Arthur Brown

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

They are trained professionals. They are paid to know how to watch film and make judgements on prospects. No offense, but I'm pretty sure nobody here is qualified to be an NFL scout or a GM. You have to know what to look for, outside of the obvious. There's certain intricacies that go into knowing how to evaluate players that an untrained eye would not know how to read.

 

No problem with someone trying to formulate their own opinions, based on tape they have watched, but to act like it's so easy to be able to do a job as well as trained professionals at the highest level is pretty laughable and more than a little presumptuous.

 

And to clarify, I'm mostly speaking on the true NFL scouts, not the talking heads you see on TV. Especially former players.

On top of this, these scouts and front office members get to talk to college coaches, teammates, and the players themselves. Just from this, you can get a lot out of a guy.

 

As for WF, he now has sources in the league. It's not like he's a guy in Philadelphia making assumptions. He talks to people inside the league and watches A LOT of tape.

[Guest TerraTor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-T1T3YuyNY

 

Great sack at 0:55

[jason]

They are trained professionals. They are paid to know how to watch film and make judgements on prospects. No offense, but I'm pretty sure nobody here is qualified to be an NFL scout or a GM. You have to know what to look for, outside of the obvious. There's certain intricacies that go into knowing how to evaluate players that an untrained eye would not know how to read.

 

No problem with someone trying to formulate their own opinions, based on tape they have watched, but to act like it's so easy to be able to do a job as well as trained professionals at the highest level is pretty laughable and more than a little presumptuous.

 

And to clarify, I'm mostly speaking on the true NFL scouts, not the talking heads you see on TV. Especially former players.

 

"Trained" professionals? Trained how? IF they are trained, who trains them? The simple fact is, a guy many consider one of the best (Bill Polian) admitted the draft is a crap shoot. Less than that!! 40 freaking percent. If they are trained, their training sucks. As for qualifications, it sounds like the process of being a scout is just about like any other job. It's more about networking and connections (particularly having played) than some sort of "football recognition"-talent. The people doing the hiring still assume the people being hired know football. And their knowledge of football amounts to 40%, which basically averages in the horrible scouts/coaches/GMs in with the guys who knock it out of the park year after year. This is not some sort of degree they earn where the information they process is irrefutable (i.e. engineer, programmer, mathematician).

 

I think what's laughable and presumptuous is that you hold these guys in such high regard. Especially since the Bears have had such shitty drafts over the past 20 years. This is over the span of multiple coaches, one GM, countless scouts, and potentially another GM (the jury is still out). It's not like we're talking about someone who has provable knowledge that leads to provable results (i.e. doctor). We're talking about guys who were in or around football, had a passion for it early on, more than likely got a foot in the door because of a connection, and slowly worked their way up. I've personally seen people get their start by working as a GA for their father or for a father's friend. Does that mean they know more about football? No. Does it mean they know more about evaluating players? Maybe in terms of the verbiage used at that level, but not necessarily in terms of talent recognition (see 40% above). Does it mean they know what the organization and their boss wants them to look for? Certainly, but only a few teams can point to that as a positive trait, since there are only a few teams that have consistently done well in the draft.

[jason]

On top of this, these scouts and front office members get to talk to college coaches, teammates, and the players themselves. Just from this, you can get a lot out of a guy.

 

As for WF, he now has sources in the league. It's not like he's a guy in Philadelphia making assumptions. He talks to people inside the league and watches A LOT of tape.

 

So would that make me an expert? After all, I regularly talk to a bunch of college players, coaches, and trainers, not to mention a ton of college officials and even pro officials. Hell, I've personally had discussions with many people you see on TV on Saturdays and Sundays.

 

I'll reiterate the post above this one: 40% success rate.

[Stinger226]

I'm willing to bet I watched just as many games as most scouts. Probably more. And I probably watched more individual plays over and over than they did. For example, I have a DVD in my office computer from one of the top-dogs of NFL officiating with a compilation of nothing but defensive and offensive pass interference penalties.

 

But go ahead and continue thinking that people on message boards know next to nothing about football, and people on football websites know everything. You do realize the majority of the people writing about football are people just like us, right? You realize Walter Football is this guy?! Yeah, he definitely looks like a knows a ton more about football than any of us. He has a website after all!! Who the hell is Mel Kiper, Jr. and Todd McShay? Just because they have access to the ESPN film vault doesn't suddenly make them all-knowing. They're just guys like us who watch football, judge football, and evaluate players. I bet neither of those clowns has ever put on a helmet...unless you count Kiper's hair. And as for former players, a lot of those guys are borderline retarded, and know how to play because they won the genetic lottery. Emmitt Smith is considered by some (better not be anyone on this board) to be the best RB of all time, but he can barely form a coherent sentence. One of the most ferocious defenders of all time (Dexter Manley) was actually illiterate. Because they run faster and can lift more doesn't automatically make them better at talent judgement.

 

The simple truth is, a lot of people who participate on message boards know quite a bit about football because they played or were involved in many ways, but couldn't continue for a variety of reasons (most likely just weren't athletically gifted enough). I'd be willing to bet someone on this board has coaching experience. Others have probably played at the college level. Accept what you want, but the idea that people who post on message boards somehow have lesser opinions is incredibly short-sighted.

I never said people on message boards dont make intelligent comments, and that experts are king. All the smart people in the NFL make 50% mistakes on first round picks. I just dont think your all that sharp.(just kidding) You actually make some profound statements, but you also make some stupid ones too. What bothers me about you, is if someone doesnt agree with you, that automatically dont know what there talking about. I say stupid stuff(while at least once) sometimes to, but I dont put myself on a pedestal, I try to keep everything in perspective. What look at the so called experts and find some that agree with our line of thinking and maybe we think there sharp. I think the smart ones are probably close to 50/50 on there projections, but some get paid to make decisions and if they screw up they get fired. They have more stake in what they say or do. We dont do anything but argue or our opinions. There is a difference.

[Bears4Ever_34]

"Trained" professionals? Trained how? IF they are trained, who trains them? The simple fact is, a guy many consider one of the best (Bill Polian) admitted the draft is a crap shoot. Less than that!! 40 freaking percent. If they are trained, their training sucks. As for qualifications, it sounds like the process of being a scout is just about like any other job. It's more about networking and connections (particularly having played) than some sort of "football recognition"-talent. The people doing the hiring still assume the people being hired know football. And their knowledge of football amounts to 40%, which basically averages in the horrible scouts/coaches/GMs in with the guys who knock it out of the park year after year. This is not some sort of degree they earn where the information they process is irrefutable (i.e. engineer, programmer, mathematician).

 

I think what's laughable and presumptuous is that you hold these guys in such high regard. Especially since the Bears have had such shitty drafts over the past 20 years. This is over the span of multiple coaches, one GM, countless scouts, and potentially another GM (the jury is still out). It's not like we're talking about someone who has provable knowledge that leads to provable results (i.e. doctor). We're talking about guys who were in or around football, had a passion for it early on, more than likely got a foot in the door because of a connection, and slowly worked their way up. I've personally seen people get their start by working as a GA for their father or for a father's friend. Does that mean they know more about football? No. Does it mean they know more about evaluating players? Maybe in terms of the verbiage used at that level, but not necessarily in terms of talent recognition (see 40% above). Does it mean they know what the organization and their boss wants them to look for? Certainly, but only a few teams can point to that as a positive trait, since there are only a few teams that have consistently done well in the draft.

 

I believe you have been on record saying you could personally do as good, if not a better job at drafting than some of the NFL GM's of the present and past.

 

Do you know how incredibly arrogant that sounds, coming from somebody with absolutely no experience whatsoever, at any level of football, to think they can just waltz on in to a job right away and know how to evaluate players better than the professionals who have done it for a living? That is some F'd up logic.

 

If teams started hiring anybody who has ever watched film or taken notes before, that 40% success rate would drop astronomically. All the more reason why NFL teams don't just hire anybody who has ever watched film or taken notes before....

[AZ54]

I believe you have been on record saying you could personally do as good, if not a better job at drafting than some of the NFL GM's of the present and past.

 

Do you know how incredibly arrogant that sounds, coming from somebody with absolutely no experience whatsoever, at any level of football, to think they can just waltz on in to a job right away and know how to evaluate players better than the professionals who have done it for a living? That is some F'd up logic.

 

If teams started hiring anybody who has ever watched film or taken notes before, that 40% success rate would drop astronomically. All the more reason why NFL teams don't just hire anybody who has ever watched film or taken notes before....

 

Are we including the Bengals of the 90s?

[Bears4Ever_34]

Are we including the Bengals of the 90s?

Are we including you? If so, yes. It could always be worse, and it would be if somebody on this forum took over a General Manager position of an NFL Franchise.

[scs787]

Are we including you? If so, yes. It could always be worse, and it would be if somebody on this forum took over a General Manager position of an NFL Franchise.

 

No way, I'd obviously be a pro.

[AZ54]

Are we including you? If so, yes. It could always be worse, and it would be if somebody on this forum took over a General Manager position of an NFL Franchise.

 

You can think everyone "not in the NFL" is dumber than a box of rocks so I'll take your insult and move on. For the record, I never said I wanted to be a GM. I will admit I never felt anyone should take Akili Smith as a QB until the middle rounds. That was after watching him play all season long. Somebody who was smarter than me took him with the 3rd pick overall.

 

I just don't have to run around on here insulting everyone who has an opinion. Learn to take a joke!

[jason]

I never said people on message boards dont make intelligent comments, and that experts are king. All the smart people in the NFL make 50% mistakes on first round picks. I just dont think your all that sharp.(just kidding) You actually make some profound statements, but you also make some stupid ones too. What bothers me about you, is if someone doesnt agree with you, that automatically dont know what there talking about. I say stupid stuff(while at least once) sometimes to, but I dont put myself on a pedestal, I try to keep everything in perspective. What look at the so called experts and find some that agree with our line of thinking and maybe we think there sharp. I think the smart ones are probably close to 50/50 on there projections, but some get paid to make decisions and if they screw up they get fired. They have more stake in what they say or do. We dont do anything but argue or our opinions. There is a difference.

 

There is definitely a difference. But that main difference is just that they happen to work in the arena. I would love to do that for a living, but unfortunately didn't think about it as a career path when young.

 

And keep in mind I never said I, or this board, would dominate as a collective GM. I have simply stated over and over again that we'd do just as well, and probably a bit better. After all, a 40% rate (what Polian said) is not that high of a mark. Imagine other fields having a 40% success rate?! You'd fire your doctor, lawyer, broker, plumber, electrician, accountant, etc. with that kind of "success." The word "expert" is tossed around far too loosely for people who work at a 40% success rate, particularly when considering the his a Chicago Bears message board and we've seen countless bad moves.

 

I completely disagree with you on many things, but I honestly think you'd bat better than 40% if making the moves on your own. Or at least at 40%.

[jason]

I believe you have been on record saying you could personally do as good, if not a better job at drafting than some of the NFL GM's of the present and past.

 

Do you know how incredibly arrogant that sounds, coming from somebody with absolutely no experience whatsoever, at any level of football, to think they can just waltz on in to a job right away and know how to evaluate players better than the professionals who have done it for a living? That is some F'd up logic.

 

If teams started hiring anybody who has ever watched film or taken notes before, that 40% success rate would drop astronomically. All the more reason why NFL teams don't just hire anybody who has ever watched film or taken notes before....

 

1. I am on record. 40% is not some sort of crazy success rate that is difficult to replicate.

2. You assume I have no football experience. That's incorrect.

3. Your assumption about a lessened success rate is just that, an assumption. I think we've proven as a board that we have hits and misses, and if we really chose to go back and look at any poster's success rate since they've been debating, I'm willing to bet it's probably slightly better than 40%.

[jason]

Are we including you? If so, yes. It could always be worse, and it would be if somebody on this forum took over a General Manager position of an NFL Franchise.

 

Because all the teams in the NFL have been run incredibly competently over the last 20 years or so.

 

Please. During a stretch of time you could have had a dart-throwing monkey do better than a few teams. But they're lumped into the "professional" or "expert" group because Ozzie Newsome has had a few monster drafts and the average play out. That's ridiculous. Absolutely every single person on this board would have done better than Matt Millen while GM of the Lions. Every single person.

[bradjock]

If we draft any LB's to play the middle, it at least has to be one of the following: Ogletree, Brown, Teo, Minter, or Reddick.

 

Does Ogletree fit as a middle linebacker with what Mel Tcker wantsto do? As per Profootballweekly, Mel Tucker wants to play more of a traditional 4-3 defense, not the cover two. In the traditional 4-3, Ogletree projects as an ILB, the position that Briggs plays.

 

I love the idea of getting Ogletree. I concede that's partly because of the comparisons to Urlacher . . . and ultimately it will be impossible to replace what Urlacher has done for this team.

 

I'm just curious how Ogletree fits.

[scs787]

Does Ogletree fit as a middle linebacker with what Mel Tcker wantsto do? As per Profootballweekly, Mel Tucker wants to play more of a traditional 4-3 defense, not the cover two. In the traditional 4-3, Ogletree projects as an ILB, the position that Briggs plays.

 

I love the idea of getting Ogletree. I concede that's partly because of the comparisons to Urlacher . . . and ultimately it will be impossible to replace what Urlacher has done for this team.

 

I'm just curious how Ogletree fits.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't ILB interior linebacker? aka the position Urlacher played?

 

I'd say Ogletree has the versatility to do whatever he needs to do. He's a thumper with explosive sideline to sideline speed and should play good in coverage.

 

 

[Bears4Ever_34]

You can think everyone "not in the NFL" is dumber than a box of rocks so I'll take your insult and move on. For the record, I never said I wanted to be a GM. I will admit I never felt anyone should take Akili Smith as a QB until the middle rounds. That was after watching him play all season long. Somebody who was smarter than me took him with the 3rd pick overall.

 

I just don't have to run around on here insulting everyone who has an opinion. Learn to take a joke!

I included myself as well, not just you. It wasn't an insult directed towards you, personally. It was a reality check for anyone who thinks they could walk in and be a GM without any type of professional experience.

[Bears4Ever_34]

1. I am on record. 40% is not some sort of crazy success rate that is difficult to replicate.

For the professionals, I would agree.

 

2. You assume I have no football experience. That's incorrect.

 

You have prior scouting experience? If you mean that you played the game in high school or whatever, that doesn't mean much.

 

 

3. Your assumption about a lessened success rate is just that, an assumption. I think we've proven as a board that we have hits and misses, and if we really chose to go back and look at any poster's success rate since they've been debating, I'm willing to bet it's probably slightly better than 40%.

 

If NFL teams started going around hiring just anybody who enjoys watching football, the success rate as a whole would see a major drop off. I think that's a pretty realistic assumption. You would see far less successful picks made in the later rounds of the draft. If we're only letting people determine who a team takes in the 1st round, then I would agree with your premise. But we're not.

[Stinger226]

That's fine but the more highlights I've watched over the last few years the less genius these scouts seem to be. To be sure they have access to inside information from coaching staffs and others that we will never get and that has to be part of the evaluation. Film study, work ethic, leadership, etc. Yet I feel I can see fairly well what a player can do on the field. Missed tackles are missed tackles. Blown assignments (running the wrong way on a play) are obvious to see. Physical straight-on tackling is also easy to identify versus a guy who tackles from the side and gives up an extra yard or two in doing so. We have to keep in mind that most of what we can find on the internet is going to be just highlights not lowlights. We will see the best the player has to offer but that's why when I can find what amounts to most of a single game film I find it more helpful because then you find the bad plays too.

I actually wasn't referring to anything you said, it was Jason's comment. I think your quite well spoken, whether I agree with you or not.

[jason]

For the professionals, I would agree.

 

You have prior scouting experience? If you mean that you played the game in high school or whatever, that doesn't mean much.

 

If NFL teams started going around hiring just anybody who enjoys watching football, the success rate as a whole would see a major drop off. I think that's a pretty realistic assumption. You would see far less successful picks made in the later rounds of the draft. If we're only letting people determine who a team takes in the 1st round, then I would agree with your premise. But we're not.

 

You said "experience." I took that to mean "related to football experience." You know, just like most of the people who have been touted as "experts." They played, coached, etc. And as for that, I have done, and am doing, much more than just playing in high school.

 

I think we simply disagree on the success rate for late rounds. 40% is just not that high. And I'm sure that was Polian's thoughts for all GMs for all rounds. Figure just the 4th-7th rounds and that percentage has to drastically fall. There have been plenty of times since I've been on this board that I have heard someone tout a late-round pick, see the Bears skip over him, and then find out that guy turned into a good pro.

 

For instance, last year the Bears drafted Evan Rodriguez in the 4th, Isaiah Frey in the 6th, and Greg McCoy in the 7th. One is still an unknown, and the other two suck. If you look back, however, I wanted Vontaze Burfict pretty badly. I thought he had the "it factor." Looks like last year, in terms of 4th-7th rounders, I would at least be 1/3 and the Bears are at best less than that. And to be quite honest, do you honestly think I would have passed on Bobby Massie in the 4th round? You can go back and search the boards; I'm quite sure I mentioned it more than one time instead of the Rodriguez pick. BTW - He started 16 games last year as a rookie. So now we're talking about 2 players who performed well last year, would have probably seen significant time on the Bears roster in 2012, but the Chicago Bears management went at best 1 out of 3...let's call it 0.5 out of 3. Generally speaking, my batting average last year (at least 2/3) was better.

 

Caveat: I've always said it's impossible to know what a player would have done on another team. It's entirely possible Carimi would be in the probowl if he had a different OL coach and different system, and someone like Massie could have come to the Bears and gotten cut after training camp.

 

EDIT - I forgot that Nate Potter was drafted one pick after McCoy in the 7th. That was another player I thought would do well as a late rounder. Looks like he took over the starting role at the end of the season.

[AZ54]

You said "experience." I took that to mean "related to football experience." You know, just like most of the people who have been touted as "experts." They played, coached, etc. And as for that, I have done, and am doing, much more than just playing in high school.

 

I think we simply disagree on the success rate for late rounds. 40% is just not that high. And I'm sure that was Polian's thoughts for all GMs for all rounds. Figure just the 4th-7th rounds and that percentage has to drastically fall. There have been plenty of times since I've been on this board that I have heard someone tout a late-round pick, see the Bears skip over him, and then find out that guy turned into a good pro.

 

For instance, last year the Bears drafted Evan Rodriguez in the 4th, Isaiah Frey in the 6th, and Greg McCoy in the 7th. One is still an unknown, and the other two suck. If you look back, however, I wanted Vontaze Burfict pretty badly. I thought he had the "it factor." Looks like last year, in terms of 4th-7th rounders, I would at least be 1/3 and the Bears are at best less than that. And to be quite honest, do you honestly think I would have passed on Bobby Massie in the 4th round? You can go back and search the boards; I'm quite sure I mentioned it more than one time instead of the Rodriguez pick. BTW - He started 16 games last year as a rookie. So now we're talking about 2 players who performed well last year, would have probably seen significant time on the Bears roster in 2012, but the Chicago Bears management went at best 1 out of 3...let's call it 0.5 out of 3. Generally speaking, my batting average last year (at least 2/3) was better.

 

Caveat: I've always said it's impossible to know what a player would have done on another team. It's entirely possible Carimi would be in the probowl if he had a different OL coach and different system, and someone like Massie could have come to the Bears and gotten cut after training camp.

 

EDIT - I forgot that Nate Potter was drafted one pick after McCoy in the 7th. That was another player I thought would do well as a late rounder. Looks like he took over the starting role at the end of the season.

 

Burfict ended up UDFA so he was available to us if we wanted him and there was no need to draft him in Rd 4. He did end up playing well but I was against drafting after watching all his selfish behavior here in Tempe over the years. Has he learned his lesson? Perhaps people sometimes grow up after getting kicked to curb.

 

Massie was horrible for the Cardinals last year but did settle down a bit in the last few games. I don't think anyone on this board, including you, would have been happy with him in the 4th. He may end up on the bench this season if they draft LT in Rd 1 as I expect.

[jason]

Burfict ended up UDFA so he was available to us if we wanted him and there was no need to draft him in Rd 4. He did end up playing well but I was against drafting after watching all his selfish behavior here in Tempe over the years. Has he learned his lesson? Perhaps people sometimes grow up after getting kicked to curb.

 

Massie was horrible for the Cardinals last year but did settle down a bit in the last few games. I don't think anyone on this board, including you, would have been happy with him in the 4th. He may end up on the bench this season if they draft LT in Rd 1 as I expect.

 

If you go back and look at the archives, you'll find that not only did I mention Burfict multiple times as a potential throw-away 6th or 7th rounder (something that happened with the Bears' picks anyway), I also said Massie would have been good in the 4th. In fact, there were others that expressed the exact same sentiment, even listing him as one of the BPA when it was the Bears turn to draft in the 4th. After the early run on OL, the draft-value was returning to that position around that point of the draft, and it was plainly obvious the Bears still needed OL help...well, obvious to everyone except the people running the Bears.

[adam]

Massie was horrible for the Cardinals last year but did settle down a bit in the last few games. I don't think anyone on this board, including you, would have been happy with him in the 4th. He may end up on the bench this season if they draft LT in Rd 1 as I expect.

Actually, if you look back, some were even looking at him in the 2nd or 3rd round. The 4th was almost a non-brainer pick at that point as he was one of the highest rated players still available.