Was the 2009 NFL Combine Actually Slower?

[mross34]

In short, yes. Well... kind of.

So there's been a lot of talk on the internets about how this years combine was slower. And I don't know whether it was sheer boredom or the fact that they don't let me make enough graphs at work, but when I read OregonBuckeye's post in a thread about how you should shave .05-.1 seconds off everyone's 40 times this year, it got me thinking whether or not this was true or not.

So I collected the most officialest data I could from around the internet of 40 times for RBs, WRs and DBs for the past 4 years. 2006 was a little harder to find, so the sample size is a little smaller.

Attached are 4 histograms(What's a histogram you ask?). One represents the distribution of all 3 positions 40 times. One is for RBs, one is for WRs, and one is for DBs.

2009 data: Courtesy of footballfutures.com
113 players ran: 23 RBs, 36 WRs, 54 DBs.

2008 data: Courtesy of thehuddle.com
133 players ran: 33 RBs, 46 WRs, 54 DBs.

2007 data: Courtesy of mynfldraft.com
118 players ran: 26 RBs, 43 WRs, 49 DBs.

2006 data: Courtesy of thehogs.net
74 players ran: 18 RBs, 30 WRs, 26 DBs.

Perspective isn't consistent through each graph, so you can see as much data as possible. The graphs are kind of dizzying at first but if you give it a few minutes, you can get a pretty good idea of whats going on.

Conclusions

• Looks like Oregon was about right. The distribution seems to be shifted .05 seconds slower this year than the past.
• This year's WR class is FAST. Distribution doesn't seem to affect them too much
• This year's DB class looks slow as molasses.
• Player's are getting smarter. Those who know they won't run as well seem to be sitting this out more. The shift in times didn't really affect the very bottom of the list.

This was probably way too much work for what it is, but I hope you guys enjoy.

 

[billmac91]

In short, yes. Well... kind of.

So there's been a lot of talk on the internets about how this years combine was slower. And I don't know whether it was sheer boredom or the fact that they don't let me make enough graphs at work, but when I read OregonBuckeye's post in a thread about how you should shave .05-.1 seconds off everyone's 40 times this year, it got me thinking whether or not this was true or not.

So I collected the most officialest data I could from around the internet of 40 times for RBs, WRs and DBs for the past 4 years. 2006 was a little harder to find, so the sample size is a little smaller.

Attached are 4 histograms(What's a histogram you ask?). One represents the distribution of all 3 positions 40 times. One is for RBs, one is for WRs, and one is for DBs.

2009 data: Courtesy of footballfutures.com
113 players ran: 23 RBs, 36 WRs, 54 DBs.

2008 data: Courtesy of thehuddle.com
133 players ran: 33 RBs, 46 WRs, 54 DBs.

2007 data: Courtesy of mynfldraft.com
118 players ran: 26 RBs, 43 WRs, 49 DBs.

2006 data: Courtesy of thehogs.net
74 players ran: 18 RBs, 30 WRs, 26 DBs.

Perspective isn't consistent through each graph, so you can see as much data as possible. The graphs are kind of dizzying at first but if you give it a few minutes, you can get a pretty good idea of whats going on.



Conclusions

• Looks like Oregon was about right. The distribution seems to be shifted .05 seconds slower this year than the past.
• This year's WR class is FAST. Distribution doesn't seem to affect them too much
• This year's DB class looks slow as molasses.
• Player's are getting smarter. Those who know they won't run as well seem to be sitting this out more. The shift in times didn't really affect the very bottom of the list.

This was probably way too much work for what it is, but I hope you guys enjoy.

Bottom line to me is:

when the fastest official time for a CB is a 4.46, it is a slow track.

Think about that, Malcolm is now too slow to play CB, but ran an official 4.53. The best time was a 4.46.

What gives?

Why aren't the analysts commenting on this??

 

[Piney]

What gives?

Why aren't the analysts commenting on this??

I actually saw a comment from somewhere (can't recall where) that mentioned "No wonder offense was up in College Football, the DBs were slow"

In other words, one has to also enter the debate that could this draft class simply suck? Or just slow. Cuz as mross found out, the WRs were about the same as previous years. So it could just be a down year for RBs & DBs.

And interesting breakdown would be if the 40 times are off by this much, do the other drills confirm this? Cuz if it is a slow track, you would think the other drills would be down as well. Maybe by not as much as the 40 times, but you should still see a slight down trend there too.

 

[mross34]

I actually saw a comment from somewhere (can't recall where) that mentioned "No wonder offense was up in College Football, the DBs were slow"

In other words, one has to also enter the debate that could this draft class simply suck? Or just slow. Cuz as mross found out, the WRs were about the same as previous years. So it could just be a down year for RBs & DBs.

And interesting breakdown would be if the 40 times are off by this much, do the other drills confirm this? Cuz if it is a slow track, you would think the other drills would be down as well. Maybe by not as much as the 40 times, but you should still see a slight down trend there too.

I think more telling would be to get the other positions as well. If you increase the sample size, the statistics will be more true.