For those of you who don't know me, let me say there was a time when I was certain I would make it to the "big time" as a coach. When I say this, I am not blindly throwing a statement out there without background knowledge -- it's NOT like George Costanza running the New York Yankees (or maybe it is). My college Head Coach coached in the NFL, as did my position coach, and they ran an NFL system which I understood inside and out. And because I was such a bad player, I got to sit and watch others perform and be coached. My playing days were like a 4 year internship. As a young coach, I was given special access to NFL training camps where I got to see the best minds in football at work. I'm not talking about simply watching practice; I was allowed inside meeting rooms as they coached their players and saw them TEACH. One such team had perhaps the greatest offense of all time with 2 MVPs (one is in the Hall of Fame now, with the other perhaps to follow?); another was based in a system with a coordinator who would go on to win 2 Super Bowls. I saw how these people taught, and knew I was as good. For whatever reason, I didn't get the chance to coach at that level (though I know my name was brought up as recently as a couple of seasons ago), but it wasn't because I wasn't good enough. I knew, as I know now, that I can teach -- I have been successful teaching players at much lower skill levels concepts that work at the highest levels of competition. If I were to sit in a room (or more importantly, be on a practice field) with coaches today, I wouldn't be out of place. Because of this fact, I am at peace with what I am doing now.
But with the NFL combine coverage being at the forefront of my mind, I am reminded of my personal experience with the scouting process. Several years ago, I was lucky enough to coach one QB who I thought was good enough to physically play in the NFL. I knew this when he was 17 years old. He had a terrific arm and even quicker release. Even better, he could process a lot of information, despite average "book smarts". He turned down some big time offers (including sadly, one to my Alma Mater) to go to a school that had put a string of QBs into the league. Long story short - my connection with him got him to come to the school I was just hired at, and he had a great career - throwing for over 12,000 yards in the process. Though roughly 10 teams were at his Pro Day (small college), I was disappointed that there were no QB coaches, and one team's running backs coach ran the workout. His group had prospects at the position, so this wasn't surprising. What was surprising was the response I got from a personnel executive friend of mine when I inquired about him - the book they had said he wasn't a good enough athlete at the position. I was dumbfounded. This was a kid who his high school's district in rebounding despite being a shade over 6'2. He was also recruited by Nebraska as an option guy, and other schools liked him as a safety coming out of high school. If I were a personnel guy, there were other concerns - perhaps enough to pass on this player, but physical ability was not one of them.
The choices were then a) the personnel guy wasn't being truthful or b) they did not do their homework, or c) their evaluation didn't measure the correct information. As I look at all the criteria that evaluators use, I often think they leave out some very important considerations.
But with the NFL combine coverage being at the forefront of my mind, I am reminded of my personal experience with the scouting process. Several years ago, I was lucky enough to coach one QB who I thought was good enough to physically play in the NFL. I knew this when he was 17 years old. He had a terrific arm and even quicker release. Even better, he could process a lot of information, despite average "book smarts". He turned down some big time offers (including sadly, one to my Alma Mater) to go to a school that had put a string of QBs into the league. Long story short - my connection with him got him to come to the school I was just hired at, and he had a great career - throwing for over 12,000 yards in the process. Though roughly 10 teams were at his Pro Day (small college), I was disappointed that there were no QB coaches, and one team's running backs coach ran the workout. His group had prospects at the position, so this wasn't surprising. What was surprising was the response I got from a personnel executive friend of mine when I inquired about him - the book they had said he wasn't a good enough athlete at the position. I was dumbfounded. This was a kid who his high school's district in rebounding despite being a shade over 6'2. He was also recruited by Nebraska as an option guy, and other schools liked him as a safety coming out of high school. If I were a personnel guy, there were other concerns - perhaps enough to pass on this player, but physical ability was not one of them.
The choices were then a) the personnel guy wasn't being truthful or b) they did not do their homework, or c) their evaluation didn't measure the correct information. As I look at all the criteria that evaluators use, I often think they leave out some very important considerations.
While there are definitely tangible qualities that need to be evaluated and disclosed, I think that in evaluating the QB, he should be set apart from the combine drills; things like the broad jump seem to be a waste of time. Further, do they really need to see if AJ McCarron (above) can throw a slant? They don't already know this? To me, this time to evaluate would be precious, and other things would be more important.
I think that arm strength IS important in the NFL, but throwing the first half of the route tree is a waste of time in that regard. Physically, I'd be more concerned with how a QB can re-set and throw, or the velocity on throws when he can't get his body into a turn. I would have drills that take into account his vision, making him put the ball in one place or another. There are obvious reasons why there aren't "1 on 1" drills because of liability concerns; however, such drills can be set up with dummies or people holding up bags (and thus no injury concerns). Resources aren't an issue. I'd think football people would be much more concerned in how a QB anticipates adjustments on a "streak read" (below) vs. "middle open- or -closed" coverages, rather than how fast he is in the 3-cone drill.
I think that arm strength IS important in the NFL, but throwing the first half of the route tree is a waste of time in that regard. Physically, I'd be more concerned with how a QB can re-set and throw, or the velocity on throws when he can't get his body into a turn. I would have drills that take into account his vision, making him put the ball in one place or another. There are obvious reasons why there aren't "1 on 1" drills because of liability concerns; however, such drills can be set up with dummies or people holding up bags (and thus no injury concerns). Resources aren't an issue. I'd think football people would be much more concerned in how a QB anticipates adjustments on a "streak read" (below) vs. "middle open- or -closed" coverages, rather than how fast he is in the 3-cone drill.
I remember back when Tim Couch was being scouted, and the Browns were meeting with him. Then coach Chris Palmer asked him to diagram and his favorite play. Now, I certainly hope this wasn't the whole conversation, but I would ask him to diagram his favorite 20 plays, or at least his favorite 2 or 3 by situation. The playbook Palmer would use is over 500 pages (as are pretty much all NFL playbooks); a QB interview should be like an old-school coaching interview in which the interviewee is given a dry erase marker and put on the board for a couple of hours.
Is this unfair? I don't think so. He's got to be able to digest a ton of information, and doing so under duress. The job is mentally draining, and I just think sometimes there is so much emphasis on this...
Is this unfair? I don't think so. He's got to be able to digest a ton of information, and doing so under duress. The job is mentally draining, and I just think sometimes there is so much emphasis on this...
...that we forget about this:
Countless people have gone over every throw each of these prospects have made, but I cringe a little bit when I hear an analyst say "he missed the open guy here." Does the analyst know what the QB was told on that play? Probably not. Even though there are pretty standard route and read concept in football, there are exceptions by game plan or by down and distance. EVERYONE makes adjustments, so while film doesn't lie, it doesn't necessarily tell the whole truth. I'd be curious to find out how much video is watched with the prospect. The casual fan conjures visions of Gruden's QB Camp, but I'm thinking of a predetermined 30-50 play session with the coaching staff, featuring an in depth question and answer format. Carefully orchestrated, insight can be gained on several levels:
What does he know?
How does he conceptualize?
How does he deal with success or failure?
How does he accept coaching?
How well does he articulate?
How does he handle criticism?
What does he know?
How does he conceptualize?
How does he deal with success or failure?
How does he accept coaching?
How well does he articulate?
How does he handle criticism?
There is an emotional component to playing the position that I think teams are doing a better job of addressing. I remember Matthew Stafford being a little put off with the extent of questions he was asked by the 49ers, but I personally don't have a problem with this, and there are plenty of evaluation tools in this arena.
Football people also make use of the use of personal character references, often referred to as "sources we trust". The upper echelon organizations do a pretty decent job in this field, going as far back as elementary school in some instances. However, some organizations only query former coaches, who might see athletes in a different light than say, the cafeteria lady or guidance counselor. I think back to the days I spent recruiting, and I can't remember many times when I didn't hear "Coach, he's a great kid" from a high school coach. I've heard it said that some people want athletes to care only about their sport as a testament to their commitment; truth is (especially with this position), that you'd really prefer someone who will compete to the best of their ability in EVERY situation, not just when they have an advantage.
Football people also make use of the use of personal character references, often referred to as "sources we trust". The upper echelon organizations do a pretty decent job in this field, going as far back as elementary school in some instances. However, some organizations only query former coaches, who might see athletes in a different light than say, the cafeteria lady or guidance counselor. I think back to the days I spent recruiting, and I can't remember many times when I didn't hear "Coach, he's a great kid" from a high school coach. I've heard it said that some people want athletes to care only about their sport as a testament to their commitment; truth is (especially with this position), that you'd really prefer someone who will compete to the best of their ability in EVERY situation, not just when they have an advantage.
In order to be successful at anything, an individual (or organization) needs to:
- Be highly organized
- Be willing to take calculated risks
- Know that working smart is just as important as working hard
- Be able to spot a winner when they see one
I don't doubt that many teams are consistent with the first two points, but I have serious reservations about the last two. Jamarcus Russell? I remember telling a whole slew of people he'd never make it (Mike, Ryan, and Derek - remember?). How did I know? Because I saw tape of him as a high school senior and he waited for receivers to be out of their breaks before throwing, and that had not changed at LSU. Nobody knows for sure - just as Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) pointed out in "Moneyball" - there is no crystal ball. There is no way of assuring how a player will project from college to the NFL, but I think some things can be done more efficiently, especially from the workout and scouting standpoint.
To me, the way a player's talent will translate has to do more with his surrounding players relative to the opposition rather than if he took all his snaps from shotgun. Shotgun as opposed to under center doesn't matter as much other things, yet people seem to waste a lot of breath on the subject. Why? Every team has a QB coach that's a millionaire - he can teach drops. It's about processing large volumes of information and having enough of a skill set athletically to get the ball to someone open ( who should be graded on speed and explosiveness) -- all while have the courage to ignore the pass rush and the mental toughness to ignore talk radio.
While some things read here might seem "out there"-- this process should be a job interview, and so it should be taxing and stressful, given the stakes. It's widely acknowledged that there is much to be quantified. It just seems that many times, the powers that be are quantifying the wrong things.
- Be highly organized
- Be willing to take calculated risks
- Know that working smart is just as important as working hard
- Be able to spot a winner when they see one
I don't doubt that many teams are consistent with the first two points, but I have serious reservations about the last two. Jamarcus Russell? I remember telling a whole slew of people he'd never make it (Mike, Ryan, and Derek - remember?). How did I know? Because I saw tape of him as a high school senior and he waited for receivers to be out of their breaks before throwing, and that had not changed at LSU. Nobody knows for sure - just as Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) pointed out in "Moneyball" - there is no crystal ball. There is no way of assuring how a player will project from college to the NFL, but I think some things can be done more efficiently, especially from the workout and scouting standpoint.
To me, the way a player's talent will translate has to do more with his surrounding players relative to the opposition rather than if he took all his snaps from shotgun. Shotgun as opposed to under center doesn't matter as much other things, yet people seem to waste a lot of breath on the subject. Why? Every team has a QB coach that's a millionaire - he can teach drops. It's about processing large volumes of information and having enough of a skill set athletically to get the ball to someone open ( who should be graded on speed and explosiveness) -- all while have the courage to ignore the pass rush and the mental toughness to ignore talk radio.
While some things read here might seem "out there"-- this process should be a job interview, and so it should be taxing and stressful, given the stakes. It's widely acknowledged that there is much to be quantified. It just seems that many times, the powers that be are quantifying the wrong things.
RSS Feed