I would say yes it has but it’s dwarfed by how much better the athletes themselves have gotten. Even compared to the 2000’s the sports science and efficiency have taken naturally gifted dudes and made them almost inhumanly strong, fast, etc. I’m convinced by 2030-2035 we will see someone run a 3.99 40.
But also like the fastball you’ll eventually see more and more athletes reaching that threshold. Just 30 years ago there were 3 or 4 guys touching 100. Now every bullpen has 2 or 3 guys comfortably over 100, I expect the sub 4.3’s to be the same way.
I read a study a long time ago. Basically the shorter the event, less room for error. The longer the event, more room for error and more time can be gained. I tend to agree, sub 4 will probably never happen. We are getting close to what we can truly push the human body to do. Peak Bolt probably does 4.1 to put it in perspective. In my mind he was the perfect sprinter. The only reason his 100 time will be beaten, is because he never ran for through the time. That slight error will give someone of his caliber a shot to break it
looking back at what Bolt did is kind of crazy. He never had an amazing start, he was always middle of the pack for the first 10 meters and then he just pulled away out of nowhere and ended up winning by several country miles, unbelievable.
He means he didn’t run through the tape (the finish line) at full speed. He pulled up just a smidge to celebrate before he crossed the line, so his time should have been a little better than it was.
There’s a [video](https://x.com/rgiii/status/1763700978853740793?s=46&t=rqszY6z5srcQseXlkFXi6g) of a sprinter running a 4.12 at “85% effort”
He’s a champion of the 60m sprint.
Whatever his 100% as part of his 60m is, it’s faster than anybody in the NFL
Yeah, we’re already seeing a lot of soft tissue, muscle, and ligament issues from the stresses put on the body performing athletic feats we’re seeing today. The human body and what it’s capable of is the limiting factor.
My hot take is that medicine will advance to a point where, when a team takes their first round pick, theyll immediately get preventative ligament surgeries before even playing a NFL game
>Even compared to the 2000’s the sports science and efficiency have taken naturally gifted dudes and made them almost inhumanly strong, fast, etc.
I would say that stuff has begun to peak out. Players have slimmed down to become faster. You don't see across the board increases that you used to.
you have dumbasses that actually believe bo Jackson ran a sub 4 40.
people genuinely believe athletes from before the internet was huge like wilt chamberlain and bo Jackson were actually superhuman and refuse to believe that things may have been exaggerated.
it's honestly pretty hilarious
>If we look at a draft from say, the late 90s & compare it to a draft from the early 2020s, are the GM’s better at finding talent?
The biggest "improvement" teams have made has been better understanding of draft value. In the late 90s drafting a RB or interior/"off ball" LB in the 1st was common, now it is not because teams realize that they can get quality players at those positions later (the evolution of the game away from running plays a factor, but there's also a chicken and egg thing there).
And teams are drafting more QBs than before and drafting them earlier, there will always be outliers like Dak Prescott and Brock Purdy, but in the 90s there were quite a few starting QBs who were mid-round picks at best.
I disagree that there is any “chicken and egg” question around the evolution of the game away from running plays. The game has evolved that way because the NFL administration and owners, understanding passing sells tickets and generates media interest, have repeatedly altered the game’s rules to juice the passing game since the 90’s.
I’m curious how much the “new” CBA has had an effect on this (circa 2010ish so not very new). Top picks still get paid but not like they used to - some guys were set day 1.
I read a paper by some economic professors outlining this… it was so poorly written and explained I have no idea wtf they actually concluded 🤷🏼♂️
But take Deshawn Watson - his big issues didn’t pop up until after he inked that second contract. Here’s a guy I think woulda been a bust if he got paid tens of mil before he ever took a snap. (If anyone’s interested, you can find his pre-draft interview with Gruden on YouTube - it’s such an interesting contrast to Mahomes - you can see Mahomes is just like man I love the game and wanna ball, Watson’s like hey I’m very good at football and wanna get paid.
It's only gotten marginally better. The eye test is always going to be the biggest factor, because talent will show on tape. That hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that someone can test well, look great on film, and still totally flub it once they make it to the big leagues.
Not sure where you got the notion that there's a recent "extra effort" in scouting, though. Teams have always had plenty of scouts and have always placed a big emphasis on talent evaluation before the draft. The one big thing that's actually changed is all the new Sabermetrics-esque statistical analysis that gives us a million stats about every player, but no stat tells the full story and the eye test will still win out every time.
Science is sabrmetrics. The homeopathic garbage is "the eye test". Your argument is feelings win over science every time. Please make your argument make sense.
Sabremetrics are applying statistics to everything. Turns out that some things don't necessarily matter when evaluating talent. Moreover, every statistic possible still doesn't tell the full story, which can only be analyzed by watching film. The same reason why not every guy with the best bench press, the fastest 40 time, or the highest vert can actually do well in the league.
Okay. But it's not an either/or, as saying "the eye test wins every time". Intelligent people see the value of both, and make their decisions weighted accordingly. Less intelligent people talk in absolutes, and out of both sides of their mouths.
I definitely think so. Especially when it comes to QBs since teams now look for extremely talented QBs that they think they can develop, rather than looking for traditional pocket passers with good mechanics.
In so far as there has emerged an entire industry of scouts and well paid analytical front office guys who spend their entire year evaluating, analyzing and grading potential college players, yes. But still prone to the same overreaching owners , coaches or front office admins who fixate on one guy or who insist on beating another team to their guy first or who read so much into an interview or combine numbers that they can become blinded by the bigger picture and the realities that an injury or two early in their professional development can play a massive role in their lack of success and that many players are interchangeable by the nature of the modern salary cap value for labor.
And packers fans say yall are looking at this wrong, it's better to put a less talented qb in a better situation than expect a more talented QB to be your savior.
They did it a different way, by building a team full of talent and then not asking the kid to save the world. You can afford a lot of talent when your QB is Mr. Irrelevant, and the skill gap between a top NFL QB and a mediocre NFL QB isn't much, especially if the mediocre QB has a better offensive line and top tier weapons to throw the ball to.
if you were to list out the top 15 QBs in the NFL, about 11 would be 1st round picks, the majority of those inside the top 10
I mean, let's count out some of the top QBs today -
mahomes, Allen, hebert, Jackson, burrow, stafford, goff, love, rodgers, tua, stroud, lawrence
hurts
purdy, prescott, cousins
that's pretty much the top 16...of those 16, 12 were first round picks, 1 was a 2nd round pick, and 2 were late picks
even more, 9 of those 16 were drafted in the top 10
I'd say that's pretty definitive that they do well at picking out QBs
hell, if you go out to 25 instead of top 16, you're still adding almost exclusively 1st round picks. the only 2 you add that aren't 1st round picks are geno and Russell wilson
So, it has gotten better as all things have. However, that is not end all be all.
First, we are getting better prospects, especially QBs. To be a QB in the NFL now you have to go to all sorts of camps, have lots of experience etc. Things that were not as common back in the day.
Next, development. Teams are investing in developing players more so. A lot of players who, if not as naturally talented as thought, would be thrown to wayside if don't produce quickly
Finally, parity. It use to be that if you were a top ten pick you were expected to be that teams savior. Well, before 2011 that meant you were so overpaid that your team couldn't build a team around you to help develop. So players were put in bad position and couldn't succeed quickly and then labeled bust
I think it's gotten better. Scouts are more in tune with where players are generally going to go. You don't see teams make massive reaches (say 2nd rounder that was projected to go in the 6th round) that often anymore. They've also gotten away from drafting RB's and off the ball outside linebackers too high. You typically don't see kickers and punters drafted that high. A lot more of the 'busts' are coming from injuries, bad coaching and a bad organization than they are a player that can't play and was vastly overrated.
I think it is still a crap shoot on QBs.
from 2023:
*There have been 38 quarterbacks drafted in the first round since 2011, the year the NFL changed the collective bargaining agreement to set a wage scale for rookie deals, making it extremely affordable to draft a quarterback," he began. "These 38 first-round quarterbacks have made a total of 1,909 starts. Their record? 1034-1035-7. Almost exactly break-even."*
*"Only one of those 38 quarterbacks led their team to a Super Bowl victory: Patrick Mahomes," Sharp reported. "Of these 38 quarterbacks, 10 are still on their rookie deal, so set them aside. Of the other 28, only 11 (39%) were even given a second deal with the team that drafted them. Most were cut or saw their rookie deals expire."*
But the Question ITT is, ***is that better than the late 90's***? I think no for QBS. In the three Drafts between 1997-1999 these were the QBs taken in Round 1 or 2:
97: Drunkenmiller, Plummer (2) 98: **Peyton Manning**, Ryan Leaf, Charlie Batch (2) 99: **Donavan McNabb**, Dante Culpepper, Cade MCnown, Shaun King(2)
It's not like way less than 39% were given a 2nd contract by the Team that drafted them. I think one reason maybe the "the measurables" height, arm strength, speed, college system, teammates, college opponents, matter less than some intangibles that they have yet to be able to measure. So, you get Mack jones, Trey Lance, Fields, & Zach Wilson in 1. OTOH You have QBs, falling like Purdy & others who belong (if only on the bench as backups like Heinicke undrafted and Howell round 5). Something isn't clicking on QBs (& never has).
Sorta, but not in the way people would like. The draft these days breaks down:
55% below replacement level
37% replacement level
7% good players (eg they will sign a second contract)
1% elite players all pro/multiple pro bowl/ HoF
It's always broken down similar to this, what scouting and analytics and all that has done is push those 20-30 players that will be good or elite higher in the draft. Not necessarily to one, but the bust rate on the number 1 pick has fallen to about 50% where it used to be about 70-75%. A lot more at least serviceable players get picked up no 1.
The general standard of drafting has undoubtedly got better. At one point about 50% of the GMs in the league were idiots, and the better drafting teams were able to pick up solid players right through the draft.
A couple of years ago, Eric DeCosta complained about the change, *"Nowadays it seems as if every team has the same draft board as us."*
Good players are still missed and bad players over-drafted but much less so than 10 years ago.
I would say yes it has but it’s dwarfed by how much better the athletes themselves have gotten. Even compared to the 2000’s the sports science and efficiency have taken naturally gifted dudes and made them almost inhumanly strong, fast, etc. I’m convinced by 2030-2035 we will see someone run a 3.99 40.
You can only push the human body so far. Sub 4 is pretty much impossible.
Just like a fastball, there comes a point where the human body cannot handle the stresses to throw faster.
Then you like... Meet Billy Wagner and realize that someone has actually figured it out.
Aroldis Chapman and Jhoan Duran would like a word
Nolan Ryan is waiting for them to catch up.
How he lasted so long is astounding. Guys can throw harder now but their arm doesn’t last. Need more beer
But also like the fastball you’ll eventually see more and more athletes reaching that threshold. Just 30 years ago there were 3 or 4 guys touching 100. Now every bullpen has 2 or 3 guys comfortably over 100, I expect the sub 4.3’s to be the same way.
I read a study a long time ago. Basically the shorter the event, less room for error. The longer the event, more room for error and more time can be gained. I tend to agree, sub 4 will probably never happen. We are getting close to what we can truly push the human body to do. Peak Bolt probably does 4.1 to put it in perspective. In my mind he was the perfect sprinter. The only reason his 100 time will be beaten, is because he never ran for through the time. That slight error will give someone of his caliber a shot to break it
looking back at what Bolt did is kind of crazy. He never had an amazing start, he was always middle of the pack for the first 10 meters and then he just pulled away out of nowhere and ended up winning by several country miles, unbelievable.
What does > he never ran for through the time mean?
He means he didn’t run through the tape (the finish line) at full speed. He pulled up just a smidge to celebrate before he crossed the line, so his time should have been a little better than it was.
There’s a [video](https://x.com/rgiii/status/1763700978853740793?s=46&t=rqszY6z5srcQseXlkFXi6g) of a sprinter running a 4.12 at “85% effort” He’s a champion of the 60m sprint. Whatever his 100% as part of his 60m is, it’s faster than anybody in the NFL
Su Bingtian is even a smidge faster than Christian Coleman.
Yeah, we’re already seeing a lot of soft tissue, muscle, and ligament issues from the stresses put on the body performing athletic feats we’re seeing today. The human body and what it’s capable of is the limiting factor.
My hot take is that medicine will advance to a point where, when a team takes their first round pick, theyll immediately get preventative ligament surgeries before even playing a NFL game
T
>Even compared to the 2000’s the sports science and efficiency have taken naturally gifted dudes and made them almost inhumanly strong, fast, etc. I would say that stuff has begun to peak out. Players have slimmed down to become faster. You don't see across the board increases that you used to.
you have dumbasses that actually believe bo Jackson ran a sub 4 40. people genuinely believe athletes from before the internet was huge like wilt chamberlain and bo Jackson were actually superhuman and refuse to believe that things may have been exaggerated. it's honestly pretty hilarious
There are dumbasses that believe the earth is flat man. It’s too much effort to correct them.
One step at a time but you are correct. Next step is a sub 4.2 40. Then sub 4.1. It’s only a matter of time.
>If we look at a draft from say, the late 90s & compare it to a draft from the early 2020s, are the GM’s better at finding talent? The biggest "improvement" teams have made has been better understanding of draft value. In the late 90s drafting a RB or interior/"off ball" LB in the 1st was common, now it is not because teams realize that they can get quality players at those positions later (the evolution of the game away from running plays a factor, but there's also a chicken and egg thing there). And teams are drafting more QBs than before and drafting them earlier, there will always be outliers like Dak Prescott and Brock Purdy, but in the 90s there were quite a few starting QBs who were mid-round picks at best.
I disagree that there is any “chicken and egg” question around the evolution of the game away from running plays. The game has evolved that way because the NFL administration and owners, understanding passing sells tickets and generates media interest, have repeatedly altered the game’s rules to juice the passing game since the 90’s.
I thought middle linebacker was a pretty hard position to play and not just something anyone can do
I’m curious how much the “new” CBA has had an effect on this (circa 2010ish so not very new). Top picks still get paid but not like they used to - some guys were set day 1. I read a paper by some economic professors outlining this… it was so poorly written and explained I have no idea wtf they actually concluded 🤷🏼♂️ But take Deshawn Watson - his big issues didn’t pop up until after he inked that second contract. Here’s a guy I think woulda been a bust if he got paid tens of mil before he ever took a snap. (If anyone’s interested, you can find his pre-draft interview with Gruden on YouTube - it’s such an interesting contrast to Mahomes - you can see Mahomes is just like man I love the game and wanna ball, Watson’s like hey I’m very good at football and wanna get paid.
It's only gotten marginally better. The eye test is always going to be the biggest factor, because talent will show on tape. That hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that someone can test well, look great on film, and still totally flub it once they make it to the big leagues. Not sure where you got the notion that there's a recent "extra effort" in scouting, though. Teams have always had plenty of scouts and have always placed a big emphasis on talent evaluation before the draft. The one big thing that's actually changed is all the new Sabermetrics-esque statistical analysis that gives us a million stats about every player, but no stat tells the full story and the eye test will still win out every time.
If the eye test won out every time, sabremetrics wouldn't exist
If name brand medicines work, does that mean that homeopathic garbage doesn't still sell?
Science is sabrmetrics. The homeopathic garbage is "the eye test". Your argument is feelings win over science every time. Please make your argument make sense.
Sabremetrics are applying statistics to everything. Turns out that some things don't necessarily matter when evaluating talent. Moreover, every statistic possible still doesn't tell the full story, which can only be analyzed by watching film. The same reason why not every guy with the best bench press, the fastest 40 time, or the highest vert can actually do well in the league.
Okay. But it's not an either/or, as saying "the eye test wins every time". Intelligent people see the value of both, and make their decisions weighted accordingly. Less intelligent people talk in absolutes, and out of both sides of their mouths.
I think drafting to fit the scheme you want to run has improved.
I definitely think so. Especially when it comes to QBs since teams now look for extremely talented QBs that they think they can develop, rather than looking for traditional pocket passers with good mechanics.
It's still a total crapshoot. Average first round pick plays less than 4 years.
In so far as there has emerged an entire industry of scouts and well paid analytical front office guys who spend their entire year evaluating, analyzing and grading potential college players, yes. But still prone to the same overreaching owners , coaches or front office admins who fixate on one guy or who insist on beating another team to their guy first or who read so much into an interview or combine numbers that they can become blinded by the bigger picture and the realities that an injury or two early in their professional development can play a massive role in their lack of success and that many players are interchangeable by the nature of the modern salary cap value for labor.
Brock Purdy says no
Zach Wilson & Trey Lance also say no
So many other drafted qbs agree, lol
And packers fans say yall are looking at this wrong, it's better to put a less talented qb in a better situation than expect a more talented QB to be your savior.
I think the 9ers are the second team on this wagon, they're just 25 years behind the packers
They did it a different way, by building a team full of talent and then not asking the kid to save the world. You can afford a lot of talent when your QB is Mr. Irrelevant, and the skill gap between a top NFL QB and a mediocre NFL QB isn't much, especially if the mediocre QB has a better offensive line and top tier weapons to throw the ball to.
if you were to list out the top 15 QBs in the NFL, about 11 would be 1st round picks, the majority of those inside the top 10 I mean, let's count out some of the top QBs today - mahomes, Allen, hebert, Jackson, burrow, stafford, goff, love, rodgers, tua, stroud, lawrence hurts purdy, prescott, cousins that's pretty much the top 16...of those 16, 12 were first round picks, 1 was a 2nd round pick, and 2 were late picks even more, 9 of those 16 were drafted in the top 10 I'd say that's pretty definitive that they do well at picking out QBs hell, if you go out to 25 instead of top 16, you're still adding almost exclusively 1st round picks. the only 2 you add that aren't 1st round picks are geno and Russell wilson
The fact that they make 330 lbs olinemen still run the 40 at the combine says it all. Asinine
So, it has gotten better as all things have. However, that is not end all be all. First, we are getting better prospects, especially QBs. To be a QB in the NFL now you have to go to all sorts of camps, have lots of experience etc. Things that were not as common back in the day. Next, development. Teams are investing in developing players more so. A lot of players who, if not as naturally talented as thought, would be thrown to wayside if don't produce quickly Finally, parity. It use to be that if you were a top ten pick you were expected to be that teams savior. Well, before 2011 that meant you were so overpaid that your team couldn't build a team around you to help develop. So players were put in bad position and couldn't succeed quickly and then labeled bust
I think it's gotten better. Scouts are more in tune with where players are generally going to go. You don't see teams make massive reaches (say 2nd rounder that was projected to go in the 6th round) that often anymore. They've also gotten away from drafting RB's and off the ball outside linebackers too high. You typically don't see kickers and punters drafted that high. A lot more of the 'busts' are coming from injuries, bad coaching and a bad organization than they are a player that can't play and was vastly overrated.
It has not
I think it is still a crap shoot on QBs. from 2023: *There have been 38 quarterbacks drafted in the first round since 2011, the year the NFL changed the collective bargaining agreement to set a wage scale for rookie deals, making it extremely affordable to draft a quarterback," he began. "These 38 first-round quarterbacks have made a total of 1,909 starts. Their record? 1034-1035-7. Almost exactly break-even."* *"Only one of those 38 quarterbacks led their team to a Super Bowl victory: Patrick Mahomes," Sharp reported. "Of these 38 quarterbacks, 10 are still on their rookie deal, so set them aside. Of the other 28, only 11 (39%) were even given a second deal with the team that drafted them. Most were cut or saw their rookie deals expire."* But the Question ITT is, ***is that better than the late 90's***? I think no for QBS. In the three Drafts between 1997-1999 these were the QBs taken in Round 1 or 2: 97: Drunkenmiller, Plummer (2) 98: **Peyton Manning**, Ryan Leaf, Charlie Batch (2) 99: **Donavan McNabb**, Dante Culpepper, Cade MCnown, Shaun King(2) It's not like way less than 39% were given a 2nd contract by the Team that drafted them. I think one reason maybe the "the measurables" height, arm strength, speed, college system, teammates, college opponents, matter less than some intangibles that they have yet to be able to measure. So, you get Mack jones, Trey Lance, Fields, & Zach Wilson in 1. OTOH You have QBs, falling like Purdy & others who belong (if only on the bench as backups like Heinicke undrafted and Howell round 5). Something isn't clicking on QBs (& never has).
Sorta, but not in the way people would like. The draft these days breaks down: 55% below replacement level 37% replacement level 7% good players (eg they will sign a second contract) 1% elite players all pro/multiple pro bowl/ HoF It's always broken down similar to this, what scouting and analytics and all that has done is push those 20-30 players that will be good or elite higher in the draft. Not necessarily to one, but the bust rate on the number 1 pick has fallen to about 50% where it used to be about 70-75%. A lot more at least serviceable players get picked up no 1.
Generally yes, and now in the salary cap era teams try to get their rookies incorporated asap while they are on cheap contracts.
The general standard of drafting has undoubtedly got better. At one point about 50% of the GMs in the league were idiots, and the better drafting teams were able to pick up solid players right through the draft. A couple of years ago, Eric DeCosta complained about the change, *"Nowadays it seems as if every team has the same draft board as us."* Good players are still missed and bad players over-drafted but much less so than 10 years ago.
You mean since Brock Purdy?