Is Russell really better than Quinn?

[GTripp0012]

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.

For example, Scout A believes that SEC Quarterbacks are better prepared for the NFL than any other conference. Scout A also believes that the Pac 10 is a horrible QB conference. In 1998, Scout A decided that Manning would be a better QB than Leaf based on his conference perception. Low and behold, Leaf busts, and Manning becomes one of, if not the greatest ever to play. Scout A's perceptions of conference are reinforced. In 2003, Scout A decides that Rex Grossman will certainly be a better prospect than Kyle Boller because of conference exp. While Grossman was a little underwhelming, Bollers complete inepititude convinces Scout A that he is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt with his theory.

So now you have another SEC QB in Russell and Quinn and non conference QB. Scout A already knows who the better prospect is, but now he can convince collegues he is right by reminding them of past history and Russell's big arm.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.

Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.

Duely noted. I realize the burden of proof is on me and my elaborate challenge to the system. But I would argue that the current climate of accepted failure in scouting is proof enough that something, if not everything, is amiss. Busts become acceptable. And I don't have all the answers for non QB positions. But I also am not (yet) a scout. I feel that every year, I will learn something more about the NFL and how I can improve my own scouting techiques. I think QBs are easy to do mathematically, but because of the lack of stats on other positions, they will be a lot harder.

And yes, I am saying "the advice a scout gives is based on a bunch of incorrect and unfounded perceptions, but randomly gets lucky at times". This is my claim, 100% accurate.

Can I ever prove this? Maybe not. But to me, there is a huge culture of scouting thats got it wrong, and I would have no problem using my personal career to go into the field of scouting and test my theory if I can.

If I'm right, I achieve unmitigated success on the highest level of sport building. If I'm wrong, I'm pretty much out of a job in my mid 30s, and have to start over from that point.

I'm that confident in it.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Duely noted. I realize the burden of proof is on me and my elaborate challenge to the system. But I would argue that the current climate of accepted failure in scouting is proof enough that something, if not everything, is amiss. Busts become acceptable. And I don't have all the answers for non QB positions. But I also am not (yet) a scout. I feel that every year, I will learn something more about the NFL and how I can improve my own scouting techiques. I think QBs are easy to do mathematically, but because of the lack of stats on other positions, they will be a lot harder.

And yes, I am saying "the advice a scout gives is based on a bunch of incorrect and unfounded perceptions, but randomly gets lucky at times". This is my claim, 100% accurate.

Can I ever prove this? Maybe not. But to me, there is a huge culture of scouting thats got it wrong, and I would have no problem using my personal career to go into the field of scouting and test my theory if I can.

I'm that confident in it.

Well I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. I just have my reservations in accepting theories blindly. I was just pointing out my issues with your theory.

And just because it may be impossible to prove, does not mean it is wrong. I would say keep it up, and update your theory. Don't be hypocritical and assume your theory is always or 100% correct. That would be a bit ironic, because you are arguing that scouts do the same thing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Well I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. I just have my reservations in accepting theories blindly. I was just pointing out my issues with your theory.

And just because it may be impossible to prove, does not mean it is wrong. I would say keep it up, and update your theory. Don't be hypocritical and assume your theory is always or 100% correct. That would be a bit ironic, because you are arguing that scouts do the same thing.

I think my arguement can be falsified and it can be done by proving that the accuracy of scouting has reached its apex and can't make anymore significant gains.

I, in turn, could support my argument by suggesting possible ways to improve scouting (which I have done), and then proving that these ways work better (which has yet to be done).

I'm just trying to show that the logical approach would seem like scouting could be bettered. That doesn't make me right or wrong, it just gives an alternative hypothesis to the way things are being done.