Here is a "hidden problem" we haven't addressed yet...

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Sportscurmudgeon brings up a very valid point about the scouting department. Why wouldn't we want to have the best scouting department and FO in the NFL? I think some of the posts contrary to sportscurmudgeon's point seem a bit defensive. The scouting department should be heavily scrutinized and parts of it may have to be replaced. It does not have to be a bad thing. Cutting off the head might not be enough.

I'm sure the scouting department will be heavily scrutinized. It was when Cerrato took over as EVP, and as it is turnover is not all that uncommon in scouting. The scouting department has had plenty of hits and misses, just like every other team. The intent of the thread was fine, but the first post was filled with so many errors that it, in my opinion, negated any valid opinion he may have had when he decided to start this thread.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm sure the scouting department will be heavily scrutinized. It was when Cerrato took over as EVP, and as it is turnover is not all that uncommon in scouting. The scouting department has had plenty of hits and misses, just like every other team. The intent of the thread was fine, but the first post was filled with so many errors that it, in my opinion, negated any valid opinion he may have had when he decided to start this thread.

Just like every other team? Judging by our record the last few years, at best, we've hovered around the middle of the pack. Now we're on the verge of 4-12. So it would be hard to say that we've had our 'hits and misses, just like every other team'. Some teams have had more hits than misses, and they're in contention for a championship. Lately, we've had the opposite.

I don't see why people refuse to admit that bad scouting and bad personnel moves will get you bad, 4-12 type teams.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just like every other team? Judging by our record the last few years, at best, we've hovered around the middle of the pack. Now we're on the verge of 4-12. So it would be hard to say that we've had our 'hits and misses, just like every other team'. Some teams have had more hits than misses, and they're in contention for a championship. Lately, we've had the opposite.

I don't see why people refuse to admit that bad scouting and bad personnel moves will get you bad, 4-12 type teams.

Bad personnel moves are not necessarily the result of bad scouting. We clearly have made "bad personnel moves" which have been detailed in various threads. Again, was good scouting advice ignored? My thought is yes. (We're talking Vinny here). Again, I specifically recall one post from Smootsmack that demonstrated, as far as draft picks go, we had as many starters from picks as New England did (or something like that).

IMO, the scouting has not been a significant flaw but rather the use of the information provided and choices made by EVP Vinny.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bad personnel moves are not necessarily the result of bad scouting. We clearly have made "bad personnel moves" which have been detailed in various threads. Again, was good scouting advice ignored? My thought is yes. (We're talking Vinny here). Again, I specifically recall one post from Smootsmack that demonstrated, as far as draft picks go, we had as many starters from picks as New England did (or something like that).

IMO, the scouting has not been a significant flaw but rather the use of the information provided and choices made by EVP Vinny.

There's really no way of knowing whether the scouting advice has been followed unless somebody talks to the scouts. And even then, would they call out Vinny and say that they were ignored by him? Maybe, maybe not. Even if half of the time Vinny listened to them and half of the time he didn't, the point remains -- a 4-12 record after years of mediocrity is a failure of personnel, and scouting has to be a part of that.

True, our draft picks selected have made up a larger number of the active roster than in years past -- but look at where New England is, and then look at where we are. What does that tell you about our draft picks and the quality of those scouting/selecting them?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

True, our draft picks selected have made up a larger number of the active roster than in years past -- but look at where New England is, and then look at where we are. What does that tell you about our draft picks and the quality of those scouting/selecting them?

it could be that ne plays it's most talented players, regardless of how much money their making. the skins seem to play the players with the biggest contracts, regardless of how talented they are. thats not bad scouting, thats just a bad philosaphy(sp).

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

it could be that ne plays it's most talented players, regardless of how much money their making. the skins seem to play the players with the biggest contracts, regardless of how talented they are. thats not bad scouting, thats just a bad philosaphy(sp).

It depends on which scouts you're talking about - isn't there a pro/free agent scouting division?

I go back to what Defensewins said: why wouldn't we want the best scouting department in the NFL? Why are people so quick to try and obsolve our scouting department of any blame? Aren't they at least part of it?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It depends on which scouts you're talking about - isn't there a pro/free agent scouting division?

I go back to what Defensewins said: why wouldn't we want the best scouting department in the NFL? Why are people so quick to try and obsolve our scouting department of any blame? Aren't they at least part of it?

Who's trying to absolve them of any blame?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

There's really no way of knowing whether the scouting advice has been followed unless somebody talks to the scouts. And even then, would they call out Vinny and say that they were ignored by him? Maybe, maybe not. Even if half of the time Vinny listened to them and half of the time he didn't, the point remains -- a 4-12 record after years of mediocrity is a failure of personnel, and scouting has to be a part of that.

True, our draft picks selected have made up a larger number of the active roster than in years past -- but look at where New England is, and then look at where we are. What does that tell you about our draft picks and the quality of those scouting/selecting them?

First, I am talking only about scouting - the review and evaluation of talent, particularly colllege talent, by field workers who transmit information to the personnel decision makers. Obviously, scouting may be a part of the losing record. A winning footballl operation, however, is like any good team, it takes all the parts to work well for success.

Losing is easy, it only takes one part of the organization to screw things up.

This season, poor coaching and a history of bad personnel decisions created the problems. We could have a terrific scouting department, but who would ever know if VC consistently ignored their advice and torpedoed the career of anyone who contradicted him.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just like every other team? Judging by our record the last few years, at best, we've hovered around the middle of the pack. Now we're on the verge of 4-12. So it would be hard to say that we've had our 'hits and misses, just like every other team'. Some teams have had more hits than misses, and they're in contention for a championship. Lately, we've had the opposite.

I don't see why people refuse to admit that bad scouting and bad personnel moves will get you bad, 4-12 type teams.

It is possible for a team to have good personnel but misuse them, resulting in a 4-12 record.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Lotus

It is possible for a team to have good personnel but misuse them, resulting in a 4-12 record.

I might agree, but not to the extent of a 4-12 record. If you put, say, the 49ers of the 80's in a smashmouth offense, would they really be reduced to a 4-win season? I don't think so. Good players overcome lots of obstacles.

Plus, while there have been players that haven't been used right, Orakpo and Devin Thomas (at least in terms of playing time) come to mind, I would hardly say that the entire roster has been misused to the point that we could have been significantly better.

Is it your contention that we are really an 8-8 or 9-7 team and that the coaches are solely to blame?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I might agree, but not to the extent of a 4-12 record. If you put, say, the 49ers of the 80's in a smashmouth offense, would they really be reduced to a 4-win season? I don't think so. Good players overcome lots of obstacles.

Plus, while there have been players that haven't been used right, Orakpo and Devin Thomas (at least in terms of playing time) come to mind, I would hardly say that the entire roster has been misused to the point that we could have been significantly better.

Is it your contention that we are really an 8-8 or 9-7 team and that the coaches are solely to blame?

No, that is not my contention.

I also am not giving scouting a pass. I hope that, starting Monday, the entire organization is put under the microscope and problems are fixed, including in scouting.

At the same time, I find it hard to blame scouting alone for 4-12, as your previous post seemed to do.