Is Russell really better than Quinn?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

I would think being successful as a scout, a key thing would be the ability to learn, adapt, and change. Why would a successful agent do the same exact thing for 30 years?

I am not trying to be an ass, I just dont buy into stuff that sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory.

Ok, then disregard what I said about the ND bias. It's really just a small piece of evidence for the much more important point that scouts suck at their jobs, and in most cases don't even complete their work. Thus the concepts of floors and ceilings evolve.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ok, then disregard what I said about the ND bias. It's really just a small piece of evidence for the much more important point that scouts suck at their jobs, and in most cases don't even complete their work. Thus the concepts of floors and ceilings evolve.

Well I wasnt just referring to the ND bias, I was also talking about your comment that scouts suck and they dont want to change. And GMs just accept not drafting good players?

Just doesnt seem to make sense, I just always feel through competition, the need and desire to improve and succeed is always there and changing. I guess since I am an Econ major, I just cant look at the world like that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Well I wasnt just referring to the ND bias, I was also talking about your comment that scouts suck and they dont want to change. And GMs just accept not drafting good players?

I just think that the concepts of floors and ceilings are stone cold admittences that scouting is a flawed process. When you start to allow massive and total room for error into your work ("JaMarcus Russell might be a better prospect than Brady Quinn but he also might be far worse"), I mean how can anyone say that the process isn't flawed.

I mean, look at how many 1st round busts you get from every draft. Do you not believe there is room for improvement in the world of scouting? These people are currently using inherent error (floors and ceilings) as a staple of the way they go about their work. Maybe thats just not the best way?

Just doesnt seem to make sense, I just always feel through competition, the need and desire to improve and succeed is always there and changing. I guess since I am an Econ major, I just cant look at the world like that.

The problem is that a majority of scouts aren't competing. They simply provide information that the competing franchises all rely on. Rumor has it that the Bengals, for example, have one scout on their payroll. Most prospect scouting comes from independant sources.

So there is no competition. They just have "a system" to grade prospects and the worst part is that the GMs accept it because they simply know no alternative. Many of my draft theories are still untested, but the currect system is just so damn inefficient that my theories (and I dont want to sound egotistical here) may be the only alternative right now.

And now the Warpathers are a step ahead of GMs in this one sense.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I just think that the concepts of floors and ceilings are stone cold admittences that scouting is a flawed process. When you start to allow massive and total room for error into your work ("JaMarcus Russell might be a better prospect than Brady Quinn but he also might be far worse"), I mean how can anyone say that the process isn't flawed.

I agree on your assessment of the floors and ceilings problem. It is a easy way for a scout not to fail. Since they say that, they can always use it to defend themselves next year.

I mean, look at how many 1st round busts you get from every draft. Do you not believe there is room for improvement in the world of scouting?

I think there is always room for improvement in the NFL and any organization. That is how the world improves, through competition and the push for improvement. But I dont know how much of that is due to the scouts purposely not trying to change or improve. I think they are, and in the world we are in, they must.

Also how can you blame 1st round busts on faulty analysis of draft experts? Perhaps some people just fail, for various reasons. Projecting anything, any business, is not an exact science. While I agree change for improvement is always good, you also have to account for simple fact that some people pan out, and others don't.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

But I dont know how much of that is due to the scouts purposely not trying to change or improve. I think they are, and in the world we are in, they must.

Also how can you blame 1st round busts on faulty analysis of draft experts? Perhaps some people just fail, for various reasons. Projecting anything, any business, is not an exact science. While I agree change for improvement is always good, you also have to account for simple fact that some people pan out, and others don't.

Scouts can't even begin to improve themselves until they identify theres a problem. Have you heard Todd McShay on TV? He's so damn cocky that he's the farthest thing from realizing that he just might be wrong.

This second paragraph is just the problem. Nobody ever wonders why these prospects fail. They just make excuses like "he wasn't a hard worker" or "he was in a bad situation" or "he didnt gel with his teammates"

These aren't reasons, Hoo, these are excuses. Until somebody actually investiagates the reasoning for a prospect busting like David Lewin did with QBs (not enough college experience), they can't adjust the problem with scouting.

Scouts in todays game just aren't curious enough to improve themselves. They just take a bust pick, make excuses for him, and move on scouting the only way they know how to.

And its a major problem in todays game.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Scouts can't even begin to improve themselves until they identify theres a problem. Have you heard Todd McShay on TV? He's so damn cocky that he's the farthest thing from realizing that he just might be wrong.

This second paragraph is just the problem. Nobody ever wonders why these prospects fail. They just make excuses like "he wasn't a hard worker" or "he was in a bad situation" or "he didnt gel with his teammates"

These aren't reasons, Hoo, these are excuses. Until somebody actually investiagates the reasoning for a prospect busting like David Lewin did with QBs (not enough college experience), they can't adjust the problem with scouting.

Scouts in todays game just aren't curious enough to improve themselves. They just take a bust pick, make excuses for him, and move on scouting the only way they know how to.

And its a major problem in todays game.

Gtripp, if you are expecting to find a scientific solution for each problem, you will be highly disappointed. There are SOOO many factors and variables that you would have to isolate and analysis. Draft experts dont have access every single one of these variable that would impact their assessments.


Look I am not saying use that as an excuse. You HAVE to know that when you are a scout. You have realize you cant be perfect. That allows you to change and adapt. I am sure tons of scouts make bad picks and move on, but that is the NFLs fault for not having a system with competition. Competition would weed out all these problems.

Yes you can improve, and maybe there will be better scouts in the future which will minimize busts, but there is no way to eliminate it. Just because we know that, doesnt mean we should stop trying to improve the system, however.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Gtripp, if you are expecting to find a scientific solution for each problem, you will be highly disappointed. There are SOOO many factors and variables that you would have to isolate and analysis. Draft experts dont have access every single one of these variable that would impact their assessments.

Look I am not saying use that as an excuse. You HAVE to know that when you are a scout. You have realize you cant be perfect. That allows you to change and adapt. I am sure tons of scouts make bad picks and move on, but that is the NFLs fault for not having a system with competition. Competition would weed out all these problems.

Yes you can improve, and maybe there will be better scouts in the future which will minimize busts, but there is no way to eliminate it. Just because we know that, doesnt mean we should stop trying to improve the system, however.

I realize that we are far, far away from the draft being an exact science. At least 20 years, probably longer. But there are simple trends that decision makers are turning a blind eye to, and setting back their franchises.

In theory, drafting should get more and more accurate every year. I mean, that's what should be happening. Agreed?

Well, is it? You tell me. If it is, we have a non issue. If it's not improving, it's a bigger issue than anyone in the business could imagine. Because someone with knowledge of all these mistakes will come in and create a perennial winner and dominate their divisions for years, and years, and years until someone figures out whats wrong.

Oh wait, thats what the Pats and Eagles (and maybe Chargers too--its early) are doing already.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The problem is that a majority of scouts aren't competing. They simply provide information that the competing franchises all rely on. Rumor has it that the Bengals, for example, have one scout on their payroll. Most prospect scouting comes from independant sources.

So there is no competition. They just have "a system" to grade prospects and the worst part is that the GMs accept it because they simply know no alternative. Many of my draft theories are still untested, but the currect system is just so damn inefficient that my theories (and I dont want to sound egotistical here) may be the only alternative right now.

And now the Warpathers are a step ahead of GMs in this one sense.

Now I do not know how much competition there is with scouts, but if that is true, then you may be correct. I still dont know about GMs not knowing any other alternatives, and therefore sticking to shitty opinions.

These GMs have tons of resources and very smart people who work for them. If there is a lack of competition which yields bad results for drafting, they would know. And when you know that, teams will change. What you are saying is that there is no competition(which may be true) but then the GMs dont know what else to do, so they use it?

Basically the GMs would have to be stupid, which just doesnt make sense. Why else would they take that scouting report, when they know it is wrong? That just doesnt make sense at all.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Basically the GMs would have to be stupid, which just doesnt make sense. Why else would they take that scouting report, when they know it is wrong? That just doesnt make sense at all.

I don't understand how you arrive here. Many GMs aren't scouts. They just rely heavily upon the opinion of scouts to make accurate judgements. So if their scouts are wrong too often, they fire them, only to hire a scout who has the same problem.

That doesn't make the GMs stupid, they are just using the resouces available to them, and those resources aren't any more valuable than you or I.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't understand how you arrive here. Many GMs aren't scouts. They just rely heavily upon the opinion of scouts to make accurate judgements. So if their scouts are wrong too often, they fire them, only to hire a scout who has the same problem.

That doesn't make the GMs stupid, they are just using the resouces available to them, and those resources aren't any more valuable than you or I.

Well I am assuming that if a GM is intelligent and rational, they will not use, or they will demand better resources.

If they GMs want it, they have the money to make it happen. If your theory is true, then GMs would not take opinions which are bad. They would demand better ones, or change.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Well I am assuming that if a GM is intelligent and rational, they will not use, or they will demand better resources.

If they GMs want it, they have the money to make it happen. If your theory is true, then GMs would not take opinions which are bad. They would demand better ones, or change.

But a majority of the opinions available to scouts today--close to all, are bad, IMO. Scouting directors and scouts get fired all the time because they are making mistakes. But if they guys that replace them are making the same mistakes, that's not an improvement now is it?

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.