[OutsiderFan]

Before Stanford was going to BCS games and routinely cracking the Top 5, the stereotype has been that Stanford football players are slow and just not great athletes.  While it has been true to a degree, that meme has always seemed a bit overblown to me.

But now, looking at the evidence, based on combine workouts, it seems reasonable to conclude this is in fact the case more often than not.  The question is, does it really matter?  And at what point to Stanford players stop sliding down NFL draft boards due to the fact they generally put up uninspiring combine numbers?

I know Turley doesn't believe in "the underwear Olympics" as Mike Mayock calls it, and based on Stanford football's on-field results, he has no reason to either.  So rather than criticizing, it seems more appropriate to womder how Turley's approach is capable of producing better football performers on the field that don't translate to individual workout numbers.  Clearly Stanford football would not have become elite without him and his training regimens, but it's also clear they aren't wowing NFL personnel people with their results either.

Is it possible Turley's workouts so prepare players for their position roles and introduce so much flexibility that reduces injury, that the trade-off is slightly less speed, strength and explosion, but a more limber body capable of moving bodies from point A to B with more frequency and stamina that others?  There are always trade offs when doing anything.  I'm curious to better understand the ones inherent with Turley's approach.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[OutsiderFan]

Before Stanford was going to BCS games and routinely cracking the Top 5, the stereotype has been that Stanford football players are slow and just not great athletes.  While it has been true to a degree, that meme has always seemed a bit overblown to me.

But now, looking at the evidence, based on combine workouts, it seems reasonable to conclude this is in fact the case more often than not.  The question is, does it really matter?  And at what point to Stanford players stop sliding down NFL draft boards due to the fact they generally put up uninspiring combine numbers?

I know Turley doesn't believe in "the underwear Olympics" as Mike Mayock calls it, and based on Stanford football's on-field results, he has no reason to either.  So rather than criticizing, it seems more appropriate to womder how Turley's approach is capable of producing better football performers on the field that don't translate to individual workout numbers.  Clearly Stanford football would not have become elite without him and his training regimens, but it's also clear they aren't wowing NFL personnel people with their results either.

Is it possible Turley's workouts so prepare players for their position roles and introduce so much flexibility that reduces injury, that the trade-off is slightly less speed, strength and explosion, but a more limber body capable of moving bodies from point A to B with more frequency and stamina that others?  There are always trade offs when doing anything.  I'm curious to better understand the ones inherent with Turley's approach.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[CTcard]

But now, looking at the evidence, based on combine workouts, it seems reasonable to conclude this is in fact the case more often than not.  The question is, does it really matter?  And at what point to Stanford players stop sliding down NFL draft boards due to the fact they generally put up uninspiring combine numbers?

Is it possible Turley's workouts so prepare players for their position roles and introduce so much flexibility that reduces injury, that the trade-off is slightly less speed, strength and explosion, but a more limber body capable of moving bodies from point A to B with more frequency and stamina that others? 

Two thoughts.

1. Is it really clear that Stanford football players did worse versus expectations in NFL workouts than average?
Of course there were some notable under-performers in the workouts, but there were also some that did better than expected: Gaffney, Reynolds, Gardner. Turley was training those guys too.
Has anyone really tried to figure out the balance versus other programs?

2. On the other hand, it seems fairly clear on the face of things that if you train for bench-press or 40-yard sprints then you will probably do better at the bendch-press of 40 than if you train for something else. I am sure Stanford could adopt a training program that would lead to better NFL workout performances. But, Stanford also seems convinced that would lead to poorer football game performances. IF that is correct, I wouldn't want to switch.

[CTcard]

But now, looking at the evidence, based on combine workouts, it seems reasonable to conclude this is in fact the case more often than not.  The question is, does it really matter?  And at what point to Stanford players stop sliding down NFL draft boards due to the fact they generally put up uninspiring combine numbers?

Is it possible Turley's workouts so prepare players for their position roles and introduce so much flexibility that reduces injury, that the trade-off is slightly less speed, strength and explosion, but a more limber body capable of moving bodies from point A to B with more frequency and stamina that others? 

Two thoughts.

1. Is it really clear that Stanford football players did worse versus expectations in NFL workouts than average?
Of course there were some notable under-performers in the workouts, but there were also some that did better than expected: Gaffney, Reynolds, Gardner. Turley was training those guys too.
Has anyone really tried to figure out the balance versus other programs?

2. On the other hand, it seems fairly clear on the face of things that if you train for bench-press or 40-yard sprints then you will probably do better at the bendch-press of 40 than if you train for something else. I am sure Stanford could adopt a training program that would lead to better NFL workout performances. But, Stanford also seems convinced that would lead to poorer football game performances. IF that is correct, I wouldn't want to switch.

[OutsiderFan]

The issue isn't whether Stanford players are worse than the average combine performer.  It is more that Stanford players judged highly for their on-field performance have tended to do worse in combine workouts than their on-field performance would seem to make possible.  It's like scouts see the combine workouts and stop believing what they saw in game video, or at least question if it translates to the NFL.

Yankey was once considered a possible 1st round pick.  Murphy a 1st too.  Skov a possible 2nd.  I saw Josh Mauro was reported to have run a 5.21 40 yard time, coming off a year he was being talked about as an NFL prospect, so he didn't get drafted.  Chase Thomas was once considered a 2nd or 3rd round pick IIRC.  The workouts came, and they slid.

The NFL scouts love what they see from Stanford players on the field, but then they do the individual workout and seem to fall out of love in a lot of cases.  Trent Murphy was able to hold the line on this trend, probably in part because though his 40 yard time was ordinary,he turned in an impressive 37 inch vertical.  Who can argue with 6-5 a 37 inch vertical, and long arms combined with his on-field production and toughness?  It's almost like, "show me one exceptional workout result, and I'll believe what I see in Stanford games translates to the NFL."

[OutsiderFan]

The issue isn't whether Stanford players are worse than the average combine performer.  It is more that Stanford players judged highly for their on-field performance have tended to do worse in combine workouts than their on-field performance would seem to make possible.  It's like scouts see the combine workouts and stop believing what they saw in game video, or at least question if it translates to the NFL.

Yankey was once considered a possible 1st round pick.  Murphy a 1st too.  Skov a possible 2nd.  I saw Josh Mauro was reported to have run a 5.21 40 yard time, coming off a year he was being talked about as an NFL prospect, so he didn't get drafted.  Chase Thomas was once considered a 2nd or 3rd round pick IIRC.  The workouts came, and they slid.

The NFL scouts love what they see from Stanford players on the field, but then they do the individual workout and seem to fall out of love in a lot of cases.  Trent Murphy was able to hold the line on this trend, probably in part because though his 40 yard time was ordinary,he turned in an impressive 37 inch vertical.  Who can argue with 6-5 a 37 inch vertical, and long arms combined with his on-field production and toughness?  It's almost like, "show me one exceptional workout result, and I'll believe what I see in Stanford games translates to the NFL."

[washingtonismoney]

The issue isn't whether Stanford players are worse than the average combine performer.  It is more that Stanford players judged highly for their on-field performance have tended to do worse in combine workouts than their on-field performance would seem to make possible.  It's like scouts see the combine workouts and stop believing what they saw in game video, or at least question if it translates to the NFL.

But a lot of guys drop every year. Is there something about Louisville's training regimen that caused Teddy Bridgewater to drop? Do we know Stanford is experiencing an unusual number of post-combine drops? We've had a number of people outperform expectations at the combine -- Luck, Gerhart, Fleener come to mind. It's not at all clear to me that the combine is the problem in this process.

There's also the question of whether the drops are attributable to the combine itself. You mention Yankey, but the questions about Yankey -- at least from the anonymous scouts -- were also pointed at his on-field performances as well.

Then there's the question of post-college training -- a lot of these guys are going to IMG or whatever to train after college. If we do think Stanford is experiencing unusual drops due to combine performances, how do we know it's attributable to Turley and not the athletic trainers after college?

[washingtonismoney]

The issue isn't whether Stanford players are worse than the average combine performer.  It is more that Stanford players judged highly for their on-field performance have tended to do worse in combine workouts than their on-field performance would seem to make possible.  It's like scouts see the combine workouts and stop believing what they saw in game video, or at least question if it translates to the NFL.

But a lot of guys drop every year. Is there something about Louisville's training regimen that caused Teddy Bridgewater to drop? Do we know Stanford is experiencing an unusual number of post-combine drops? We've had a number of people outperform expectations at the combine -- Luck, Gerhart, Fleener come to mind. It's not at all clear to me that the combine is the problem in this process.

There's also the question of whether the drops are attributable to the combine itself. You mention Yankey, but the questions about Yankey -- at least from the anonymous scouts -- were also pointed at his on-field performances as well.

Then there's the question of post-college training -- a lot of these guys are going to IMG or whatever to train after college. If we do think Stanford is experiencing unusual drops due to combine performances, how do we know it's attributable to Turley and not the athletic trainers after college?

[BobK]

To get ready for the draft most train at an east bay facility.    I don't think eother Turley nor the facility caused Skov's hamstring injury.    >:(

[BobK]

To get ready for the draft most train at an east bay facility.    I don't think eother Turley nor the facility caused Skov's hamstring injury.    >:(

[OutsiderFan]

It seems reasonable to think one's physical workout performances will be dictated far more by the program he trained in for 4-5 years rather than 2-3 months.  That is just logical.  But I'm not questioning Turley.  I'm just trying to understand how Stanford's best players in general have slid from their on-field playing days to their selection order into the NFL.  I don't see these slides happening with Alabama players much, and Alabama players in general haven't fared as well as Stanford players at the next level, relative to their draft position.  In fact, Alabama players have generally been busts in the NFL, while Stanford players have generally outperformed.

I don't think Turley can be taken out of the equation, but I'm not sure what the value of his approach is as a variable in the equation.  It's entirely possible that Turley's players would perform well on metrics the NFL doesn't measure, that if measured, could explain why Stanford players are so productive in college, but don't translate to the variables the NFL relies on to project ability to play football on its level.  Turley is big time into flexibility.  Does the NFL measure felxibility in its prospects?  I've never seen it.  Turley is big time into core strength.  Does the NFL measure abdominal and lower back strength? I've never seen it.

New metrics for measuring performance are developed all the time, especially in sports.  But the NFL has been using the same ones for how long?  It would not be surprising that a cutting edge strength and conditioning expert could discover physical performance metrics that are predictive of performance that others don't know about.  Think Bill James and Billy Beane in baseball.

[OutsiderFan]

It seems reasonable to think one's physical workout performances will be dictated far more by the program he trained in for 4-5 years rather than 2-3 months.  That is just logical.  But I'm not questioning Turley.  I'm just trying to understand how Stanford's best players in general have slid from their on-field playing days to their selection order into the NFL.  I don't see these slides happening with Alabama players much, and Alabama players in general haven't fared as well as Stanford players at the next level, relative to their draft position.  In fact, Alabama players have generally been busts in the NFL, while Stanford players have generally outperformed.

I don't think Turley can be taken out of the equation, but I'm not sure what the value of his approach is as a variable in the equation.  It's entirely possible that Turley's players would perform well on metrics the NFL doesn't measure, that if measured, could explain why Stanford players are so productive in college, but don't translate to the variables the NFL relies on to project ability to play football on its level.  Turley is big time into flexibility.  Does the NFL measure felxibility in its prospects?  I've never seen it.  Turley is big time into core strength.  Does the NFL measure abdominal and lower back strength? I've never seen it.

New metrics for measuring performance are developed all the time, especially in sports.  But the NFL has been using the same ones for how long?  It would not be surprising that a cutting edge strength and conditioning expert could discover physical performance metrics that are predictive of performance that others don't know about.  Think Bill James and Billy Beane in baseball.

[BobK]

As I just wrote to a friend, think sabre metrics for the future.  Ah two great minds at work here. 

[BobK]

As I just wrote to a friend, think sabre metrics for the future.  Ah two great minds at work here. 

[washingtonismoney]

Sure. Well, the other issue is that we don't know what NFL teams are really valuing. The pre-draft process is a lot of b.s.ing, and so it's difficult to figure out what they really mean (and don't mean.) Compounding that, the distinctive part about the analytics trend in NFL and NBA -- as compared to MLB -- is its private nature: teams will vacuum up a bunch of smart dudes, give them some data, come to some conclusions...and never reveal what they're thinking. So it's hard to know what they know; for all we know, the sabermetrics of football have already been invented.

[washingtonismoney]

Sure. Well, the other issue is that we don't know what NFL teams are really valuing. The pre-draft process is a lot of b.s.ing, and so it's difficult to figure out what they really mean (and don't mean.) Compounding that, the distinctive part about the analytics trend in NFL and NBA -- as compared to MLB -- is its private nature: teams will vacuum up a bunch of smart dudes, give them some data, come to some conclusions...and never reveal what they're thinking. So it's hard to know what they know; for all we know, the sabermetrics of football have already been invented.

[Mick]

The 49ers just drafted a (too-light) 193 pound safety in the first round.  Love the guy's attitude: "I was taught not to be the guy to miss a tackle.  That's the sign of a loser."  I think the Niners don't necessarily look at metrics first.

[Mick]

The 49ers just drafted a (too-light) 193 pound safety in the first round.  Love the guy's attitude: "I was taught not to be the guy to miss a tackle.  That's the sign of a loser."  I think the Niners don't necessarily look at metrics first.

[rudruff]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/sports...ted=2&_r=0

This is the NYT article. I wonder how many scouts use FMS in evaluating players. Or if it is even available in most cases.

[rudruff]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/sports...ted=2&_r=0

This is the NYT article. I wonder how many scouts use FMS in evaluating players. Or if it is even available in most cases.