Showing posts with label nfl draft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nfl draft. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2016
4-29 Hoffman Show
Damon Amendolara and Anthony Gulizia join me to talk about a wild first round of the NFL Draft. Plus, why I sympathize with Dee Gordon and the legend of the words "in perpetuity."
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Random Rumblings: April 28th
Why the tape is not enough
Tonight is the NFL Draft and arguably the two best players on tape won't be taken early. One won't be taken at all, not just in tonight's first round but at any point in the next three days. Why? Injuries.
Notre Dame's Jaylon Smith had the best tape of any prospect according to multiple analysts, yet he likely won't be taken at all. The defensive standout tore his knee ligaments in the Fiesta Bowl and he's at risk to never play football again because of nerve damage in his leg. UCLA's Myles Jack will play football next year. The question is how long after that as he has a degenerative issue in his knee.
Jack made interesting comments yesterday about his knee, saying that he doesn't know how long he'll be able to play. He said that anything over three years is average anyway, so who knows what the future holds for any player. While all of what he said is technically true, he did himself no favors in being honest. Teams don't spend first round picks for average.
The larger point here though is the justification for teams putting in massive amounts of homework into drafting players. They're about to make multimillion dollar investments into these guys, so every piece of information is useful.
What's interesting is the difference between the extensive homework teams do on rookies versus the quick decisions made on free agents, who cost significantly more money. The difference in the two situations? Leverage.
A player essentially has to play where he's drafted. In free agency, especially with the best players, the player has options. Instead of convincing teams to pick him, it's the teams convincing the player that they're the right place to be and that convincing is both literal in conversational terms and financial. The more you want a player, the more money you give him.
If Jack's knee holds up for a decade and he plays at a high level, people will look back and scream about how he was the best player on tape and lament not taking him. However if he's out of the league in three years, the team that did take that risk will be mocked for selecting a player with such an obvious downside. Teams can't win unless they're the one that was right. The narrative plays the result. The reality? The projection business is hard and every situation is different. Some decision makers have the license to take risks. Some don't. Some do have that right, but probably shouldn't.
The only sure thing is that if anyone tells you they know exactly how a player is going to turn out, they're telling you they can do the impossible.
Yeah, that was a foul
The Hornets took a 3-2 lead over the Heat last night in a controversial Game 5. There were some bad calls both ways, but a blatant missed foul late has everyone's attention. Goran Dragic shot a three from the corner which was blocked by Kemba Walker. Dwyane Wade got the rebound and attacked the basket where he was rudely greeted by Cody Zeller. The Hornets forward crashed into Wade and no whistle blew. It was a foul. There is no debate.
The verticality rule is explained in this video. It's pretty simple. If you jump straight up and down, it's not a foul. If you jump horizontally and make contact, it's a foul. This was a foul.
It's frustrating and disappointing that a game's outcome can so heavily be influenced by someone not on one of the teams so blatantly not doing their jobs correctly. Refereeing is really, really hard. It's a thankless job that only comes up when something is wrong. Guess that's why we're talking about it.
Some will talk about "human error" being a part of the game, but the only errors that should exist in an ideal world would be made by those affiliated with the teams. If a player misses an open shot, that's the game. If a coach makes a poor strategy decision, that's less fun than seeing the players decide the game, but that's sports. A referee? Give me the robots!
The rules are the rules. Enforce them. And to anyone who thinks that wasn't a foul, learn the rules. There is no intelligent argument here. Just learn the rule.
Tirico
Mike Tirico is leaving ESPN for NBC, which is a monumental move in the media world. Tirico has been at ESPN for 25 years and is the signature voice for the network. You probably knew all that. What you might not know is what it's like to have experience with Mike personally. That is just as big of a treat as it is listening to him call a game.
We've spent short amounts of time together on multiple occasions thanks to our mutual love for our alma mater. Mike is as proud of a Syracuse alum as there is and still dedicates a lot of time (and likely money) to the broadcast program.
Every time I see Mike, he makes me feel like an old friend that he's known for years. He has that special ability to make anyone feel important. He's invested in how you're doing. For someone who is a titan of our industry, he's incredibly human.
That humility is also what makes him so great on the air. He's smarter than all of us. Nobody knows more about more stuff than Mike. He covers NBA basketball, college basketball, NFL football, golf and tennis and I swear he knows each rulebook better than some of the officials in those sports. It's absolutely astounding. Yet, he delivers that information in a way that doesn't scream "look at me and how smart I am." He's just brilliant.
His role at NBC could eventually evolve into calling the NFL's premier weekly game (Sunday Night Football), the Super Bowl every three years and hosting the Olympics. He'll be calling the biggest events in sports and he's more than ready. I also expect him to be a part of the Kentucky Derby broadcast.
Back in 2012, we had Mike on my college radio show and I asked him about his bucket list. He said he'd gotten to do, or at least see, pretty much every event he could have dreamed of except two. One was the Indianapolis 500. The other was the Kentucky Derby. Both happen during the NBA playoffs, something Mike's giving up in the move from ESPN to NBC as the peacock network doesn't have any NBA rights and won't for the foreseeable future. The Indy 500 is on ABC, so he won't be able to call that although he could attend. The Derby however is on NBC, so expect him to have some role in that broadcast if his bucket list hasn't changed.
Reads of the Day:
Lions LB Deandre Levy with a powerful, necessary and potent piece on sexual assault prevention: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/deandre-levy-sexual-assault-awareness/
The MMQB's Andrew Brandt takes us inside an NFL war-room on draft day: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms
ESPNLA's Arash Markazi on Doc Rivers, including some powerful quotes from his son and player Austin: http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/clippers/post/_/id/8096/doc-rivers-stays-strong-in-eye-of-clippers-storm
Tonight is the NFL Draft and arguably the two best players on tape won't be taken early. One won't be taken at all, not just in tonight's first round but at any point in the next three days. Why? Injuries.
Notre Dame's Jaylon Smith had the best tape of any prospect according to multiple analysts, yet he likely won't be taken at all. The defensive standout tore his knee ligaments in the Fiesta Bowl and he's at risk to never play football again because of nerve damage in his leg. UCLA's Myles Jack will play football next year. The question is how long after that as he has a degenerative issue in his knee.
Jack made interesting comments yesterday about his knee, saying that he doesn't know how long he'll be able to play. He said that anything over three years is average anyway, so who knows what the future holds for any player. While all of what he said is technically true, he did himself no favors in being honest. Teams don't spend first round picks for average.
The larger point here though is the justification for teams putting in massive amounts of homework into drafting players. They're about to make multimillion dollar investments into these guys, so every piece of information is useful.
What's interesting is the difference between the extensive homework teams do on rookies versus the quick decisions made on free agents, who cost significantly more money. The difference in the two situations? Leverage.
A player essentially has to play where he's drafted. In free agency, especially with the best players, the player has options. Instead of convincing teams to pick him, it's the teams convincing the player that they're the right place to be and that convincing is both literal in conversational terms and financial. The more you want a player, the more money you give him.
If Jack's knee holds up for a decade and he plays at a high level, people will look back and scream about how he was the best player on tape and lament not taking him. However if he's out of the league in three years, the team that did take that risk will be mocked for selecting a player with such an obvious downside. Teams can't win unless they're the one that was right. The narrative plays the result. The reality? The projection business is hard and every situation is different. Some decision makers have the license to take risks. Some don't. Some do have that right, but probably shouldn't.
The only sure thing is that if anyone tells you they know exactly how a player is going to turn out, they're telling you they can do the impossible.
Yeah, that was a foul
The Hornets took a 3-2 lead over the Heat last night in a controversial Game 5. There were some bad calls both ways, but a blatant missed foul late has everyone's attention. Goran Dragic shot a three from the corner which was blocked by Kemba Walker. Dwyane Wade got the rebound and attacked the basket where he was rudely greeted by Cody Zeller. The Hornets forward crashed into Wade and no whistle blew. It was a foul. There is no debate.
The verticality rule is explained in this video. It's pretty simple. If you jump straight up and down, it's not a foul. If you jump horizontally and make contact, it's a foul. This was a foul.
It's frustrating and disappointing that a game's outcome can so heavily be influenced by someone not on one of the teams so blatantly not doing their jobs correctly. Refereeing is really, really hard. It's a thankless job that only comes up when something is wrong. Guess that's why we're talking about it.
Some will talk about "human error" being a part of the game, but the only errors that should exist in an ideal world would be made by those affiliated with the teams. If a player misses an open shot, that's the game. If a coach makes a poor strategy decision, that's less fun than seeing the players decide the game, but that's sports. A referee? Give me the robots!
The rules are the rules. Enforce them. And to anyone who thinks that wasn't a foul, learn the rules. There is no intelligent argument here. Just learn the rule.
Tirico
Mike Tirico is leaving ESPN for NBC, which is a monumental move in the media world. Tirico has been at ESPN for 25 years and is the signature voice for the network. You probably knew all that. What you might not know is what it's like to have experience with Mike personally. That is just as big of a treat as it is listening to him call a game.
We've spent short amounts of time together on multiple occasions thanks to our mutual love for our alma mater. Mike is as proud of a Syracuse alum as there is and still dedicates a lot of time (and likely money) to the broadcast program.
Every time I see Mike, he makes me feel like an old friend that he's known for years. He has that special ability to make anyone feel important. He's invested in how you're doing. For someone who is a titan of our industry, he's incredibly human.
That humility is also what makes him so great on the air. He's smarter than all of us. Nobody knows more about more stuff than Mike. He covers NBA basketball, college basketball, NFL football, golf and tennis and I swear he knows each rulebook better than some of the officials in those sports. It's absolutely astounding. Yet, he delivers that information in a way that doesn't scream "look at me and how smart I am." He's just brilliant.
His role at NBC could eventually evolve into calling the NFL's premier weekly game (Sunday Night Football), the Super Bowl every three years and hosting the Olympics. He'll be calling the biggest events in sports and he's more than ready. I also expect him to be a part of the Kentucky Derby broadcast.
Back in 2012, we had Mike on my college radio show and I asked him about his bucket list. He said he'd gotten to do, or at least see, pretty much every event he could have dreamed of except two. One was the Indianapolis 500. The other was the Kentucky Derby. Both happen during the NBA playoffs, something Mike's giving up in the move from ESPN to NBC as the peacock network doesn't have any NBA rights and won't for the foreseeable future. The Indy 500 is on ABC, so he won't be able to call that although he could attend. The Derby however is on NBC, so expect him to have some role in that broadcast if his bucket list hasn't changed.
Reads of the Day:
Lions LB Deandre Levy with a powerful, necessary and potent piece on sexual assault prevention: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/deandre-levy-sexual-assault-awareness/
The MMQB's Andrew Brandt takes us inside an NFL war-room on draft day: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms
ESPNLA's Arash Markazi on Doc Rivers, including some powerful quotes from his son and player Austin: http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/clippers/post/_/id/8096/doc-rivers-stays-strong-in-eye-of-clippers-storm
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Podcast: Eric Edholm on the NFL Draft
Looking for a 25 minute NFL Draft crash course? You've come to the right place! Eric Edholm of Yahoo! Sport's Shutdown Corner blog talks draft with me. We cover the evaluation process, some of the big names and touch on the Josh Norman story.
Follow Eric on Twitter here and read his work here.
Follow Eric on Twitter here and read his work here.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Random Rumblings: April 19th
After some travel time, I've returned to rumble randomly. The travel was to my alma mater, Syracuse University, for the chance to work with the next generation of media superstars. Joe Lee, GM of WAER, invited me to work with his sports talk department and it turned into an incredible 48 hours on the hill.
It's hard to accurately describe what the student media, both WAER and Z89, mean to and have meant to my career. The shortest version of an attempt is merely saying that I would've gotten nowhere without them. The reason those places are so special is because the alums are so generous in giving back. Not only have some of the best and brightest in our industry established and passed down a standard of excellence when they were students, but they've also made sure to continue to go back and ensure that standard is upheld.
The fact that Joe reached out and specifically targeted me to come back and work with his staff is an honor. I was more than happy to make the trip. What I found, not shockingly, is an incredibly talented and driven group that craved the feedback and want to get better and continue the tradition. There's a reason there are so many Syracuse alums in this industry and there's a reason we're obnoxious about where we went to school. It's worth being proud of and it was abundantly clear to me after last week that the next generation understands that and will continue to live up to the expectations of being "one of those Syracuse guys" (or gals!) in every corner of media.
Kobe
I left for Syracuse at 6 am on Thursday morning, making it an unwise decision to stay up and watch Kobe's final game Wednesday night. So I didn't. I watched the first six minutes, in which he didn't hit a shot, and went to bed knowing it was on DVR for me to consume later.
I woke up Thursday morning bleary eyed and looked at my phone AND KOBE DID WHAT?! No amount of coffee or IV dripped caffeine could've had me come to attention faster than seeing that Bryant scored 60 on his final night. I immediately went to the box score and saw he shot fifty times, but he still scored sixty points!!! However as I started to read some of the reaction from Twitter the night before, then listen as I hit the road, I understood that this wasn't some chuck-fest. This was an all-time moment.
I finally got to watch this morning and it was pure magic. Were there some bad shots? Sure. He shot fifty times. You think they were all awesome? However there were also glimpses of a Bryant we all, including Kobe himself, thought was long gone. Snakes to the rim, ending in crafty finishes accounted for a solid percentage of his points. The pull-up jumper that made him the NBA's best player for a solid stretch of the early 00's looked as sure as it ever had. I'd use another word, but magic is the proper description.
For a player whose reputation as a closer was typically overstated (his percentages in clutch situation were terrible), this close was literally perfect. While he often forced shots and missed, there was no denying that Bryant always wanted to take the final shot. He thought it was his duty, and he had no fear of failure. That's admirable for an athlete, even if at times he should've played the percentages better. Wednesday night wasn't a time to play the percentages. Wednesday night was time to put on a show. He did, in the most unimaginable way possible.
He's inarguably one of the best fifteen players ever. He's almost inarguably one of the best twelve. He's arguably one of the best ten. He's done things few others have done in the modern era and some (his 81 point game) that none have done. From a pure sporting context, it doesn't get much better than his performance on Wednesday. Also, Mike Tirico said "fo shizzle" late in the game going to break as the telecast showed Snoop dancing which is as all-time of a moment as anything Kobe did.
However in an age where we know more about our athletes than ever before, I'd feel like a total hypocrite if I didn't at least mention that Bryant was charged with rape in 2004. It was largely not mentioned during the Kobe farewell tour until the final few days as I saw it appear a few times on social media. I was pretty young during the trial, so I went back and looked at some of the reporting from the time and it's certainly damning of Bryant. At absolute best, Bryant committed rape amidst confusion about consent. This is directly from Bryant's statement after the charges were dismissed:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."
It takes two to have consent. The woman not believing she had consented constitutes rape, even if Bryant was under some other impression. Other accounts paint a much darker picture in which there's no confusion at all, and that there may have been other similar instances with other women that went unreported. We have a legal system that often fails victims of domestic and sexual violence. There are no winners in any of this. The charges against Bryant were dropped after his legal team engaged in horrifying victim blaming.
There's no good way to make all this into some grand conclusion. It feels like there's grey area here. Bryant rehabbed his image in part by doing an extremely high amount of charity work. He saw hundreds of Make-a-Wish kids, never denying one of their requests. His work with the homeless of LA is awe-inspiring. Does any of that make what he was alleged to do okay? Of course not. I don't know what the "right" response to all of this is. Watching his final game gave me great joy as a sports fan. Writing the last two paragraphs about a horrifying thing he is alleged to have done makes me feel really guilty about that joy. That's really all I've got.
Trade That Pick!
Making as hard of a left turn as we can, the Browns should trade the number two overall pick in the upcoming NFL draft and they shouldn't think twice about it. It's pretty clear the Rams are taking one of the top two quarterbacks in the draft, either Jared Goff or Carson Wentz at number one after trading with the Titans last week. That leaves any other team who wants one of those quarterbacks needing to trade with Cleveland to ensure they get their man.
The Browns don't need either if they're committed to Robert Griffin III at quarterback. Even if they're not, they should trade the pick anyway unless they believe one of them is truly special. The reality is the Browns stink. They're not winning this year with anyone they can possibly acquire at quarterback. They need a lot of players. The only way to get a lot of good players is to draft a lot of players. The way to draft a lot of players is to have a lot of picks, which you can acquire in a trade for the number two overall pick pretty easily.
NFL Draft picks, no matter where they are, are like lottery tickets. The higher the draft pick, the better chance that ticket is a winner, but the real goal is to get as many tickets as you can. If you go 50% on your picks, but only have six picks, you've only developed three players. If you have 12 picks? Now you've got six NFL caliber players and are making headway towards becoming good again.
Since multiple teams are likely to want in on whichever QB is left (multiple reports say it will be Wentz stating that the Rams like Goff), the Browns can probably get a great return for their pick. Making a deal is all about leverage. The Browns have it. They should use it, and then be patient as their stable of players develops and maybe, just maybe, they'll have a winner in Cleveland a few years down the road.
Reads of the day:
This Seth Wickersham piece for ESPN The Mag on Robert Nkemdiche is great. It shines a light on one of the draft's bigger question marks and how questionable the draft process is: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15159447/should-teams-worry-robert-nkemdic-nfl-future
NBA Player Wayne Ellington writes about his father's impact on his life and his cold-blooded murder for The Player's Tribune: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/wayne-ellington-nets-father/
If you want some great Kobe stories, Baxter Holmes has written some remarkable stuff for ESPN LA the past few weeks. This, on his shooting routine, is one of my favorites: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15179469/kobe-bryant-famous-pregame-shooting-routine
It's hard to accurately describe what the student media, both WAER and Z89, mean to and have meant to my career. The shortest version of an attempt is merely saying that I would've gotten nowhere without them. The reason those places are so special is because the alums are so generous in giving back. Not only have some of the best and brightest in our industry established and passed down a standard of excellence when they were students, but they've also made sure to continue to go back and ensure that standard is upheld.
The fact that Joe reached out and specifically targeted me to come back and work with his staff is an honor. I was more than happy to make the trip. What I found, not shockingly, is an incredibly talented and driven group that craved the feedback and want to get better and continue the tradition. There's a reason there are so many Syracuse alums in this industry and there's a reason we're obnoxious about where we went to school. It's worth being proud of and it was abundantly clear to me after last week that the next generation understands that and will continue to live up to the expectations of being "one of those Syracuse guys" (or gals!) in every corner of media.
Kobe
I left for Syracuse at 6 am on Thursday morning, making it an unwise decision to stay up and watch Kobe's final game Wednesday night. So I didn't. I watched the first six minutes, in which he didn't hit a shot, and went to bed knowing it was on DVR for me to consume later.
I woke up Thursday morning bleary eyed and looked at my phone AND KOBE DID WHAT?! No amount of coffee or IV dripped caffeine could've had me come to attention faster than seeing that Bryant scored 60 on his final night. I immediately went to the box score and saw he shot fifty times, but he still scored sixty points!!! However as I started to read some of the reaction from Twitter the night before, then listen as I hit the road, I understood that this wasn't some chuck-fest. This was an all-time moment.
I finally got to watch this morning and it was pure magic. Were there some bad shots? Sure. He shot fifty times. You think they were all awesome? However there were also glimpses of a Bryant we all, including Kobe himself, thought was long gone. Snakes to the rim, ending in crafty finishes accounted for a solid percentage of his points. The pull-up jumper that made him the NBA's best player for a solid stretch of the early 00's looked as sure as it ever had. I'd use another word, but magic is the proper description.
For a player whose reputation as a closer was typically overstated (his percentages in clutch situation were terrible), this close was literally perfect. While he often forced shots and missed, there was no denying that Bryant always wanted to take the final shot. He thought it was his duty, and he had no fear of failure. That's admirable for an athlete, even if at times he should've played the percentages better. Wednesday night wasn't a time to play the percentages. Wednesday night was time to put on a show. He did, in the most unimaginable way possible.
He's inarguably one of the best fifteen players ever. He's almost inarguably one of the best twelve. He's arguably one of the best ten. He's done things few others have done in the modern era and some (his 81 point game) that none have done. From a pure sporting context, it doesn't get much better than his performance on Wednesday. Also, Mike Tirico said "fo shizzle" late in the game going to break as the telecast showed Snoop dancing which is as all-time of a moment as anything Kobe did.
However in an age where we know more about our athletes than ever before, I'd feel like a total hypocrite if I didn't at least mention that Bryant was charged with rape in 2004. It was largely not mentioned during the Kobe farewell tour until the final few days as I saw it appear a few times on social media. I was pretty young during the trial, so I went back and looked at some of the reporting from the time and it's certainly damning of Bryant. At absolute best, Bryant committed rape amidst confusion about consent. This is directly from Bryant's statement after the charges were dismissed:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."
It takes two to have consent. The woman not believing she had consented constitutes rape, even if Bryant was under some other impression. Other accounts paint a much darker picture in which there's no confusion at all, and that there may have been other similar instances with other women that went unreported. We have a legal system that often fails victims of domestic and sexual violence. There are no winners in any of this. The charges against Bryant were dropped after his legal team engaged in horrifying victim blaming.
There's no good way to make all this into some grand conclusion. It feels like there's grey area here. Bryant rehabbed his image in part by doing an extremely high amount of charity work. He saw hundreds of Make-a-Wish kids, never denying one of their requests. His work with the homeless of LA is awe-inspiring. Does any of that make what he was alleged to do okay? Of course not. I don't know what the "right" response to all of this is. Watching his final game gave me great joy as a sports fan. Writing the last two paragraphs about a horrifying thing he is alleged to have done makes me feel really guilty about that joy. That's really all I've got.
Trade That Pick!
Making as hard of a left turn as we can, the Browns should trade the number two overall pick in the upcoming NFL draft and they shouldn't think twice about it. It's pretty clear the Rams are taking one of the top two quarterbacks in the draft, either Jared Goff or Carson Wentz at number one after trading with the Titans last week. That leaves any other team who wants one of those quarterbacks needing to trade with Cleveland to ensure they get their man.
The Browns don't need either if they're committed to Robert Griffin III at quarterback. Even if they're not, they should trade the pick anyway unless they believe one of them is truly special. The reality is the Browns stink. They're not winning this year with anyone they can possibly acquire at quarterback. They need a lot of players. The only way to get a lot of good players is to draft a lot of players. The way to draft a lot of players is to have a lot of picks, which you can acquire in a trade for the number two overall pick pretty easily.
NFL Draft picks, no matter where they are, are like lottery tickets. The higher the draft pick, the better chance that ticket is a winner, but the real goal is to get as many tickets as you can. If you go 50% on your picks, but only have six picks, you've only developed three players. If you have 12 picks? Now you've got six NFL caliber players and are making headway towards becoming good again.
Since multiple teams are likely to want in on whichever QB is left (multiple reports say it will be Wentz stating that the Rams like Goff), the Browns can probably get a great return for their pick. Making a deal is all about leverage. The Browns have it. They should use it, and then be patient as their stable of players develops and maybe, just maybe, they'll have a winner in Cleveland a few years down the road.
Reads of the day:
This Seth Wickersham piece for ESPN The Mag on Robert Nkemdiche is great. It shines a light on one of the draft's bigger question marks and how questionable the draft process is: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15159447/should-teams-worry-robert-nkemdic-nfl-future
NBA Player Wayne Ellington writes about his father's impact on his life and his cold-blooded murder for The Player's Tribune: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/wayne-ellington-nets-father/
If you want some great Kobe stories, Baxter Holmes has written some remarkable stuff for ESPN LA the past few weeks. This, on his shooting routine, is one of my favorites: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15179469/kobe-bryant-famous-pregame-shooting-routine
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Evaluating Evaluation
It's draft season, both in the NBA and the NFL meaning evaluations of players are flying. Everyone, from general managers of the actual teams to amateur scouts on the internet are putting out their reports. Some of those amateur scouts will somehow have better results than those professionals whose very jobs it is to nail those evaluations.
How is that possible? I have no idea and that will become increasingly clear as you read the rest of this post. That is because evaluating talent is as much about who a person is as what they do on the field. Team personnel (and professional media evaluators like Mel Kiper and Todd McShay) get to talk to the draftees, their college coaches and the people around them. The amateurs on the internet? They might know a guy somewhere, but likely they're watching tape and drawing conclusions.
So how is it that the professionals can so wildly miss? Simple. It's hard to evaluate how a human being will grow from the time they are 21 or 22 (or in the NBA's case, 19) over the next ten years of their life, but knowing what to look for is half the battle.
The genesis of this post started a few weeks ago as I heard people talk about evaluating quarterbacks. Talk show hosts and the like love talking about measurables. Carson Wentz from North Dakota State has "prototypical size" and a cannon for an arm. Those are great, but when it comes to the quarterback position, the number one attribute is decision making.
I would rather have a quarterback with an average arm that is smart and decisive than one who has the physical tools and hope that the second guy can figure it out. Everything happens in the NFL at extraordinary speed. The margin for error is nearly non-existent. A quarterback must read coverage, determine where to throw the ball and deliver without hesitation. So long that he can do that, and has a baseline requisite arm to do so, he's going to succeed. The difference in arm strength between average and good isn't enough to make up for the difference in decision making between good and average.
While the decision making trait is unique to quarterbacks, there is another set of mental traits that is just as important as any other physical trait when evaluating talent. It's described perfectly by Redskins GM Scot McCloughan in a Q&A with Bleacher Report's Jason Cole.
These characteristics can continue to play out into a players career in a negative way as well. While Curry and the others mentioned (and many more) continually improve as they go, other players can't seem to be bothered too.
Josh Gordon led the NFL in receiving in 2013. He's played in five games since. Gordon has been suspended multiple times for failed drug tests, and while reading Gordon's accounts of his downfall creates sympathy and empathy, it also makes you take a step back and go "hey guy...figure it out!" For someone that seems to so clearly understand the circumstances around his peril, he's awful at avoiding it.
That continues to this week's news when it was revealed Gordon is reportedly living with Johnny Manziel, a walking embodiment of a similar theory. (Update: the report, from ESPN, is false according to another report from Pro Football Talk, so credit to back in Gordon's corner if it is. He still did something to have his re-instatement denied. He can appeal August 1st.)
Manziel is a master (well, until this week) of saying the right thing while doing nothing of what he says. Both of them have an optics problem and neither seems particularly interested, based on their actions, of fixing them. I should be perfectly clear here that the Manziel optics problem doesn't include his domestic violence which is a real problem that, if it played out as reported based on his ex-girlfriend's accounts, should land him in jail, nevertheless out of football.
Evaluators need to be able to identify players, or more accurately people, like Gordon and Manziel so they know not to invest vast resources in acquiring them. They also need to know that if they do acquire them with low resources (whether that be a late round pick or a low dollar contract) that they will need to invest a high number of resources to help the player succeed. The results when this is done right can be magical.
Dez Bryant dropped in the draft because he was "high-risk" coming out of Oklahoma State. Bryant has succeeded because he loves football above all else (which is a credit to him and him alone) and because the Cowboys set up a support system to make sure that he had the highest chance possible to succeed as he adjusted to a new life.
Of course the difference between Bryant, Gordon and Manziel is that only one of them has football as their highest priority. In a profession with such a short career span that requires an inordinate amount of physical dedication, that's something an evaluator has to identify.
It's why Kristaps Porzingis will succeed in the NBA and countless other European players haven't. The busts fail for the same reason many American born players have. They just don't love the game. Often these are big men who play because they're big. They can succeed without immense work because their physical stature gives them such an inherent advantage at the lower levels. In order to succeed in the world's highest level professional league, even the most gifted physical players need to have a work ethic to maximize their talent.
Porzingis loves the game. He's had early success and I'll be shocked if he doesn't continue to improve. The same is true for Karl-Anthony Towns. Last year's #1 overall pick has been glued to Kevin Garnett, who is as much coach as he is player at this point, trying to learn what's made the 15-time All-Star successful.
So as you read the latest mock draft to see who your favorite team is going to take, make sure to read the whole scouting report. Don't just look at 40-times and verticals. Take a look at the personality section. Do they love the sport? Do they value being a good teammate? Will they be a positive influence on your team's culture?
If you want to put on your amateur scouting hat, don't just watch a highlight tape. Watch how hard they play. Read and watch interviews with the player to see what kind of answers they give. What's their attention to detail?
If scouting was solely about finding the best physical specimens, it'd be pretty easy. Everyone would have the same lists. However sports are played by human beings which means there are human dynamics at play and the ability to find and project talent is an extremely valuable talent in its own right.
Inevitably, someone will cost themselves their job (and the jobs of those below them) because of ego. General manager X will think he's the one who's got it all figured out. He's the one who can take the physically gifted kid and mold all that "talent" into a great player. What the great talent evaluators have figured out is that "talent" is overrated. They want the guys who can think the game so effortlessly that they don't have to think at all, maximizing the physical ability they have leading to success.
As a fan, just hope that person isn't running your team. If they are, don't worry though. They won't be for long.
How is that possible? I have no idea and that will become increasingly clear as you read the rest of this post. That is because evaluating talent is as much about who a person is as what they do on the field. Team personnel (and professional media evaluators like Mel Kiper and Todd McShay) get to talk to the draftees, their college coaches and the people around them. The amateurs on the internet? They might know a guy somewhere, but likely they're watching tape and drawing conclusions.
So how is it that the professionals can so wildly miss? Simple. It's hard to evaluate how a human being will grow from the time they are 21 or 22 (or in the NBA's case, 19) over the next ten years of their life, but knowing what to look for is half the battle.
The genesis of this post started a few weeks ago as I heard people talk about evaluating quarterbacks. Talk show hosts and the like love talking about measurables. Carson Wentz from North Dakota State has "prototypical size" and a cannon for an arm. Those are great, but when it comes to the quarterback position, the number one attribute is decision making.
I would rather have a quarterback with an average arm that is smart and decisive than one who has the physical tools and hope that the second guy can figure it out. Everything happens in the NFL at extraordinary speed. The margin for error is nearly non-existent. A quarterback must read coverage, determine where to throw the ball and deliver without hesitation. So long that he can do that, and has a baseline requisite arm to do so, he's going to succeed. The difference in arm strength between average and good isn't enough to make up for the difference in decision making between good and average.
While the decision making trait is unique to quarterbacks, there is another set of mental traits that is just as important as any other physical trait when evaluating talent. It's described perfectly by Redskins GM Scot McCloughan in a Q&A with Bleacher Report's Jason Cole.
You watch five or 10 plays, you can see the physical skills. You can see it pretty quick. If it’s a receiver running a route or a pass-rusher, you can see him drop his hips, that kind of stuff. That’s the easy part. The tough part is figuring out the person. Is he a competitor? What’s his toughness? What’s his mindset? I’ve been around long enough, which is great because I’ve made a lot of mistakes, and I’ve learned from them, but what makes a guy average to good, good to great and great to exceptional? That’s the hard part because the talent is there. Every year, you see guys come out, and they are physically gifted, bigger than life, whatever. But you also see guys who are in the sixth or seventh (round), or they are college free agents, and they play 10 years while the other guy plays two. It’s the "it" factor, and it’s hard to find. It’s really hard to find.McCloughan's theory is true in other sports as well. Think of the great athletes and what you think of first with them. Whether is Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Jerry Rice or any other number of legitimate all-time greats, the first thing you hear about is their work ethic. It's how Stephen Curry elevated himself to the top of the basketball world. He had a set of natural skills that he enhanced by an immense amount of work. He wanted to be great. He loves the game. He put in the work. He is great.
These characteristics can continue to play out into a players career in a negative way as well. While Curry and the others mentioned (and many more) continually improve as they go, other players can't seem to be bothered too.
Josh Gordon led the NFL in receiving in 2013. He's played in five games since. Gordon has been suspended multiple times for failed drug tests, and while reading Gordon's accounts of his downfall creates sympathy and empathy, it also makes you take a step back and go "hey guy...figure it out!" For someone that seems to so clearly understand the circumstances around his peril, he's awful at avoiding it.
That continues to this week's news when it was revealed Gordon is reportedly living with Johnny Manziel, a walking embodiment of a similar theory. (Update: the report, from ESPN, is false according to another report from Pro Football Talk, so credit to back in Gordon's corner if it is. He still did something to have his re-instatement denied. He can appeal August 1st.)
Manziel is a master (well, until this week) of saying the right thing while doing nothing of what he says. Both of them have an optics problem and neither seems particularly interested, based on their actions, of fixing them. I should be perfectly clear here that the Manziel optics problem doesn't include his domestic violence which is a real problem that, if it played out as reported based on his ex-girlfriend's accounts, should land him in jail, nevertheless out of football.
Evaluators need to be able to identify players, or more accurately people, like Gordon and Manziel so they know not to invest vast resources in acquiring them. They also need to know that if they do acquire them with low resources (whether that be a late round pick or a low dollar contract) that they will need to invest a high number of resources to help the player succeed. The results when this is done right can be magical.
Dez Bryant dropped in the draft because he was "high-risk" coming out of Oklahoma State. Bryant has succeeded because he loves football above all else (which is a credit to him and him alone) and because the Cowboys set up a support system to make sure that he had the highest chance possible to succeed as he adjusted to a new life.
Of course the difference between Bryant, Gordon and Manziel is that only one of them has football as their highest priority. In a profession with such a short career span that requires an inordinate amount of physical dedication, that's something an evaluator has to identify.
It's why Kristaps Porzingis will succeed in the NBA and countless other European players haven't. The busts fail for the same reason many American born players have. They just don't love the game. Often these are big men who play because they're big. They can succeed without immense work because their physical stature gives them such an inherent advantage at the lower levels. In order to succeed in the world's highest level professional league, even the most gifted physical players need to have a work ethic to maximize their talent.
Porzingis loves the game. He's had early success and I'll be shocked if he doesn't continue to improve. The same is true for Karl-Anthony Towns. Last year's #1 overall pick has been glued to Kevin Garnett, who is as much coach as he is player at this point, trying to learn what's made the 15-time All-Star successful.
So as you read the latest mock draft to see who your favorite team is going to take, make sure to read the whole scouting report. Don't just look at 40-times and verticals. Take a look at the personality section. Do they love the sport? Do they value being a good teammate? Will they be a positive influence on your team's culture?
If you want to put on your amateur scouting hat, don't just watch a highlight tape. Watch how hard they play. Read and watch interviews with the player to see what kind of answers they give. What's their attention to detail?
If scouting was solely about finding the best physical specimens, it'd be pretty easy. Everyone would have the same lists. However sports are played by human beings which means there are human dynamics at play and the ability to find and project talent is an extremely valuable talent in its own right.
Inevitably, someone will cost themselves their job (and the jobs of those below them) because of ego. General manager X will think he's the one who's got it all figured out. He's the one who can take the physically gifted kid and mold all that "talent" into a great player. What the great talent evaluators have figured out is that "talent" is overrated. They want the guys who can think the game so effortlessly that they don't have to think at all, maximizing the physical ability they have leading to success.
As a fan, just hope that person isn't running your team. If they are, don't worry though. They won't be for long.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)