Draft on production as well as potential

Andrew Chikes Senior Staff Writer

OK, grab your calculators. It’s time for a little Draft… Andrew Chikes Senior Staff Writer

OK, grab your calculators. It’s time for a little Draft Logic 101.

Running back A is a senior who ran for a Division-I best 1,928 yards and scored 18 touchdowns. While he is diminutive in stature and hails from a small conference school, he managed to torch Ohio State for 171 yards and tallied 148 against Michigan during his junior campaign.

Running back B hails from a traditional powerhouse conference, albeit notorious for weak defenses. He possesses prototypical NFL size and ran for 1,356 yards with an astounding 6.1 yards per carry.

Running back C also played in a glamorous football conference. After a terrific freshman season, he had his sophomore and junior campaigns cut short by injury (most notably, a broken collarbone). His total yards and touchdowns have decreased each season, and he averaged 5.4 yards per carry in his final collegiate season.

So, if all these backs are on the board, which do you draft?

Easy, running back C.

If you are a bit confused, you’re not alone. Let’s review the 2007 NFL Draft.

Garrett Wolfe (running back A) fell to the third round, pick No. 93 overall.

Marshawn Lynch (running back B) was selected by Buffalo as the 12th overall pick.

Running Back C, you ask?

Adrian Peterson was first running back selected – the seventh overall pick to Minnesota.

So, why is collegiate production so undervalued in the NFL Draft?

It’s simple. Start by looking at the list of tremendously productive college players who barely registered a ripple in the NFL. When was the last time you heard about Heisman winners Jason White and Eric Crouch, or runners-up Brad Banks and Josh Heupel?

College football is a system game. While Jared Zabransky can run Boise State’s spread offense and trick-filled playbook well, apparently NFL teams didn’t believe he was competent enough to run any of their schemes.

This year’s Heisman recipient, Troy Smith, fell all the way to the fifth round as the ninth quarterback taken in the Draft.

And while this line of thinking proved to be correct in countless instances, there are many cases of a few teams (or the entire league) being burned by ignoring production, relying on NFL Combine numbers and so called “intangibles.”

Take, for example, the now famous sixth round of the 2000 NFL Draft. The first two quarterbacks taken that year were Chad Pennington and Giovanni Carmazzi. Pennington has had a decent, albeit injury-plagued, career, while Carmazzi never played in a single regular season contest.

Round six, however, produced Marc Bulger and Tom Brady, two quarterbacks who were extremely productive during their collegiate days but received widespread skepticism from league scouts.

A combined three Super Bowl championships and six Pro Bowl appearances later, the dynamic duo has punished every team that passed on them.

Who’s to say that Smith or perhaps Jordan Palmer, who finished as UTEP’s all-time leading passer with 11,084 yards and threw 88 career touchdowns, won’t produce similar results?

The battle of potential vs. production is even evident at the pinnacle of the Draft. Sure, JaMarcus Russell is 6-6 with a “laser-rocket arm,” but Brady Quinn passed for 10 more touchdowns and one less interception last season and brings more experience to the table.

While speed and athleticism cannot be taught, scouts must not forget that production isn’t the result of pure luck. Those athletes have trained, studied and trained some more to mold their abilities. Why should scouts expect that to discontinue at the pro level? Every now and then, players must be recognized as much for what they have done as what they have the potential to do.

So you can have your Adrian Petersons and JaMarcus Russells. This year, you can bet I’ll be rooting for the Wolfes and the Troy Smiths of the league.