‍

What the NFL Combine Gets Right and What It Doesn’t Measure

‍

The NFL Combine remains one of the most influential athlete evaluation systems in professional sport.

‍

Its value comes from standardization.

‍

Every athlete performs the same tests under the same conditions, allowing evaluators to compare physical qualities objectively.

‍

The Combine measures characteristics such as:

• Linear speed (40-yard dash)
• Explosive lower-body power (vertical and broad jump)
• Strength endurance (bench press)
• Agility and change of direction

‍

These assessments answer an important question:

‍

What is this athlete physically capable of producing under ideal conditions?

‍

That information is extremely valuable.

‍

But it is only part of the performance picture.

‍

Football Is Not an Ideal Environment

‍

NFL performance does not occur in controlled testing conditions.

‍

Players perform through:

• Repeated high-intensity efforts
• Incomplete recovery
• Physical contact
• Tactical decision-making
• Accumulating physical and mental demands

‍

Research in intermittent team sports consistently demonstrates that performance changes as demands accumulate throughout competition (Mohr, Krustrup, & Bangsbo, 2003).

‍

Competition is dynamic.

‍

Performance changes with it.

‍

What the Combine Doesn’t Measure

‍

The Combine measures athletic capacity exceptionally well.

‍

It does not directly evaluate how that capacity behaves once performance must be repeated.

‍

For example, the Combine does not specifically measure:

• How stable output remains across repeated efforts
• How consistently movement quality is maintained
• How performance responds as demands accumulate
• Whether high-level output remains available throughout competition

‍

This is not a limitation in design.

‍

It reflects the purpose of the Combine.

‍

The Combine measures capacity, not repeated-performance behavior.

‍

A Different Performance Question

‍

Traditional testing asks:

‍

How fast is the athlete?

‍

A repeated-performance perspective asks:

‍

How well does that speed remain available throughout the game?

‍

Two athletes may produce identical sprint times in testing.

‍

Yet during competition, one continues performing at a consistently high level while the other becomes increasingly inconsistent.

‍

Their capacities appear similar.

‍

Their performances do not.

‍

Capacity and Performance Durability

‍

Performance science has long recognized that improvements in isolated testing do not always translate directly into sport performance (Young, 2006).

‍

Physical capacity remains essential.

‍

But capacity alone does not guarantee competitive reliability.

‍

A more complete evaluation considers both:

‍

Capacity

• What the athlete can produce.

‍

Performance durability

• How consistently that performance can be retained across repeated demands.

‍

These qualities complement one another.

‍

Neither replaces the other.

‍

The NFL Already Evaluates This - Indirectly

‍

Professional teams already place tremendous value on repeated-performance durability.

‍

Scouts routinely evaluate:

• Fourth-quarter performance
• Consistency across games
• Film review
• Competitive reliability
• Availability over a season

‍

These observations matter because coaches recognize that dependable performance wins games.

‍

The challenge is that these evaluations are largely observational and difficult to standardize.

‍

What an Expanded Evaluation Could Include

‍

Rather than replacing the Combine, a repeated-performance assessment could complement it.

‍

Examples might include:

• Standardized repeated sprint protocols
• Multi-effort jump testing
• Repeated velocity assessments
• Structured recovery intervals between efforts

‍

The objective would remain standardized measurement.

‍

The difference is that coaches would evaluate not only peak performance, but how effectively that performance is retained across repeated exposures.

‍

Measuring Performance Retention

‍

Within the Evans Velo Zone™ methodology, repeated-performance behavior is quantified using the Retainable Power Index (RPI™).

‍

RPI measures how effectively athletes retain their highest demonstrated output across repeated efforts.

‍

Rather than asking only:

‍

“What can the athlete produce?”

‍

RPI also asks:

‍

“How much of that performance remains available as demands continue?”

‍

Peak testing establishes capacity.

‍

RPI evaluates repeated-performance durability.

‍

Together they provide a more complete understanding of athletic performance.

‍

Why This Matters

‍

Athletes rarely win football games with a single exceptional play.

‍

They succeed by repeatedly executing at a high level throughout four quarters.

‍

Including repeated-performance behavior alongside traditional testing could help teams better understand:

• Competitive reliability
• Performance consistency
• Response to repeated demands
• Long-term athletic durability

‍

These qualities often separate athletes whose physical capacities appear remarkably similar.

‍

The Practical Challenge

‍

There are legitimate reasons why repeated-performance testing has not become part of the Combine.

‍

It must remain:

• Standardized
• Efficient
• Reliable
• Scalable

‍

Repeated-effort testing naturally introduces greater variability.

‍

Yet variability is also one of the defining characteristics of football itself.

‍

The challenge is developing standardized methods that capture meaningful repeated-performance behavior without sacrificing consistency.

‍

The EVZ Perspective

‍

The Evans Velo Zone™ methodology does not suggest replacing traditional performance testing.

‍

It suggests expanding it.

‍

The Power Retention Model™ explains why repeated performance matters.

‍

The Retainable Power Index (RPI™) measures how effectively athletes retain performance across repeated exposures.

‍

Output Retention Programming (ORP™) provides a framework for developing greater performance durability over time.

‍

Together they complement existing testing by adding a behavioral layer to athletic evaluation.

‍

Looking Ahead

‍

The NFL Combine remains one of the most effective systems ever developed for evaluating athletic capacity.

‍

The next opportunity may not be measuring greater output.

‍

It may be understanding how well that output remains available once the game truly begins.

‍

Because football is rarely decided by the athlete with the highest isolated test score.

‍

More often, it is decided by the athlete whose performance remains dependable from the opening kickoff through the final whistle.

‍

References

‍

Mohr, M., Krustrup, P., & Bangsbo, J. (2003). Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(7), 519–528.

Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 146–155.

Young, W. B. (2006). Transfer of strength and power training to sports performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(2), 74–83.