How much influence do analysts have on the draft (1 Viewer)

[eakfootball]

I am starting to think that draft anylists such as Kiper, McShay, Mayock, and Scott Wright may actually have a huge impact on where the players go in the NFL draft. And while the teams will make the final say of a player based on tape, they might have no idea where a player would go if it were'nt for the media. A team may have a player graded in their top 15. But how would they know if he might be their in the second round, other than media hype. If it weren't for the media a team could pick a player in the 2nd round who they could have gotten in the 6th (Al Davis does it anyways). How different do you think the draft would be if the media wasn't telling everyone where people are "going to go"?

 

[Donsmith753]

Tyson alualu says otherwise.

 

[eakfootball]

Tyson alualu says otherwise.

I almost brought his name up. Decided to go with the Michael Mitchell reference instead.

 

[Lehigh98]

I'm sure each team has a list, probably not just anylist though.

 

[Thorpe]

Zero influence. Front offices laugh at Kiper and McShay.

 

[GridironMenace]

I think the OP is forgetting that each team has a front office department whose sole responsibility is to evaluate the talent pool. If the OP thinks that the only people that can accurately identify where players in the NFL draft should be going, in order to illicit maximum value; are the likes of McShay and Kiper, he is smoking the good stuff.

 

[FUBAR]

How much $ does a top scout make vs. guys like Kiper and McShay?

 

[GridironMenace]

How much $ does a top scout make vs. guys like Kiper and McShay?

Much, much less.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

None. The reason why the actual 1st round of the draft looks fairly close to the last mocks some years is because draft "experts" spend the entire off-season piecing together info from actual scouts, playing catch-up to the real pros.

Players' draft value fluctuates wildly from week to week in the media...but that's only because the media can't pin down what teams actually think. Players' draft stock doesn't vary nearly as much with NFL teams over that time span.

And why do the "experts" rely so much on week-to-week info from across the league, that may or may not be true (or a smokescreen)? Because they have no clue what they're doing in comparison with the guys who work for actual NFL teams, outside of the obviously top players.

You'll notice that after the first half of the first round, the draftniks whiff all over the place. Nevermind the later rounds.

 

[coolnerd]

None. The reason why the actual 1st round of the draft looks fairly close to the last mocks some years is because draft "experts" spend the entire off-season piecing together info from actual scouts, playing catch-up to the real pros. Players' draft value fluctuates wildly from week to week in the media...but that's only because the media can't pin down what teams actually think. Players' draft stock doesn't vary nearly as much with NFL teams over that time span. And why do the "experts" rely so much on week-to-week info from across the league, that may or may not be true (or a smokescreen)? Because they have no clue what they're doing in comparison with the guys who work for actual NFL teams, outside of the obviously top players.You'll notice that after the first half of the first round, the draftniks whiff all over the place. Nevermind the later rounds.

Yep, people don't understand that much of the player dropping down the boards or shooting up the boards is really more do to the information gap versus some dude running a 4.45 versus an expected 4.50 at a pro day. In good organizations most of the players grade comes from regular season film anaylsis. It is like in school where most of a student's grade comes from tests and/or essays, but if he or she dismisses, flunks or totally aces the homework, quizzes, and other side items a student can change his grade somewhat. BTW, just because we are dealing with 32 teams, there might be a couple who do listen to Kipers, etc more than a profesional organization which understands its needs than it should. For me, the mock drafts and such are about learning about individual players that I missed watching college football and studying the draft needs and patterns of teams. While I like some more than others, because the draftsperts are not making decisions which can cost people jobs, I take what the pros say with a greater deal of certainty.

 

[gianmarco]

I'm sure each team has a list, probably not just anylist though.

Well played.

 

[daveR]

I'm sure each team has a list, probably not just anylist though.

Well played.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The Agents and Players definitely pay attention to the draftniks and I can tell you that at least some of them strongly believe that the teams do too and they have asked me to pump up their players more than once. Some teams (Bengals for instance) do seem to do little independent work and rely more on the conventional wisdom, which would include draftnik talk. I think you also have to draw a distinction between the big school players who already have been analyzed and covered heavily and the small school players. Teams most definitely get turned on to overlooked players by youtube videos and other grass roots type coverage of the player, they have even said as much, such as in the case of Andy Studebaker and the Eagles.

Teams also pay attention to the mocks to get an idea of where players may come off the board to anticipate who will be there for certain picks or when to pull the trigger on a trade-up - why not, in a lot of cases it is the best aggregation of the info out there, even if a lot of it is smokescreen info. I do think the draft would definitely go differently if it was still like it was back in 80s before it became a quasi-sports season with events, beat writers, and attention paid to every aspect.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

How much $ does a top scout make vs. guys like Kiper and McShay?

I believe 30K is a decent salary for a scout. They travel endlessly and spend a lot of time doing work that they know is useless or will be ignored. It is a thankless job.

 

[zed2283]

I don't think the Colts front office ever thought much of guys like Mel Kiper.

http://www.playerpress.com/articles/who-in-the-hell-is-mel-kiper-anyway

(nice crop duster, Olbermann)

 

[Matt Waldman]

How much $ does a top scout make vs. guys like Kiper and McShay?

I believe 30K is a decent salary for a scout. They travel endlessly and spend a lot of time doing work that they know is useless or will be ignored. It is a thankless job.

I'll concur, I heard that there's a "25-25" rule within the NFL scouting community. What it means is that most of the scouts are 25 years old and making 25K or at least teams tend to ditch their scouts with tenure for 25-25's.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Channing Crowder seems to think that the answer is "a lot"

Channing Crowder: Mel Kiper lied, made me spend too much moneyPosted by Michael David Smith on March 29, 2011, 2:38 PM EDTThe Miami Dolphins selected linebacker Channing Crowder in the third round of the 2005 NFL draft, and that came as a surprise to Crowder, who had been expecting to go in the first round — and who had been spending money like a guy who was banking on a first-round contract.Six years later, Crowder is still bitter toward ESPN’s Mel Kiper Jr., whom Crowder says was the person who made him think he would get a multimillion-dollar rookie contract. Crowder said on WQAM that he watches the draft every year, but he watches it with some skepticism toward Kiper and the other so-called draft experts.“Yeah I watch it and all,” Crowder said, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. “Mel Kiper and all, he messed me over, he lied to me, told me I was top-20 had me go out and spend X amount of dollars and then owe the bank stuff. So I don’t know the guys. They’re guessing just like we guess — I can guess who the Dolphins are going to take too. But I look at it a little bit and hear the ‘experts,’ I guess they call them, to see what they say.”Crowder is right that at the time he left Florida for the NFL draft, Kiper had him projected as a first-round draft pick. However, Kiper’s projections often change quite a bit from January to April, and that was the case with Crowder.“I previously projected the Colts to take Florida middle linebacker Channing Crowder [in the first round], but his stock is quickly falling into the third-round area thanks to injury/durability concerns,” Kiper wrote in April of 2005.It’s ridiculous for Crowder to say Kiper “lied” just because Kiper changed his opinion of Crowder: Everyone who analyzes the draft changes his opinion all the time. That might make Crowder correct when he says not to put much stock into the so-called draft experts’ opinions, but it hardly makes Kiper at fault for Crowder’s foolish spending.I have a feeling that Crowder knows that, though. Whether he’s launching into bizarre diatribes about Anne Frank and Helen Keller, or saying he has no idea where London is, I usually assume that when we laugh about Crowder’s ludicrous comments, we’re laughing with him, not at him.So while Bill Tobin genuinely despises Kiper, Crowder probably just likes to have a laugh at Kiper’s expense.

What an idiot.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Channing Crowder seems to think that the answer is "a lot"

Channing Crowder: Mel Kiper lied, made me spend too much money

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 29, 2011, 2:38 PM EDT

The Miami Dolphins selected linebacker Channing Crowder in the third round of the 2005 NFL draft, and that came as a surprise to Crowder, who had been expecting to go in the first round — and who had been spending money like a guy who was banking on a first-round contract.

Six years later, Crowder is still bitter toward ESPN’s Mel Kiper Jr., whom Crowder says was the person who made him think he would get a multimillion-dollar rookie contract. Crowder said on WQAM that he watches the draft every year, but he watches it with some skepticism toward Kiper and the other so-called draft experts.

“Yeah I watch it and all,” Crowder said, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. “Mel Kiper and all, he messed me over, he lied to me, told me I was top-20 had me go out and spend X amount of dollars and then owe the bank stuff. So I don’t know the guys. They’re guessing just like we guess — I can guess who the Dolphins are going to take too. But I look at it a little bit and hear the ‘experts,’ I guess they call them, to see what they say.”

Crowder is right that at the time he left Florida for the NFL draft, Kiper had him projected as a first-round draft pick. However, Kiper’s projections often change quite a bit from January to April, and that was the case with Crowder.

“I previously projected the Colts to take Florida middle linebacker Channing Crowder [in the first round], but his stock is quickly falling into the third-round area thanks to injury/durability concerns,” Kiper wrote in April of 2005.

It’s ridiculous for Crowder to say Kiper “lied” just because Kiper changed his opinion of Crowder: Everyone who analyzes the draft changes his opinion all the time. That might make Crowder correct when he says not to put much stock into the so-called draft experts’ opinions, but it hardly makes Kiper at fault for Crowder’s foolish spending.

I have a feeling that Crowder knows that, though. Whether he’s launching into bizarre diatribes about Anne Frank and Helen Keller, or saying he has no idea where London is, I usually assume that when we laugh about Crowder’s ludicrous comments, we’re laughing with him, not at him.

So while Bill Tobin genuinely despises Kiper, Crowder probably just likes to have a laugh at Kiper’s expense.

What an idiot.

This statement can be accurate just about every time the guy opens his mouth.

 

[Thorpe]

How much $ does a top scout make vs. guys like Kiper and McShay?

Much, much less.

The salary is irrelevant. It is like saying Bill O'Reilly knows more about foreign affairs than a Senator, because he make 25 mil a year vs the Senators 200K.

 

[Sweet Love]

The Agents and Players definitely pay attention to the draftniks and I can tell you that at least some of them strongly believe that the teams do too and they have asked me to pump up their players more than once. Some teams (Bengals for instance) do seem to do little independent work and rely more on the conventional wisdom, which would include draftnik talk. I think you also have to draw a distinction between the big school players who already have been analyzed and covered heavily and the small school players. Teams most definitely get turned on to overlooked players by youtube videos and other grass roots type coverage of the player, they have even said as much, such as in the case of Andy Studebaker and the Eagles.Teams also pay attention to the mocks to get an idea of where players may come off the board to anticipate who will be there for certain picks or when to pull the trigger on a trade-up - why not, in a lot of cases it is the best aggregation of the info out there, even if a lot of it is smokescreen info. I do think the draft would definitely go differently if it was still like it was back in 80s before it became a quasi-sports season with events, beat writers, and attention paid to every aspect.

I agree with these points and would add one more. I think there is also "fan pressure", based on what the draftniks and media have been feeding the fans, for the franchises to look hard at who they select based on popularity (whether correct or not). Sure there have been times where the fans were wrong, but as a Jets fan who remembers everyone screaming for Sapp, to walk away with Brady was not only a disapointment, but proved to be a massive mistake by the franchise. These guys have jobs and accountability like everyone else, and if you go against the boss or stockholders in our "business worls", you better be right. It is a lot eaiser to say, "everyone liked Dwayne Roberston" when he fails than to pony up and admit you made the wrong decision when everyone else was clamouring for a successful alternative.

 

[Andrew Garda]

The Agents and Players definitely pay attention to the draftniks and I can tell you that at least some of them strongly believe that the teams do too and they have asked me to pump up their players more than once. Some teams (Bengals for instance) do seem to do little independent work and rely more on the conventional wisdom, which would include draftnik talk. I think you also have to draw a distinction between the big school players who already have been analyzed and covered heavily and the small school players. Teams most definitely get turned on to overlooked players by youtube videos and other grass roots type coverage of the player, they have even said as much, such as in the case of Andy Studebaker and the Eagles.Teams also pay attention to the mocks to get an idea of where players may come off the board to anticipate who will be there for certain picks or when to pull the trigger on a trade-up - why not, in a lot of cases it is the best aggregation of the info out there, even if a lot of it is smokescreen info. I do think the draft would definitely go differently if it was still like it was back in 80s before it became a quasi-sports season with events, beat writers, and attention paid to every aspect.

What I was going to say, but more eloquent than I was going to say it.

 

[Kleck]

How much $ does a top scout make vs. guys like Kiper and McShay?

Much, much less.

The salary is irrelevant. It is like saying Bill O'Reilly knows more about foreign affairs than a Senator, because he make 25 mil a year vs the Senators 200K.

I agree. I'm not implying that guys like Kiper or O'Reilly don't know things, but they are great in studios and can sell. Some team's head scouts are the GMs. They make decent money.

 

[Kleck]

The Agents and Players definitely pay attention to the draftniks and I can tell you that at least some of them strongly believe that the teams do too and they have asked me to pump up their players more than once. Some teams (Bengals for instance) do seem to do little independent work and rely more on the conventional wisdom, which would include draftnik talk. I think you also have to draw a distinction between the big school players who already have been analyzed and covered heavily and the small school players. Teams most definitely get turned on to overlooked players by youtube videos and other grass roots type coverage of the player, they have even said as much, such as in the case of Andy Studebaker and the Eagles.Teams also pay attention to the mocks to get an idea of where players may come off the board to anticipate who will be there for certain picks or when to pull the trigger on a trade-up - why not, in a lot of cases it is the best aggregation of the info out there, even if a lot of it is smokescreen info. I do think the draft would definitely go differently if it was still like it was back in 80s before it became a quasi-sports season with events, beat writers, and attention paid to every aspect.

I've heard Ted Thompson state before that he frequently looks at and studies mock drafts. There is so much draft info out there that it would be foolish for teams not to look at it. Draftniks are media guys. Many have connections and can get some leaks. How could you not pay attention to them?

 

[massraider]

I am starting to think that draft anylists such as Kiper, McShay, Mayock, and Scott Wright may actually have a huge impact on where the players go in the NFL draft. And while the teams will make the final say of a player based on tape, they might have no idea where a player would go if it were'nt for the media. A team may have a player graded in their top 15. But how would they know if he might be their in the second round, other than media hype. If it weren't for the media a team could pick a player in the 2nd round who they could have gotten in the 6th (Al Davis does it anyways). How different do you think the draft would be if the media wasn't telling everyone where people are "going to go"?

It would be different in the sense that it would be less interesting. There would be less immediate reaction, less 'grades', less controversy. As for teams waiting on a player, because Scott freakin' Wright says he will go two or three rounds later, I can't believe anyone believes that. I don't think Scott Wright believes that.

For one thing, and people have a tough time remembering this, it only takes one team. All a player needs is one team to rank him higher than the rest, it doesn't take a consensus from all 32 teams. Donte Whitner was a top 10 pick, because a team in the top 10 took him. Might he have gone later? Yeah, maybe. But bear in mind, the people telling us he could have been gotten much later are not always right. If the Dolphins had taken Brady Quinn at #9, everyone would have applauded the pick, going on and on about how it filled a need, and was good value. Well, we now KNOW that taking Quinn at #9 would have been a massive reach, because he didn't go till what, #23?

The NFL teams have access to scores of information that draftniks do not. Less than it used to be, but still more. Medical reports, interviews with the player, coach, and family.

The real difference comes after the 1st round. All of a sudden, it's reaches and steals all over the place. The accuracy of draftniks predicting the round a player 'should' go is out the window. Luckily for the draftnik, people have short memories. Every year, everyone remembers a few players that the drafnik 'made a stand' on, and that's it.

Which is the way it should be, and I love the draftniks, all of them(Run down Kiper if you want, but all the other draftniks have a job, and wanted that job, because of him). But I take them at face value. They are people with no access to coaches tape (how can you grade a CB without coaches tape??), very little personal access to the players, and are usually a small group of people trying to do what each team has a large group of people doing.

Someone brought up the Bengals earlier. it's funny, they famously spend less than everyone else on scouting, and yet every year they seem to get good draft grades from everyone. They rarely have a massive reach, and everyone seems to agree they got good value on their picks. And every year, they are middle of the pack.

I am sure that scouts watch draft coverage. I mean, it's an entire industry devoted to what they do. It's got to be interesting to them. But it'd be an insult to them to imagine them thinking, 'Well, screw what I thought about Nick Fairley, with my interviews, medical report, hours of game tape, and first hand workout information, Mel Kiper in his basement says otherwise. I better change my report!!'

 

[Tackling Dummies]

What's that old statement about paying attention to the crowd because if you do you'll be sitting beside them?

The information that teams have is unique and beat writers and other media are either puppets of disinformation or enjoy playing GM. GMs and other drawing an NFL salary should lose a job turning an ear to any noise outside of their offices.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

the draft guru guys also take a pretty good look at all 32 teams instead of just focusing on the team they work for....so I would imagine that GM's may use that information even more than what the guru's are saying about their particular team....

 

[msommer]

Teams also pay attention to the mocks to get an idea of where players may come off the board to anticipate who will be there for certain picks or when to pull the trigger on a trade-up - why not, in a lot of cases it is the best aggregation of the info out there, even if a lot of it is smokescreen info. I do think the draft would definitely go differently if it was still like it was back in 80s before it became a quasi-sports season with events, beat writers, and attention paid to every aspect.

I think this is crucial. We tend to think of the teams as having vastly more knowledge than the draftniks, the informed fan etc. and we regularly refer to them almost as omniscient.Well one thing they do not have a clue about is what the other 31 teams really think. They could of course devote vast resources to analysis of tendencies, team needs, where who goes at pro days, but that might detract from player analysis. Why not outsource that for free? Instead pay attention to a few draftniks' musings for each team, draftniks that for one reason or another have a history of being in the ball park for that one team (or more) and concentrate on weeding the wheat from the chaff?I'm not saying that's what they are doing 100%, but like the seti project looking for alien signals on your desktop, there is a lot of untapped potential out there - and a lot of energy thrown into vigorously following your team and their every (possible) action. It could be (is?) a gold mine.

 

[massraider]

I simply do not believe that teams think some dweeb with a computer, too much free time, and a DVR has more of an idea of what teams are gonna do than actual front office people.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The real difference comes after the 1st round. All of a sudden, it's reaches and steals all over the place. The accuracy of draftniks predicting the round a player 'should' go is out the window. Luckily for the draftnik, people have short memories. Every year, everyone remembers a few players that the drafnik 'made a stand' on, and that's it.

Why is that lucky for the draftniks? Aren't the scouts just as lucky that people have short memories? Scouts are massively wrong about a player way more often than they're even moderately right about one.If there's one thing that I've learned from spending the last half dozen years very close to some well respected football people, it's that the majority of the people involved in football are not nearly as good at what they do as people give them credit for. Most scouts are included in that.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think the analysts have one idea. They hit on a few here and there. I think if you looked at 32 teams, you'd see 32 different boards. I bet if you looked at the actual Top 10 on each team's board, you'd find 32 different top 10s as well.

I think of how Ted Thompson was lambasted for taking Greg Jennings over Chad Jackson. It was an outrage according to ESPN. Jennings was no better than a 5th round prospect. This is just one guy's opinion vs another guy's opinion. With a couple hundred picks involved each season, each guy is bound to be right some of the time.

This is why I love Thompson's approach to the draft. It is basically "throw a lot of #### at the wall and see what sticks."

Obviously he traded up for Matthews. However he considered Matthews such an elite prospect that he considered taking him instead of Raji at the 9 spot. WHen he was still sitting there in the mid twenties, Ted broke from his plan and traded up. Excellent move and I think it illustrates that drafts are very fluid.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I think the analysts have one idea. They hit on a few here and there. I think if you looked at 32 teams, you'd see 32 different boards. I bet if you looked at the actual Top 10 on each team's board, you'd find 32 different top 10s as well. I think of how Ted Thompson was lambasted for taking Greg Jennings over Chad Jackson. It was an outrage according to ESPN. Jennings was no better than a 5th round prospect. This is just one guy's opinion vs another guy's opinion. With a couple hundred picks involved each season, each guy is bound to be right some of the time.This is why I love Thompson's approach to the draft. It is basically "throw a lot of #### at the wall and see what sticks." Obviously he traded up for Matthews. However he considered Matthews such an elite prospect that he considered taking him instead of Raji at the 9 spot. WHen he was still sitting there in the mid twenties, Ted broke from his plan and traded up. Excellent move and I think it illustrates that drafts are very fluid.

Yeah but I do think Thompson has a pretty specific plan most of the time - he just also follows the old maxim: no plan meets first contact with the enemy.He knows enough to know that having a plan is great as long as you aren't married to it. It's worked well for him for the most part.

 

[Matt Waldman]

The real difference comes after the 1st round. All of a sudden, it's reaches and steals all over the place. The accuracy of draftniks predicting the round a player 'should' go is out the window. Luckily for the draftnik, people have short memories. Every year, everyone remembers a few players that the drafnik 'made a stand' on, and that's it.

Why is that lucky for the draftniks? Aren't the scouts just as lucky that people have short memories? Scouts are massively wrong about a player way more often than they're even moderately right about one.If there's one thing that I've learned from spending the last half dozen years very close to some well respected football people, it's that the majority of the people involved in football are not nearly as good at what they do as people give them credit for. Most scouts are included in that.

I think that's a very good assessment. There is a TON of variation in the NFL from team to team when it comes to the process they use to evaluate players. It seems that the former scouts I've met and writers/analysts I've met that know scouts seem to relay some common points: 1. Each team has a different system and place a different value on what they want from players. 2. Most scouts are seen as front-line employees in the organization and that creates the dynamic where the scouts are more reticent to state opinions. 3. NFL organizations deal with the same pitfalls that we see in corporations where there can be a huge disconnect within the various units of personnel. I think you can include GMs, presidents, and owners of organizations as part of that "not nearly as good at what they do as people give them credit." In fact, when you point the finger at scouts you probably need to ask why the team doesn't have a consistent direction or mission that they follow. That will move your arm from scout higher up the chain...

 

[Concept Coop]

None. The reason why the actual 1st round of the draft looks fairly close to the last mocks some years is because draft "experts" spend the entire off-season piecing together info from actual scouts, playing catch-up to the real pros. Players' draft value fluctuates wildly from week to week in the media...but that's only because the media can't pin down what teams actually think. Players' draft stock doesn't vary nearly as much with NFL teams over that time span. And why do the "experts" rely so much on week-to-week info from across the league, that may or may not be true (or a smokescreen)? Because they have no clue what they're doing in comparison with the guys who work for actual NFL teams, outside of the obviously top players.You'll notice that after the first half of the first round, the draftniks whiff all over the place. Nevermind the later rounds.

Your statements would hold more water if NFL teams didn't "whiff all over the place" too. There are NFL franchises that would have been better served taking the top guy on Kiper's board than who they have drafted in the last 10 years.The guys that really do their homework (Kiper, McShay, Mayock) have insight and are good at what they do.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The guys that really do their homework (Kiper, McShay, Mayock) have insight and are good at what they do.

Mayock definitelyKiper sometimesMcShay... well he's here more for his telegenic delivery and looks than anything else

 

[Spike]

I think the analysts have one idea. They hit on a few here and there. I think if you looked at 32 teams, you'd see 32 different boards. I bet if you looked at the actual Top 10 on each team's board, you'd find 32 different top 10s as well.

I think of how Ted Thompson was lambasted for taking Greg Jennings over Chad Jackson. It was an outrage according to ESPN. Jennings was no better than a 5th round prospect. This is just one guy's opinion vs another guy's opinion. With a couple hundred picks involved each season, each guy is bound to be right some of the time.

This is why I love Thompson's approach to the draft. It is basically "throw a lot of #### at the wall and see what sticks."

Obviously he traded up for Matthews. However he considered Matthews such an elite prospect that he considered taking him instead of Raji at the 9 spot. WHen he was still sitting there in the mid twenties, Ted broke from his plan and traded up. Excellent move and I think it illustrates that drafts are very fluid.

Sorry, but this is incorrect.In the 2006 draft, Chad Jackson was picked by the Pats with the 2.04 (36th overall) pick. Greg Jennings was picked by the Packers with the 2.20 (52nd overall) pick.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think the analysts have one idea. They hit on a few here and there. I think if you looked at 32 teams, you'd see 32 different boards. I bet if you looked at the actual Top 10 on each team's board, you'd find 32 different top 10s as well.

I think of how Ted Thompson was lambasted for taking Greg Jennings over Chad Jackson. It was an outrage according to ESPN. Jennings was no better than a 5th round prospect. This is just one guy's opinion vs another guy's opinion. With a couple hundred picks involved each season, each guy is bound to be right some of the time.

This is why I love Thompson's approach to the draft. It is basically "throw a lot of #### at the wall and see what sticks."

Obviously he traded up for Matthews. However he considered Matthews such an elite prospect that he considered taking him instead of Raji at the 9 spot. WHen he was still sitting there in the mid twenties, Ted broke from his plan and traded up. Excellent move and I think it illustrates that drafts are very fluid.

Sorry, but this is incorrect.In the 2006 draft, Chad Jackson was picked by the Pats with the 2.04 (36th overall) pick. Greg Jennings was picked by the Packers with the 2.20 (52nd overall) pick.

No, it is correct. The Packers traded back with the Pats on the deal before the picks went down. Patriots get: 4th pick of 2nd round (selected WR Chad Jackson).Packers get: 20nd pick in 2nd round (52nd overall, WR Greg Jennings), 11th in 3rd round (75th overall, OL Jason Spitz).

 

[comfortably numb]

I am really surprised how low the pay is for scouts.

Is it because they have like 40 or 50?

IMO scouting should be a top priority.

Being able to assess value later in drafts would be a gold mine to anyone who can do it consistently.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I am really surprised how low the pay is for scouts.Is it because they have like 40 or 50?IMO scouting should be a top priority.Being able to assess value later in drafts would be a gold mine to anyone who can do it consistently.

I think its because so many people want to break into the biz and its an entry level job, so supply and demand drives the salary way down. I don't think teams have many scouts - I know that each scout's territory usually covers multiple states.

 

[Doug B]

I think its because so many people want to break into the biz and its an entry level job, so supply and demand drives the salary way down. I don't think teams have many scouts - I know that each scout's territory usually covers multiple states.

Low salary, maybe, but the teams must pick up travel costs, lodging, and all that. Not a bad gig for a single-guy football nut still living with his parents Even with a lot of low-level scouts, though, I'm surprised that there's not an upper tier of far better-paid NFL scouts that have proven themselves by having great hit rates. IOW, don't teams find it worth it to pay for great scouting? Or is pro-football scouting the kind of thing that no one is truly good at, anyone with success is really just lucky, and thus it pays just to send out 15 or 20 Gen-X guys out into the field to work the stopwatch, take notes, and collect film?

 

[Thorpe]

I am really surprised how low the pay is for scouts.Is it because they have like 40 or 50?IMO scouting should be a top priority.Being able to assess value later in drafts would be a gold mine to anyone who can do it consistently.

I think its because so many people want to break into the biz and its an entry level job, so supply and demand drives the salary way down. I don't think teams have many scouts - I know that each scout's territory usually covers multiple states.

The bottom level scouts are former players or low level coaches. They do not work full time, and just scout an area. They get free tickets to games and reimbursed for travel so they probably figure it is a good deal even if they get paid nothing, not to mention the "prestige" of being a scout. If they prove they know their stuff, they move up the food chain, and become scouting directors or front office personnel, or get into coaching.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I think its because so many people want to break into the biz and its an entry level job, so supply and demand drives the salary way down. I don't think teams have many scouts - I know that each scout's territory usually covers multiple states.

Low salary, maybe, but the teams must pick up travel costs, lodging, and all that. Not a bad gig for a single-guy football nut still living with his parents Even with a lot of low-level scouts, though, I'm surprised that there's not an upper tier of far better-paid NFL scouts that have proven themselves by having great hit rates. IOW, don't teams find it worth it to pay for great scouting? Or is pro-football scouting the kind of thing that no one is truly good at, anyone with success is really just lucky, and thus it pays just to send out 15 or 20 Gen-X guys out into the field to work the stopwatch, take notes, and collect film?

A bunch of the guys I met doing Pro Day coverage were older guys - late 40s early 50s. Same guys every year. I'd say the scouts at the bigger pro days were 50/50 young bucks and old vets.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I think there are a lot of assumptions in this thread about how scouts are hired, trained, managed, and evaluated that are likely false. There's this big curtain called the NFL that likes to hide its pre-draft evaluations in a shroud of secrecy, but people tend to assume that anyone experienced as an NFL scout is well-trained at the game and evaluating players. I think it should be a safe assumption, but I don't think it's a good one.

Things I continue to hear from those that either have been scouts or have talked with scouts (please correct me if I'm wrong, still trying to learn more about this gig):

-Not a lot of detailed training going on - it's a sink or swim mentality in a high turnover profession.

-Learning on the job often consists of having the freedom to attend position meetings, but there's no defined training.

-One former scout told me recently that he was surprised how reticent scouts were with his organization to take a stand about players on draft day.

-I've heard from multiple former scouts that GMs often set environments where they really don't want to have scouts verbally interact on draft day and speaking one's mind is often discouraged.

-Some organizations have a good top-down strategy to communicate what is important to them, but that's a rarity.

-One former scout at the Sr. Bowl told me that he's seen scouts paraphrase content from Internet and newsstand evaluations into their reports.

I think analysts have some influence, but they shouldn't. I think there is a real opportunity for many NFL teams (most) to improve their evaluation process and management of that process, but for most of us it's easy to assume that because it's the NFL these guys must know what they're doing. Just because they have a ton of money made from marketing, concessions, ticket sales, etc., and decades of built-up loyalty of its fan base without any real competition from another league doesn't always mean they know what to do with that money when it comes to evaluating and selecting talent.

 

[Buckna]

The Agents and Players definitely pay attention to the draftniks and I can tell you that at least some of them strongly believe that the teams do too and they have asked me to pump up their players more than once. Some teams (Bengals for instance) do seem to do little independent work and rely more on the conventional wisdom, which would include draftnik talk. I think you also have to draw a distinction between the big school players who already have been analyzed and covered heavily and the small school players. Teams most definitely get turned on to overlooked players by youtube videos and other grass roots type coverage of the player, they have even said as much, such as in the case of Andy Studebaker and the Eagles.Teams also pay attention to the mocks to get an idea of where players may come off the board to anticipate who will be there for certain picks or when to pull the trigger on a trade-up - why not, in a lot of cases it is the best aggregation of the info out there, even if a lot of it is smokescreen info. I do think the draft would definitely go differently if it was still like it was back in 80s before it became a quasi-sports season with events, beat writers, and attention paid to every aspect.

I agree with these points and would add one more. I think there is also "fan pressure", based on what the draftniks and media have been feeding the fans, for the franchises to look hard at who they select based on popularity (whether correct or not). Sure there have been times where the fans were wrong, but as a Jets fan who remembers everyone screaming for Sapp, to walk away with Brady was not only a disapointment, but proved to be a massive mistake by the franchise. These guys have jobs and accountability like everyone else, and if you go against the boss or stockholders in our "business worls", you better be right. It is a lot eaiser to say, "everyone liked Dwayne Roberston" when he fails than to pony up and admit you made the wrong decision when everyone else was clamouring for a successful alternative.

I'm having flashes back to Mario Williams being picked over Reggie Bush or Vince Young.

 

[munchkin]

How many GM's heading up the Draft have the courage of their convictions and how could one accurately measure this from the outside? Who can stick to a draft board they felt strongly about going in to the draft only to panic as the cards come off the table?

Dez Bryant looked like a steal (and may still be) late in the first with his "personality" issues fading away as he seemed to be productive when he was healthy enough to be on the field. With his latest transgression some may be questioning the value of that pick. Did Jones override the cooler heads in the Draft Room to make that pick or were there multiple GM's trying to trade with the Pats for that spot? It's too bad that D Thomas had the Achilles injury during his rehab because it would have been interesting to see which receiver ultimately panned out to be the best of the two.

The Pats have certainly made their share of ill advised picks but Belichick seems to do a good job of sticking to his board. The Lions appear to be in good hands now and Polian, Reese, Newsome and Colbert all have top notch drafts. How different would the Pats and Ravens be if Newsome got Gronkowski instead of Belichick? Both teams saw the value at the same point in the draft; interesting.

 

[massraider]

The real difference comes after the 1st round. All of a sudden, it's reaches and steals all over the place. The accuracy of draftniks predicting the round a player 'should' go is out the window. Luckily for the draftnik, people have short memories. Every year, everyone remembers a few players that the drafnik 'made a stand' on, and that's it.

Why is that lucky for the draftniks? Aren't the scouts just as lucky that people have short memories? Scouts are massively wrong about a player way more often than they're even moderately right about one.If there's one thing that I've learned from spending the last half dozen years very close to some well respected football people, it's that the majority of the people involved in football are not nearly as good at what they do as people give them credit for. Most scouts are included in that.

I agree. And that has nothing to do with the question at hand. The question is not, "Are scouts infallible?" The OP is wondering how much influence draftniks have on actual draft events.