Authors: Raymond Tucker 1, Chang Lee 2, Willie J. Black3

1 College of Education and Health Professions, University of Houston at Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA
2 College of Education and Health Professions, University of Houston at Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA
3 College of Education and Health Professions, University of Houston at Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Raymond Tucker D.S.M., CFSC, CSCS * D, XPS, FMS, USATF, USAW
College of Education and Health Professions
University of Houston-Victoria
3007 N Ben Wilson St
[email protected]

Raymond Tucker, D.S.M., is an Associate Professor of Kinesiology at the University of Houston in Victoria, Texas. His research interests focus on leadership skills used by coaches in their daily interactions with athletes and various topics in strength and conditioning and sports performance.

Chang Lee, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Houston at Victoria in Victoria, Texas. His research interest focuses on investigating the effects of resistance exercise and nutrition on skeletal muscle responses including lean mass and strength gains.

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

ABSTRACT
This study investigated the results of the six physical skills tests, 40-yard dash, vertical jump, bench press, broad jump, 3-cone drill, and 20-yard shuttle, used at the 2022 NFL Scouting Combine to predict draft placement in the upcoming 2022 NFL draft. Analyses of 324 potential draft prospects’ performance data showed no significant (p<0.05) difference between drafted and nondrafted players in any of the six physical skills tests (drafted vs. nondrafted; 40-yard dash: seconds, 4.70 ± 0.30 vs. 4.75 ± 0.31, p = 0.115; vertical jump: inches, 32.81 ± 4.58 vs. 31.96 ± 4.38, p = 0.173; bench press: reps, 21.83 ± 4.62 vs. 20.12 ± 4.59, p = 0.132; broad jump: inches, 118.15 ± 8.78 vs. 117.24 ± 8.70, p = 0.458; three-cone drill: seconds, 7.33 ± 0.41 vs. 7.44 ± 0.49, p = 0.247; 20-yard shuttle: seconds, 4.52 ± 0.25 vs. 4.54 ± 0.28, p = 0.598). Draft placement was correlated with broad jump performance (rs = -0.221, p = 0.010) and 20-yard shuttle scores (rs = 0.250, p = 0.043), but not associated with the other performance measures. The results indicate the physical skills tests used at the NFL Scouting Combine have little to no predictive ability in the draft status of prospective players. The findings will assist strength and conditioning coaches and head football and football position coaches at the collegiate level in preparing their football players for the upcoming NFL draft.

Keywords: football, performance testing, skills test, NFL combine results.

INTRODUCTION
The National Football League (NFL) Scouting Combine is held annually at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana, providing personnel from the 32 NFL teams with an opportunity to evaluate prospective draft prospects in a range of physical skills tests, on-field position drills, and an extensive medical evaluation and player interviews. Seniors who have completed their senior year and underclassmen who have declared for the NFL draft that satisfy the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the NFL requirements and guidelines are eligible to participate in the NFL Combine. It is estimated that 335 football players participate in the NFL Scouting Combine annually.

However, it is unclear whether the physical skills tests used by the NFL Combine can accurately predict draft status in the NFL draft and assess if prospective draftees have the skills and abilities required to play in the NFL. Sierer et al. (10) indicated that testing performed at the combine might not take into account a player’s potential skill level during an actual game. Yet, coaches and scouts have used the test results from the NFL Combine to assess players’ physical abilities and skills as a determining factor of their success at the professional level. McGee and Burkett (8) state that the NFL Combine can be used to accurately predict the draft status of running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs. The study by McGee and Burkett (8) supports the study by Kuzmits and Adams (6) that shows the 40-yard dash, 10-yard and 20-yard timed increments are highly correlated with running back performance in the NFL and should be used going forward when drafting running backs. However, a later study by Robbins (9) concluded that draft success is not significantly correlated with the results of the NFL Combine’s physical test battery, normalized or not. Normalized data were no more valid than raw data for predicting draft order based on the results of the eight physical skills tests comprising the battery of tests utilized at the NFL Combine. Robbins (9) added that performance measures used at the combine have only a weak correlation with draft success. The author emphasized that NFL teams are interested in only a few physical characteristics, such as straight sprint time and jumping ability. The study by Robbins (9) supports an earlier study by Kuzmitz and Adams (6) that found that only one third or less of the physical performance measures making up the NFL Combine test batteries correlated well with draft performance in the quarterback, running back and wide receiver positions. They suggested that other performance evaluations at the combine, such as field position specific drills, anthropometric measurements, interviews, aptitude testing, flexibility, injury evaluation, and illegal substance testing, may help better determine whether prospective football players will be selected in the upcoming NFL draft. According to Robbins (9), the findings of Kuzmitz and Adams (6) would imply that NFL teams do not rely heavily on physical performance data collected at the NFL Combine when making draft decisions. Furthermore, a former Tennessee Titans president stated that all that matters at the combine is medical evaluations and player interviews (4).

We have previously observed that the physical tests used at the NFL Combine are not a reliable predictor of draft placement in the NFL draft except possibly for the WR position (11). We found that the physical skills tests utilized at the NFL Combine are essential in differentiating between getting drafted into the NFL (11). To follow up on and reconfirm our previous findings, we designed the present study to conclusively investigate the issue by analyzing more recent NFL Scouting Combine performance data in 2022 for their predictive ability to draft status. We hypothesized that there would be no differences between drafted and nondrafted players in their physical skills tests, and the physical skills test scores would not have any predictive validity in the NFL draft.

METHODS
Participants
This research study included 324 football players who attended the 2022 NFL Scouting Combine: 15 Quarterbacks (QB); 36 Running backs (RB); 40 Wide Receivers (WR); 21 Tight Ends (TE); 58 Offensive Lineman (OL, including offensive guards (OG), offensive tackles (OT), and centers (C); 48 Defensive Lineman (DL, including defensive tackles (DT), nose tackles (NT), and defensive ends (DE, edge rushers); 36 Linebackers (LB); 61 (DB); and 9 Specialist (ST). The Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS) at University of Houston-Victoria determined this study is exempt from Institutional review board approval because this study is a secondary analysis of publicly available data.

Procedures
Players were grouped by position to perform on-field positional workouts and physical skills tests. Group 1: QB, WR, and TE; Group 2: OL, RB, and ST; Group 3: DL and LB; Group 4: DB. The data for this study was obtained from Pro Football Reference, a web-based public access domain (13). The physical skills tests used for the analyses in this study include the 40-yard dash, vertical jump, bench press, broad jump, three-cone drill, and 20-yard shuttle for offensive, defensive, and special team positions.

PositionsTestsDraftedNNon-DraftedNP-Values
C40-yard dash5.10 ± 0.155 5.19 ± 0.76          30.302
 Vertical jump29.25 ± 3.804 28.67 ± 0.5830.807
 Bench press25.00 ± 0.001 24.50 ± 0.7120.667
 Broad jump110.25 ± 6.854 110.33 ± 2.0830.985
 3-cone drill7.51 ± 0.223 7.51 ± 0.1420.985
 20-yard shuttle4.66 ± 0.253 4.58 ±0.1220.687
CB40-yard dash4.44 ± 0.0918 4.48 ± 0.10130.250
 Vertical jump36.75 ± 3.116 36.88 ± 2.1440.946
 Bench press16.50 ± 1.734 14.00 ± 0.0010.287
 Broad jump125.75 ±5.194 126.25 ± 4.0340.884
 3-cone drillN/A0 6.48 ± 0.001N/A
 20-yard shuttleN/A0 3.94 ± 0.001N/A
DE40-yard dash4.76 ± 0.196 4.79 ± 0.0320.846
 Vertical jump32.92 ± 3.686 33.25 ± 6.0120.925
 Bench press20.50 ± 4.364 N/A0N/A
 Broad jump118.00 ± 5.376 119.00 ±5.6620.829
 3-cone drill6.96 ± 0.273 N/A0N/A
 20-yard shuttle4.30 ± 0.153 N/A0N/A
DT40-yard dash5.00 ± 0.229 5.33 ± 0.2540.035
 Vertical jump28.40 ± 3.6610 27.50 ± 3.7830.717
 Bench press23.00 ± 6.003 N/A0N/A
 Broad jump109.10 ± 6.1210 103.00 ± 4.2420.216
 3-cone drill7.76 ± 0.455 N/A0N/A
 20-yard shuttle4.66 ± 0.187 N/A0N/A
EDGE40-yard dash4.61 ± 0.1411 5.08 ± 0.0010.009
 Vertical jump35.81 ± 2.6613 26.50 ± 0.0010.006
 Bench press23.40 ± 2.615 21.00 ± 0.0010.448
 Broad jump122.62 ± 4.1513 104.00 ± 0.001<0.001
 3-cone drill7.14 ± 0.102 7.20 ± 0.0010.707
 20-yard shuttle4.37 ± 0.086 4.24 ± 0.0010.203
K40-yard dashN/A0 N/A0N/A
 Vertical jumpN/A0 N/A0N/A
 Bench press12.00 ± 0.001 N/A0N/A
 Broad jumpN/A0 N/A0N/A
 3-cone drillN/A0 N/A0N/A
 20-yard shuttleN/A0 N/A0N/A
LB40-yard dash4.57 ± 0.1114 4.69 ± 0.1390.033
 Vertical jump37.00 ± 2.7616 34.65 ± 2.65100.042
 Bench press23.75 ± 2.754 21.67 ± 2.0830.326
 Broad jump125.06 ± 4.3016 120.40 ± 6.80100.042
 3-cone drill7.03 ± 0.094 7.19 ± 0.2530.272
 20-yard shuttle4.27 ± 0.022 4.44 ± 0.1620.256
LS40-yard dashN/A0 4.97 ± 0.001N/A
 Vertical jumpN/A0 29.50 ± 0.001N/A
 Bench pressN/A0 18.00 ± 0.001N/A
 Broad jumpN/A0 107.00 ± 0.001N/A
 3-cone drillN/A0 7.53 ± 0.001N/A
 20-yard shuttleN/A0 4.62 ± 0.001N/A
OG40-yard dash5.18 ± 0.1415 5.17 ± 0.1670.872
 Vertical jump27.14 ± 3.3814 26.36 ± 3.2970.618
 Bench press26.50 ± 4.596 25.50 ± 4.1240.735
 Broad jump105.60 ± 4.4715 105.71 ± 7.7670.965
 3-cone drill7.73 ± 0.2011 7.88 ± 0.3770.286
 20-yard shuttle4.77 ± 0.1913 4.79 ± 0.1870.808
OT40-yard dash5.11 ± 0.1810 5.10 ± 0.19100.868
 Vertical jump26.46 ± 2.3911 27.17 ± 3.5090.596
 Bench press26.00 ± 3.463 22.50 ± 6.3620.469
 Broad jump106.27 ± 5.1211 107.56 ± 4.4890.563
 3-cone drill7.71 ± 0.257 7.93 ± 0.4460.284
 20-yard shuttle4.69 ± 0.199 4.78 ± 0.2670.433
P40-yard dash4.63 ± 0.063 N/A0N/A
 Vertical jump32.00 ± 0.001 N/A0N/A
 Bench pressN/A0 N/A0N/A
 Broad jump121.00 ± 0.001 N/A0N/A
 3-cone drillN/A0 N/A0N/A
 20-yard shuttleN/A0 N/A0N/A
QB40-yard dash7.78 ± 0.165 7.77 ± 0.1330.934
 Vertical jump31.50 ± 3.435 31.38 ± 4.0140.961
 Bench pressN/A0 N/A0N/A
 Broad jump117.25 ± 8.264 117.25 ± 5.3241.000
 3-cone drill7.14 ± 0.104 7.12 ± 0.3930.956
 20-yard shuttle4.34 ± 0.085 4.31 ± 0.1130.648
RB40-yard dash4.48 ± 0.0917 4.53 ± 0.10100.217
 Vertical jump33.11 ± 3.0519 32.92 ± 2.57120.860
 Bench press23.50 ± 3.004 18.50 ± 2.1220.109
 Broad jump120.78 ± 3.8418 119.83 ± 3.71120.509
 3-cone drillN/A0 N/A0N/A
 20-yard shuttleN/A0 N/A0N/A
S40-yard dash4.45 ± 0.109 4.45 ± 0.0860.973
 Vertical jump36.11 ± 1.649 35.25 ± 2.6660.448
 Bench press18.67 ± 3.063 18.00 ± 3.2360.775
 Broad jump125.56 ± 4.489 122.63 ± 3.5480.159
 3-cone drill6.77 ± 0.185 6.95 ± 0.0820.269
 20-yard shuttle4.22 ± 0.105 4.46 ± 0.0010.093
TE40-yard dash4.67 ± 0.098 4.86 ± 0.0740.005
 Vertical jump33.00 ± 2.858 32.70 ± 2.2050.845
 Bench press19.22 ± 3.039 19.00 ± 0.0010.946
 Broad jump120.40 ± 3.215 116.60 ± 3.5850.115
 3-cone drill7.05 ± 0.014 7.15 ± 0.2040.337
 20-yard shuttle4.46 ± 0.085 4.37 ± 0.1650.276
WR40-yard dash4.43 ± 0.1018 4.54 ± 0.09140.002
 Vertical jump35.34 ± 2.3419 34.07 ± 3.77150.235
 Bench pressN/A0 15.00 ± 4.583N/A
 Broad jump124.37 ± 4.1519 123.80 ± 7.50150.795
 3-cone drill7.10 ± 0.1910 7.16 ± 0.3240.642
 20-yard shuttle4.31 ± 0.148 4.40 ± 0.1650.307

Data are presented as mean ± SD. Units: seconds for 40-yard dash, inches for vertical jump, number of reps for bench press, inches for broad jump, seconds for 3-cone drill, seconds for 20-yard shuttle. C: center, CB: cornerback, DE: defensive end, DT: defensive tackle, EDGE: edge defender, K: kicker, LB: linebacker, LS: long snapper, OG: offensive guard, OT: offensive tackle, P: punter, QB: quarterback, RB: running back, S: safety, TE: tight end, WR: wide receiver.

Data Analyses
All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 28; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). The assumption of normal distribution was checked using Shapiro-Wilk test, and non-normal data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical procedures. Independent t-tests were performed to examine differences between two groups (e.g., drafted vs. nondrafted), and Spearman’s correlations were used to examine associations between physical skills tests and draft placement. P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant, and data are presented as mean ± SD unless stated otherwise. RESULTS Differences between drafted and nondrafted players in performance measures. When participants were analyzed together, there was no difference between drafted and nondrafted prospective draft prospects in any of the six physical skills tests drafted vs. nondrafted; [40-yard dash: seconds, 4.69 ± 0.30 (n=148) vs. 4.75 ± 0.31 (n=87), p = 0.115; vertical jump: inches, 32.81 ± 4.58 (n=141) vs. 31.96 ± 4.38 (n=82), p = 0.173; bench press: number of reps, 21.83 ± 4.62 (n=47) vs. 20.12 ± 4.59 (n=26), p = 0.132; broad jump: inches, 118.15 ± 8.78 (n=135) vs. 117.24 ± 8.70 (n=83), p = 0.458; three-cone drill: seconds, 7.33 ± 0.41 (n=58) vs. 7.44 ± 0.49 (n=34), p = 0.247; 20-yard shuttle: seconds, 4.52 ± 0.25 (n=66) vs. 4.54 ± 0.28 (n=35), p = 0.598]. When the individual positions were analyzed separately, no differences were observed between drafted and nondrafted players in most of the positions’ physical skills tests with the exception of (DT)’s 40-yard dash, (EDGE) 40-yard dash, vertical jump, and broad jump, (LB) 40-yard dash, vertical jump, and broad jump; (TE) 40-yard dash; and (WR) 40-yard dash scores, where the drafted athletes showed better performances than the nondrafted athletes (Table 1). Correlations between performance measures and draft placement When all the participants were analyzed together, draft placement was weakly correlated with broad jump performance (rs = -0.221, p = 0.010) and 20-yard shuttle scores (rs = 0.250, p = 0.043), but not associated with the other performance measures (40-yard dash, vertical jump, bench press, and three-cone drill scores; p>0.05). When the individual positions were analyzed separately, draft placement showed a moderate to strong correlation with (DT)’s 40-yard dash (rs = 0.753, p = 0.019) and offensive tackle (OT)’s 40-yard dash (rs = 0.782, p = 0.008), but not associated with any other performance measures in any other positions (p>0.05).

DISCUSSION
The main finding of this study is that the physical skills tests used at the NFL Scouting Combine may not have predictive ability in determining the draft status of prospective draftees entering the 2022 NFL Draft. The performance differences between drafted and nondrafted players were minimal, and weak correlations between draft placement and physical test scores were observed in only a few tests or positions.

The first finding of this study indicates that when all of the offensive and defensive positions were analyzed together, the physical skills tests used at the NFL Combine to predict draft placement showed a weak correlation with broad jump performance (rs = -0.221, p = 0.010) and 20-yard shuttle scores (rs = 0.250, p = 0.043), but is not associated with the other performance measures 40-yard dash, vertical jump, bench press, and three-cone drill scores; p>0.05). The standing broad jump tests lower body strength and power. NFL players may have an advantage in a one on one situations if they can explode from a standing position while maintaining control and balance. Every player in the NFL will need a measure of lower body strength, balance, and explosiveness to jump, run, block, change direction, fight off an opponent in football, and prevent injury. The 20-yard shuttle tests a player’s ability to change direction. Every offensive and defensive position in football will need to have the ability to change direction to catch a pass or evade an opponent in football. The standing broad jump and the 20-yard shuttle showed a weak correlation, meaning that a farther broad jump and a faster 20-yard shuttle could influence draft placement; however, this finding is nonsignificant.
The second finding of this study indicated that when individual offensive and defensive positions were analyzed separately, draft placement showed a nonsignificant moderate to strong correlation with (DT) 40-yard dash (rs = 0.753, p = 0.019) and (OT) 40-yard dash (rs = 0.782, p = 0.008), but not associated with any other performance measures in any other positions; (p>0.05). The 40-yard dash tests a player’s ability to accelerate for 40 yards, which is a test of acceleration. Football players will start from a three point stance and sprint 40 yards. Times are recorded at the 10-yard, 20-yard, and 40-yard increments.

The present study showed a nonsignificant moderate to strong correlation between draft placement and the 40-yard dash for (DT) and (OL); however, a question should be asked whether either of these positions runs 40 yards during a single play in a football game. The answer to this question would be that they don’t. Rather, they run 5 and maybe 10 yards, depending on the blocking scheme for offensive linemen and defending the pass rush. It appears that NFL personnel are looking at the fastest 40-yard time, but in reality, they could be more interested in the start and the times in the 10-yard and 20-yard increments, which are more relevant to the offensive and defensive tackle positions. The only positions on the football field that start in a three-point stance are offensive and defensive linemen and perhaps a fullback. If this is the case, why is every position at the NFL combine starting in a three-point stance when timed in the 40-yard dash? It may be better to evaluate how quickly a player can accelerate in 10-yards, which is a better indicator of what occurs on any given play in a football game for offensive linemen and defensive tackles.

The third finding is that 324 players attended the 2022 NFL Combine, and only 262 players were drafted. The results of this study show that the physical skills tests do not have the predictive ability to determine draft status in any offensive and defensive positions except for the positions of DT and OT in the 2022 NFL draft. The authors indicate that if the 40-yard (36.6 m) dash is the heavily weighted performance test and can distinguish between drafted and undrafted players, then why do the results of this study not show a positive correlation between the 40-yard (36.6 m) dash and draft status in all of the offensive and defensive positions.

The validity of the performance metrics used at the NFL Scouting Combine has been investigated in several other studies, and the results were equivocal (5). Football coaches appear to share the assumption that combine performance indicators can forecast a football player’s overall ability to play the game, yet studies have identified few reliable indicators (1-5). The performance metrics utilized at the NFL Scouting Combine examine players’ athletic skills rather than their ability to play football. It is questionable whether those combine performances are directly related to the football playing ability of prospective draftees. According to Vincent et al. (12), the NFL should consider changing the National Scouting Combine (NSC) testing battery to position-specific tests. These include a 10-yard dash for linemen and change of direction drills that are similar to those needed to execute successful pass patterns for wide receivers.

Our findings support a study by Robbins (9), which suggests that the combine tests are not sufficiently specific and have little bearing on a player’s actual ability to play the game of football and consequently receive little attention from NFL personnel. The study by Robbins supports an earlier study by Kuzmits & Adams (6), suggesting various explanations as to why performance in a number of the combine tests is not strongly correlated with draft order. One may be the rigorous preparation invitees undertake before attending the combine. Research by Kuzmits and Adams (6) indicates that the abundance of prep courses and other learning resources available to help players prepare for the combine may be the reason for the lack of correlation between overall performance at the NFL Combine. Kuzmits and Adams (6) explain that the lack of correlation between NFL Combine performance and NFL performance is that combine exercises measure the athlete’s athletic skill and not the athlete’s actual ability to play football. Also, when drafting prospective draftees, there are a number of additional variables that can come into play. The team’s needs for the upcoming season, injuries, off the field issues, and performance during college or pre-draft workouts are examples of such factors. In the end, NFL teams consider numerous factors when selecting players, making it difficult to predict the draft status of the participating players using the NFL combine skills tests. The combine tests are used to determine if a football player has the necessary elite skills and physical abilities to play in the NFL and contribute to a team’s success. However, according to Lyons et al. (7), on-field performance in college is likely the strongest predictor of success in the NFL.

CONCLUSIONS
Although certain individual positions may have limited applicability for specific skills test scores due to their ability to reveal players’ overall elite athletic prowess, collegiate football players aiming to earn NFL drafts should devote the majority of their time to honing the positional technical and tactical proficiencies necessary for success at their respective offensive and defensive positions. Additionally, they should be wary of suppliers and performance centers who make false promises of improved outcomes and substantial compensation at the NFL combine, only to enrich themselves through excessive pricing. The NFL Combine appears to be a mere exhibition where the nation’s most talented collegiate football players convene for a week in an attempt to secure a drafting spot and realize a lifelong ambition of playing professionally. Over the years, more and more top-rated collegiate football players have opted out of attending the NFL combine for several reasons, one common reason being to avoid injury. The hype of the players performing well at the NFL Combine has opened the doors for private sports performance facilities to offer training services to improve a player’s performance on the physical skills tests utilized to enhance the chances of being drafted higher and receiving a payday. Robbins (9) suggested that the lack of a strong relationship between the performance measures and the draft may be because of the rigorous preparation invitees undertake before attending the combine. The study by Robbins (9) supports an earlier study by Kuzmits and Adams (6) that brings up a very interesting point other than marketing claims made by vendors themselves, there is no scientific evidence that their preparation improves NFL combine performance. The authors of this study agree with Robbins (9) and Kuzmitz and Adams (6) and suggest that the physical tests used at the NFL combine are used to measure a player’s physical skills and not their football playing ability.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT
This study hypothesized that there would be no difference between drafted and nondrafted athletes in their performance measures, and the performance scores would not have any predictive validity in the NFL draft. 324 football players participated in the 2022 NFL Scouting Combine, and based on the results, our data suggest that NFL Scouting Combine test results have little to no effects on the participating players’ overall draft status and bear little predictive value. Some of those skills test scores might be of limited usage in a few individual positions because those can show players’ overall elite athletic physical capabilities. To conclude, collegiate football players with the goal of one day getting drafted into the national football league should spend most of their time improving the positional technical and tactical skills required to succeed in their various offensive and defensive positions. They should also be aware of vendors and performance centers promising better results at the NFL combine and big paydays only to fill their pockets with the high prices they charge. Finally, prospective NFL players should place more emphasis on further developing their overall football playing ability, such as mental aptitude, team attitude, and willingness to learn, rather than the physical characteristics evaluated at the NFL Scouting Combine.
REFERENCES

  1. Berg K, Latin RW, Baechle T. Physical and performance characteristics of NCAA division I football players. Res Q Exerc Sport 61(4): 395-401, 1990.
  2. Black W, Roundy E. Comparisons of size, strength, speed, and power in NCAA division 1-A football players. J Strength Cond Res 8(2): 80–85, 1994.
  3. Burke EJ, Winslow E, Strube WV. Measures of body composition and performance in major college football players. J Sport Med Phys Fit 20(2): 173–180, 1980.
  4. Diamond J. Why NFL Combine is tedious, expensive and overrated in the eyes of a team president. Sporting News February 27th, 2019.
  5. Fry A, Kraemer W. Physical performance characteristics of American collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 5(3): 126–138, 1991.
  6. Kuzmits FE, Adams AJ. The NFL Combine: does it predict performance in the National Football League? J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1721–1727, 2008.
  7. Lyons B, Hoffman B, Michel J, Williams K. On the predictive efficiency of past performance and physical ability: the case of the National Football League. Human Perform 24: 158–172, 2011.
  8. McGee KJ, Burkett LN. The National Football League Combine: A reliable predictor of draft Status? J Strength Cond Res 17(1): 6-11, 2003.
  9. Robbins DW. The National Football League (NFL) Combine: does normalized data better predict performance in the NFL draft? J Strength Cond Res 24(11): 2888–2899, 2010.
  10. Sierer SP, Battaglini CL, Mihalik JP, Shields EW, Tomasini NT. The National Football League Combine: performance differences between drafted and nondrafted players entering the 2004 and 2005 drafts. J Strength Cond Res 22(1): 6–12, 2008.
  11. Tucker R, Black W. The National Football League Combine: do performance measures predict draft status among NFL draftees. Sport J 24: November 5th, 2021.
  12. Vincent LM, Blissmer BJ, Hatfield DL. National Scouting Combine scores as performance predictors in the National Football League. J Strength Cond Res 33(1): 104–111, 2019.
  13. www.pro-football-reference.com
Print Friendly, PDF & Email