Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think it one evaluates a player at say #5 at his position and he runs an unexpectedly fast 40, or whatever else, it makes sense to move him up some, or might.  I know Holyfield, who looks pretty good on tape, ran a slow 40 and that would be a concern.  

I also wonder how different the ESPN guys and their burfle are relative to the real scouts, who may scoff at this notions, if they bother to read any.

When I started working back in the day, I recall looking at how Consumer Reports evaluated laundry detergents, which was  what I worked on at the time.  Suffice it to say their techniques were amateurish at best and often misleading as to what tests they ran and how.  Some were laughable compared to our tests which had been developed over decades.

Their recommendations were similarly laughable, to us, even if in cases they liked one of our products.  The folks who did the work were off doing TVs or vacuum cleaners the next week.  They just wanted to look impressive and sell magazines.

If you invest 50X more in a player, he merits second and third chances, especially if you are not playoff bound.  That 5th rounder is probably no loss anyway if he didn't show some upside.  My own notion would be to get top players in the lines and find "skill players" who would look good behind great lines.

I don't know how much difference there is between the top RB in the league and the 32nd best RB, especially if the latter is platooned and fresh.  He is the 32nd best RB in the country, same with QB.  They should still be elite.  "We" always hear about the Bradys of the world, but maybe the Big Uglies make Brady Brady.

Amen. I would do the same. Good RB's look great if they've got enormous holes to run through. Good QB's look great if they've got tons of time to read the defense before they throw. Good LB's look great in run support if you've got a bunch of DL who can shed blocks and disrupt plays in the backfield. Good DB's look great if you have a DL that can get pressure on the QB rushing 4 and not needing to blitz much.
Get the OL and the DL sorted, first, with the best players you can get. Big uglies make everyone else look prettier.

But why?  Are you aware of any studies to suggest such an act is prudent? (besides 'faster is better than slower')

I'm unaware of any such studies.  I'm stating something obvious though, I think.  If a player is low ranked because we think he's slow, then he runs a fast 40, it seems rational to upgrade him.  If we think he's fast and he runs a slow 40, we might wonder if he's hurt, or is bad off the blocks and finishes, whatever.
I'd evaluate a player on both tangibles/measurables/metrics and film/personality/history/background.
Take a player like Sony Michel, he has some great intangibles for anyone who knows him a bit.  So does Nick Chubb.  Great attitude to go with other physical attributes.
I preferred to have a less talented player with great attitude than the reverse.

If the Pats don't need Gentry to block much, he'd be a great mid-round addition.

. . .

When I started working back in the day, I recall looking at how Consumer Reports evaluated laundry detergents, which was  what I worked on at the time.  Suffice it to say their techniques were amateurish at best and often misleading as to what tests they ran and how.  Some were laughable compared to our tests which had been developed over decades.

Their recommendations were similarly laughable, to us, even if in cases they liked one of our products.  The folks who did the work were off doing TVs or vacuum cleaners the next week.  They just wanted to look impressive and sell magazines.

Long ago I read a hilarious parody of a Consumer Reports car test.  It included such jewels as "Innocent grasshopper impaled on dangerous hood ornament," complete with a picture of the same.

Depends on the owner.  I wouldn't work for Jerry Jones if another job was available.  Not that I dislike him or anything, but if I'm the GM, then I need to be the GM.  Meddling owners can capsize a franchise faster than any bad pick or trade can.

Or ignorant - that was my point with the Browns.Haslem hired 3 Harvard grads 3 years ago.Probably to placate critics,when anyone one with any football acumen could immediately see the weasel in the woodpile.Jimmy Johnson went to Arkansas,Chuck Noll grew up in working Class Cleveland,Bill Walsh went to San Jose I believe.Lombardi went to Fordham.God only knows where Tex Schramm,Tom Landry,Al Davis,George Halas went - point being they weren't Ivy League Grads and it was never looked on as a slam dunk if you did you'd be successful.I've long stated that i could hand pick 4-5 guys from this board and put together a hell of a Collegiate Scouting/Talent Evaluation Dept.

I don't know how much difference there is between the top RB in the league and the 32nd best RB, especially if the latter is platooned and fresh.  He is the 32nd best RB in the country, same with QB.  They should still be elite.  "We" always hear about the Bradys of the world, but maybe the Big Uglies make Brady Brady.

I'm sorry but this line of thinking is just asinine to me. Could a good line make a QB or RB look better? Of course. But it doesn't make them elite and it doesn't separate the elite from the mediocre or the shitty. There have been plenty of shitty QB's and RB's that played behind great OL's.
Saquon Barkley had no OL and he was maybe the best RB in the leauge as a rookie. Imagine him with an OL? Jesus Christ. I haven't seen a RB that good since Barry Sanders. And that's saying something because LaDanian Tomlinson was extremely productive & consistent, Adrian Peterson was a friggin' MONSTER, LeSean McCoy was electric as hell, and Todd Gurley, LBell, and Zeke were all excellent backs. Emmitt Smith played behind maybe the greatest OL ever. That OL didn't make Emmitt great. Did it make him better? Of course. But he'd have been a great back on virtually any OL. The guy just had it. Whatever it is.
As for the OL making Brady Brady- well that's just crazy talk. It helps. For sure. But that's not what makes Brady Brady. He does a lot of shit pre-snap and post-snap that has nothing to do with an OL- and a lot of that stuff most QB's just can't do. I've really only seen a couple execute pre-snap at that kind of level. Literally only a handful. Brady is setting protections for the OL, identifying the MIKE and calling out the defensive blitzes and coverages, telling WR's and TE's and RB's where to line-up- changing routes and plays on the fly- doing all kinds of crazy shit that most shitbag QB's like Blake Bortles just would never be able to do if their life depended upon it. Give Blake Bortles or a washed up Eli the Pats OL and those guys are still gonna suck.