Just had a question and was wondering peoples opinions. I know most NFL teams have regional scouts, the business major inside of me is just curious as to why NFL teams don't hire scouts that specialize in one position. Like instead of having scouts for the Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, Northwest, Mideast, and Midwest you have a WR/TE scout, OL scout, DL scout, LB scout, DB scout, and QB/RB scout. I think this would help scouts rank players in their respective positions better than the current system and would allow scouts to sort of specialize in a certain positional area. Just a thought... What do you think?
I thought of that, but in today's day and age isn't most scouting done in the film room compared to actually attending games?
I'm not sure that's true. I don't know for certain but I am aware that scouts do travel quite a bit still. Still on the road 200+ days.
I like the concept myself. But I think the travel budget is why teams do it the way they do. I say we take the first step and do it the other way. We would be trendsetters. I also wonder if our scouts ever get together and discuss what each see, because their teams must play in the others area some.
Because a scout is a person who can only get to so many places in a certain amount of time, so travel figures in. Also, good scouts, imo, form relationships with the schools, coaches and such. That's easier to do when you cover fewer schools in more depth than if you are a stranger walking onto 58 different campuses.
I think if you stash the money you spend on the travel expenses for scouts and increase your scouts pay AND let them work from home or a central office (the Miami Dolphins Head Quarters) you would make that job, very, very attractive to a lot of the NFL's scouts since they would be able to have a normal, healthy, family life. I also think if they spent as much time evaluating film as they did traveling, PLUS only looked at one position say WRs for instance you would have a much better comparison between players and would have better results in the draft. I think in today's media driven NFL and NCAA you wouldn't have to form relationships to be successful, you should be able to tell what you want about a player from interviews, police reports, and even calling up a coach and asking about a player. I could also see a case where being close and forming relationships with coaches and players via the current system could create a bias for certain players. Say you are really close with Will Muschamp and you visit their practices and really like what you see from Mike Gillislee, and you talk to Gillislee after practice and really hit it off well with him that *might* cause you to raise your evaluation of him a bit compared to a Andre Ellington if for instance you visit their practice and don't really hit it off with the coach or player at Clemson.
There are private scouting companies that do this, of course they base their scouts in NFL towns. One of my former high school teammates works for one. They cut the film and add their views and sell to the highest bidder. The're private companies that work college scouting as well.
Remember the mental/character breakdown that ck, boomer, or someone else did on Ryan Mallett? That was all done without visiting Ryan Mallett and or Arkansas. I think a players talent outweighs the players character anyway. Percy Harvin had a horrible personality and still went early in round 1, Bruce Irvin had some questionable incidents and still was a 1st round pick. I think if you pay attention a lot more to the talent than their character you will as a whole draft better. I am not saying ignore a players personality all together, but I would for the most part assume each player has an average character and then investigate further if you see, hear, or suspect any red flags. I just think having your scouts actually scout, rather than having them try to mental profile hundreds of kinds would be a good idea.
That is what gave me the idea to do this. You would have to think that NFL scouts given the same amount of time breaking down film would be better than these private companies.
From working with Anthony Munoz, I've got sort of a perspective on it as it pertains to the Bengals perspective. For the most part, I'd tend to think money and travel would be the prevailing reasons among most teams. For example, Anthony told me that when he played, 1980-1993, the Bengals operated with like 2-4 scouts TOTAL. Of those, one guy was responsible for scouting the Bengals future opponents, i.e. helping prep for the upcoming game. The rest were responsible for scouting college talent, and obviously free agency once that kicked into high gear. The Bengals were simply just too frugal to spend more money on scouts and relied pretty heavily (and still do) on their coaches to scout and select their players. Nowadays, for all intents and purposes, Marvin Lewis is the guy pulling the strings on all personnel issues. Mike Brown gives input, for example, he wanted Cincinnati to take Ryan Mallett in the 2011 Draft. Cincinnati took A.J. Green and Andy Dalton instead. Brown has been pretty willing to give retread/troubled guys second chances thought - Pacman Jones, Chris Crocker, Reggie Nelson, etc., but Marvin has the final authority despite not officially holding a GM title.
No offense to the gentlemen, who I have respect for, but I don't think that's how you want to do it. Not when your *** is on the line. Not to mention, I believe they never uncovered the entire truth about him, as I don't recall some of the things I know about Mallett's past (including prior to Arkansas) included in the work. You simply can't do it that way IMO. You need face to face interaction with his coaches, trainers, etc.
WADR that's a poor assumption and is a mismanagement of resources. I'm given the impression you underestimate the mental/psychological side, which is a mistake. Since talent is nothing without desire & mental intangibles, I'd spend nearly as much time scouting that aspect as I would on assessing talent & physical ability, especially considering I'd want a team built of similar character and compromised of a similar, winning, determined, team-oriented mindset. Heck, teams purge themselves of players who don't fit this mold regardless of talent level (see Brandon Marshall & Vontae Davis) so why would you not place a significant emphasis on this aspect when scouting for potential additions? I consider the mental/psychologic side to be so important that I'd have a few scouts who specialize in that area alone, as recognizing and deciphering that aspect of a player can be unique in and of itself. After all, considering how many players bust due to the mental/psychological side, there's no excuse for not executing full due diligence. Once games are over, that's it, there's no more gauging a player's character/mental intangibles the way you can during the season, so you better make that time count, and if you come across talented players whom you feel don't have the mental makeup/character you want on your team, then those are players you won't need to otherwise spend hours assessing film of or following around for future games. Besides, you get 4 months after the season ends to watch all the film your heart desires.
Having scouts evaluate all positional players in a given area and traveling 200+ days a year is a mismanagement of resources. The reason I brought this idea up was "Specialization." Here is an example in business terms Worker A can produce: 120 widgets and 0 screws or 60 widgets and 100 screws or 0 widgets and 200 screws Worker B can produce: 140 widgets and 0 screws or 70 widgets and 80 screws or 0 widgets and 160 screws Instead of having both Worker A and B make both widgets and screws (which would result in 130 widgets and 180 screws), it is better to have Worker A make screws ONLY and Worker B make Widgets only (resulting in 140 widgets and 200 screws). Every single person in the world is different and can usually certain work-related tasks a little better or a little worse than another given person. By having the person concentrate on their "best" task and minimizing how much they do tasks that they aren't as good in you increase production. This principle can be applied to many things and I think you could say it would work for scouts as well. Certain scouts definitely would be able to scout a certain position better than other positions, so you play to their strengths and have them scout the position they are best at evaluating. That way, like the widget and screws example you get better results than you would if you had each scout evaluate every position. With the money you saved by cutting traveling expenses you can even higher a private investigator or a psychologist that goes around and does mental profiles of each player, or if you choose only certain players that you have concerns about. Think about the last couple drafts; the media can tell you players that have had problems in the past (Cam Newton - stole computers at UF, Percy Harvin - revolted against the coaching staff and skipped practice a good amount, Dez Bryant, Vontaze Burfict, Pac-Man Jones, Bruce Irvin, Jimmy Smith, Janorice Jenkins, etc.). I am not a scout and haven't attended any of those players practices or met with them, yet if I were a team I would know that I need to do a psychological evaluation on them because of know instances. The typical player on the other hand that hasn't been benched at any point in their career, hasn't been arrested, hasn't broken team rules, etc. you could for the most part assume they would have an average mental make up. I mean the Cincinnati Bengals have drafted questionable characters for years and while some have been busts, overall it hasn't negatively hurt the team that much. Again, I am not saying skip the psychological evaluations. If money isn't a concern then like I mentioned hire a psychologist or Private Investigator to make mental profiles of 300+ prospects each year, or take the cheap route and only look at players that you think deserve further attention/monitoring. I still think if you did some sort of specialization like this where each scout looks at the position they evaluate best you would have a damn good draft. Anyways, it was just a out there idea. Thank you all for helping me entertain my idea, and you can bet your *** if I become the next Stephen Ross I would implement this scouting approach. Being afraid of change, also limits your success.
With how developed technology is becoming with Skype and webcams you can still talk to prospects face to face. I can see recruiting adapting to be widely available. Its a lot easier to distribute footage of recruits of smaller schools than ever before and its only going to get better.
Who do you think the private companies hire? It's helluva job if you can get but the burnout is damn high.
Simon's character section on our Ryan Mallett article was brilliant. But it was a media piece. If you're an actual team, you can't do things that way, IMO.
You realize people work on planes and while travelling in cars, buses, limos, taxis... or waiting in waiting rooms now, right? They make phone calls, they use laptops and ipads to watch film and look at playbooks as player... I see no reason to think the scouts wouldn;t make good use of that time too.
Regarding the green part: You're missing the point. This isn't just about trying to figure out if a player is a bad apple. You're trying to discover what type of heart, work ethic, dedication, and motivation he has, his passion & desire for the game, what type of teammate he is, etc.... all the intangibles that could make an average athlete into a quality starter or an outstanding talent into a bust if he's without them. Again, most talented players don't bust b/c their talent disappears; they bust b/c of their mental/psychological make up, and you can't figure that out to a strong enough degree just by watching film. Regarding the blue part: making an assumption that most players have an average mental makeup would be lazy, irresponsible, and something I'd expect from a poorly run organization WADR.
They also have to drive a lot too and its against the law to be on the phone and drive in some instances.
Too employ a good scout you need to have keen knowledge of the offense or defense your team is running, I would dictate scouts based on scheme than position. For example if Scout A has a nice résumé of drafting solid West Coast offensive players then his value as a scout improves drastically. You not only need to be extremely knowledgable, you need to have an eye for talent. You can't just plug in numbers and stats like Brad Pitt in moneyball.
