NFL Scouts

[Mr. Laz]

Foot soldiers are often left behind at crunch time on draft day. Jack Bechta (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/jack-bechta.html)
March 12, 2010, 03:00 PM EST
NFL scouting is not perfect science. Tony Mandarich and Ryan Leaf were high first-round draft picks. Defensive tackles John Randle and La’Roi Glover went undrafted. Tom Brady (http://nationalfootballpost.stats.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=5228&team=17) was a sixth-rounder. So why is the scouting system only about 60- to 70-percent accurate? I have some theories.

My 24 years as an agent have given me a front-row seat to watch and learn about the typical NFL scouting system. I have probably had a few players drafted higher than they deserved and some drafted lower compared to their eventual production. I’ve seen small-school players get over looked at the combine and all-star games and watched clients not get drafted at all, then start in their rookie years. Any agent you talk to has a story about how the scouting has mistreated their clients.

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c117812/media_center/images/rendered/blog/wysiwyg/Brady-5806.jpg
AP How in the world was Tom Brady only a sixth-round pick?

I love the forensics and science of football. Scouting is the R&D (research & development) department of an NFL franchise. After talking to a few scouts, scouting directors and two GMs recently about this subject, I realized where the primary fault lies in this system. The No. 1 problem falls in the “disconnect of communication” between the road/regional scout and the final decision-makers on draft day (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/front_office_total_access.html). Either that or your scouts just outright stink.

To understand the scouting system, you must first understand the role of the regional scout. This person usually resides in a region of the country that he also covers. For instance, a west coast scout could live in San Francisco and cover the Pac-10, the Mountain West and all the schools within the western region. The regional scout circulates among these schools anywhere from two to five times a year. He may attend spring practice, pro day, a game, a practice and/or just stop by to watch some tape and ask some questions. A regional scout will most likely watch a player develop for four years. He gets to know the players extremely well. He even gets to know how good or how bad the coaches are who are developing the players.

The regional scout is a hard-working foot soldier whose first priority is to collect data. That data is then delivered in the form of reports to his superiors. The superiors, such as the scouting director, GM, head coach and even the owner review the information and rank players based on their internal grading system.


The irony of this system is that the regional scouts probably may have the best idea of how players should be stacked against one another. However, come draft day, the GM, owner and head coach usually make the decision regarding whose name is called at the podium in New York. Some teams now have their regional scouts fully integrated in the war room on the draft weekend while others literally lock them outside.

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c117812/media_center/images/rendered/blog/wysiwyg/JASON-SMITH-ROGER-GOODELL.jpg

APThe ultimate goal is to select the best
players available on draft day.

Another twist to the system is that regional scouts may only be in the team office a few times a year while the top execs see each other every day and work alongside the coaching staff. Thus, the communication between the two groups can sometimes be awkward. Although many GMs and directors started out as regional scouts and still hit the road themselves, there still can be a major disconnect as information flows up the chain of command.


Scouts are actually paid to give an opinion, although many are afraid to do so. It’s typical for a regional scout to be called into the war room and asked a question about a player in front of the owner, the president, the head coach and GM. The scout must decide what information he should deliver to the power group and at what level of conviction it should be delivered. A scout knows the delivery is as important as the information, and the moment may be a defining one is his career -- for better or worse.

I love hearing stories about scouts getting into heated debates in the war room during or prior to the draft. That means they have conviction about their players and are doing their jobs. It’s no coincidence that a more passive scout may not get as many guys drafted from his region because he may not have the personality to champion them. So it’s very important for these scouts to develop communication skills that allow them to communicate effectively.

Another interesting dynamic that occurs in the draft process is how many cooks come into the kitchen when it’s time to serve the meal. As we get closer to the draft, a lot of regional scouts fade into the background while the generals take control.

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c117812/media_center/images/rendered/blog/wysiwyg/Bill-Parcells.jpg

APMiami's Bill Parcells

To further complicate the process, scouts and top execs may have a different set of needs to fill on draft day. The execs have to think of the big picture, things like: How does the player’s chemistry fit with the current team? Will the owner like the player? What will the fans think of me when I draft this player? Am I spending the owner’s money wisely? How will the media react to my pick? Can he help us right away? Will he respond to our coaching staff? Can he learn the offense/defense quickly? Will time, fame and money change the player? Does the current environment allow for this player to develop? Will the fans and media be patient with his development? Where does this player project in terms of maturation and development in one, two, even three years from now?
On the other hand, the scouts are more focused on how the player compares to his peer group. So when asked, a scout may sell a player with conviction because he feels he’s a superior football player to the peer group. However, he may not take into account all the needs of the top execs listed above.

A scout I talked to earlier this week told me that if he tried to fight for a 6-foot linebacker, his execs would not take him seriously, regardless of how productive the player was in college. “They are too quick to stereotype, and some other egos get in the way,” he said.

Some of the more successful scouting operations I’ve seen have been teams that keep small staffs; their top execs spend considerable time on campuses and in the film room. In addition, they communicate often with their scouts and make them as important a part of the process as they are. The staffs that communicate openly and frequently respect each other’s opinions will win the R&D battle in late April.

[Chiefshrink]

Good article and can also be applied in everyday businesses across this land as to who succeeds and who fails.

Does Pioli have a large or small scouting staff?

[B_Ambuehl]

I also believe teams overcomplicate the hell out of things. There is way too much time, man hours, and elaboration put into evaluating players. Malcom Gladwell wrote a book called "Blink" that I believe applies very well to scouting. The gist of it is "thin-slicing": our ability to gauge what is really important using our natural instincts often gives us more quality info. then endless mental elaboration. My belief is a knowledgeable football man can learn 90% of what they need to about a player by watching 10 minutes of game film. Their first instincts are likely to be the most valid. All the other hours put into watching film, debating, filling out elaborate reports etc. are more likely then not to lead to outsmarting yourself and screwing up the evaluation process. Obviously the medical and off the field evaluation and that stuff is necesary but generally the NFL is overcomplicated at almost every level.

[Saccopoo]

I thought that there was rumors that they had built up their scouting department, but as I mentioned in a previous thread, the Chiefs didn't have anyone at either the University of Utah or BYU's pro days, which seemed odd as both schools have relatively high level prospective NFL players in this draft class. I don't know if they haven't established a scout for the mountain region or not, but there lack of presence at two top 20 teams pro days is a little strange.

[chiefzilla1501]

Good article and can also be applied in everyday businesses across this land as to who succeeds and who fails.

Does Pioli have a large or small scouting staff?

Pioli built a reputation in New England for listening to his scouts. Much of the reason why Thomas Dimitroff built his name there as a College Scouting Director. If there's anything I'm assured of, it's that. And from the sound of it, the scouts have been all over the place. I don't know if that's because we're in an information age where we know where scouts go these days, or if it's a sign that Pioli is much more aggressive with his scouts than Peterson was.

That was one thing we heard about Lynn Stiles when he was under Carl Peterson. I'm pretty sure I once read a story about how he would absolutely refuse to listen to the advice of his scouts like Chuck Cook on the first day of the draft. That's where the system went wrong--Peterson and Stiles were making picks based on who their buddies recommended. It's a crying shame when a guy like Dick Vermeil has more influence over who to draft than the scouts who have done more than their fair share of homework on a player.

[chiefzilla1501]

I thought that there was rumors that they had built up their scouting department, but as I mentioned in a previous thread, the Chiefs didn't have anyone at either the University of Utah or BYU's pro days, which seemed odd as both schools have relatively high level prospective NFL players in this draft class. I don't know if they haven't established a scout for the mountain region or not, but there lack of presence at two top 20 teams pro days is a little strange.

I really don't care too much for pro days. The scouts have probably seen almost everything they need to see between the combine and all-year scouting. But to find a reason:
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2010/3/10/1366150/chiefs-scouts-will-be-busy-today
It's probably because there were so many pro days to cover that day.

[Ralphy Boy]

He even gets to know how good or how bad the coaches are who are developing the players.

Which basically means that scouts should/are recommending assistants and coaches from the college ranks.

I've said before that each person involved with coaching, personnel & scouting should fill out a ranking of the players in the draft.

You start when the college season is over with a ranking of each conference or teams the scouts have graded in their region. Then you bring in the personnel guys and coaches and merge the rankings based on the game film. You take everyone with you to the combine, East West game and Senior Bowl and you tell the scouts to make sure to speak up if they fill the need.

Its an ongoing learning process for everyone on the staff and like all good companies, training is always ongoing. It keeps the communication lines going back and forth constantly and the scouts will learn what the staff is looking for better than by being off on an island. You take the regional scout and position coaches to the pro days. You have the scouts sit in on their players interviews, not just so the player sees them there, but so the scout can learn more appropriately what you are looking for and understand the reasons why the staff may not like a player the scout was high on.

You have each person prepare a final ranking before the draft with a detailed report on each player and how they will play, learn and mature as well as how well they might perform if you change coaching strategies.

Then you go back and rank the draft a few years down the road, based on how they projected the players. You put more weight on the opinion of a scout of a player in their region and you don't knock him as much if he incorrectly graded a player he didn't scout. If a scout or coach sucks at evaluating a particular position, you devalue their input in those areas in future drafts. A certain scout might be great at finding line play but horrible at scouting a secondary. It doesn't mean you cut the scout but it might mean you add another scout that excels in that area.

I'd add an assistant to each position that acts as a liaison and regularly is involved with coaching but also regularly travels to college games when it works with the schedule. If you're playing in the northeast and a scout is talking up a kid at Boston College, you send him out a day earlier than the team and have him go to the game.

If it were me doing it, I'd always place a higher value on the consistency a player has shown and give a lower value to one year wonders (JPP). We see players all the time that have an incredible year and make it to a pro-bowl and then fade into oblivion the next. You find a balance on the fine line between their ceiling and the consistent effort that got them to where they are.

Basically I'd have the largest and most advanced scouting department in the league, especially when you are in KC who doesn't have the money to hand out big bonus money and needs to hit on just about every pick in the first 4 rounds every year to win a Superbowl.

[Mecca]

Scouting will never ever be an exact science if you can hit 50% of your evaluations you're doing a good job.

[Ralphy Boy]

I also believe teams overcomplicate the hell out of things. There is way too much time, man hours, and elaboration put into evaluating players. Malcom Gladwell wrote a book called "Blink" that I believe applies very well to scouting. The gist of it is "thin-slicing": our ability to gauge what is really important using our natural instincts often gives us more quality info. then endless mental elaboration. My belief is a knowledgeable football man can learn 90% of what they need to about a player by watching 10 minutes of game film. Their first instincts are likely to be the most valid. All the other hours put into watching film, debating, filling out elaborate reports etc. are more likely then not to lead to outsmarting yourself and screwing up the evaluation process. Obviously the medical and off the field evaluation and that stuff is necesary but generally the NFL is overcomplicated at almost every level.

I don't buy it. That 10 minutes of game film might have been the best the kid ever played, or the worst. You simply have to get ahead wherever you can and scouting is the last area where we can afford to be cheap. We are not a team that hands out record setting deals. We don't want to be drafting in the top 25 and when you are drafting late in every round, you have to hit on a winner every time to remain there.

The line between the players that turn out to be worth the pick and the ones that don't is very thin. Case in point is Ryan Sims, John Henderson, Albert Haynesworth and Wendell Bryant. Henderson was the biggest "sure thing" in that draft, but we got Sims and it killed us. Obviously in hind sight, Hayesworth was better than Henderson, but I'd take the sure thing in Henderson any day over the potential. Yes I know Henderson's spinal thing was an issue, but you check it out and if your doctors believe it won't affect them then you go with it, I believe Jacksonville did just that and they've been thankful ever since.

[Ralphy Boy]

Scouting will never ever be an exact science if you can hit 50% of your evaluations you're doing a good job.

I agree that it will never be an exact science, but you can increase the odds of being successful and there is no reason not to. First round picks should be much higher than 50%.

Just throwing these numbers out there, but you should be decidedly more accurate the higher the pick.
Picks
1-5 = 95%
5-10 = 90%
10-20 = 85%
20-32 = 80%
Round 2 = 75%
Round 3 = 70%
Round 4 = 60%
Round 5 = 50%
Round 6 = 40%
Round 7 = 30%
UDFA = 20%

Obviously I just pulled those numbers out of thin air, but you get the point.

It seems like the draft value chart was developed, at least in part, based on the success rate of players picked at their respective slot.

[BossChief]

Those numbers are WAYYYYYYY off.

[chiefzilla1501]

Scouting will never ever be an exact science if you can hit 50% of your evaluations you're doing a good job.

i think more than anything, it probably tells you the warning signs.

Players that eat their way out of the NFL or are walking off-the-field distractions, there's no excuse for not seeing the warning signs in the scouting process. Yet, these guys are taken high all the time.

[B_Ambuehl]

I don't buy it. That 10 minutes of game film might have been the best the kid ever played, or the worst. You simply have to get ahead wherever you can and scouting is the last area where we can afford to be cheap. We are not a team that hands out record setting deals. We don't want to be drafting in the top 25 and when you are drafting late in every round, you have to hit on a winner every time to remain there.

I'm not saying a team should be cheap. I basically agree with you. All I'm saying is more attention should be given to a personnel mans first instincts on a player as is. The way scouting cutups are nowadays you can basically watch nearly an entire season of snaps in
~10 minutes. But most busts occur when when scouting departments start thinking and talking and project a player into something he's not. Have you ever seen an evaluation sheet? They are so complicated and detailed they naturally take the process out of the hindbrain where it belongs and put it in the forebrain. For example, IMO the 2 most likely defensive busts out of this draft are Pierre Paul and Dunlap. They do little besides flash potential on tape, but people start thinking about this and that and all the sudden they start seeing things that aren't there or basing their evaluations off of things that don't really matter.

[Hammock Parties]

Wow, imagine being some podunk scout and delivering a hard opinion on a player in front of Bill Parcells or someone.

[Ralphy Boy]

Wow, imagine being some podunk scout and delivering a hard opinion on a player in front of Bill Parcells or someone.

I think people like Haley made a name for themselves by doing just that with Parcells in particular.

[Ralphy Boy]

Those numbers are WAYYYYYYY off.

Yes, I know. And I wasn't saying that a 7th round pick would be a probowler 30% of the time and like I said, I pulled the numbers out of thin air. I'm just saying that the higher the pick, the greater the probability of success. Its not rocket surgery. It all depends on how you define success. It is different for a 2nd rounder than it is a 5th rounder. Sure you'd hope that all your 5th round picks could end up starters, but the best they might ever be is a good utility linemen who can back up at a couple of spots and primarily play on special teams.

If someone took the time, I think they could go thru every draft for the last 10 years and put an average on the success rate of a given range of picks. It might be that 6% of all 7th round picks actually make the roster and stay in the league for greater than 3 years.

[Mecca]

i think more than anything, it probably tells you the warning signs.

Players that eat their way out of the NFL or are walking off-the-field distractions, there's no excuse for not seeing the warning signs in the scouting process. Yet, these guys are taken high all the time.

There's a good chance the scouts saw it and reported it but some teams will always take high end upside talent and roll with the concerns, risk/reward.