If I were a team I'd track my scouts success rate. Not just on players we drafted but on players we didn't draft as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to do. And in the end you should be able to find the best scouts based on their ratings and match those against the real life outcomes. And yet, I don't think much of that actually takes place.
Exactly, and I wonder why that is. Look at Broaddus' stupid ass opinions -- how did he ever get a job here and why did it take Parcells to fire him? I'd think there would be a lot of turnover there because as you say, it's pretty easy to evaluate how good they are at their job, and they're relatively cheap to replace. But it doesn't seem to operate that way. Maybe it does at other teams, I'm not sure.
It's not what you know. It's who you know.
This is where you think analytics could actually work really well. Not analytics to judge the prospects. But analytics to judge the accuracy of scouts. You could even get in depth with it to determine what a scout is best at and what he is worst at. Maybe your area scout is great at evaluating LBers but has a terrible track record with DTs. You'd at least know that you shouldn't put much weight in his opinion on DT's and lean more heavily on someone else to evaluate that position.
Retarded, but someone will see this one year Barkley Superbowl and think that's the path to a Superbowl.
They wouldn’t be wrong either, so long as it’s one of the final pieces like he was in Philly
Those teams are picking 25-32 and could you imagine the cost to go up that high? You better be right or you totally fucked yourself.
in particular was really speaking up.
I'm not even sure who the hell David Moore is to be honest with you.The team draft PC was/is today (I'm joining late).
First is several minutes of Jerry kissing up to David Moore, who apparently is retiring.
Next is Clarence Hill asking Jerry what he thinks about the Luka trade.
We're off to a roaring start.
Oh, and it's Jerry doing 90% of the talking, with some Stephen and some McClay. BS is sitting so far at the end of the table he's almost outside of it. No questions even to BS yet several minutes in.
Really? The DMN reporter who has covered the team since the Landry days. One of the better old school reporters who isn't just a team mouthpiece or lackey.
) Also kind of downplayed the importance of the RB. Said last year was more about OL problems than RB problems. He could be playing possum but I don't think so in this case. Makes me think maybe there's some truth to that report about Simmons.
Yeah, he has been around for a long time.
This is him excusing the pathetic Zeke play. Despite the fact that a JAG in Dowdle was productive behind the same or worse Oline.
That was my thought exactly. How much of that did he really believe and how much was just him defending his horrific Zeke signing.
Yeah I don't pay any attention to DMN
Don't get me wrong, Oline play and scheme have a lot to do with a running game. You want to know why Barkley had an insane season? Scheme, coaching and Oline were a large part of that. Same reason why Sanders looked like a good RB before he left Philly and sucked. But the RB matters too. And what you'll notice about that Philly Oline is that it's not made up of a bunch of first round picks. Oline play isn't just about having 5 of the most physically lifted dudes in the NFL. It's a lot of coaching and scheme.