PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Our Scouting dept


Mr. Laz
02-02-2009, 11:23 AM
has anyone heard anything about addition or changes to our scouting dept?

is Chuck Cook still the head guy :(



imo this is almost as important as the head coach .... in many way, more important.

DaWolf
02-02-2009, 11:26 AM
I think it's actually dependent on the head coach. The scouts need to know what type of players to look for, and the GM needs to pick the players the head coach feels will allow him to successfully field a winning team. I would think we're not going to see any major scouting changes until after the draft...

Mr. Laz
02-02-2009, 11:29 AM
I think it's actually dependent on the head coach. The scouts need to know what type of players to look for, and the GM needs to pick the players the head coach feels will allow him to successfully field a winning team. I would think we're not going to see any major scouting changes until after the draft...
so the same scouts that "helped" us draft like crap for years are still gonna scout THIS draft?

:doh!:

blueballs
02-02-2009, 11:33 AM
Carl use to go out and talk to that statue about draft choices
he would point things out for Carl

Mr. Laz
02-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Carl use to go out and talk to that statue about draft choices
he would point things out for Carl
thanks for another one of your insightful contributions to the board.

Count Zarth
02-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Chuck Cook is actually not a problem at all. The Chiefs are lucky to have him.

blueballs
02-02-2009, 11:36 AM
thanks for another one of your insightful contributions to the board.

it get's me rep from Hits

Sully
02-02-2009, 11:38 AM
I think it was OTW who recommended the book "Patriot Reign" a couple of weeks ago. I picked it up and have been wholly impressed with the system Pioli was involved in. it says in the book the Pats were one of 4 teams who didn't use a national scouting service, but did it all on their own, as they had their own profile ideas.
I have a feeling Scott will be doing a ton of handholding our scouting dept this offseason teaching them the "profile." He will then make changes accordingly, if needed. Thing about scouting, I assume, is that you don't necessarily have to be about picking this guy over that guy, but simply quantifying this guy and that guys skills and downsides, and letting the peole in charge of shaping the franchise decide which player better fits. It's my understanding that, as long as his people are brutally honest with him and work their asses off, he'll be completely comfortable making decisions himself.

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 11:39 AM
Scouts are basically information grappers.

Mr. Laz
02-02-2009, 11:42 AM
Scouts are basically information grappers.
and if the scouts "grap" bad information then it taints the whole process from the ground up.

EyePod
02-02-2009, 11:53 AM
thanks for another one of your insightful contributions to the board.

I thought it was funny. Did you drink too much last night, and you're still hungover? Stop being a complete crab.

Laz=http://www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing_fisheries/statusfisheries/images/Roger%20Swainston/MudCrabScylla_serrata.jpg

Coogs
02-02-2009, 11:58 AM
Chuck Cook is actually not a problem at all. The Chiefs are lucky to have him.

Based off of what? All of the fantastic drafts we have had the past few years?

EyePod
02-02-2009, 12:00 PM
Based off of what? All of the fantastic drafts we have had the past few years?

Nick must have told him that Cook is good. Give him a break.

CupidStunt
02-02-2009, 12:00 PM
thanks for another one of your insightful contributions to the board.

Yours too. Loving your work.

EyePod
02-02-2009, 12:04 PM
Yours too. Loving your work.

That's the problem with this thread. No one has any idea what's going on with our HC, let alone our scouting department.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:06 PM
I never got the feeling that Chuck Cook was at fault with the Chiefs drafts.

It was Peterson's decision making (along with Vermeil's).

Scouts don't make the choices, they only gather the information.

EyePod
02-02-2009, 12:07 PM
I never got the feeling that Chuck Cook was at fault with the Chiefs drafts.

It was Peterson's decision making (along with Vermeil's).

Scouts don't make the choices, they only gather the information.

The problem is that we don't know what info was fed. What if they really wanted us to draft Kris Wilson? Most likely one of the scouts had to give lots of positive info on him or else we wouldn't have drafted him.

Mr. Laz
02-02-2009, 12:10 PM
i have a hard time believing that all the scouts said "Player A" sucks ass but then we drafted him anyway.


that's kind of the point ...... unless you go back and see that we drafted these bad players against the information of the scouts then why wouldn't we clean house there too.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:13 PM
The problem is that we don't know what info was fed. What if they really wanted us to draft Kris Wilson? Most likely one of the scouts had to give lots of positive info on him or else we wouldn't have drafted him.

Not necessarily.

I've heard Chuck Cook throughout the years on different radio programs just before the draft and he seemed to be pretty bright.

But what really indicates that Peterson was at fault is the fact that the 2008 draft is the Chiefs best on record, going back decades.

The difference? Peterson wasn't in charge of the decision making.

But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks of Cook's work. The ball's in Pioli's court.

Chiefnj2
02-02-2009, 12:16 PM
But what really indicates that Peterson was at fault is the fact that the 2008 draft is the Chiefs best on record, going back decades.

The difference? .

Picking so high and having so many picks helps out. If KC didn't trade Allen, do you think the draft looks so great?

DaWolf
02-02-2009, 12:20 PM
I'm not sure how much of it was bad scouting vs Carl and Herm making decisions based on their preferences. There are certain organizations where the communication between the scouts and the coaches is not on the same page. I don't know if that was the case here. But I guess Pioli gets a chance to see what is in place here firsthand before bringing in some of his own people.

The thing is that most of the (good) scouting people are currently tied up doing their existing jobs, and wouldn't be let out of their contracts by their respective teams until after the draft period. Most of the scouting dept changes happen over the summer I believe, in June...

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:21 PM
The problem is that we don't know what info was fed. What if they really wanted us to draft Kris Wilson? Most likely one of the scouts had to give lots of positive info on him or else we wouldn't have drafted him.

I'm glad you brought up Kris Wilson.

For as much shit as CP gets for picking him, get this:

"The Patriots held two picks in the first round, numbers 21 and 32. At the top of Belichick's list were four players the Patriots should consider moving up for from 21: cornerbacks DeAngelo Hall and Dunta Robinson, defensive tackle Vince Wilfork, and linebacker Jonathan Vilma. Next, he had written "My Card," with "guys I would like to have on 1st day and 2nd day" in parentheses. His first-day card included two tight ends, Ben Watson and Kris Wilson.

Belichick and Pioli wanted Kris Wilson as well, so who gets the blame?

Dave Lane
02-02-2009, 12:24 PM
so the same scouts that "helped" us draft like crap for years are still gonna scout THIS draft?

:doh!:

The scouting dept is OK its just the Head coaches in the 1st 3 rounds that sort of go there own way. Its why later round picks seem to hit better .

EyePod
02-02-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm glad you brought up Kris Wilson.

For as much shit as CP gets for picking him, get this:



Belichick and Pioli wanted Kris Wilson as well, so who gets the blame?

Maybe he would have fit very well with them? He sure didn't with us. We couldn't figure out what to do with him.

Count Zarth
02-02-2009, 12:29 PM
Based off of what? All of the fantastic drafts we have had the past few years?

I met Cook at training camp and we did a long interview with him. He's no dummy.

With Carl, Herm and Bill running the drafts it's not like he was the one blowing picks.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:30 PM
Maybe he would have fit very well with them? He sure didn't with us. We couldn't figure out what to do with him.

If that's not an indictment on DV, I'm not sure what is.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:32 PM
Picking so high and having so many picks helps out. If KC didn't trade Allen, do you think the draft looks so great?

That's a difficult question to answer but I like Dorsey and Flowers in the first and second round.

It's anyone's guess in the third - would they still have chosen Charles over Cottam and Morgan? How would that have gone down?

Do they take Richardson or Robinson?

In retrospect, they may have taken Clady with the #5. That's a tough question to answer.

But if the draft looked like this, I still think it would be considered successful:

1. Dorsey
2. Flowers
3. Charles
4. Franklin
5. Carr
6. Richardson
7. Johnston

Coogs
02-02-2009, 01:06 PM
I met Cook at training camp and we did a long interview with him. He's no dummy.

With Carl, Herm and Bill running the drafts it's not like he was the one blowing picks.


Weren't you also trying to convince us Gun was the greatest too based off of watching him at training camp?

Phobia
02-02-2009, 01:08 PM
Chuck Cook is actually not a problem at all. The Chiefs are lucky to have him.

Kiss of death.

Please do not ever pay me any compliments.

Fritz88
02-02-2009, 01:17 PM
I think it was OTW who recommended the book "Patriot Reign" a couple of weeks ago. I picked it up and have been wholly impressed with the system Pioli was involved in. it says in the book the Pats were one of 4 teams who didn't use a national scouting service, but did it all on their own, as they had their own profile ideas.
I have a feeling Scott will be doing a ton of handholding our scouting dept this offseason teaching them the "profile." He will then make changes accordingly, if needed. Thing about scouting, I assume, is that you don't necessarily have to be about picking this guy over that guy, but simply quantifying this guy and that guys skills and downsides, and letting the peole in charge of shaping the franchise decide which player better fits. It's my understanding that, as long as his people are brutally honest with him and work their asses off, he'll be completely comfortable making decisions himself.

Would love to hear more of your opinion about that book. Please share with us.

What were the other 3 teams that did not use a national scouting service?

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 01:46 PM
I think it was OTW who recommended the book "Patriot Reign" a couple of weeks ago. I picked it up and have been wholly impressed with the system Pioli was involved in. it says in the book the Pats were one of 4 teams who didn't use a national scouting service, but did it all on their own, as they had their own profile ideas.
I have a feeling Scott will be doing a ton of handholding our scouting dept this offseason teaching them the "profile." He will then make changes accordingly, if needed. Thing about scouting, I assume, is that you don't necessarily have to be about picking this guy over that guy, but simply quantifying this guy and that guys skills and downsides, and letting the peole in charge of shaping the franchise decide which player better fits. It's my understanding that, as long as his people are brutally honest with him and work their asses off, he'll be completely comfortable making decisions himself.

Good read, eh?

Should be required reading for this place.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 01:48 PM
Would love to hear more of your opinion about that book. Please share with us.

What were the other 3 teams that did not use a national scouting service?

Here's the thread, in case you missed it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=200405

And to answer your question, the book does not name the other 3 teams.