Why Super Bowl champion Joe Theismann believes Aaron Rodgers has 'potential' to be successful with Steelers
Aaron Rodgers answered the last remaining question of the NFL offseason earlier this month when he finally agreed to a one-year contract with the Pittsburgh Steelers.
The reaction was a bit more mixed than supportive. The Steelers have had five different quarterbacks start games for them since Ben Roethlisberger retired after the 2021 season, and Rodgers was not exactly in MVP form when he signed with the New York Jets in 2023.
While one former general manager claimed Rodgers would be "irrelevant" by Thanksgiving, Super Bowl champion Joe Theismann took a more optimistic approach when he spoke to Fox News Digital as he prepared for the American Century Championship golf tournament next month.
He said Rodgers had the "potential to be successful" because of his ability to throw the ball along with another key factor -- he does not have to play GM in addition to quarterback.
"Remember the offenses Aaron has been in up until this year he basically controlled," Theismann said. "He was familiar with the systems, he had his coordinators, his input into the people he wanted. Now, this is why I think he is going to be successful, now he just gets to play quarterback.
"He doesn't have to be assistant general manager. He doesn't have to worry about personnel. The only thing he needs to worry about is being able to run this offense, nothing else. So, from my perspective, I think it takes a burden off him to be honest with you. And instead of trying to make a team better, just be part of a team and do your part to make it better."
Additionally, the Mike Tomlin-led Steelers have always been well-coached.
"You're a part of the football team, you know, the way you earn respect is you go out and do your job, and you study hard, and you work hard," Theismann added. "And, of course, Aaron is saying all the right things right now, and I believe he is going to do the right things."
Rodgers had 3,897 passing yards, 28 touchdown passes and 11 interceptions in his first season coming off of his Achilles tear.
The Jets suffered some tough losses throughout the year. After starting 2-1, New York fell five straight times. Of those five losses, four of them were within one score.
Pittsburgh did make the playoffs at 10-7, and it will certainly be interesting to see how they do with Rodgers under center.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Retired NFL offensive lineman Terron Armstead ranks top pass rushers he won't miss, with one surprising pick
After 12 strong seasons in the NFL, Miami Dolphins left tackle Terron Armstead decided to hang up his cleats this offseason. With Armstead now away from the game, the five-time Pro Bowler revealed the top pass rushers he's glad he'll never have to face again. While that list contained a few names you might expect, one could come as a major surprise. Armstead gave obvious names like Myles Garrett, Trey Hendrickson and Maxx Crosby, but the first player he mentioned was just a rookie last season. That would be Los Angeles Rams linebacker Jared Verse, who Armstead called a future Defensive Player of the Year. Armstead made sure to emphasize Verse as the No. 1 player on his list. He referred to Verse multiple times as "different" and complimented his bull-rushing ability. Advertisement He's not the only one who recognized Verse's excellence. While Verse lacked a high sack total last season — finishing with 4.5 sacks as a rookie — he still managed to win the Defensive Rookie of the Year award. Verse had 66 combined tackles, with 18 quarterback hits, 2 forced fumbles and 2 passes defended. He was an all-around threat. Big things were expected from Verse after the Rams essentially made him the team's replacement for Aaron Donald, who surprisingly retired after the 2023 NFL season. While Verse has a long way to go to reach Donald's status — that's the case for every pass rusher — his career is off to an impressive start. Even if you want to try and downplay Verse's numbers, the fact that a player as accomplished as Armstead respects Verse's game should tell you the hype isn't overblown. Armstead's other picks were less surprising, but he still provided some fun explanations for them. In Garrett's case, Armstead said, "I've had enough battles with Myles Garrett ... I'm cool with that. We've danced enough." Advertisement When the hosts mentioned Hendrickson's agent is going to use Armstead's words to get Hendrickson more money from the Cincinnati Bengals, Armstead said he didn't want to rip the team, but said signing Hendrickson is a "no-brainer." Armstead added, "The defense is completely different without [Hendrickson.]" It was a surprising amount of candor from a player who recently turned in a solid season in the NFL. After being a third-round pick by the New Orleans Saints in the 2018 NFL Draft, Armstead turned in a strong career in the league. He emerged as a full-time starter in his second year with the team, and started at left tackle for the Saints for nine seasons. Armstead made three Pro Bowls with the team before signing with the Dolphins ahead of the 2021 NFL season. Armstead played three seasons in Miami, making two Pro Bowls with the club before retiring in April.
Car and Driver
16 minutes ago
- Car and Driver
Project Pinto: The Joy, Sorrow, and Work of Building a Race Car
From the March 1978 issue of Car and Driver. Once again the intrepid editors of Car and Driver have thrust their necks into the thick of the Goodrich Radial Challenge, which, for all of you who came in late, is a road-racing series for small sedans sanctioned by the International Motor Sports Association. Four races were entered, two poles were captured, and one winner's circle was invaded. So much for what we did on our summer vacation. Our car was a Ford Pinto, and the win was the first victory for a Pinto in two years of Goodrich racing. But the really fascinating part—to us, at least—is that the season's results strongly support a hunch we've been kicking around the office for years. We reckon that motor racing is almost entirely an intellectual game. Brains are trump. Bullfighter-brave drivers will give the car a good run and Onassis budgets take the worry out of blown engines, but it is thoughtful selection and logical preparation of the car in the first place that wins races. There are no tricks and no short cuts. It's common sense all the way. At least, that's what we thought. And the Pinto project—winning in its second appearance, long after most of the serious racers had dismissed Ford's subcompact as a lost cause—rather grandly supports our theory. Every racing project has to start with fundamentals. You must have a thorough understanding of the rules and complete specifications for all the eligible cars. It would be easy to lapse into "The Anatomy of a Winning Pinto" at this point—everything from valve-seat angles to camber settings—but frankly, it would be pretty dull. The car, in fact, is completely conventional. It even scored its one victory (at Charlotte Motor Speedway) using its original hydraulic valve lifters. Any number of competent mechanics would have made the same modifications we did and, if they were thorough, probably would have ended up with the same results. So the real story is not in the car itself but in our approach to it: Why we chose a Pinto and how we knew what to do with it. Every racing project has to start with fundamentals. You must have a thorough understanding of the rules and complete specifications for all the eligible cars. Ideally, you would also have first-hand and quantitative observations of the cars that you'll have to beat: how fast they are, where are they fast (corners, straights, or under braking), and how close are they to the limits of their development. You have to know all of this before you can choose the right car. And the right car is absolutely essential if you want to win. The Top Cars: BMW 2002 and AMC Gremlin (Really) We went into the 1974 Goodrich series with an excellent backlog of information. Car and Driver's Mazda Wankel race car had been a first-class observation platform during the 1973 races. We had been able to run with the leaders in every race and could compare their strengths and weaknesses to a car we knew. Apart from the Mazda (which IMSA subsequently hobbled with a rules change), there were only two other competitive cars in the series: the AMC Gremlin and the BMW 2002. The Gremlin is an odd duck. It's really a big car made compact by chopping out about a third of the body. But it retains the control-arm front suspension, huge brakes, and six-inch-wide wheels of the big American Motors models, not to mention the 232-cubic-inch six-cylinder engine. Next to the Mazda, it was the fastest car on the straightaways and we considered it the one to beat. But how do you recognize the third-best car? Durability is the most important factor—you have to finish to win. Speed is next, then handling, and finally brakes. Ties are broken by picking the least costly alternative. The BMW ranked a close second. Its 2.0-liter engine is very powerful for its size, enabling the 2300-pound sedan to keep up with the 2700-pound Gremlins in acceleration, losing out only in top speed on long straights like those at Road Atlanta and Daytona. Handling and braking are about on a par with the Gremlins and better than you would expect, considering the BMW's MacPherson front suspension and rather small brakes. This can probably be attributed to the endless development work done by Miller & Norburn, the leading BMW team. And it would further suggest that these cars are nearing the limit of their potential. At this point, a right-thinking racer should check the price difference between American Motors and (gasp!) BMW replacement parts, then slide himself into a Gremlin. If the point of the exercise were simply to win races, that's what we would have done. But we had a theory: that a logical and thoughtful approach applied to a lesser car could knock off the heavies. The only way to find out was to try. Why We Picked the Third-Best Car The search began for the third-best car. (We weren't willing to push our theory too far. Fourth or fifth best makes the job just a little too hard.) But how do you recognize the third-best car? Everyone has their own theories on that; this is ours. Durability is the most important factor—you have to finish to win. Speed is next, then handling and finally brakes. Ties are broken by picking the least costly alternative. Car and Driver While durability is most important, it is also the hardest to predict. You can examine the finishing records of various makes of cars for a clue, but usually you find only a reflection of how well they are prepared. And of course there can be exceptions. If there is a pattern to the failures—the crankshafts always break or the transmissions always fail—you can pinpoint a problem. But usually the failures are random, and you have to assume that you'll spot weak areas during preparation. There are two kinds of speed, and the importance of each depends upon the type of tracks on which you'll be racing. At Daytona and Talladega, top speed is critical, and it depends entirely upon horsepower and aerodynamic drag. Since the principal component of drag is frontal area (roughly the width multiplied by the height of the car), hp-to-frontal area ratios are good indications of performance. At all the other tracks, acceleration is more important. A comparison of horsepower to weight tells the story here; ties are decided by the car with the closest spacing in the transmission ratios and the widest choice of axle gears. The value of handling once again depends on the track, ranging from being of relatively minor importance at Daytona and Talladega to being a critical factor at tight tracks such as Lime Rock and Mid-Ohio. In fact, cornering capability is more important than power at Lime Rock. Handling can generally be predicted from the following parameters, listed in order of importance: suspension type (unequal-length control arms are better than MacPherson struts), wheel width, track width, and car height. The more of these items that are relatively favorable, the better the car will handle. The importance of brakes increases on tracks with long straights followed by tight turns, but only in cases where brakes don't have enough capacity to last through the race do they become truly critical. When you have the freedom to substitute racing linings for the stock equipment (which you do in the Goodrich series), brake capacity depends almost entirely upon the weight of the car and size of the brakes. Under those circumstances, almost all of the eligible cars have adequate brakes, the Mazda RX-2 being the chief exception. Since speed depends upon horsepower, there comes a point at which you have to get down to numbers. With all of these car-evaluation parameters in mind, it's time to take a look at the tracks. The Goodrich series includes eight to 10 races, only three of which are on the superspeedways. So acceleration and handling are the most important qualities because they will see you through the conventional road courses in the best fashion. But the three superspeedway races depend almost entirely upon top speed and nothing else, so you can't afford to overlook this aspect. The Competitive Equation Since speed depends upon horsepower, there comes a point at which you have to get down to numbers. We knew the Wankel Racer produced 218 horsepower on the dyno, weighed 2350 pounds, and had a frontal area of 3400 square inches. Assuming that the Gremlins and BMWs were down to minimum weight and calculating their frontal areas from the specifications, we estimated their power-to-weight and power-to-frontal-area ratios relative to the Mazda based on their comparative speeds on the track. Solving the equation for horsepower, we concluded that the Gremlins had about 215 hp and the BMWs about 185, and this seemed within their capabilities. (Horsepower numbers have to be viewed with a great deal of caution. Some dynos—and some dyno operators—are optimistic; others are pessimistic. If you don't know the predilections of each, you can be seriously misled by their test results.) Setting the Gremlin's power-to-weight and power-to-frontal-area as a target, it was then possible to check out all of the other eligible cars by simply substituting their weights and frontal areas and solving the equation for horsepower necessary to match the Gremlin's speed. That left the key question: Could the engines of the cars in question produce the required horsepower? The power-to-frontal-area equation eliminates all of the small-engine cars right off the bat. We were particularly interested in the Toyota Corolla because of its 1850-pound minimum weight, but its frontal area turns out to be only 15 percent smaller than the Gremlin's and therefore would need about 180 horsepower to be competitive on long tracks. That would never happen with a 1.6-liter engine set up according to IMSA rules. The Honda Civic, with roughly the same frontal area, would be even worse off with only a 1237-cc engine. Car and Driver So the search for the third-best car was confined to those with engines of at least 2.0 liters, and it narrowed down to the Toyota Celica, the Mercury Capri 2000, and the Ford Pinto with either the 2.0-liter or new 2.3-liter engine. The Datsun 610 had previously been rejected because its 4.5-inch wheels are too narrow to work well with wide Goodrich Radial T/A tires, and the 2.0-liter Dodge Colt will not be approved by IMSA as long as it is only imported with an automatic transmission. Further calculations eliminated the 2.0-liter Pinto. IMSA assigned it a minimum weight of 2100 pounds and specified an additional 200 pounds if the 2.3-liter engine was used. The 15 percent displacement increase of the 2.3 engine more than outweighed the 9.5 percent weight increase. Further, since frontal area remains the same, the larger engine would have a much better shot at the superspeedways. Handling shot down the Toyota Celica. It's a narrow-track, MacPherson-suspension car and much too nose-heavy in street form. And IMSA's preparation rules don't allow enough latitude to fix its basic problems. Also, the engine was a complete unknown, and performance parts are rare. We were attracted to the Capri primarily because of its fine aerodynamics. Its smaller frontal area would require about 15 less horsepower than the Pinto for the same top speed, and its uncommonly slippery shape would help even more. It was, however, 100 pounds heavier than the Pinto with the same 2.0-liter engine, its track was two inches narrower in front and three inches narrower in back and, finally, it had a MacPherson front suspension. All of this was tempered by the fact that a street Capri handles better than the stock versions of most of the cars it would race against and therefore wouldn't need as much improvement to be competitive. We try to benefit from our own experience. When we find products or suppliers that do the job, we stick with them. At this point, neither the Pinto nor the Capri had a firm advantage. The Pinto promised high aerodynamic drag (due to its width and poor shape), excellent handling potential (control-arm front suspension, wide track, and low car), and a large engine. The Capri offered low drag and moderately good handling. It was the 2.3-liter engine that finally tipped the scale in favor of the Pinto. The 2.0-liter Pinto/Capri engine, on the other hand, had been around long enough so that all of the race shops had experience with it. And they all said the same thing: The intake ports are shaped wrong, severely limiting its potential for racing. At this point, nothing was known about Ford's new 2.3 engine except that it was the first U.S. engine to be produced with all metric dimensions—which hardly counts when the starter waves the green flag. So we bought a cylinder head and shipped it off to Doug Fraser Racing Engines in Marblehead, Massachusetts, for a candid opinion. Fraser specializes in Formula Fords but has broad four-cylinder experience including 2.0-liter Pinto, Colt, and BMW engines built to IMSA specifications. We were also familiar enough with his work to know that his engines were durable and his horsepower quotes quite conservative. Fraser pronounced the 2.3-liter ports substantially better than those of the 2.0 and predicted that the 2.3 would not only make more power than the 2.0 but would produce more power per cubic inch as well. At the same time, he was pessimistic about equaling the output of the 2.0-liter BMW, which has excellent ports. But with enough work, he thought the big Ford could come close. Adding up the Pinto's advantages and disadvantages, we could predict with fair accuracy its performance on various tracks. Its high drag and shortage of horsepower would hold it back on the superspeedways, but on short tracks its excellent chassis would probably compensate for any lack of power. Our Car This was as far as the project could go on a slide rule, so we went out and bought a solid 30,000-mile 1972 Pinto two-door. A new car would have been an easier way to go—there are no hidden cracks in the unit-body and no worn parts to rebuild—but the 1974 Pinto is a substantially heavier car, and we could see no way to trim the weight down to the 2300-pound IMSA minimum. The job of converting a street car into a racing car is time-consuming, but it's not particularly complicated. Making the car fast is a straightforward application of physics. The engines were farmed out to Doug Fraser, since professional engine builders usually save you money in the long run. You need good engines if you want to win, and good engines are the products of machine shops, airflow benches, and dynamometers. Not many amateur racers have this kind of equipment in their garages—or, for that matter, have enough time to build engines and keep their cars in first-class shape too. So we concentrated our efforts on the car, pausing occasionally to encourage Fraser when the horsepower was elusive and to threaten him when he was late. His plan was to build the first engine according to the dictates of his own experience, using whatever special parts (pistons, camshafts, valves, springs, etc.) could be obtained in time to meet our deadline. The second engine, to be available later in the season, was to be the product of much camshaft and cylinder-head development and would —hopefully—produce more power. By having engines built outside, we were free to concentrate on the chassis. Since this figured to be the Pinto's only strong point, we wanted to optimize every detail right from the start. And the only way to have complete control, to make sure no shortcuts were taken, was to do the work in our own shop. Fortunately, C/D is equipped to do this. When it comes to building racing cars, there are a very few key guidelines to follow, and if they are kept firmly in mind, the car will almost always turn out well. The most important is safety. The car has to be structurally strong to prevent breakage and it has to be reinforced to protect the driver in case of a crash. Like most of the other construction guidelines, safety has side benefits that show up in performance. If a car is structurally strong, it will also be rigid. And a rigid car will be predictable to its driver and respond to fine tuning adjustments of the brakes and suspension. The main source of rigidity is the tubular-steel roll cage. It not only protects the driver but stiffens the car as well. To do this properly, it must tie into any suspension mounting points that are of questionable rigidity. Finding them is pure educated guesswork. Usually you tie into as many as you can reach and gusset the ones you can't, all the while trying to add the least weight. There are no textbooks for guidance, so we brazed up a scale model of the roll cage using straight sections of stiff wire. This proved to be only a rough aid, since it is impossible to simulate the structure of the car to which the cage will be attached. The job of stiffening the car is simpler in the Goodrich series because the rules specify street radial tires, which don't generate the cornering forces of racing tires and therefore don't load the chassis as much. When we rubbed a hole in the oil pan during the car's third race (at Lime Rock), we knew how low is too low. Next in importance to a rigid, safe car is—in the interest of both handling and aerodynamics—a low car. For handling, the important thing is to have the weight (center of gravity) low. This can be achieved in part by lowering the body/chassis unit as far as possible on the suspension, which obviously lowers every single pound in the car. But you can also lower the center of gravity by mounting various components (the seat, fuel cell, oil cooler, and other movables) as low in the car as possible. To reduce aerodynamic drag, you want to minimize the space for air to flow under the car. A low car is the most direct way of doing so—but there is a limit. If you go too far, you'll either bottom out the suspension or scrape something off the underside. The only way to know is try and see what happens. With the Pinto at IMSA's minimum height (six inches from the ground to the center of the rocker panel) we rubbed a hole in the oil pan during the car's third race (at Lime Rock). Now we know how low is too low. The next item is to make sure that all moving parts travel in exactly the paths you intend with no interferences. This applies mainly to the suspension. We favor hard bushings instead of rubber in all of the suspension pivots. It's also important to make sure the shocks don't bottom out, the ball joints aren't over-angled, and the brake hoses are neither pulled tight nor pinched as the suspension moves through its travel. It's also a good idea to build in extra capacity in those areas where there is no serious penalty for doing so: Overdesign the cooling system (our Pinto has a Corvette aluminum radiator); use the largest brake ducts that will fit, and master cylinders with ample reservoirs; build in two electric fuel pumps with a large-diameter line to the carburetor; choose oversize filters where possible; and use heavy electrical wiring and high-quality bolts, clamps, and fasteners. The car may turn out somewhat heavier, but you won't have to waste time reworking systems that prove to be inadequate during the first few test sessions. We also try to consult specialists whenever we can find them, since it always saves time to benefit from somebody else's experience. Sometimes other teams will even give away a tip or two. Bob Negstad, who modified the suspension on Larry Campbell's quick Pinto, suggested that we use the 1974 Pinto steering gear because it was stronger and told us how to fabricate the necessary mountings. He also showed us how to adapt the larger 1974 disc brakes to the 1972 car. The final point to remember about building a race car is that there is no single right answer for any part of the car. Finally, we try to benefit from our own experience. When we find products or suppliers that do the job, we stick with them. Much of the special equipment on the Pinto was proven on the previous Mazda Rotary Racer project: StewartWarner instruments, Superior Industries steering wheel, Cibie lights, Raybestos disc brake linings, and Velvetouch drum brake lining specially made at Rochester Brake and Clutch in Rochester, New York. The Pinto also has certain problems of its own that require special attention. A Hurst shifter happily replaces that standard Ford part that has been known to periodically pop out of the top of the transmission if the driver pulls too hard. And Hurst/Schiefer also makes 4.10 and 4.30 axle ratios to supplement the standard Ford gears, which are correct only for superspeedways. For the most part, we used Koni shock absorbers in front, Bilsteins in back, and did some promising experimentation with Gabriel Striders along the way. Unfortunately, four races didn't give us enough time to find all of the answers in the shocks department. Which brings us to the final point about building a racing car: There is no one single right answer for any part of the car. There is no perfect spring rate, no optimum chassis stiffness, and no ideal sway-bar setting. Cars will work well with a broad range of these valves so long as they are all compatible. The only way to know what works and what doesn't is to try them. This applies particularly to the suspension. Our plan was to make the best estimate going in and then provide plenty of adjustment. It has proven to be a workable approach. The Pinto required only half a day on the skidpad and half a day of testing at Lime Rock to iron out its problems. With no more proving than that, it finished at Talladega (where two pit stops to replace flat tires—not Goodrichs—dropped it to 24th place) and then went on to win at Charlotte a week later. Would we do it all again? Well, if our mechanical insight gets much better, we figure that soon there won't even be any point in going to the track. We'll be able to decide the outcome of the races without ever leaving our desks.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MLB Draft Combine 2025: Everything you need to know as the Combine begins in Phoenix
PHOENIX — This week, hundreds of the best amateur prospects eligible for the 2025 MLB Draft will descend upon Chase Field to participate in the fifth annual MLB Draft Combine. With the first two rounds of the draft scheduled to commence July 13 during All-Star weekend in Atlanta, this is a premier opportunity for players to boost their stock in the weeks leading up to the 20-round draft. Here's everything you need to know to get ready for the MLB Draft Combine. What is the MLB Draft Combine? The combine is a multi-day event in which players eligible to be selected in the upcoming draft participate in organized workouts, medical evaluations and interviews with a range of club personnel as a streamlined, league-sanctioned process through which players can showcase their skills on the field and personalities off it to all 30 MLB organizations. Advertisement The first two days will feature on-field workouts and a formal scrimmage featuring exclusively high school players, and the remaining days will include strength and conditioning assessments, medical reviews and interviews between players and club personnel. How long has this been a thing? Don't feel bad if you're unfamiliar with this event. This is only the fifth year MLB has held a draft combine and only the third time it has taken place at Phoenix's Chase Field, with the inaugural showcase held in Cary, North Carolina, in 2021 and the second set at San Diego's Petco Park in 2022. While the MLB Draft dates to 1965, only recently have the event and the process surrounding it become more accessible to fans and more promoted by the league. Unlike the NFL or NBA Drafts, which have been television spectacles for decades, it wasn't until 2009 that the MLB Draft was televised. From 2009 to 2020, the draft — or, at least, the first couple of rounds — took place in early June at the MLB Network studios in Secaucus, New Jersey. In 2021, MLB pushed the draft back a month and made it part of All-Star weekend, creating the opportunity for fans to attend the draft that Sunday evening. This has helped make the scene on television (and in person) more like that of the other major sports leagues' drafts, albeit on a smaller scale. Advertisement Solidifying the combine as a crucial week on the baseball calendar represents the latest effort from MLB to grow awareness and hype for its draft among fans, and it's an obvious opportunity to highlight the amateur players who hope to become stars at the big-league level. What happens at the combine? On Tuesday and Wednesday, Chase Field will be packed with players cycling through batting practice and bullpen sessions, all of which will be monitored by the same motion-tracking technology used during big-league games. Players who choose to participate in the on-field workouts will produce data such as exit velocities, launch angles and projected distances for batted balls for hitters and velocity, movement and spin for pitchers. For some high school players, this will be their first time performing in a setting that allows for these measured evaluations, affording them the chance to separate themselves from their peers by hitting certain benchmarks. Advertisement On Tuesday evening, a selection of high school players will compete in a game, affording scouts the opportunity to see prospects perform in a live setting beyond batting practice and bullpen sessions. This is a particularly valuable opportunity for prep players who hail from areas where the competition is lesser than it is in, say, Florida or California, as they can showcase their skills in a game setting against a higher caliber of peers. Because collegiate prospects have significantly more chances to prove themselves against higher levels of competition over the course of an NCAA season, there is less incentive to organize an official game for those players at the combine. To that end, even beyond the game, the high school players in attendance are more likely to participate in on-field workouts because they have more to gain by demonstrating their pure physical abilities than college players, who have a much larger sample of statistics on which their evaluations are already based. Performances and interviews at this week's combine could go a long way in determining next month's MLB Draft order. (Mallory Bielecki/Yahoo Sports) (Mallory Bielecki/Yahoo Sports) On Thursday and Friday, players will undergo a series of strength and conditioning assessments that track a vast array of physical traits, from foot speed and grip strength to agility, vision and much, much more. Advertisement Beyond the workouts on the field, arguably the most important element of the event is the chance for teams to meet players individually and get to know them, a vital process for both sides to feel comfortable before offering or agreeing to a multi-million-dollar bonus in the first few rounds of the draft. The statistics and physical attributes sometimes only go so far for a prospect; it's absolutely imperative that a team feels confident in a player's potential to get the most out of his natural ability as he enters the grind of professional baseball. While area scouts meet with players throughout the year, no other event affords the opportunity for this many front office personnel to sit down in person with this many draft-eligible prospects over a short period of time. Each MLB club has its own suite at Chase Field that players will cycle through for interviews over the course of the week. Each team handles this process differently, with some sending 10-plus members of the front office to participate in interviews and others sending just a handful of representatives from the amateur scouting department. In addition, some teams narrow their list of interviews to a few dozen players of interest, while others try to squeeze as many intel-gathering conversations into the week as possible. While these discussions take place behind closed doors, they can impact a team's draft board just as much as what takes place on the field. Which players will be in Phoenix? More than 300 draft-eligible players accepted invitations to attend the combine, including 174 of MLB Pipeline's Top 200 prospects for this year's class. A little more than half of the players in attendance will be from the collegiate ranks, with 90 schools sending players to the combine, ranging from Division I powerhouses to ascendant mid-majors to some junior colleges and even a Division III program in Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The rest will be prep players hailing from high schools in 31 different states, plus a right-handed pitcher from Washington D.C., four players from Puerto Rico and two from Canada. Advertisement Tennessee (eight combine invitees) and Florida State (seven) will be the programs most represented at Chase Field, with each school's headliner an elite southpaw: Volunteers ace Liam Doyle and Seminoles star Jamie Arnold. Neither is slated to throw on-field this week, but their presence will highlight one of the biggest storylines of next month's draft: A trio of top-tier college left-handers — Doyle, Arnold and LSU lefty Kade Anderson — are expected to be selected in the first few picks, in some yet to be determined order. Anderson, who pitched brilliantly for the Tigers on Saturday in their opening game in the Men's College World Series, is still in Omaha as the Tigers push for a national championship and thus won't be in attendance at the combine. Arnold entered the spring as the clear-cut favorite to be drafted first among this group, while Doyle and Anderson soared up boards this spring. Beyond the premier lefties, another feature of the top of this year's draft is a notably stronger crop of high school talent than in last year's class, which produced just two prep picks among the first 15 selections: SS/CF Konnor Griffin at No. 9 and SS Bryce Rainer at No. 11 (both of whom were at last year's combine). This year could see five prep players taken within the first 10 picks, including a pair of high school teammates in right-hander Seth Hernandez and shortstop Billy Carlson. Co-stars at Corona High School in southern California, Hernandez and Carlson delivered on massive hype for a powerhouse Panthers team that went 28-3, and they've positioned themselves to hear their names called extremely early in the first round. Those two will be at the combine, as well as another candidate from the prep ranks to go in the top 10, shortstop JoJo Parker from Purvis High School in Mississippi. Unfortunately, the two best high school players in the class — Ethan Holliday and Eli Willits, infielders from Oklahoma with fathers who played in the big leagues — will not be at the combine. Still, this group of prep stars promises to give the teams picking at the top a lot to think about. How can I follow along? MLB Network is broadcasting the combine starting Tuesday, with coverage of the workouts taking place on the field as well as interviews with some of the top players in attendance. I will also be there Tuesday and Wednesday, so stay tuned for more Yahoo Sports coverage from Phoenix.
