Tips on How to Watch the Combine Like a Pro Scout, Which I am Everything But
As I prepare for my first trip to Indianapolis, I've been doing some heavy research not only on the players, but also the system. A nice article I came across was the pitfalls that so many owners and Cerratos scouts fall into when evaluating players at the combine. Mike Lombardi articulated it so well:
The first rule of scouting is "to never begin with the end in mind," but there are times in which many people, including myself, have gone to the combine and fallen in love with numbers, then begun to build a case for a player. The combine is an athletic test, not a football test, which means problems arise when teams fall in love with the athlete and not the player.
Devin Thomas comes to mind. He shocked scouts with a 4.40 40" and that was all Cerrato needed to see. Heyward-Bey anyone? Lombardi explains further:
Mistakes occur each year when teams believe what they see on the workout tape and neglect what they see in game film -- or they misjudge the competition. Evaluating college players requires an evaluation of the players' opponents. Level of competition is the key factor in evaluation, so when you hear someone say they watched 10 games on an individual player, you might want to ask what 10 games? Or else why did you waste time watching him play against players who will never come close to playing in the NFL?
As an example, evaluating a player in the Southeast Conference against a smaller team out of conference is not an accurate basis. To accurately evaluate college talent, you must view the player against the best. One good level of competition tape is worth more than five tapes against bad players. Never get caught up with someone saying they watched every game. It's more important to watch the right ones, not all of them.
I'm getting a flashback of all the YouTube videos that fans (myself included) post as legit scouting evaluations. Remember when the Redskins drafted Dennis Morris? His highlight video made him look like the next Lorenzo Neal, and low behold, within 6 months, the 6th round pick is out of the NFL.
The real value of the combine is to get to know the players on a personal level, as well as professionally. Understanding what type of individual you are bringing into your locker room is as important in today's game as knowing what kind of physical talent the player might possess. One bad apple can spoil an entire team, so using the combine to eliminate self-indulgent players is as important as any 40-time.
One bad apple can spoil an entire team? That's flat out not possible. Oh crap.
This is what makes evaluating small-school players so difficult. Great players should dominate against lesser competition. And when they don't, a red flag should go up.
Ah yes, but what if they still do dominate? Then we're left with 14,000 Colt Brennan jerseys rolling around DC. Lombardi then goes on to talk about how Terrell Suggs and Jerry Rice slipped because of poor 40 times.
Ever wonder why Jerry Rice was a mid first-round pick and the third receiver taken in 1985? His 40-time was not the fastest, but his play on the field was fast. In fact, with the ball in his hands, Rice was as fast as when he was not carrying the ball.
To round out his 5-star post, Lombard gives his 4 "Ps" of scouting...check it out.
13 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent
And it really “SHOUTS” at how Vinny viewed the game of Football, not only the draft but when evaluating the Free agents too…
the combine
is an effective tool for weeding out players, not based on slipping 40 times, but lack of preparation and professionalism. examples that come to mind include, but are not limited to, vince young (wonderlic and interviews), maurice clarett (4.8 40 with a calendar year to himself to prepare), and andre smith (5.3 40, no shirt to show everyone how out of shape he was, then blew off his interviews). i also understand ryan leaf blew off some of his interviews as well. though i’m sure i’m missing plenty, andre smith is the most egregious case in recent memory.
i thank some combination of god and marvin lewis everyday that they picked andre smith before we could.
by sanonymous on Feb 24, 2011 10:00 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Great Post
I always was leery when people would post youtube highlights of a prospect and go ape sh*t over them. Sure, its fun to see all the awesome plays they made but its hard to gain the context in which those plays were made.
I'll admit that I have used some youtube videos.
But more to acquaint people who are not familiar with the prospect. It is difficult for people, myself included, to get a feel for players that they have never seen. A short video at least gives a glimpse and some familiarity with a prospect. But yes, I agree, you cannot make a determining decision based on a 5 minute highlight video.
This was an excellent post
The real value of the combine is to get to know the players on a personal level, as well as professionally. Understanding what type of individual you are bringing into your locker room is as important in today’s game as knowing what kind of physical talent the player might possess. One bad apple can spoil an entire team, so using the combine to eliminate self-indulgent players is as important as any 40-time.
Still any taker on Newton?
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
I've been guilty of it myself.
Either falling for or despising a prospect off of one good/bad game, or even a good/bad series of plays. Then I look for reasons to justify my earlier convictions with either strengthes or weaknesses shown at the combine.
I’ve heard numerous times that evaluations and slotting should all be done based on game film prior to the combine, and that makes up 70% of a prospect’s grade. The interviews and medical testing makes up 20%, and combine drills and skills should only count for 10%. And the combine numbers should only break a tie with an equally rated player on your board. Of course, 32 teams have 32 different boards, and prospects can be all over the place with how they evaluate players.
Other than a red flag that pops up during medicals, background, or interviews; prospects shouldn’t lose or gain more than 10-15 slots with a great/poor showing. Small school prospects with terrific showings will force the pros to go back and re-evaluate their game tape, where they may be re-slotted.
Those are some comments I’ve heard or read from proffessional scouts in how they determine individual rankings. Still, if they hit 50% on the draft, they are generally happy.
Also, a problem is that an Owner, GM, or HC could fall for a player....
based on an interview, or a specific skill-set, and disregard their scouting department’s grade. That is one reason not to have any one person with multiple powers, Snyder/Cerrato, Jerry Jones, Mike Shanahan, make the final decision.
The final selection should be a consensus pick based on the scouting grade in relation to the team’s scheme and need. All to often, it is made when the final decision-maker over-rules and grabs his guy.
I don't think having a committee make the final decision is a very good idea
It’s better to have one person decide – usually the coach. The Snyder/Cerrato team described their system as operating in your way: we all get together, decide as a group, everything is a team effort, consensus, etc. I’ve long thought that is a terrible system. Yes, listen to everybody, maximum input, as much info as possible, but then one person decides – almost always the coach. Where Dan Snyder possibly erred in the draft was in going with a consensus (but another reason could have been a lousy scouting operation). Committees are not good at deciding things for a number of reasons, but one could be that they tend to give everybody their “baby” – one pick, and another is that you tend to get the worst of all worlds. A committee can work if one smart person dominates it, so that the committee doesn’t do the deciding. Incidently, liberals got some fun with President Bush saying he was the “decider”. Regardless of the decisions he made, that comment revealed that he had a good idea of how decisions should be made – by one person, the boss, after listening to all viewpoints.
Well, I think it should be a consensus pick, with an independant GM having final say.
The problem with a HC making the final decision is that he sees the team in a small window.
“If I just had a stud Wr, we could win it all.” A smart, independant GM looks at a team from a wide, long term viewpoint. Gibbs was a much better coach when he had Bobby Beathard and Charlie Casserly. Same with Parcells and George Young. Once they had final say, their teams didn’t perform as well.
Owners should never have final say since they look at it from a dollars perspective, and attracting marketable players. Head Coaches are only concerned with the here and now. Independant GMs look long term for the betterment of the franchise. Independant GMs will typically go with their scouting department in disputes.

by 
























