The National Football League Combine: Do Performance Measures Predict Draft Status Among NFL Draftees

Authors: Raymond Tucker, Jr. ¹,Willie J. Black, Jr.²

¹Department of Kinesiology, University of Houston Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA.
²Department of Kinesiology, University of Houston Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA.

Corresponding Author:
Willie J. Black, Jr.
University of Houston at Victoria
3007 N. Ben Wilson
Victoria, Texas 77901
[email protected]
Phone: (361) 570-4298

Raymond Tucker, D.S.M., CFSC, CSCS * D, XPS, FMS, USATF, USAW is an Associate Professor of Kinesiology at the University of Houston Victoria in Victoria, TX. His research interested focus on leadership skills used by coaches and program design and measure of performance used in strength and conditioning.

Willie J. Black, Jr. Ed.D.  is an Assistant Professor of Kinesiology at the University of Houston in Victoria, Texas. His research interests focus on leadership, physical education pedagogy, and social justice in physical education.

The National Football League Combine: Do Performance Measures Predict Draft Status Among NFL Draftees

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive ability of the performance measures used at the National Football League Scouting Combine to predict draft status from 2018 to 2020. Data were collected and analyzed from six performance measures used at the combine: 40-yd dash, 20-yd shuttle, bench press, three-cone drill, vertical jump, and broad jump. A total of 1,009 players were invited to the combine between 2018 and 2020. Several negative correlations were detected in the performance measures, which suggests that higher scores in the following performance measures faster 40-yard dash, higher vertical, elevated bench press and longer broad jump are associated with better draft position. For example, the correlation between vertical and draft position for WRs is -.286: this means that a higher jump is associated with better draft position. The results conclude combine performance is not a good predictor of draft position except maybe for the position of WR, but it is valuable at distinguishing between getting drafted or not. That results would suggest that once a certain level of physical performance is achieved, then a player will get drafted. Otherwise, there are probably other factors (e.g., the position they play, intangibles, etc.) that determine when they get drafted.

Key Words: NFL draft, combine preparation, athletic development, sports performance

INTRODUCTION

The National Football League (NFL) conducts an event every February at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana known as the NFL Scouting Combine. The purpose of the event is to provide an opportunity for coaches, executives, scouts, and medical personnel representing the 32 teams in the NFL to assess elite collegiate football players for the upcoming annual Draft. Player participation at the combine is by invitation only and includes approximately 330 seniors from a variety of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, III institutions and occasionally the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA).

During the combine, participants go through a series of evaluations to determine if they have the physical skills and mental acuity necessary to play in the NFL. Assessments employed at the combine consist of team personnel interviews, psychological testing, physical and medical exams, on-field performance drills, and performance tests intended to evaluate the players’ physical abilities in strength, power, change of direction, acceleration, and speed. The performance measures used at the combine (and for this study) are the 40-yd dash, vertical jump, bench press, broad jump, three-cone drill, and 20-yd shuttle. The findings from these assessments assist personnel from the 32 NFL teams in clarifying which players they will select and in which round in the NFL Draft.

Studies have been conducted on the correlation between the NFL Scouting Combine measures of performance and future player performance in the NFL (4, 8, 9, 13, 14). Earlier studies have been conducted to compare performance measures between drafted and nondrafted players (12), and if normalized, could be used to better predict performance in the NFL Draft (11). McGee and Burkett (2003) indicated that performance measures used at the combine can be used to predict draft status for the position of running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs. The authors also acknowledged that predictive equations could be applied as a good to fair evaluation for other positions assessed at the combine. McGee and Burkett (2003) suggested that if performance measures used at the NFL Scouting Combine correlate with higher draft status, then it would appear advantageous for athletes to employ specialized training coaches to enhance performance at the combine for better draft placement. However, the authors also implied that if performance measures used at the combine do not correlate to draft status, then a player’s collegiate on field performance on the field could affect his draft status.

Robbins (2010) called into question the work of McGee and Burkett (2003) by positing that performance measures used at the combine, whether normalized or not, have only a slight association with draft success; in attempting to predict draft order from combine assessment results, the study’s normalized data provided no advantage over raw data. The author reinforced that NFL teams are not concerned with physical characteristics beyond straight sprint time and jumping ability and that the significance of some of these tests could be questionable for other positions. The findings of Robbins (2010) support a statement made by a previous Tennessee Titans president stressing that all that matters at the combine are medical evaluations and player interviews (6).

The study by Robbins (2010) supports earlier research by Kuzmits and Adams (2008) in challenging the use of combine preparation programs by potential NFL draftees to improve test results. These authors disclosed that there is no scientific indication to endorse the use of combine preparation programs in enhancing performance measures aside from flawed marketing claims made by these sports performance facilities to lure future NFL prospects to contract for their services. Kuzmits and Adams (2008) suggested that several other measures of performance at the combine, such as field position specific drills, anthropometric measurements, interviews, aptitude testing, flexibility, injury evaluation, and illegal substances testing could be valuable in determining the draft placement of prospective football players in the NFL. The works of both Kuzmits and Adams (2008) and Robbins (2010) support the notion that if NFL teams placed additional emphasis on more general football playing ability to include a player’s mental aptitude, team attitude, and willingness to learn compared to the physical characteristics assessed at the combine, prospective NFL players would place more emphasis on further developing their overall football playing ability.

 Several studies have been conducted to determine if performance measures used at the NFL Scouting Combine can predict a football player’s ability, and the results are controversial (7). There seems to be a common belief among football coaches that combine performance measures can predict overall football-playing ability; however, several studies have been conducted on the matter and have found predictive variables with little success (1, 2, 3, 5, 7). Performance measures used at the NFL Scouting Combine test the athletic skill of an athlete and not actual football playing ability. The purpose of this study was to determine the correlation between performance measures used at the NFL Scouting Combine and their relationship to position in the NFL Draft. This study also sought to understand if the performance measure results from the combine are superior for those who are drafted versus those who are not. The overarching question for this research was: Are performance measures used at the NFL Scouting Combine beneficial in predicting a player’s ranking in the NFL Draft?

METHODS

Participants

This research study included a total of 1,009 subjects who attended the NFL Scouting

Combine between 2018 and 2020, divided into the following positions: center (C; N = 9), cornerback (CB; N = 112), defensive back (DB; N = 2), defensive end (DE; N = 16), defensive lineman (DL; N = 79), defensive tackle (DT; N = 24), edge defender (EDGE; N = 47), fullback (FB; N = 2) , inside linebacker (ILB; N = 15), kicker (K; N = 10), linebacker (LB; N = 83), long snapper (LS; N = 4), offensive guard (OG; N = 14), offensive lineman (OL; N = 77), outside linebacker (OLB; N  = 13), offensive tackle (OT; N = 57), punter (P; N = 17), quarterback (QB; N = 53), running back (RB; N = 88), safety (S; N = 82), tight end (TE; N = 58), and wide receiver (WR; N = 147). Institutional Review Board approval was not a requirement for this study because secondary data sources were utilized for data collection; these were accessible through web-based public access domains that do not release individual health information.

Procedures

Data for this study were obtained from Pro-FootballReference.com, deemed to be a trustworthy source. Data were collected on the six measures of performance used at the combine to test the physical skills of prospective players and predict draft status: 40-yd dash, vertical jump, bench press, broad jump, three-cone drill, and 20-yd shuttle. Spearman’s correlation was the statistical analysis used for this study; it is a nonparametric measure of the strength and direction of a relationship that occurs among two variables evaluated on at least an ordinal scale. A t-test was used to determine performance outcomes between drafted and nondrafted players. Data were categorized by position and year, placed in a spreadsheet, and uploaded into IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics 25 to conduct statistical analysis of the data.

RESULTS

Table 1 and Figure 1 display the data analysis for Spearman’s correlation among draftees by position and combine measures of performance. The left column lists the offensive and defensive positions utilized in the game of football. The top row lists the six different performance measures used at the combine to assess the physical skills of players in each position.

Table 1: Correlations Between Draft Placement and Score on Combine Measure

Position	40-yd dash	Vertical jump	Bench press	Broad jump	Three-cone drill	20-yd shuttle
QB	–.018	–.069	–	–.322	.174	–.011
RB	.008	.000	–.154	–.045	.031	.037
WR	.436***	–.286*	–.276*	–.234*	.054	–.069
TE	.356*	–.301	–.145	–.260	.313	.472**
C	.374	.174	.254	–.497	.749	.847
OG	.566	–.330	–.347	–.338	.053	.818*
OL	.373*	–.351*	.171	–.423*	.227	.271
OT	.274	–.062	–.102	–.233	.149	.295
CB	.058	–.031	–.097	–.024	–.107	.132
DE	.341	.194	.146	–.241	.446	.313
DL	.042	–.229	–.093	–.109	.022	.214
DT	.481	–.419	–.423	–.481	.518	.239
EDGE	.246	–.085	–.046	–.355	.066	.462*
ILB	.166	–.845**	–.063	–.609	.522	.529
LB	.573***	–.300	–.144	–.251	.156	.015
OLB	.204	–.599	.266	–.498	–.945	–1.00*
P	.930	–.581	–	–.773	–	–
S	.510**	–.392**	.046	–.232	.077	.391

Figure 1: Correlations Between Draft Placement and Score on Combine Measure

As can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 1, a statistically significant positive correlation exists between draft status and  position based on the following measures of performance: 40-yd dash;  LB: r_s (81) = .573, p < .001, OL: r_s (75) = .373, p < .05, S: r_s(80) = .510, p < .01, TE: r_s (56) = .356, p < .05,  WR: r_s (145) = .436, p < .001 and S: r_s (82) = .510, p < .01. 20-yd shuttle; EDGE: rs (45) = .462, p < .05, OG: rs (12) = .818, p < .05, TE: r_s (56) = .472, p < .01. This result suggests there is a strong positive correlation between draft status for the positions of LB, OL, TE, WR, and S in the performance measures of the 40-yd dash and the 20-yd shuttle.

As can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 1, a statistically significant positive correlation exists between draft status and position based on the following measures of performance: Vertical jump; ILB: r_s (15) = – .845, p < .01, OL r_s (75) = -.351, p < .05, S r_s (80) = -.392, p < .01, WR r_s (145) = -.286, p < .05. Bench press; WR: rs (145) = – .276, p < .05, Broad jump; OL: r_s (75) = – .423, p < 0.05, and WR: r_s (145) = – .234, p < 0.05. This result suggests there is a strong negative correlation between draft status for the positions of ILB, OL, S, and WR TE, WR, and S in the performance measures of the vertical jump that suggest higher vertical jump, more repetitions in the bench press, and farther broad jump are correlated with better draft performance. The 3-cone drill in this study did not have a negative or positive correlation to better draft position.

Table 2: Performance comparison on combine measures between drafted and nondrafted subjects

Position	40-yd dash	Vertical jump	Bench press	Broad jump	Three-cone drill	20-yd shuttle
QB	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
RB	t(74) = 6.103 p < .001 D < ND	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
WR	t(117) = 3.555 p < .001 D < ND	t(124) = 2.442 p = .016 D > ND	t(107) = 2.225 p = .028 D > ND	ns	ns	t(82) = 2.272 p = .026 D < ND
TE	t(47) = 2.761 p = .008 D < ND	ns	ns	ns	ns	t(42) = 2.991 p = .005 D < ND
C	t(60) = 4.457 p < .001 D < ND	t(64) = 4.237 p < .001 D > ND	t(58) = 2.758 p = .008 D > ND	ns	ns	ns
OG	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
OL	ns	t(49) = 2.152 p = .036 D > ND	ns	t(49) = 2.634 p = .011 D > ND	ns	ns
OT	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
CB	t(95) = 3.585 p < .001 D < ND	t(77) = 2.266 p = .026 D > ND	t(85) = 2.439 p = .017 D > ND	t(77) = 2.072 p = .042 D > ND	ns	ns
DE	t(11) = 2.327 p = .040 D < ND	ns	ns	ns	ns	t(8) = 5.227 p < .001 D < ND
DL	t(66) = 2.069 p = .042 D < ND	t(59) = 2.817 p = .007 D > ND	ns	ns	ns	t(48) = 2.364 p = .022 D < ND
DT	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
EDGE	t(36) = 3.804 p < .001 D < ND	ns	ns	t(34) = 2.911 p = .006 D > ND	t(25) = 4.228 p < .001 D < ND	ns
ILB	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
LB	t(52) = 5.293 p < .001 D < ND	t(55) = 2.304 p = .025 D > ND	t(54) = 2.412 p = .019 D > ND	ns	ns	t(36) = 2.794 p = .008 D < ND
OLB	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
P	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

Figure 2: Performance comparison on combine measures between drafted and nondrafted subjects

Table 2 and Figure 2 show the differences in performance between draftees and nondraftees on combine measures. In the data, D < ND indicates draftees having a significantly lower score than nondraftees (e.g., faster 40-yd dash). Alternately, D > ND indicates draftees having a significantly higher score than nondraftees (e.g., higher vertical jump). In the table, ns means nonsignificant; this state occurred because of a small sample size for the position (e.g., not many OLBs present). Positions FB, DB, LS, K, and P are not listed because not enough nondrafted subjects in these positions have completed combine measures since 2018 (i.e., at least two subjects per group per position are required to calculate a t-test).

DISCUSSION

Table 1 and Figure 1 show the correlations between draft ranking and performance on combine measures by position. It appears combine performance is not a very good predictor of draft position except possibly for WR; however, it’s valuable at differentiating between getting drafted or not into the NFL. The results imply that once a certain level of physical performance is achieved, a player will likely get drafted. The results do not discount the fact that there are other factors at play (e.g., the position they play, intangibles, etc.) that likely are determinants of when a player may get drafted. 

This finding validates similar studies by (8, 11) that concluded that performance measures utilized at the combine to test the athletic skills of prospective players have little correlation with ensuing draft order selection. Robbins (2010) stated that the performance measures used at the combine seem secondary to the media hype that the combine produces. The author conveyed that if the performance measures used at the combine do not correlate with draft status, then perhaps the NFL should modify the testing to evaluate other factors in prospective players deemed important by scouts and coaches.

Table 2 and Figure 2 show the differences in performance between draftees and nondraftees on combine measures. The data shows significantly improved performance in many positions by the draftees compared to the nondraftees, particularly in the 40-yd dash (and to a lesser extent, the vertical jump). This result suggests that additional factors are predictive of draft rank, but there appears to be some performance threshold level, albeit minimal, that combine attendees need to achieve to be drafted. This finding supports a study by LaPlaca (2020) who found that several NFL teams have used performance measure results from the combine to draft prospective players. However, some teams do not pay particular attention to combine test results and use other means of evaluation in selecting their players.

Kuzmits and Adams (2008) and Robbins (2010) questioned the use of combine testing and its ability to predict draft status and performance in the NFL suggesting that because combine testing results do not show a significant correlation to draft status or player performance, the NFL should modify the testing to correlate to the football playing ability of potential players to compete  in the NFL. This suggestion supports earlier research by Sawyer et al. (2002) who concluded that the sport of football requires the participant to possess a variety of skills consisting of many underlying abilities, so one would expect difficulty in finding strong correlations between skills and coaches’ rankings. According to Sierer et al. (2008), even though the testing used at the combine does not evaluate a player’s potential during practices or games, coaches and scouts have used this testing battery to assess a player’s physical abilities as a determinant of their success at the professional level.

The author for this study mentions that the NFL Scouting Combine give personnel from the 32 teams in the NFL another opportunity to evaluate and interview prospective players prior to the upcoming NFL Draft, suggesting that they could use other forms of evaluation such as scouting reports, on field performance drills at the NFL Scouting Combine, or detailed evaluation of film from the prospective player’s collegiate career. The author for this study suggests that the physical testing used at the combine could more than likely be used to validate a decision that had already been made prior to the NFL Scouting Combine and Draft.

APPLICATION IN SPORT

The study is important for football coaches and strength and conditioning coaches who are preparing players for the NFL Draft. Based on the findings in this study, a player’s ability to perform in practices and game situations has a major influence on their ability to get drafted. The primary focus should be on developing the technical and tactical skills required to have a successful career in various offensive and defensive positions based on a player’s ability preference. On-field performance and football ability will be the first item an NFL scout will assess prior to the combine. However, players should also develop the physical skills needed to excel on the performance measures used at the combine because, as previously mentioned, different teams evaluate players differently for the NFL Draft, and good performance at the combine could finalize a decision for NFL personnel.

REFERENCES

1. Berg, K., Latin, R. W., & Baechle, T. (1990). Physical and performance characteristics of NCAA division I football players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61(4), 395–401.
2. Black, W., & Roundy, E. (1994). Comparisons of size, strength, speed, and power in NCAA division 1-A football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 8(2), 80–85.
3. Burke, E. J., Winslow, E., & Strube, W. V. (1980). Measures of body composition and performance in major college football players. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 20(2), 173–180.
4. Cook, J., Ryan, G. A., Snarr, R. L., & Rossi, S. (2020). The relationship between the national football league scouting combine and game performance over a 5-year period. Journal of  Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(9), 2492–2499.
5. Daniel, M. L., Brown, B., & Gorman, D. (1984). Strength and anthropometric characteristics of selected offensive and defensive university level football players. Perceptual and Motor Skills 59(1), 127-130.
6. Diamond, J. (2019). Why NFL combine is tedious, expensive and overrated in the eyes of a team president | Sporting News. https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-combine-tedious-expensive-overrated-in-eyes-of-team-president.
7. Fry, A., & Kraemer, W. (1991). Physical performance characteristics of american collegiate football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 5(3), 126–138.
8. Kuzmits, F. E., & Adams, A. J. (2008). The NFL combine: Does it predict performance in the national football league? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1721–1727.
9. LaPlaca, D. A., & McCullick, B. A. (2020). National football league scouting combine tests correlated to national football league player performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(5), 1317–1329.
10. McGee, K. J., & Burkett, L. N. (2003). The national football league combine: A reliable predictor of draft status? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1), 6–11.
11. Robbins, D. W. (2010). The national football league (NFL) Combine: Does normalized data better predict performance in the NFL draft? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(11), 2888–2899.
12. Sierer, S. P., Battaglini, C. L., Mihalik, J. P., Shields, E. W., & Tomasini, N. T. (2008). The national football league combine: Performance differences between drafted and nondrafted players entering the 2004 and 2005 Drafts. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(1), 6–12.
13. Teramoto, M., Cross, C. L., & Willick, S. E. (2016). Predictive value of national football league scouting combine on future performance of running backs and wide receivers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1379–1390.
14. Vincent, L. M., Blissmer, B. J., & Hatfield, D. L. (2019). National scouting combine scores as performance predictors in the national football league. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(1), 104–111.