The National Football League Combine: a Reliable Predictor of Draft Status?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2003, 17(1), 6±11 q 2003 National Strength & Conditioning Association The National Football League Combine: A Reliable Predictor of Draft Status? KIMBERLY J. MCGEE AND LEE N. BURKETT Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University East, Mesa, Arizona 85212. ABSTRACT The intent of this investigation was to determine The performance of 326 collegiate football players attending whether a relationship exists between an athlete's per- the 2000 National Football League combine was studied to formance results taken at the NFL combine and his or determine whether draft status could be predicted from per- her level of draft success or nondraft success. The fol- formance measurements. The combine measured height and lowing performance measurements are taken by the weight along with 9 performance tests: 225-lb bench press athletes at the combine: 225-lb bench press test, 40-yd test, 10-yd dash, 20-yd dash, 40-yd dash, 20-yd proagility dash with 10- and 20-yd split times, 20-yd shuttle shuttle, 60-yd shuttle, 3-cone drill, broad jump, and vertical (proagility run test), 60-yd shuttle, 3-cone drill, vertical jump. Prediction equations were generated for 7 position cat- jump, and broad jump. These individual tests have egories with varying degrees of accuracyÐrunning backs been validated as measurements of athletic ability (2, 2 5 2 5 (RBs), r 1.00; wide receivers (WRs), r 1.00; offensive 3, 5±7, 9±11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23). The purpose of the linemen, r2 5 0.70; defensive linemen, r2 5 0.59; defensive backs (DBs), r2 5 1.00; linebackers, r2 5 0.22; and quarter- combine performance tests is to provide a good indi- backs, r2 5 0.84. The successes of the prediction equations cation of an athlete's physical ability, although it may are related to the ability of the individual tests to assess the not translate as a measurement of talent on the football necessary skills for each position. This study concludes that ®eld (19). the combine can be used to accurately predict draft status of If a relationship exists between combine perfor- RBs, WRs, and DBs. The equations can also be used as a mance and draft status, specialized training for the good to fair estimate for other positions. speci®c combine testing criteria could bene®t individ- ual athletes ®nancially. In 1999 the average signing bo- Key Words: performance, testing, skill nus and salary for a ®rst-round±draft choice was Reference Data: McGee, K.J., and L.N. Burkett. The Na- $4,490,700 and $1,341,690, respectively. The 1999 av- tional Football League combine: A reliable predictor of erage signing bonus and salary for a seventh-round± draft status? J. Strength Cond. Res. 17(1):6±11. 2003. draft choice were $23,830 and $255,240, respectively (NFL Players Association (NFLPA) representative, per- sonal communication, November 2000). A football player's economic bene®t is greatly increased by ad- Introduction vancing between rounds or even within the same ach year the National Football League (NFL) has round of the draft. An athlete drafted in the fourth Ethe opportunity to choose new rookie athletes from round vs. an athlete drafted in the ®fth round, possi- a pool of collegiate football players. Before the rookie bly as a result of combine performance results, will draft, the NFL holds a testing camp referred to as the receive on average $169,790 more at contract negotia- combine. The combine is a forum for individual ath- tion (Table 1). letes to showcase their talents in the hope of being Performance measures could also be used as a drafted to a professional football team. At the com- means of predicting future athletic success in football bine, prospective NFL football players are evaluated (1, 18). Application of performance measurements on their athletic ability, health, and mental acuity. The could be further used as a method of screening poten- combine also affords coaches the opportunity to col- tial football athletes at all levels. However, if perfor- lect information that may help determine which play- mance measurement results in the combine testing do ers are of interest to them. Coaches can personally not relate to draft status, then perhaps performance meet and evaluate the player's physical stature, per- on the playing ®eld would be a better indicator of sonality, and athletic performance measurements with- draft success than would performance measurements. out National Collegiate Athletic Association restric- The authors hypothesize that draft status of NFL tions. prospects has little to no relationship with many of the 6 Prediction of Draft Status 7 Table 1. 1999 Average salary and signing bonus per Table 2. Seven position categories. draft round. Quarterback Signing Wide receivers Round Salary bonus Running backs Offensive line 1 $1,341,690 $4,490,700 Offensive tackle 2 $584,900 $952,930 Offensive center 3 $379,750 $391,980 Offensive guard 4 $325,460 $228,170 Tight end 5 $285,810 $98,030 6 $267,250 $49,940 Defensive line 7 $225,240 $23,830 Defensive end Defensive tackle Nose tackle performance measures taken at the combine. This hy- Defensive backs pothesis is based on the inconsistency of the ®ndings Defensive corner of previous studies that assessed performance charac- Free safety teristics in collegiate-level football (8, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, Strong safety 24). Furthermore, studies to date have not assessed Linebackers (LB) physical ability characteristics of professional football Inside LB players as a determinate of ®eld success, which, for the Outside LB purpose of this study, could serve as a predictor of Full backs draft status. Methods Subjects data from injured players who did not fully participate and from players who decided on their own or were Three hundred and twenty-six college football players advised by their agents not to perform certain perfor- who entered the 2000 NFL draft participated in the mance measurements were not used in the statistical combine testing camp. The 326 football players were analyses of this study. Because of the large number of categorized at the combine according to position: participants and the even distribution of athletes who quarterbacks (QBs, n 5 17), punters or kickers (PKs, n did not test among all groups, data are not likely to 5 10), inside linebackers (ILBs, n 5 11), outside line- be adversely affected. backers (OLBs, n 5 26), defensive tackles (DTs, n 5 24), defensive ends (DEs, n 5 22), defensive corners Data Collection (DCs, n 5 34), free safeties (FSs, n 5 14), strong safe- ties (SSs, n 5 11), fullbacks (FBs, n 5 6), running backs The NFL combine testing camp was held in Indian- (RBs, n 5 37), wide receivers (WRs, n 5 45), tight ends apolis, IN, at the RCA dome in late February 2000. This (TEs, n 5 16), offensive guards (OGs, n 5 26), offen- study is a retrospective design and used the results sive tackles (OTs, n 5 18), offensive centers (OCs, n 5 obtained by the combine from performance tests. Use 4), and nose tackle (NT, n 5 1). For the purpose of this of the data through an institutional review board is study, the above positions were combined into 7 po- considered a nonissue because the combine results can sition categories based on similarities of position needs be found in various public access domains, and indi- (see Table 2). The average height among all players vidual participant names will not be revealed. The was 186.4 cm, and the average weight was 109.1 kg. data were analyzed using the results from the follow- Participation in the 2000 NFL combine testing ing combine tests. camp is voluntary, but only those invited may attend. Football players are interested in attending the com- 225-lb Bench Press to Fatigue Test bine testing camp because it gives the athletes the op- The 225-lb bench press to fatigue test is the only test to portunity to impress coaches and scouts. Eligible ath- measure upper-body muscular strength in the testing letes were not mandated but were encouraged to par- battery of the combine. Athletes were instructed to com- ticipate in all 9 of the performance measurements. plete as many bench press repetitions with 225 lb as Quarterbacks, PKs, and WRs did not perform the 225- possible. A countable repetition was de®ned as lower- lb bench press test. Quarterbacks, PKs, DTs, DEs, NTs, ing the weight just touching the chest, followed by a OCs, OGs, and OTs did not perform the 60-yd shuttle. brief pause and then an upward push to return the Not all football players present at the combine per- weight to the starting position with arms fully extend- formed all 9 of the performance measurements. The ed. 8 McGee and Burkett 40-Yd Dash With 10- and 20-Yd Split Times jumped straight up in the air off of both feet. The goal The 10-, 20-, and 40-yd dash tests anaerobic power, of the athlete was to hit the highest vane possible with acceleration, and speed (1). Electronic timing devices 1 hand. The athlete's vertical jump was measured by were placed at the starting line and the 10-, 20-, and subtracting the height of the athlete's standing reach 40-yd lines. Time was recorded at all 3 distances to from the height of the highest vane hit. one-hundredth of a second. When the athlete was in Standing Broad Jump proper position, he sprinted as fast as he could from The standing broad jump was used as a measure of the starting line through a string placed at the 40-yd± leg strength and power (5).