What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The 2010 Rookie Scouting Portfolio-Available for download! (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
In addition, I don't really consider running through ankle tackles a demonstration of balance in the sense I'm defining it. That's is something I grade more in the area of power. So if someone on TV says, "C.J. Spiller has great balance," and you see him running through arm tackles or a grasp to his ankle, that's going under power in my checklist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Waldman said:
In addition, I don't really consider running through ankle tackles a demonstration of balance in the sense I'm defining it. That's is something I grade more in the area of power. So if someone on TV says, "C.J. Spiller has great balance," and you see him running through arm tackles or a grasp to his ankle, that's going under power in my checklist.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then I would submit that maybe "balance" is underrepresented in your evaluations. The "Balance" section only has 3 questions, two of which are worth 1 pt and the 3rd of which is worth 7 pts. And per your description you just gave, it's more related to "power" than balance. Essentially, you're giving only 2 pts out of 100 based on "balance" and I'd argue that balance is a bit more important than that. I also know that looking at highlights vs. game film are 2 different things, but if you watch highlights of Spiller that includes runs in those games you scouted, I think there are plenty of examples of him running through more than arm tackles or ankle grasps. It could be where we're looking for different things, but there are multiple instances in those clips of defenders coming at him and getting a hold of him and him keeping perfect balance and accelerating past them.
 
gianmarco said:
Matt Waldman said:
In addition, I don't really consider running through ankle tackles a demonstration of balance in the sense I'm defining it. That's is something I grade more in the area of power. So if someone on TV says, "C.J. Spiller has great balance," and you see him running through arm tackles or a grasp to his ankle, that's going under power in my checklist.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then I would submit that maybe "balance" is underrepresented in your evaluations. The "Balance" section only has 3 questions, two of which are worth 1 pt and the 3rd of which is worth 7 pts. And per your description you just gave, it's more related to "power" than balance. Essentially, you're giving only 2 pts out of 100 based on "balance" and I'd argue that balance is a bit more important than that. I also know that looking at highlights vs. game film are 2 different things, but if you watch highlights of Spiller that includes runs in those games you scouted, I think there are plenty of examples of him running through more than arm tackles or ankle grasps. It could be where we're looking for different things, but there are multiple instances in those clips of defenders coming at him and getting a hold of him and him keeping perfect balance and accelerating past them.
Click to expand...
It might well be...I think it would be nice to look at similar examples and discuss them. I isolate balance as the ability to stay upright with a hit rather than a grasp. I would characterize it as when two or more players collide with each other head-to-head or at an angle, does the ball carrier stay upright and demonstrate the ability to continue to move forward. Whereas initially I have characterized power as running through a grasp, carrying players for extra yardage, showing a second effort (which is one of those areas than can overlap balance in some cases), and demonstrating good technique with pad level where you may not stay upright in the collision, but you are able to get lower than the opponent and squirt ahead for another positive yard or more after the hit. One of the things I mention is there is a difference between him showing power/balance with a big running start and other backs showing it at the line of scrimmage an in more traffic. McFadden to some looked like a bruiser in college because of the highlight films where he had running starts to bull over defenders. However, he lacked that balance/power in short-tight spaces.I appreciate you pointing out what you noticed. It only helps me figure out ways to make the evaluation process better.
 
Hey, Matt...

I just downloaded your 2010's RSP. I know i had your 2009's RSP last year but i couldn't find it. Could you supply me again? Also, wouldn't you happen to have 2008's RSP as well?

Thanks

 
Matt, what's your take on Minnesota Vikings' uber-athlete, Joe Webb who is being worked as their QB.

Tav Jackson or Sage Rosenfals doesn't seem an ideal QB replacement when Favre is done.

 
Aznflyer14 said:
Matt, what's your take on Minnesota Vikings' uber-athlete, Joe Webb who is being worked as their QB. Tav Jackson or Sage Rosenfals doesn't seem an ideal QB replacement when Favre is done.
Click to expand...
Aznflyer14, Webb is in the 2010 RSP and evaluated as a QB. As Childress said about Webb having a basic understanding of what he's doing as a QB, I like his basic pocket presence and his ability to look to his second or third receiver. However, he's a raw player and his accuracy needs a lot of work. Unless he's an amazingly quick learner, I don't see him as a player worth considering for the next two seasons, at least.
 
Matt,

In last year's scouting profile you said that LeSean McCoy has to improve in a few areas. Bulking up and refining his skills between the tackles were the two main things. How has he done improving in those areas? Has he shown enough in order to develop into a high end RB2 in dynasty?

Thanks

 
mikel2014 said:
Matt,In last year's scouting profile you said that LeSean McCoy has to improve in a few areas. Bulking up and refining his skills between the tackles were the two main things. How has he done improving in those areas? Has he shown enough in order to develop into a high end RB2 in dynasty?Thanks
Click to expand...
Mike,Hard to say until we hear more about him in training camp. The early word on him is that he looks much sharper in this mini camp compared to how he looked during last season. It's a good sign, but it is a gamble. Will he make the leap like Mendenhall, Rice or Charles, or will he need another year? I'm not convinced Kolb will be free of growing pains, which I think could make McCoy's job more difficult. I thought Charles was a more talented player than McCoy in college, so I'm a little more skeptical McCoy can do what Charles did in KC. Still I be happy with him on a dynasty league team and expect him to be a low end RB2 this year.
 
Hey Matt,

I was curious as to whether you were able to take a look at John Skelton yet and how you feel about him as a potential prospect..

Thanks,

 
ty247 said:
Hey Matt,I was curious as to whether you were able to take a look at John Skelton yet and how you feel about him as a potential prospect..Thanks,
Click to expand...
Hey Ty247,I haven't seen him play and I probably won't until he sees time as a pro. I just didn't have access to any of his college team's games for the past few years. M
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Maiocco, from CSNBayArea.com, reports ex-NFL Scout Dave Razzano is not - and has never been - a believer in QB Alex Smith. "I had him rated as a non-starting player," Razzano said of Smith, whom the 49ers selected with the top overall pick in the 2005 draft. However, he believes that second-year QB Nate Davis can be very successful in this league. "When I evaluated him, I thought he was the same guy as Mark Sanchez," Razzano said. "I thought they were very similar. But you have to put a guy on the field and let him play. There's a reason Ball State was, like, 12-1 or 13-1 for the first time ever. And now they're back to winning two games. That guy was a heck of a quarterback."

Davis was a player I was raving about last year leading up to the draft because I thought it was nuts his value was plummeting. Clearly another scout felt the same way despite the learning disability. This also highlights what I mean about scouting - the former scout claims (and I believe him) he was asked to change his grade on Alex Smith to conform with other scouts on the team he was with.

Link

Matt Maiocco

CSNBayArea.com

The late Tony Razzano was the head of the 49ers scouting department and deserves as much -- if not, more -- historical accolades as Bill Walsh for the franchise's drafts that largely stocked the roster with players that won five Super Bowls.

His son, Dave, 50, spent his first season out of the game last year after more than two decades when the Arizona Cardinals let him go as a regional scout following the franchise's first Super Bowl.

Dave Razzano, who worked for the 49ers from 1988 to '92, has been with five teams that went to Super Bowls. Two of those Super Bowl teams had Joe Montana. Kurt Warner was the quarterback of the other three. Razzano has some strong opinions about the 49ers' current quarterback position.

He got fired after more than a decade as a Rams scout four years ago in large part because of his defense of a critical pre-draft evaluation of quarterback Alex Smith, Razzano told Comcast SportsNet.

"I had him rated as a non-starting player," Razzano said of Smith, whom the 49ers selected with the top overall pick in the 2005 draft.

Even as Smith enters his sixth professional season, 49ers followers are divided on Smith's ability to be a successful NFL quarterback. Smith has said he realizes he will not be able to win over all of his naysayers. And when it comes to those critics, Razzano is at the front of the line.

"I thought he was way over-drafted and way overrated," Razzano said. "I don't think I've been proven wrong. The guy hasn't done it, and he'll get another opportunity. He's getting a little better with the touchdown throws to Vernon Davis. But, boy, the guy I saw at Utah, I was shocked people had him rated that high."

Razzano said then-Rams general manager Charlie Armey asked him to change his grade on Smith to conform with the higher grades others in the Rams' draft room had assigned Smith. The scene escalated into an ugly shouting match. Razzano said he refused to alter his evaluation of Smith. It was the beginning of the end with the Rams for Razzano, he said. He was fired after the 2006 draft (Armey did not immediately respond to CSNBayArea.com's call.)

Razzano quickly landed with the Cardinals. Shortly after the Cardinals' appearance in the Super Bowl, Razzano's contract was not renewed after cuts to the team's scouting department, he said.

Having worked in the scouting departments for three NFC West franchises, Razzano pays close attention to the happenings within the division. He lives in Sacramento and remains intrigued by the 49ers' quarterback situation. He said he is a firm believer the 49ers are starting the wrong quarterback.

Smith got back on the field last season after missing most of 2007 and all of 2008 with shoulder injuries. He showed enough to head coach Mike Singletary and offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye to nail down the starting job. Smith completed 60.5 percent of his passes with 18 touchdowns and 12 interceptions. His 81.5 passer rating ranked 19th in the league. The 49ers were 5-5 in games Smith started.

Over the past several months, Smith drew lavish praise from his teammates and 49ers coaches for his offseason practice sessions and his leadership off the field. But Razzano remains skeptical. He said he does not believe the 49ers can win with Smith at quarterback.

"I think he's exactly what I thought he'd be -- maybe a little worse," Razzano said. "I thought he'd be a decent backup. But I watch him now, he just doesn't have the winning mentality. But he's a good kid and a smart kid and he probably looks good in practice. He misses simple 7-yard outs. He's just not accurate and he doesn't have the moxie."

One quarterback on the 49ers' roster Razzano said he believes can be a highly successful NFL player is Nate Davis, who entered the NFL draft following his junior season at Ball State. Razzano said he had Davis rated higher than Smith as an NFL prospect.

"When I evaluated him, I thought he was the same guy as Mark Sanchez," Razzano said. "I thought they were very similar. But you have to put a guy on the field and let him play. There's a reason Ball State was, like, 12-1 or 13-1 for the first time ever. And now they're back to winning two games. That guy was a heck of a quarterback.

"They might say, 'He doesn't learn this or that.' If they just handed him the keys, that's their answer. He'll make mistakes, but he won't make the same mistake twice. This kid made every throw imaginable. It wasn't a short-passing game (at Ball State). There would be guys in his face and he'd roll out, man, he hit guys on a 30-yard freakin' strike between defenders. The kid was unbelievable. I knew he'd fall (in the draft) because in the spring all that garbage comes in."

Davis tumbled down draft boards after he played his final game at Ball State, presumably because of a learning disability. The 49ers selected Davis late in the fifth round. He might get an opportunity this summer to compete with David Carr for the team's backup position, but he poses no immediate threat to Smith's status as the starter.

The Cardinals have won two consecutive NFC West titles. The 49ers, coming off an 8-8 record, are expected to seriously contend for the division title. In a survey of five preseason magazines, the 49ers were picked in each to win the division. But Razzano gives the slight nod to Arizona, he said.

"It's a two-horse race," Razzano said. "You just throw out Seattle and St. Louis. They are so far away, personnel-wise.

"It's really only two teams. Losing Warner, there are a lot of question marks for the Cardinals. You can pick one or the other, Cardinals or 49ers. (Cardinals quarterback Matt) Leinart is a big question mark. I know those coaches don't care for him. I was there. I know that for a fact. He just doesn't prepare.

"But Leinart, I feel, is better than Smith. In terms of that division, I still give the edge to the Cardinals. It'll be a dogfight. The 49ers will be what they are, 8-8, maybe 9-7 this year because of the division. But I don't see them being a legitimate playoff team because of Alex Smith."

Read more: Maiocco: Ex-NFL Scout Believes 49ers are Starting Wrong QB

Tune to SportsNet Central at 6, 10:30 and midnight on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area for more on this story

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Waldman said:
Matt Maiocco, from CSNBayArea.com, reports ex-NFL Scout Dave Razzano is not - and has never been - a believer in QB Alex Smith. "I had him rated as a non-starting player," Razzano said of Smith, whom the 49ers selected with the top overall pick in the 2005 draft. However, he believes that second-year QB Nate Davis can be very successful in this league. "When I evaluated him, I thought he was the same guy as Mark Sanchez," Razzano said. "I thought they were very similar. But you have to put a guy on the field and let him play. There's a reason Ball State was, like, 12-1 or 13-1 for the first time ever. And now they're back to winning two games. That guy was a heck of a quarterback."

Davis was a player I was raving about last year leading up to the draft because I thought it was nuts his value was plummeting. Clearly another scout felt the same way despite the learning disability. This also highlights what I mean about scouting - the former scout claims (and I believe him) he was asked to change his grade on Alex Smith to conform with other scouts on the team he was with.

Link

Matt Maiocco

CSNBayArea.com

The late Tony Razzano was the head of the 49ers scouting department and deserves as much -- if not, more -- historical accolades as Bill Walsh for the franchise's drafts that largely stocked the roster with players that won five Super Bowls.

His son, Dave, 50, spent his first season out of the game last year after more than two decades when the Arizona Cardinals let him go as a regional scout following the franchise's first Super Bowl.

Dave Razzano, who worked for the 49ers from 1988 to '92, has been with five teams that went to Super Bowls. Two of those Super Bowl teams had Joe Montana. Kurt Warner was the quarterback of the other three. Razzano has some strong opinions about the 49ers' current quarterback position.

He got fired after more than a decade as a Rams scout four years ago in large part because of his defense of a critical pre-draft evaluation of quarterback Alex Smith, Razzano told Comcast SportsNet.

"I had him rated as a non-starting player," Razzano said of Smith, whom the 49ers selected with the top overall pick in the 2005 draft.

Even as Smith enters his sixth professional season, 49ers followers are divided on Smith's ability to be a successful NFL quarterback. Smith has said he realizes he will not be able to win over all of his naysayers. And when it comes to those critics, Razzano is at the front of the line.

"I thought he was way over-drafted and way overrated," Razzano said. "I don't think I've been proven wrong. The guy hasn't done it, and he'll get another opportunity. He's getting a little better with the touchdown throws to Vernon Davis. But, boy, the guy I saw at Utah, I was shocked people had him rated that high."

Razzano said then-Rams general manager Charlie Armey asked him to change his grade on Smith to conform with the higher grades others in the Rams' draft room had assigned Smith. The scene escalated into an ugly shouting match. Razzano said he refused to alter his evaluation of Smith. It was the beginning of the end with the Rams for Razzano, he said. He was fired after the 2006 draft (Armey did not immediately respond to CSNBayArea.com's call.)

Razzano quickly landed with the Cardinals. Shortly after the Cardinals' appearance in the Super Bowl, Razzano's contract was not renewed after cuts to the team's scouting department, he said.

Having worked in the scouting departments for three NFC West franchises, Razzano pays close attention to the happenings within the division. He lives in Sacramento and remains intrigued by the 49ers' quarterback situation. He said he is a firm believer the 49ers are starting the wrong quarterback.

Smith got back on the field last season after missing most of 2007 and all of 2008 with shoulder injuries. He showed enough to head coach Mike Singletary and offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye to nail down the starting job. Smith completed 60.5 percent of his passes with 18 touchdowns and 12 interceptions. His 81.5 passer rating ranked 19th in the league. The 49ers were 5-5 in games Smith started.

Over the past several months, Smith drew lavish praise from his teammates and 49ers coaches for his offseason practice sessions and his leadership off the field. But Razzano remains skeptical. He said he does not believe the 49ers can win with Smith at quarterback.

"I think he's exactly what I thought he'd be -- maybe a little worse," Razzano said. "I thought he'd be a decent backup. But I watch him now, he just doesn't have the winning mentality. But he's a good kid and a smart kid and he probably looks good in practice. He misses simple 7-yard outs. He's just not accurate and he doesn't have the moxie."

One quarterback on the 49ers' roster Razzano said he believes can be a highly successful NFL player is Nate Davis, who entered the NFL draft following his junior season at Ball State. Razzano said he had Davis rated higher than Smith as an NFL prospect.

"When I evaluated him, I thought he was the same guy as Mark Sanchez," Razzano said. "I thought they were very similar. But you have to put a guy on the field and let him play. There's a reason Ball State was, like, 12-1 or 13-1 for the first time ever. And now they're back to winning two games. That guy was a heck of a quarterback.

"They might say, 'He doesn't learn this or that.' If they just handed him the keys, that's their answer. He'll make mistakes, but he won't make the same mistake twice. This kid made every throw imaginable. It wasn't a short-passing game (at Ball State). There would be guys in his face and he'd roll out, man, he hit guys on a 30-yard freakin' strike between defenders. The kid was unbelievable. I knew he'd fall (in the draft) because in the spring all that garbage comes in."

Davis tumbled down draft boards after he played his final game at Ball State, presumably because of a learning disability. The 49ers selected Davis late in the fifth round. He might get an opportunity this summer to compete with David Carr for the team's backup position, but he poses no immediate threat to Smith's status as the starter.

The Cardinals have won two consecutive NFC West titles. The 49ers, coming off an 8-8 record, are expected to seriously contend for the division title. In a survey of five preseason magazines, the 49ers were picked in each to win the division. But Razzano gives the slight nod to Arizona, he said.

"It's a two-horse race," Razzano said. "You just throw out Seattle and St. Louis. They are so far away, personnel-wise.

"It's really only two teams. Losing Warner, there are a lot of question marks for the Cardinals. You can pick one or the other, Cardinals or 49ers. (Cardinals quarterback Matt) Leinart is a big question mark. I know those coaches don't care for him. I was there. I know that for a fact. He just doesn't prepare.

"But Leinart, I feel, is better than Smith. In terms of that division, I still give the edge to the Cardinals. It'll be a dogfight. The 49ers will be what they are, 8-8, maybe 9-7 this year because of the division. But I don't see them being a legitimate playoff team because of Alex Smith."

Read more: Maiocco: Ex-NFL Scout Believes 49ers are Starting Wrong QB

Tune to SportsNet Central at 6, 10:30 and midnight on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area for more on this story
Click to expand...
Hey Matt, I know that you've talked a little before about the differences in scouting standards and variations from team to team. I was wondering if there are any specific organizations and scouting departments that you trust and ones that you are inherently skeptical of?
 
Creed Bratton said:
Matt Waldman said:
Matt Maiocco, from CSNBayArea.com, reports ex-NFL Scout Dave Razzano is not - and has never been - a believer in QB Alex Smith. "I had him rated as a non-starting player," Razzano said of Smith, whom the 49ers selected with the top overall pick in the 2005 draft. However, he believes that second-year QB Nate Davis can be very successful in this league. "When I evaluated him, I thought he was the same guy as Mark Sanchez," Razzano said. "I thought they were very similar. But you have to put a guy on the field and let him play. There's a reason Ball State was, like, 12-1 or 13-1 for the first time ever. And now they're back to winning two games. That guy was a heck of a quarterback."

Davis was a player I was raving about last year leading up to the draft because I thought it was nuts his value was plummeting. Clearly another scout felt the same way despite the learning disability. This also highlights what I mean about scouting - the former scout claims (and I believe him) he was asked to change his grade on Alex Smith to conform with other scouts on the team he was with.

Link

Matt Maiocco

CSNBayArea.com

The late Tony Razzano was the head of the 49ers scouting department and deserves as much -- if not, more -- historical accolades as Bill Walsh for the franchise's drafts that largely stocked the roster with players that won five Super Bowls.

His son, Dave, 50, spent his first season out of the game last year after more than two decades when the Arizona Cardinals let him go as a regional scout following the franchise's first Super Bowl.

Dave Razzano, who worked for the 49ers from 1988 to '92, has been with five teams that went to Super Bowls. Two of those Super Bowl teams had Joe Montana. Kurt Warner was the quarterback of the other three. Razzano has some strong opinions about the 49ers' current quarterback position.

He got fired after more than a decade as a Rams scout four years ago in large part because of his defense of a critical pre-draft evaluation of quarterback Alex Smith, Razzano told Comcast SportsNet.

"I had him rated as a non-starting player," Razzano said of Smith, whom the 49ers selected with the top overall pick in the 2005 draft.

Even as Smith enters his sixth professional season, 49ers followers are divided on Smith's ability to be a successful NFL quarterback. Smith has said he realizes he will not be able to win over all of his naysayers. And when it comes to those critics, Razzano is at the front of the line.

"I thought he was way over-drafted and way overrated," Razzano said. "I don't think I've been proven wrong. The guy hasn't done it, and he'll get another opportunity. He's getting a little better with the touchdown throws to Vernon Davis. But, boy, the guy I saw at Utah, I was shocked people had him rated that high."

Razzano said then-Rams general manager Charlie Armey asked him to change his grade on Smith to conform with the higher grades others in the Rams' draft room had assigned Smith. The scene escalated into an ugly shouting match. Razzano said he refused to alter his evaluation of Smith. It was the beginning of the end with the Rams for Razzano, he said. He was fired after the 2006 draft (Armey did not immediately respond to CSNBayArea.com's call.)

Razzano quickly landed with the Cardinals. Shortly after the Cardinals' appearance in the Super Bowl, Razzano's contract was not renewed after cuts to the team's scouting department, he said.

Having worked in the scouting departments for three NFC West franchises, Razzano pays close attention to the happenings within the division. He lives in Sacramento and remains intrigued by the 49ers' quarterback situation. He said he is a firm believer the 49ers are starting the wrong quarterback.

Smith got back on the field last season after missing most of 2007 and all of 2008 with shoulder injuries. He showed enough to head coach Mike Singletary and offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye to nail down the starting job. Smith completed 60.5 percent of his passes with 18 touchdowns and 12 interceptions. His 81.5 passer rating ranked 19th in the league. The 49ers were 5-5 in games Smith started.

Over the past several months, Smith drew lavish praise from his teammates and 49ers coaches for his offseason practice sessions and his leadership off the field. But Razzano remains skeptical. He said he does not believe the 49ers can win with Smith at quarterback.

"I think he's exactly what I thought he'd be -- maybe a little worse," Razzano said. "I thought he'd be a decent backup. But I watch him now, he just doesn't have the winning mentality. But he's a good kid and a smart kid and he probably looks good in practice. He misses simple 7-yard outs. He's just not accurate and he doesn't have the moxie."

One quarterback on the 49ers' roster Razzano said he believes can be a highly successful NFL player is Nate Davis, who entered the NFL draft following his junior season at Ball State. Razzano said he had Davis rated higher than Smith as an NFL prospect.

"When I evaluated him, I thought he was the same guy as Mark Sanchez," Razzano said. "I thought they were very similar. But you have to put a guy on the field and let him play. There's a reason Ball State was, like, 12-1 or 13-1 for the first time ever. And now they're back to winning two games. That guy was a heck of a quarterback.

"They might say, 'He doesn't learn this or that.' If they just handed him the keys, that's their answer. He'll make mistakes, but he won't make the same mistake twice. This kid made every throw imaginable. It wasn't a short-passing game (at Ball State). There would be guys in his face and he'd roll out, man, he hit guys on a 30-yard freakin' strike between defenders. The kid was unbelievable. I knew he'd fall (in the draft) because in the spring all that garbage comes in."

Davis tumbled down draft boards after he played his final game at Ball State, presumably because of a learning disability. The 49ers selected Davis late in the fifth round. He might get an opportunity this summer to compete with David Carr for the team's backup position, but he poses no immediate threat to Smith's status as the starter.

The Cardinals have won two consecutive NFC West titles. The 49ers, coming off an 8-8 record, are expected to seriously contend for the division title. In a survey of five preseason magazines, the 49ers were picked in each to win the division. But Razzano gives the slight nod to Arizona, he said.

"It's a two-horse race," Razzano said. "You just throw out Seattle and St. Louis. They are so far away, personnel-wise.

"It's really only two teams. Losing Warner, there are a lot of question marks for the Cardinals. You can pick one or the other, Cardinals or 49ers. (Cardinals quarterback Matt) Leinart is a big question mark. I know those coaches don't care for him. I was there. I know that for a fact. He just doesn't prepare.

"But Leinart, I feel, is better than Smith. In terms of that division, I still give the edge to the Cardinals. It'll be a dogfight. The 49ers will be what they are, 8-8, maybe 9-7 this year because of the division. But I don't see them being a legitimate playoff team because of Alex Smith."

Read more: Maiocco: Ex-NFL Scout Believes 49ers are Starting Wrong QB

Tune to SportsNet Central at 6, 10:30 and midnight on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area for more on this story
Click to expand...
Hey Matt, I know that you've talked a little before about the differences in scouting standards and variations from team to team. I was wondering if there are any specific organizations and scouting departments that you trust and ones that you are inherently skeptical of?
Click to expand...
Hey,

At the end of this explanation, I'll answer your question more specifically, but let me preface by saying...

I wish I knew enough about specific teams to answer that, but I don't. At first, (years ago) it was just a feeling I had based on reading about GMs talking about certain players but scouts saying completely different things about them. This was often read about years after that player hit or bust in the NFL. When I began the RSP and studied players in a systematic way, I noticed a few things:

1) Because I was watching each position with a more consistent, systematic approach, I find that what I am learning is developing at a quicker pace that it did before I began watching games casually.

2) As I went through the practice of scoring and describing what I saw, I began to see things about players that completely contradicted what we would hear from the media about them. For 2-3 years we might hear from various TV networks, former players and then GMs that player x is powerful and a definite superstar of the future. But when you watch him, he's not powerful, except in the 1 or 2 clips that the media always shows of him and even in those examples there's 2-3 mitigating factors that diminish their argument if you watch the play a little closer or in the full context and not cut up and edited for promotion.

3)Frequently, my opinions formed over the years as I read or watched pre draft quotes from scouts, coaches, GMs about players. Over time you begin to see the correlation between poor management decisions and project process that occur in Corporate America and the same in the NFL.

I think some teams do a better job of evaluating and just as importantly, agreeing with each other on a philosophy towards acquiring certain players and specific positions. Some of this just comes from common sense of looking at rosters of teams.

The Ravens seem to have a clue about defensive players, especially linebackers. Wide receivers, not so much.

The Titans do a good job of picking and developing players on the offensive line and defensive line. Some of their "castoffs" turn into solid players for other teams. They were a good example of the variance of opinion within a team that I've talked about when it became pretty clear in the 2006 draft with Leinart/Cutler/Young. The scouts wanted Cutler (and I believe Fisher did too), the GM and OC wanted Leinart, and the owner wanted Young. Tell me what's wrong with this equation? If you're a manager, you should trust your employees on the front line that you have paid to be specialists at evaluating players that will be a fit with your organizations needs. But in this case neither executive trusted its coach or scouts. Vince Young still might become a good QB, but imagine if that Titans o-line and run game had Jay Cutler under center? I believe if they did, the complexion of the AFC would have looked a lot different during the past three years.

The Lions are getting better head-to-toe. I think there is evidence this team is getting aligned from scouting department to coach to GM to owner.

The Raiders could be getting better. I think Al Davis needs a strong coach who isn't afraid to speak up in private. I get the feeling Gruden and now Cable do that. I think Kiffin was probably the quiet type who was in over his head and then complained when the owner reacted the way he did after seeing Kiffin was still somewhat of a kid at the adult dinner table.

I think the Browns will get better under Holmgren, but it will take a couple of drafts to begin to see it. This year might be one of them, but I would look more to next year and the year after.

The Colts have a definite eye for talent at skill positions.

Those are a few examples that come to mind quickly.

 
Thanks for the detailed response Matt. I thought it might be interesting if you noticed certain teams were high on the same players you rated highly as well or consistently took players you didn't rate highly. But I guess you're right in how many different variables that go into drafting players beyond just straight talent evaluation.

Another thing I'm curious about is whether you follow up on players after they get to the NFL and evaluate them in the same consistent and systematic approach at the pro level. A lot of your rookie analysis talks about deficiencies players can improve on to become better and I wonder how many players show you something radically different at the pro level that you didn't see when they were in college and didn't anticipate they could do(excluding players like matt jones who barely played their nfl position in college).

 
Creed Bratton said:
Thanks for the detailed response Matt. I thought it might be interesting if you noticed certain teams were high on the same players you rated highly as well or consistently took players you didn't rate highly. But I guess you're right in how many different variables that go into drafting players beyond just straight talent evaluation. Another thing I'm curious about is whether you follow up on players after they get to the NFL and evaluate them in the same consistent and systematic approach at the pro level. A lot of your rookie analysis talks about deficiencies players can improve on to become better and I wonder how many players show you something radically different at the pro level that you didn't see when they were in college and didn't anticipate they could do(excluding players like matt jones who barely played their nfl position in college).
Click to expand...
I wish I could spend the time to study them systematically, but watching college players really limits my time. One thing I do plan to do with my in-season Gut Check column is provide some X & O's analysis of one aspect of a team or player as a regular feature within it.
 
Matt Waldman said:
One thing I do plan to do with my in-season Gut Check column is provide some X & O's analysis of one aspect of a team or player as a regular feature within it.
Click to expand...
Cool....this sounds like it could reap rewards for those that follow closely......thanks Matt!!!
 
Matt Waldman said:
Creed Bratton said:
Thanks for the detailed response Matt. I thought it might be interesting if you noticed certain teams were high on the same players you rated highly as well or consistently took players you didn't rate highly. But I guess you're right in how many different variables that go into drafting players beyond just straight talent evaluation. Another thing I'm curious about is whether you follow up on players after they get to the NFL and evaluate them in the same consistent and systematic approach at the pro level. A lot of your rookie analysis talks about deficiencies players can improve on to become better and I wonder how many players show you something radically different at the pro level that you didn't see when they were in college and didn't anticipate they could do(excluding players like matt jones who barely played their nfl position in college).
Click to expand...
I wish I could spend the time to study them systematically, but watching college players really limits my time. One thing I do plan to do with my in-season Gut Check column is provide some X & O's analysis of one aspect of a team or player as a regular feature within it.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I'm not surprised that time is a limiting factor. I'll be looking forward to those Gut Check columns though. :thumbup:
 
Creed Bratton said:
Matt Waldman said:
Creed Bratton said:
Thanks for the detailed response Matt. I thought it might be interesting if you noticed certain teams were high on the same players you rated highly as well or consistently took players you didn't rate highly. But I guess you're right in how many different variables that go into drafting players beyond just straight talent evaluation. Another thing I'm curious about is whether you follow up on players after they get to the NFL and evaluate them in the same consistent and systematic approach at the pro level. A lot of your rookie analysis talks about deficiencies players can improve on to become better and I wonder how many players show you something radically different at the pro level that you didn't see when they were in college and didn't anticipate they could do(excluding players like matt jones who barely played their nfl position in college).
Click to expand...
I wish I could spend the time to study them systematically, but watching college players really limits my time. One thing I do plan to do with my in-season Gut Check column is provide some X & O's analysis of one aspect of a team or player as a regular feature within it.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I'm not surprised that time is a limiting factor. I'll be looking forward to those Gut Check columns though. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
BTW - I read on Twitter from Matt Maiocco that former scout Russ Lande feels the same away about Davis.
 
hey Matt,

You gave McGaha a decent enough write-up in the RSP. JAC just released him and I hope to get your thoughts on him moving forward. I know youtube highlights don't mean a lot, but what I saw, damn, the kid has some sticky hands!

I have to cut down my Taxi Squad by the end of the weekend, so thanks for any educated guesses that you might have!

 
_lurker_ said:
hey Matt, You gave McGaha a decent enough write-up in the RSP. JAC just released him and I hope to get your thoughts on him moving forward. I know youtube highlights don't mean a lot, but what I saw, damn, the kid has some sticky hands! I have to cut down my Taxi Squad by the end of the weekend, so thanks for any educated guesses that you might have!
Click to expand...
I like McGaha as a developmental project, but I think cutting him is the way to go. If he lands on the Jags taxi squad he's stuck behind too many young players to really get a chance there without major injuries happening at the same time. I think he's merely a player you watch for his name to pop up somewhere and then reconsider him for a roster/taxi squad spot. Guys like Legedu Naanee and Malcolm Floyd are folks you wouldn't have put on a practice squad until two years ago (maybe) now they are the starting WRs in San Diego. Guys like McGaha, Scott Long, and David Gettis could have the type of future somewhere, but they aren't worth committing to in any fashion right now.
 
Matt Waldman said:
_lurker_ said:
hey Matt, You gave McGaha a decent enough write-up in the RSP. JAC just released him and I hope to get your thoughts on him moving forward. I know youtube highlights don't mean a lot, but what I saw, damn, the kid has some sticky hands! I have to cut down my Taxi Squad by the end of the weekend, so thanks for any educated guesses that you might have!
Click to expand...
I like McGaha as a developmental project, but I think cutting him is the way to go. If he lands on the Jags taxi squad he's stuck behind too many young players to really get a chance there without major injuries happening at the same time. I think he's merely a player you watch for his name to pop up somewhere and then reconsider him for a roster/taxi squad spot. Guys like Legedu Naanee and Malcolm Floyd are folks you wouldn't have put on a practice squad until two years ago (maybe) now they are the starting WRs in San Diego. Guys like McGaha, Scott Long, and David Gettis could have the type of future somewhere, but they aren't worth committing to in any fashion right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback. And yeah, landing on JAC's practice squad would really hurt his FF value.While I'm bugging you, any change in thinking from when you wrote the RSP all those months ago on these three RBs?Curtis Steele, BAL -- I was hoping he'd go somewhere else.Dmitri Nance, ATLJoique Bell, BUF
 
_lurker_ said:
Matt Waldman said:
_lurker_ said:
hey Matt, You gave McGaha a decent enough write-up in the RSP. JAC just released him and I hope to get your thoughts on him moving forward. I know youtube highlights don't mean a lot, but what I saw, damn, the kid has some sticky hands! I have to cut down my Taxi Squad by the end of the weekend, so thanks for any educated guesses that you might have!
Click to expand...
I like McGaha as a developmental project, but I think cutting him is the way to go. If he lands on the Jags taxi squad he's stuck behind too many young players to really get a chance there without major injuries happening at the same time. I think he's merely a player you watch for his name to pop up somewhere and then reconsider him for a roster/taxi squad spot. Guys like Legedu Naanee and Malcolm Floyd are folks you wouldn't have put on a practice squad until two years ago (maybe) now they are the starting WRs in San Diego. Guys like McGaha, Scott Long, and David Gettis could have the type of future somewhere, but they aren't worth committing to in any fashion right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback. And yeah, landing on JAC's practice squad would really hurt his FF value.While I'm bugging you, any change in thinking from when you wrote the RSP all those months ago on these three RBs?Curtis Steele, BAL -- I was hoping he'd go somewhere else.Dmitri Nance, ATLJoique Bell, BUF
Click to expand...
Not really. Just try to remember that backs are like NBA shooting guards. There's lots of talent around, but few spots to see significant time. All three might never get a shot to really play unless the opportunity presents itself. With Lynch still kind of up in the air in Buffalo despite what they say, Bell's worth watching. Steele is probably going to have to look elsewhere. Nance might stick in Atlanta as a practice squad player if he can hang onto the ball. But they are RB equivalents to McGaha right now.
 
Matt Waldman said:
Not really. Just try to remember that backs are like NBA shooting guards. There's lots of talent around, but few spots to see significant time. All three might never get a shot to really play unless the opportunity presents itself. With Lynch still kind of up in the air in Buffalo despite what they say, Bell's worth watching. Steele is probably going to have to look elsewhere. Nance might stick in Atlanta as a practice squad player if he can hang onto the ball. But they are RB equivalents to McGaha right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Good reality check. Being somewhat new to dynasty, your RSP and this thread really helped get me up to speed.
 
_lurker_ said:
Matt Waldman said:
Not really. Just try to remember that backs are like NBA shooting guards. There's lots of talent around, but few spots to see significant time. All three might never get a shot to really play unless the opportunity presents itself. With Lynch still kind of up in the air in Buffalo despite what they say, Bell's worth watching. Steele is probably going to have to look elsewhere. Nance might stick in Atlanta as a practice squad player if he can hang onto the ball. But they are RB equivalents to McGaha right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Good reality check. Being somewhat new to dynasty, your RSP and this thread really helped get me up to speed.
Click to expand...
Good deal. Like I've said, I rate players based on what I see on film and not how enamored a GM or owner is with them or what situation that player lands. So take this info with late-round picks as what they could potentially do with the right opportunity. The one thing to avoid is taking a late-round/undrafted player I have rated higher than some drafted guys and expect him to climb 3 players on the depth chart in one summer to become the starter. It's better to use the info as a guide for waiver wire spots as the summer progresses and news breaks on those players. I personally have Joique Bell and even Toney Baker stashed in really deep roster dynasty leagues, but that's it.
 
One of the craziest "attention to detail" pieces in a place known for them.

However this was written before the draft obviously. Is there ever a "addendum" revisiting of the players once drafted? Not necessarily re-rating all their skills, but revisiting where they have gone and how it impacts their being drafted by us, the FF players.

 
Matt Waldman said:
Check these out...If you have a any specific questions - PM me or post here. :thumbup:

Undrafted players

Rookie Impact RBs

Rookie Impact WRs

Rookie Impact QBs

Rookie Impact TEs

Rookie Receivers in Context - NY Times Fifth Down Blog

Rookie Runners and Passers - NY times Fifth Down Blog
Click to expand...
Matt,

Thanks again for your RSP great report. I can't seem to find the 2009 report. What did your report say about Kareem Huggins? Any thoughts on him given his good showing throughout training camp (and Derrick Ward not performing).

Thank you.

 
Huggins just went mid-2nd round in a rookie draft I'm in. It is not IDP nor is it PPR so RB's are a premium.

I'm no expert and haven't seen any Buc pre-season footage, but looking at a Hofstra video on youtube... he has some monster holes to run-through against what looks like 2nd graders... and isn't breaking any tackles (except running through a few hands that barely touch him through the big holes).

Will be interesting to see what happens in the TB backfield.

I took Ryan Mathews, Anthony Dixon, Aaron Hernandez & Eric Decker. The RSP may have influenced me a tad. ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, but here's the deal...I probably need to re-evaluate how I rank rookies on the board. I weigh them a little more heavily towards re-draft and the RSP towards dynasty because year-one in the NFL is generally an adjustment for every player.

For instance, C.J. Spiller is getting more love after his nice run against the Colts in preseason. But before Lynch and Jackson got hurt, Spiller was said to have adjustments to make that were more long-term things - this was even before the first preseason game where Spiller said he had to do better.

One run doesn't really get me excited about Spiller and change my mind that he's made the transition. Spiller will have runs like that probably every 3-4 games this year, but it doesn't make him a consistent 1300-yard back and the next Chris Johnson until I see him carry the ball 15-20 times in a few games and he makes quick decisions in tight spaces for the runs that might not yield anything but 2-3 yards. This is something he showed very sporadically at Clemson and he's yet to show in Buffalo.

McFadden had nice moments that got people excited. Same with Maroney. Neither has really turned the corner. So when it comes to actually studying the players and ranking them, I tend to rely more on the RSP rankings in dynasty leagues.

This ranking situation is something I will probably continue to look into as a future area of focus.

 
Matt Waldman said:
Yep, but here's the deal...I probably need to re-evaluate how I rank rookies on the board. I weigh them a little more heavily towards re-draft and the RSP towards dynasty because year-one in the NFL is generally an adjustment for every player. For instance, C.J. Spiller is getting more love after his nice run against the Colts in preseason. But before Lynch and Jackson got hurt, Spiller was said to have adjustments to make that were more long-term things - this was even before the first preseason game where Spiller said he had to do better. One run doesn't really get me excited about Spiller and change my mind that he's made the transition. Spiller will have runs like that probably every 3-4 games this year, but it doesn't make him a consistent 1300-yard back and the next Chris Johnson until I see him carry the ball 15-20 times in a few games and he makes quick decisions in tight spaces for the runs that might not yield anything but 2-3 yards. This is something he showed very sporadically at Clemson and he's yet to show in Buffalo. McFadden had nice moments that got people excited. Same with Maroney. Neither has really turned the corner. So when it comes to actually studying the players and ranking them, I tend to rely more on the RSP rankings in dynasty leagues. This ranking situation is something I will probably continue to look into as a future area of focus.
Click to expand...
Thanks and I would agree. You don't want to get too enthused about a single run, however, based on seeing a guy practice really well and make some good plays in pre season games, there are time where one can say, yep, this guy will be a good pro (maybe better or even worse than I thought). Those are the situations that warrant an update. I am speaking more dynasty because I agree for redraft you can't expect much from the majority of guys.
 
Matt Waldman said:
Truman said:
Matt, love the RSP. In lieu of what happened with Peerman, should we be putting more emphasis on blocking in RB evaluations, or do you feel this is too hard to pick up from college film, and something young backs typically struggle with anyway?
Click to expand...
Good question that I'm still thinking about. Looking back at my Peerman notes, I had him rated as a pretty good pass protector. He engaged DEs with a stand up technique and steered them away from the pocket. He wasn't prone to telegraphing cut blocks the way I see many backs do. As a run blocker, I watched him peel back in a hole to take on a defender a seal a lane for a teammate. There negative I probably could have done a better job of highlighting and considering in his overall evaluation was that he didn't really deliver a punch as a pass protector in the way you would like to see a player do. His technique was more passive (mirroring the defender). Facing defenders like the Ravens, I'm sure this got exploited quickly. Looking back at previous evaluations, I have made good calls in the past; Addai (good) and Harrison (bad) as prominent examples. Not that I don't have more to learn, but the not only was the pass protection reason something I didn't expect, but the whole deal that Peerman is on his third team (and barely with one of the worst performing teams in the league) is a big surprise to me. Still, it's a big lesson for me to consider whether a back not only squares up a defender and moves his feet well, but he also can deliver a punch and maintain hand position on the defender throughout the block. If I apply what I learned to Peerman's score, he would have dropped a bit but not so much that I wouldn't have rated him a sleeper. I probably wouldn't have had him in my top five, but he would still have been close. I would have still expected him to pick up pass blocking because of his reputation as a high-effort teammate who works hard. I'm also waiting to see how this story develops - if at all - this spring. Should you take blocking more seriously? I wish I had a pat answer for you, but I don't. It all depends on how a team uses a player. A guy like Darren McFadden had some serious issues when he had to face an edge defender one-on-one, but if the team is only going to use him a a receiver or runner, then it doesn't matter as much as a team that will rely on their back to pass protect. You don't see Adrian Peterson used much in pass protection. My take: if the back isn't a high-round pick, give pass protection a little more weight because he has to work his way up the depth chart. If the back is a high-round pick and expected to contribute as a runner early, give it a little less...unless that team really uses its backs for pass protection. Another issue with Peerman was health. He was dealing with a thigh injury that limited him at the end of Ravens camp. Did this thigh injury bug him all year? It was listed a reason in some reports why the Browns waived him: he couldn't help right away if he weren't healthy - and as a sixth-round pick waived by an RB-rich team, a team could write him off pretty quickly. I try to view it all with this perspective: I'm always going to rate these guys how I see them. As with anyone who does this, I'll have accurate and inaccurate evaluations. And it's important to note that these views often take longer than a year to work out. If Mike Bell were a camp invitee with the NY Giants he probably would have been cut rather than made the opening day starter as a rookie in Denver. Plus Bell looked like a flash in the pan to some after he got cut by Denver, didn't do anything in Houston, and wound up a key contributor with New Orleans. Not that he'll ever be a superstar, but I think his performance has justified the rating I gave him in college, which is in essence a player capable of starting for a team but not a franchise back - most people I read didn't even consider him a guy to make a roster. I typically give a player 3-4 years before I completely give up on them. No one is interviewing a guy like Peerman for obvious reasons. But if he makes some noise in Lions camp, I wouldn't be surprised to learn more about why he bounced around so early when reporters ask him what happened.
Click to expand...
FYI - He's still on a majority of my dynasty league teams if you're curious. What I saw from him two weeks ago was enough for me to continue holding onto him, because even his runs for losses were impressive in certain respects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TheWinz
When do the good WR's break out?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Biabreakable
Biabreakable
ffmail4me
2024 Dynasty Startup Thread
Replies
19
Views
3K
Gally
G
Yogibear
Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2024 Discussion Thread
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
9K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top