5 teams

- Walton - Attempts (28%), Yards (46%), TD's (58%)
- Yearby - Attempts (27%), Yards (38%), TD's (50%)
- Berry - Attempts (12%), Yards (18%), TD's (15%)
- Cooper - Attempts (16%), Yards (16%), TD's (23%)
- Duke - Attempts (12%), Yards (15%), TD's (23%)

About 1/2 of Walton's career Yards & TD's came vs. Non-P5 teams


5) The % of career games averaging 3.5 yds or less
- Walton - 18 of 30 - 60%
- Yearby - 9 of 37 - 24%
- Berry - 0 of 21 - 0%
- Cooper - 9 of 43 - 21%
- Duke - 6 of 33 - 18%

This is what confuses me about Walton fans. He was just straight up not good in a majority of the games he played. His % of games under 3.5 ypc is just so much higher than any other RB in the draft (Or any draft for that matter...that I've looked at....and I've looked at a lot). If anyone knows a RB that's worse, I'll be impressed. I got tired of looking.


6) Games in range of their Career Average. You'd think if Walton's career ypc is 5.1, then most of his games would be in that 4-6 ypc range. I took 1.5 yds on either side of each RB's career ypc to see how many games they had in that range. So a 5.1 career ypc = 3.6 - 6.6 ypc range

- Walton - (5.1 ypc, 3.6 - 6.6) - 4 of 30 - 13%
- Yearby - (5.4 ypc, 3.9 - 6.9) - 16 of 37 - 43%
- Berry - (5.4 ypc, 3.9 - 6.9) - 13 of 21 - 62%
- Cooper - (5.1 ypc, 3.6 - 6.6) - 25 of 43 - 58%
- Duke - (6.7 ypc, 5.2 - 8.2) - 11 of 33 - 33%

Walton's career "average" ypc is very misleading since he was almost never close to it. Walton almost always had a huge game or a bad game, but rarely just had a "good" game. He's wildly inconsistent. This is another stat where I haven't found a RB that's even close to such a low %, but would be interested if anyone knows of one.

well in fairness, his Freshman year when he was just plain bad is heavily being held against him, as is the fact that his upperclassman year when he should have been his best, he had the 2 best games of his career (vs non P5 teams) BUT hurt his ankle and it was clearly bothering him the next 2 games (P5) which he played terrible in before he missed the rest of the season. His junior yr should have been his best yr, just like Dukes.
Its tough to ignore a full yr, but the truth is he just wasn't good his frosh year - only getting over 50yard once in the first non-p5 game of the season.

So looking just at his sophomore year: 209 carries, 1117 yards, 5.3 ypa, 14TDs. Thats pretty good.
and just P5 games as a sophmore - 161 carries, 716 yards, 4.4 ypa, 7 TDs. Again, thats solid.


Just excluding his Frosh year: 265 carries, 1545 yards, 5.8 ypc, 17 TDs.
Excluding Frosh yr and those 2 games in 2017 post injury: 236 carries, 1469 yards, 6.2 ypc, 17TD
but it just sucks that much more that he got hurt this past season when you see his 2017 start of 27 carries, 352 yards, 13 ypc, 3TDs...thats up there with Dukes best 2 games in any season, and he did it back to back.

comparing that to Duke Johnson soph and jr yr: 387 carries, 2572 yards, 6.6 ypc, 16TDs.
Obviously Duke is the better RB, theres a reason he's like our career leader. But Walton wasn't a bad RB here, he was just a Terrible FRESHMAN RB.
Not everyone is a stud from day 1 like Duke. Mark Walton was just a guy that started really slow in his career, and if Miamis RB core had looked like it should have, he wouldn't have had to play as a frosh.

 

[bshaw28]

well in fairness, his Freshman year when he was just plain bad is heavily being held against him, as is the fact that his upperclassman year when he should have been his best, he had the 2 best games of his career (vs non P5 teams) BUT hurt his ankle and it was clearly bothering him the next 2 games (P5) which he played terrible in before he missed the rest of the season. His junior yr should have been his best yr, just like Dukes.
Its tough to ignore a full yr, but the truth is he just wasn't good his frosh year - only getting over 50yard once in the first non-p5 game of the season.

So looking just at his sophomore year: 209 carries, 1117 yards, 5.3 ypa, 14TDs. Thats pretty good.
and just P5 games as a sophmore - 161 carries, 716 yards, 4.4 ypa, 7 TDs. Again, thats solid.


Just excluding his Frosh year: 265 carries, 1545 yards, 5.8 ypc, 17 TDs.
Excluding Frosh yr and those 2 games in 2017 post injury: 236 carries, 1469 yards, 6.2 ypc, 17TD
but it just sucks that much more that he got hurt this past season when you see his 2017 start of 27 carries, 352 yards, 13 ypc, 3TDs...thats up there with Dukes best 2 games in any season, and he did it back to back.

comparing that to Duke Johnson soph and jr yr: 387 carries, 2572 yards, 6.6 ypc, 16TDs.
Obviously Duke is the better RB, theres a reason he's like our career leader. But Walton wasn't a bad RB here, he was just a Terrible FRESHMAN RB.
Not everyone is a stud from day 1 like Duke. Mark Walton was just a guy that started really slow in his career, and if Miamis RB core had looked like it should have, he wouldn't have had to play as a frosh.

So - it's a pretty big ask, but let's throw out his Freshman year and his last 2 games.

That's throwing out 50% of his career - 15 of 30 games, including 12 of his 22 vs. P5 teams.

So now we're just looking at a 15 game stretch where 33% are against Non-P5 teams....

1) Excluding Frosh yr and those 2 games in 2017 post injury: 236 carries, 1469 yards, 6.2 ypc, 17TD

- vs. Non-P5: 5 games - 75 carries, 753 yards, 10.0 ypc, 10TD
- vs. Non-P5: 10 games - 161 carries, 716 yards, 4.4 ypc, 7TD
- 32% of his carries, 51% of his yards, and 59% of his TD's came in the 5 Non-P5 games. Again, Walton was just beating up on bad teams.

- Walton averaged 3.5 ypc or less in 6 of the 10 P5 games
- In the first 4 P5 games his Soph year, Walton had 64 carries, 203 yards, 3.2 ypc, 1TD
- During that same 5 game stretch, Yearby had 38 carries, 237 yards, 6.2 ypc, 2TD. Yearby was the better RB in all 4 games.

2) Walton's 2017 start of 27 carries, 352 yards, 13 ypc, 3TDs...thats up there with Dukes best 2 games in any season, and he did it back to back

- Walton's were home games against Bethune-Cookman & Toledo
- Back to Back @VT & UNC, Duke went 48 for 426 yds, 8.9 ypc and 3TD's

3) Duke Johnson soph and jr yr: 387 carries, 2572 yards, 6.6 ypc, 16TDs

- 5 of 21 of Duke's games were vs. Non-P5 teams vs. 5 of 15 for Walton in the period you're comparing, but here's Duke's numbers
- vs. Non-P5: 5 games - 64 carries, 516 yards, 8.1 ypc, 5TD
- vs. Non-P5: 16 games - 323 carries, 2,056 yards, 6.4 ypc, 7TD
- 17% of his carries, 20% of his yards, and 31% of his TD's came in the 5 Non-P5 games
- Walton averaged 3.5 yds or less in 6 of his 15 games, while Duke averaged 4.2 yds or more in 20 of his 21 games.

4) On a per carry basis, Walton was really no better than Yearby in 2016

- Walton: 209 carries, 1,117 yards, 5.3 ypa, 14TDs, TD every 14.9 carries
- Yearby: 102 carries, 608 yards, 6.0 ypa, 7TDs, TD every 14.6 carries
- Walton started 10 P5 games his Soph season, and lead the team in rushing in 7. In 2 of those 7, he only had 8 & 5 more yard than his backup.

Basically, you can take whatever time frame you want - Walton only had 2 good games against quality opponents - 7-6 NC. St., and 8-5 Pitt.

 

[Calinative]

So - it's a pretty big ask, but let's throw out his Freshman year and his last 2 games.

That's throwing out 50% of his career - 15 of 30 games, including 12 of his 22 vs. P5 teams.

So now we're just looking at a 15 game stretch where 33% are against Non-P5 teams....

1) Excluding Frosh yr and those 2 games in 2017 post injury: 236 carries, 1469 yards, 6.2 ypc, 17TD

- vs. Non-P5: 5 games - 75 carries, 753 yards, 10.0 ypc, 10TD
- vs. Non-P5: 10 games - 161 carries, 716 yards, 4.4 ypc, 7TD
- 32% of his carries, 51% of his yards, and 59% of his TD's came in the 5 Non-P5 games. Again, Walton was just beating up on bad teams.

- Walton averaged 3.5 ypc or less in 6 of the 10 P5 games
- In the first 4 P5 games his Soph year, Walton had 64 carries, 203 yards, 3.2 ypc, 1TD
- During that same 5 game stretch, Yearby had 38 carries, 237 yards, 6.2 ypc, 2TD. Yearby was the better RB in all 4 games.

2) Walton's 2017 start of 27 carries, 352 yards, 13 ypc, 3TDs...thats up there with Dukes best 2 games in any season, and he did it back to back

- Walton's were home games against Bethune-Cookman & Toledo
- Back to Back @VT & UNC, Duke went 48 for 426 yds, 8.9 ypc and 3TD's

3) Duke Johnson soph and jr yr: 387 carries, 2572 yards, 6.6 ypc, 16TDs

- 5 of 21 of Duke's games were vs. Non-P5 teams vs. 5 of 15 for Walton in the period you're comparing, but here's Duke's numbers
- vs. Non-P5: 5 games - 64 carries, 516 yards, 8.1 ypc, 5TD
- vs. Non-P5: 16 games - 323 carries, 2,056 yards, 6.4 ypc, 7TD
- 17% of his carries, 20% of his yards, and 31% of his TD's came in the 5 Non-P5 games
- Walton averaged 3.5 yds or less in 6 of his 15 games, while Duke averaged 4.2 yds or more in 20 of his 21 games.

4) On a per carry basis, Walton was really no better than Yearby in 2016

- Walton: 209 carries, 1,117 yards, 5.3 ypa, 14TDs, TD every 14.9 carries
- Yearby: 102 carries, 608 yards, 6.0 ypa, 7TDs, TD every 14.6 carries
- Walton started 10 P5 games his Soph season, and lead the team in rushing in 7. In 2 of those 7, he only had 8 & 5 more yard than his backup.

Basically, you can take whatever time frame you want - Walton only had 2 good games against quality opponents - 7-6 NC. St., and 8-5 Pitt.

Bruh why are you seriously comparing Mark Waltons production to Duke Johnsons though? lol, its honestly kinda ridiculous because Duke is the BEST rb in our history, statistically. Also you're arguing with me over it, who was NOT one of the people claiming Mark Walton was going to be some elite player. I've been saying 4th round. Mark Walton has the potential and production to be an NFL player. And you can talk about nonP5 and P5 games all you want, but its not a negative that he beats up on lesser competition. Those 2 games were still elite, regardless who it was against.

Secondly I really am not understanding why you're putting so much emphasis on his yardage % against Non-P5 teams. ANY RB that plays 5 games vs non-p5 and 10 games vs P5, should probably be getting pretty close to 50/50. You wanna know why? Because good RBs should absolutely be beating up on the bad teams. If a guy averages 100ypg in a P5 game, Its not too much to expect him to avg 200ypg in nonP5 games. ...after you do the math, that literally comes out to 50/50 on the yardage - 1k from P5, 1k from NonP5.

Because ELITE RBs will basically max out around 130ypg (Adrian Peterson) in their career and great RBs get above 100ypg (Duke Johnson had like 106 ypg or something).

anyways, Ultimately you're just ignoring Waltons progression, which is why you really don't want to throw out what he did as a frosh. When the fact is he just wasn't ready to play. As a sophomore he should have been the backup who gets around 30-40% of snaps. and his junior year he should have been THE guy...then declared for draft. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. But he was never this elite talent coming out of HS either. and If our RB core had looked like a Miami RB core should have.

btw I expect Travis Homer to end his career with a better ypc, more rushing yards, and less attempts than Mark Walton. And I think Homer will also test better at the combine, especially in the broad/vertical jumps.

 

[Coach Macho]

I like Walton, always have. I think he's tough, runs hard and does everything for his team. With that said, I think it's been a while since we had an actual elite RB here. We've forgotten what they look like. Other than Duke and Miller we've had a bunch of "serviceable" guys, which is a **** shame considering we're the University of Miami and our backyard breeds RB's. (they keep signing with other schools though)

By elite I mean the type of guy that takes over games in college, becomes an early draft pick, NFL starter, etc.
I think we may see that with Lingard.

 

[The Franchise]

LOL at comparing Duke and Walton based on combine numbers.

Duke was infinitely better ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD. And he did it under the worst staff in UM history in a program engulfed by toxicity. If Duke played for Rick he would have been a Heisman finalist.