More with less or are GM's dumb

[RV]

Given the lower than expected selection of our Seniors in the NFL draft I'll pose this question.

Are the NFL GM's and scouts collectively just really dumb or is our staff continuing to do more with less?

I have my opinion but let's hear yours.

[billoliver40]

Given the lower than expected selection of our Seniors in the NFL draft I'll pose this question.

Are the NFL GM's and scouts collectively just really dumb or is our staff continuing to do more with less?

I have my opinion but let's hear yours.

Glad to see you posted this one, RV.

From what I've seen, UK's staff does an excellent job in placing players
in positions where they can succeed. At times the greatest job in coaching (or managing) is not only maximizing potential but also minimizing
negatives. Slow releases, smallish running backs, etc. can be at times
offset with innovative sets and play calling.

GMs do not have that luxury. They have to draft the best possible athlete
for their current needs in early rounds. They can play 'what ifs' and
'what abouts' in the later rounds....sometimes. There is too much money
riding on the early round picks.
Do they make mistakes? Ryan Leaf, Dan Wilkinson, KiJana Carter, and
a long list of others say yes. Peyton Manning, the Thomas kid at Cleveland, and another long list say they do pretty good. It's a turkey
shoot at times on the pro level. The coaches have to compensate for what the GMs and front office do.

In short.... GMs are at times out of their heads, but our coaches are pretty good, too.

[Matt Dillon]

I think coach Brooks & co. definately do more with less. This is not to denigrate our players, but I think everyone would admit we don't have the talent, position by position, of the UF's, ewe tee's, UGa.'s etc. of the world.

[jwade]

I've long suspected NFL decision makers of relying too much on measurables and not enough on subjective evaluation of talent and potential. Relying on measurables requires much less skill on the part of the evaluator and provides a natural defense should a draftee go bust. The guy who relies on measurables can always say, "but he ran a 4.3 and scored 30 on the Wonderlic" as justification for the pick. Many GMs and scouts are dumb.

The NFL system of drafts, free agency, and in particular the salary cap are designed to create league parity. In some cases, they succeed. In other cases, they don't which is why some teams play at a high level year in, year out most of the time. Teams who accomplish this beat the system that's designed to end the season with an 8-8 record for all 32 teams. The draft is the lifeblood of the NFL and these teams excel at it. Many GMs and scouts are smart.

Our coaching staff has taken a program that was absolutely devastated a mere 5 years ago. In that short time they've rebuilt a team that demands respect every week, a team that beat the #1 team in the country, a team that won consecutive bowl games for the first time in over 50 years. They did it with a nucleus of players that weren't highly recruited by the football powerhouses - players that some services rated as only 3 stars and 2 stars. Our coaches have done more with less.

UK had 4 players drafted. Our rivals in the SEC East had UGA=4, UT=3, Vandy=3, UF=2, and USC=1. The SEC West had LSU=6, Ark=6, AU=5, Ala=0, Ole Miss=0, and Miss St=0. In the East we lost to UT, UF and USC even though those teams had fewer selections in the draft. In the West, we beat LSU and Ark but we also lost to Miss St which had 0 draftees. For a team with as much NFL-quality senior talent as we had compared to our conference opponents, we appear to have underachieved. Our coaches haven't done more with less.

So, there is no right answer IMO. Every example used to justify one point of view can be countered by an equally compelling, but opposite, example. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round. But for every Tom Brady there are another 100 QBs drafted in 6th (or lower) round that never see the field. The odds are against Woodson from that respect. On the other hand, lesser-heralded players beat the odds every day and there's no reason to think Woodson can't be one of those.

FWIW, I was surprised by only two elements yesterday: (1) that Tamme was chosen in the 4th (I had concerns that he might not be selected at all), and (2) that Woodson fell as low as he did. I never thought he'd go lower than the 5th.


Jim

[bret1555]

I think coach Brooks & co. definately do more with less. This is not to denigrate our players, but I think everyone would admit we don't have the talent, position by position, of the UF's, ewe tee's, UGa.'s etc. of the world.

I think you are right, but I also think we are steadily getting there. If we can maintain our success, and take a step forward, it will be huge for our program.

That being said. . . There is no way there are 11 QBs from the draft that are better than Woodson.

[bret1555]

Given the lower than expected selection of our Seniors in the NFL draft I'll pose this question.

Are the NFL GM's and scouts collectively just really dumb or is our staff continuing to do more with less?

I have my opinion but let's hear yours.

I think it is impossible to have this discussion without also addressing the obvious problems with rating high school talent.

[UedK]

What role does a players agent play in this whole draft system.

If a player falls way below his projection can some of the blame go there for the player not being properly promoted.

If in Woodson's case as some suggest, his coach in the Senior Bowl totally screwed up his game and then spent an inordinate amount of time touting Andre's negatives, could a well managed positive PR campaign have countered the negativity?

I'd have the same agent question for Woodyard.

[Matt Dillon]

Ortmayer speaks out. Quite accurately in my opinion.



http://www.kentucky.com/295/story/389880.html

[Gunsmoke]

Apparently NFL scouts are idiots.

[gerntz]

Given the lower than expected selection of our Seniors in the NFL draft I'll pose this question.

Are the NFL GM's and scouts collectively just really dumb or is our staff continuing to do more with less?

I have my opinion but let's hear yours.

Why should we have expectations for drafting? It is what it is. Perhaps expectations were wrong.

As I wrote elsewhere, they're not really dumb or higher draft choices would not succeed more than lower ones as they do.

I think our coaches do well, but going 2-5 against the top seven teams in the SEC we played isn't doing more with less IMO.

[Gunsmoke]

Watching Andre perform for a few years gives me some insight. Granted very little. But he achieved a lot with so little compared to the heavyweights of the game. I will not believe that all of these other QB's drafted ahead of him could have succeeded like he did here. Granted several could have I guess, but that many is simply mind-boggling.

[Brian McCat]

Ortmayer speaks out. Quite accurately in my opinion.

http://www.kentucky.com/295/story/389880.html

Thanks, Matt. Those are some strong words from a couple of ex-NFL guys. It's a shame that these scouts can't think for themself, buying into the Kiper Kool-Aid.

[boomdaddy]

I doubt very seriously that any QB, slated to be among the top five taken in the draft at his position, would consider paying in the senior bowl in the future. That Mike martz cost Woodson a ton of money and sent him to a team that wasn't looking for a starter.

[kyjones]

I was a little surprised Woodyard and Little didn't get a look in the later rounds.

[jpay]

All four drafted cats will make their mark in the league.Plus WW will have a long and productive NFL career. That the leading tackler in the SEC and a two time all SEC player doesn't get drafted is insane. I also think Rafee make the Titans as a return man.... Some one needs to get Mel Kiper down and shave his head....

[boomdaddy]

I was a little surprised Woodyard and Little didn't get a look in the later rounds.


Little has durability issues. Although he is a great talent, he gets injured every season and got hurt in an all star game and will rehab with his new team. He is not in the same class as a McFadden, by any means. But, if he could have stayed healthy, he would have put up huge numbers every season and would have been at least a 3rd round pick. I can't fault teams unwilling to risk a pick on an injured player.

As for Woodyard, I hope he knocks the crap out of some running backs, as a rookie next season. And, when these teams start cutting their LB draft picks from their rosters, they will look back at their oversight.

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

Thanks, Matt. Those are some strong words from a couple of ex-NFL guys. It's a shame that these scouts can't think for themself, buying into the Kiper Kool-Aid.

Just to play Devil's Advocate... both Brooks and Ortmayer are ex-NFL guys for a reason - they didn't do well in the pro league. That's not saying they're not good college coaches, but maybe if they were better at pro talent evaluation, they'd still be in the NFL.

[sardiscat]

I don't know that Brooks does more with less or that GMs are stupid. When watching UK play this year, I was struck that UK still did not have the same level of speed and athletic ability through 22 positions as most of the SEC teams we played, including teams like MSU and USC. So, Brooks had less in that regard. But did he do more with it? He won 3 SEC games, beat a highly overrated UL team, a decimated FSU team that was not great even before it was decimated, and won 3 gimmes. That was with a great senior QB. When UK has had great senior QBs in the past (or Tim Couch in his last season, which was the equivalent of a great senior QB), it has usually won 7 or more games. So, I'd say Brooks did about right with what he had. I'll give Brooks credit for having as much as he had for 2 years in a row with a third to come. That has not been done before during the past 50 years of UK football. Only real quibbles I have with the GMs is Woodyard not being drafted. Appears to be Marlon McCree all over again. I thought Burton was better than they did, but I understand them having questions about his durability. Most of the commentators, not just Martz, think Woodson is a project. Great arm, great size, bad mechanics, poor movement in the pocket, slow release, mediocre speed. Overall, he was great his last two seasons at UK, but UK lost a number of tossup games this past season because of bad play from him, too.

[92Alumni]

The current issue of Sports Illustrated has a good article on how clueless NFL scouts can be. It highlighted the 1998 draft and how things didn't quite pan out as far as drafting experts are concerned. Here are a few tidbits of how "draft experts" are wrong since they really don't take the film of players into as much stock as their combine numbers:

1. Ryan Leaf at #2 in 1998 - Matt Hasselbeck in the 6th round
2. Tony Mandarich at #2 in 1989 before Derrick Thomas, Deon Sanders, Steve Atwater, Daryl Johnston, etc...(it's hard to compare because there were only 2 rounds)
3. Akili Smith at #3 in 1999 - Donald Driver at #213 - Joey Porter at # 73
4. Heath Shuler at # 3 in 1994 - Jamal Anderson at #201 - Rodney Harrison at # 145
5. Blair Thomas at # 2 in 1990 - Shannon Sharpe at #193
6. Andre Ware at # 7 in 1990 - see above
7. David Carr at # 1 and Joey Harrington at # 3 in 2002 - Brian Westbrook at #91
8. Ki-Jana Carter at #1 in 1995 - everybody else in the draft
9. Mike Mamula at #7 in 1995 - see above

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

The current issue of Sports Illustrated has a good article on how clueless NFL scouts can be. It highlighted the 1998 draft and how things didn't quite pan out as far as drafting experts are concerned. Here are a few tidbits of how "draft experts" are wrong since they really don't take the film of players into as much stock as their combine numbers:

1. Ryan Leaf at #2 in 1998 - Matt Hasselbeck in the 6th round
2. Tony Mandarich at #2 in 1989 before Derrick Thomas, Deon Sanders, Steve Atwater, Daryl Johnston, etc...(it's hard to compare because there were only 2 rounds)
3. Akili Smith at #3 in 1999 - Donald Driver at #213 - Joey Porter at # 73
4. Heath Shuler at # 3 in 1994 - Jamal Anderson at #201 - Rodney Harrison at # 145
5. Blair Thomas at # 2 in 1990 - Shannon Sharpe at #193
6. Andre Ware at # 7 in 1990 - see above
7. David Carr at # 1 and Joey Harrington at # 3 in 2002 - Brian Westbrook at #91
8. Ki-Jana Carter at #1 in 1995 - everybody else in the draft
9. Mike Mamula at #7 in 1995 - see above

Are experts always right? No.

Are they right much more often than they're wrong. Yep.

[92Alumni]

Are experts always right? No.

Are they right much more often than they're wrong. Yep.

I tend to disagree. Anyone can see the exceptional talent. So if a scout is right that Peyton Manning is a better QB than Mike Hartline, he's no genius. I tend to think that scouts are wrong more than they are right. Their job isn't to see the obvious, but to tell if Alex Smith (#1) is better than Derek Anderson (#213), is Tye Hill (#15) better than Devin Hester (#57), is Bennie Joppru (#41) better than Jason Witten (#69), is Charles Rogers (#2) better than David Tyree (#211), is Brian Westbrook (#91) better than William Green (#16) or TJ Duckett (#18), is TJ Houshmandzadeh (#204) better than Freddie Mitchell (#25), is Marc Bulger (#168) better than Giovanni Carmazzi (#65), is Hines Ward (#92) better than Kevin Dyson (#16), is Jason Taylor (#73) better than Jon Harris (#25)? I could go on.

What is the point? NFL scouts have NO clue how most players will pan out in the NFL. The majority of first round picks never play considerable minutes in the NFL. Scouting is a crapshoot! With that being said, then they are wrong much more than they are right.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I could do ANY better than the scouts at picking who will be successful in the pro's, but then again, I'm not a scout.

[gerntz]

The current issue of Sports Illustrated has a good article on how clueless NFL scouts can be. It highlighted the 1998 draft and how things didn't quite pan out as far as drafting experts are concerned. Here are a few tidbits of how "draft experts" are wrong since they really don't take the film of players into as much stock as their combine numbers:

1. Ryan Leaf at #2 in 1998 - Matt Hasselbeck in the 6th round
2. Tony Mandarich at #2 in 1989 before Derrick Thomas, Deon Sanders, Steve Atwater, Daryl Johnston, etc...(it's hard to compare because there were only 2 rounds)
3. Akili Smith at #3 in 1999 - Donald Driver at #213 - Joey Porter at # 73
4. Heath Shuler at # 3 in 1994 - Jamal Anderson at #201 - Rodney Harrison at # 145
5. Blair Thomas at # 2 in 1990 - Shannon Sharpe at #193
6. Andre Ware at # 7 in 1990 - see above
7. David Carr at # 1 and Joey Harrington at # 3 in 2002 - Brian Westbrook at #91
8. Ki-Jana Carter at #1 in 1995 - everybody else in the draft
9. Mike Mamula at #7 in 1995 - see above

All these happened 10+ years ago. Nothing like them since? If so, they've gotten pretty good.

[92Alumni]

All these happened 10+ years ago. Nothing like them since? If so, they've gotten pretty good.

I am assuming this is tongue in cheek. If not, then see my latest post. I didn't want to use players from the past few years really because there is still a chance a player is a backup for a few years and then emerge as a great player. It's really still too early to tell.

[bret1555]

Just to play Devil's Advocate... both Brooks and Ortmayer are ex-NFL guys for a reason - they didn't do well in the pro league. That's not saying they're not good college coaches, but maybe if they were better at pro talent evaluation, they'd still be in the NFL.

I don't think this is true. Brooks is obviously a quality judge of talent. The team that won it all for Dick Vermeil was largely put together by Rich Brooks. I really don't know much about Ortmayer's GM experience.

[gerntz]

I am assuming this is tongue in cheek. If not, then see my latest post. I didn't want to use players from the past few years really because there is still a chance a player is a backup for a few years and then emerge as a great player. It's really still too early to tell.

No, it's not. What's your latest post?

[92Alumni]

No, it's not. What's your latest post?

The one that came after the one you quoted. Anyway, I looked at all of the drafts from 2007 until a long way down the line. I didn't want to use any players from the past few years as examples because like I said, there is still a chance that someone we've not seen play yet from those drafts may become superstars. It's really hard to call someone a bust in their first few years of playing. It requires years of not producing. However, I'll give a couple of examples from the past few drafts:

2007
#250 Ahmad Bradshaw (did pretty well down the stretch for the Giants) - it's really WAY too early to tell which high picks will be stinkers

2006
* #252 Marques Colston (WR-Saints) - #25 Chad Jackson (WR-Patriots), #44 Sinorice Moss (WR-Giants)

* #207 Antoine Bethea (Safety-Colts, 2008 Pro Bowl) - #16 Jason Allen (safety- Miami)

* #57 Devin Hester (TD Machine-Bears) - #18 Bobby Carpenter (LB-Dallas, 37 career tackles)

* #242 Mark Setterstrom (OL - started as rookie) - #39 Winston Justice (OL-has started 1 game in 2 years)


2005
* #213 Derek Anderson (QB-Cleveland) - #1 Alex Smith (QB-San Fran), #67 Charlie Frye (QB-Cleveland)

* #146 Trent Cole (DE - Eagles, 2007 Pro Bowl) - #18 Erasmus James (DE- Minnesota, 38 tackles in 3 years)

* #114 Jerome Mathis (WR-Houston, 2005 Pro Bowl) -#7 Troy Williamson (WR-Minnesota), #10 Mike Williams (WR-Detroit)

* #110 Brandon Jacobs (RB-Giants)- #4 Cedric Benson (RB-Chicago), #44 JJ Arrington (RB-Arizona), #54 Eric Shelton (RB-Carolina)

* #109 Marion Barber III (RB-Dallas, Pro Bowl) - see above

2004
* #216 Patrick Crayton (WR-Dallas) - #15 Michael Clayton (WR-Tampa)

* #2 Robert Gallery (OL-Raiders), although he is doing better as a guard, this is a GREAT example of overhyped, considering you could have had Pro Bowl center Nick Hardwick (#66) or Shane Olivea, OT for San Diego (#209)

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

There are always going to be guys that get drafted late that outperform some of the top picks. But the exception doesn't break the rule.

Pick any year's draft you want - compare how many first rounders made an impact versus how many fourth rounders did.

[gerntz]

The one that came after the one you quoted. Anyway, I looked at all of the drafts from 2007 until a long way down the line. I didn't want to use any players from the past few years as examples because like I said, there is still a chance that someone we've not seen play yet from those drafts may become superstars. It's really hard to call someone a bust in their first few years of playing. It requires years of not producing. However, I'll give a couple of examples from the past few drafts:

2007
#250 Ahmad Bradshaw (did pretty well down the stretch for the Giants) - it's really WAY too early to tell which high picks will be stinkers

2006
* #252 Marques Colston (WR-Saints) - #25 Chad Jackson (WR-Patriots), #44 Sinorice Moss (WR-Giants)

* #207 Antoine Bethea (Safety-Colts, 2008 Pro Bowl) - #16 Jason Allen (safety- Miami)

* #57 Devin Hester (TD Machine-Bears) - #18 Bobby Carpenter (LB-Dallas, 37 career tackles)

* #242 Mark Setterstrom (OL - started as rookie) - #39 Winston Justice (OL-has started 1 game in 2 years)


2005
* #213 Derek Anderson (QB-Cleveland) - #1 Alex Smith (QB-San Fran), #67 Charlie Frye (QB-Cleveland)

* #146 Trent Cole (DE - Eagles, 2007 Pro Bowl) - #18 Erasmus James (DE- Minnesota, 38 tackles in 3 years)

* #114 Jerome Mathis (WR-Houston, 2005 Pro Bowl) -#7 Troy Williamson (WR-Minnesota), #10 Mike Williams (WR-Detroit)

* #110 Brandon Jacobs (RB-Giants)- #4 Cedric Benson (RB-Chicago), #44 JJ Arrington (RB-Arizona), #54 Eric Shelton (RB-Carolina)

* #109 Marion Barber III (RB-Dallas, Pro Bowl) - see above

2004
* #216 Patrick Crayton (WR-Dallas) - #15 Michael Clayton (WR-Tampa)

* #2 Robert Gallery (OL-Raiders), although he is doing better as a guard, this is a GREAT example of overhyped, considering you could have had Pro Bowl center Nick Hardwick (#66) or Shane Olivea, OT for San Diego (#209)

So you give us 11 examples from 2004-6 out of 750 or so draft choices & I'm supposed to conclude that scouts & GM's don't know a thing about what they're doing? Do I have that right?

[Brian McCat]

So you give us 11 examples from 2004-6 out of 750 or so draft choices & I'm supposed to conclude that scouts & GM's don't know a thing about what they're doing? Do I have that right?

I didn't get that at all from his post. how did you come to that conclusion?

[92Alumni]

So you give us 11 examples from 2004-6 out of 750 or so draft choices & I'm supposed to conclude that scouts & GM's don't know a thing about what they're doing? Do I have that right?

Nope. That's not what I'm trying to say at all here. What I am trying to say is that scouting is a crapshoot. I think scouts are wrong much more than they are right because they are lucky if they are right on a player 50% of the time. This is because physical tools alone does not guarantee success. Too many intangibles are missed by scouts.

There may be 11 examples from 04-06, but that was for the guy who asked if there were no busts, etc in the last few years. Also, I only tried to show players who slipped way down and then show ONE comparable player. That doesn't mean that all other players drafted were better, etc.

Anyway, you all can believe that scouts are right more than they are wrong. I have no problem with that. I happen to believe differently. I tried to show where players who were "sure bets" fizzled and guys who were afterthoughts succeeded. It happens every year and will continue to.

[gerntz]

^ Well you haven't shown data with clear explanation that shows the drafters are dumb which was your original premise.

[gerntz]

I didn't get that at all from his post. how did you come to that conclusion?

I thought he was trying to show where lower draft choices had done better than higher ones. Is he saying something else?

[92Alumni]

Good gravy people. Here is what I was trying to relay:

1. NFL scouts often misjudge on talent
2. NFL scouts often misjudge on talent
3. Scouting really is a crapshoot in the NFL
4. Scouting really is a crapshoot in the NFL
5. Since the majority of players NFL teams draft never pan out, then scouts are wrong more than they are right.
6. Since the majority of players NFL teams draft never pan out, then scouts are wrong more than they are right.

That is! I'm not trying to say NFL scouts are drooling idiots. My first post stated that a Sports Illustrated article talked about how dumb scouts can be and showed a lot of examples.

I know it is difficult to tell which particular players will be successful in the NFL. Many of you all show an :shrug1: attitude, like "you win a few, you lose a few", "they're right more than they're wrong". But, in the big money world of the NFL, I'm sure teams would like their scouts to be right 100% of the time. First round NFL picks average about $5-$6 million per year. I can guarantee you they don't want to pay that out to busts if they don't have to.

Will there ever be 100% success rate in drafting? No.

[gerntz]

Good gravy people. Here is what I was trying to relay:

1. NFL scouts often misjudge on talent
2. NFL scouts often misjudge on talent
3. Scouting really is a crapshoot in the NFL
4. Scouting really is a crapshoot in the NFL
5. Since the majority of players NFL teams draft never pan out, then scouts are wrong more than they are right.
6. Since the majority of players NFL teams draft never pan out, then scouts are wrong more than they are right.

That is! I'm not trying to say NFL scouts are drooling idiots. My first post stated that a Sports Illustrated article talked about how dumb scouts can be and showed a lot of examples.

I know it is difficult to tell which particular players will be successful in the NFL. Many of you all show an :shrug1: attitude, like "you win a few, you lose a few", "they're right more than they're wrong". But, in the big money world of the NFL, I'm sure teams would like their scouts to be right 100% of the time. First round NFL picks average about $5-$6 million per year. I can guarantee you they don't want to pay that out to busts if they don't have to.

Will there ever be 100% success rate in drafting? No.

OK. That's your opinion. But your data doesn't show it.

What is "pan out"?

What's the difference between your #5 & #6? If it's nothing as I think, your reasoning here is taking a hit.

[Brian McCat]

Will there ever be 100% success rate in drafting? No.

That's where I thought you were coming from. Sometimes in a forum format, people peg others in at the extreme end of the spectrum.

They may not be drooling idiots, but I still think that they whiffed on Andre.

[92Alumni]

OK. That's your opinion. But your data doesn't show it.

What is "pan out"?

What's the difference between your #5 & #6? If it's nothing as I think, your reasoning here is taking a hit.

Whatever peeps. I'm tired of talking about it.

NFL Scouts are geniuses. :icon_rolleyes:

[gerntz]

Whatever peeps. I'm tired of talking about it.

NFL Scouts are geniuses. :icon_rolleyes:

You brought it up. Fine.

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

OK... here's a few facts for ya. I looked at the drafts from 2001 to 2005 and broke down the number of pro bowlers per round.

In those five years, there were:

• 52 pro bowlers picked in the first round
• 21 pro bowlers picked in the second round
• 11 pro bowlers picked in the third round
• 7 pro bowlers picked in the fourth round
• 4 pro bowlers picked in the fifth round
• 5 pro bowlers picked in the sixth round
• 1 pro bowler picked in the seventh round

So, 72 percent of pro bowl players came out of the first two rounds - and over half of all pro bowlers that came out in those five years were first round picks.

How's that for some rock-solid proof that NFL scouts and front office folk know what they're doing?

[RCS]

He did not list every first rounder nor was he trying to, he was giving examples of extremes. The reality is a lot of first rounders do not live up to their hype/draft position/salary in the NFL. Scouting, despite the large amount of time and money is incredibly inaccurate. The Houston Texans used the #1 overall pick and tens of millions of dollars on a guy that gave them similar results to a QB they could have picked up for nothing and paid 1/10th as much. That happens with multiple first round picks every single year. I am not going to list them but they exist.

[BowlingGreenUKGrad]

Some of the assertations in this thread included "Scouting is a crapshoot!" and "scouts are wrong more than they are right" and "The majority of first round picks never play considerable minutes in the NFL."

Well, if that is true and if scouting really is a crap shoot, then we should see just as many pro bowlers come out of the second round as the fourth round. But that just doesn't happen.

Sure, there are misses - but the majority of the time, NFL teams get it right. That's why only only about 6 percent of pro bowlers come out of the final two rounds.

[FCFS82]

OK... here's a few facts for ya. I looked at the drafts from 2001 to 2005 and broke down the number of pro bowlers per round.

In those five years, there were:

• 52 pro bowlers picked in the first round
• 21 pro bowlers picked in the second round
• 11 pro bowlers picked in the third round
• 7 pro bowlers picked in the fourth round
• 4 pro bowlers picked in the fifth round
• 5 pro bowlers picked in the sixth round
• 1 pro bowler picked in the seventh round

So, 72 percent of pro bowl players came out of the first two rounds - and over half of all pro bowlers that came out in those five years were first round picks.

How's that for some rock-solid proof that NFL scouts and front office folk know what they're doing?

I'll say this and it works for a lot of scouting, be it high school to college, college to pro. The first and second round guys are largely can't miss.

You/Scouts/anyone make their money by finding those guys in the later rounds that produce. That is a part of how you win championships on draft day and when college coaches visit under-the-radar recruits.

[gerntz]

He did not list every first rounder nor was he trying to, he was giving examples of extremes. The reality is a lot of first rounders do not live up to their hype/draft position/salary in the NFL. Scouting, despite the large amount of time and money is incredibly inaccurate. The Houston Texans used the #1 overall pick and tens of millions of dollars on a guy that gave them similar results to a QB they could have picked up for nothing and paid 1/10th as much. That happens with multiple first round picks every single year. I am not going to list them but they exist.

Who says failures don't exist & that you can't give multiple examples? I don't.

But to leap from that to, "Scouting.....is incredibly inaccurate.", just isn't justified by those examples nor the overall data. To say that to me says you could do just as well putting all college FB seniors names in a hat & draw names & do just as well.

I'd like to see anyone here complaining about drafting to list in January 2009, say 32, 2008 college football senior FB players and stack their NFL performances from 2009-2013 up against the top 32 seniors drafted in Spring, 2009. Then I'll bet against whomever does the picking in Jan 2009 in favor of the draft choices doing better. The measure would be the number of games played by those picks over the five seasons. OK?

[Brian McCat]

Who says failures don't exist & that you can't give multiple examples? I don't.

But to leap from that to, "Scouting.....is incredibly inaccurate.", just isn't justified by those examples nor the overall data. To say that to me says you could do just as well putting all college FB seniors names in a hat & draw names & do just as well.

Everybody knows they put a dartboard and a roulette wheel in the war rooms, man.

;)

[BigblueDrew]

The numbers are telling BUT these guys in the first two rounds have no cut contracts and are gaurenteed to make the clubs that draft them. I would say they have much greater acess to the few jobs that open in the NFL than later round players do. They are given much more opportunity than 5th and 6th round players. It's alot easier to make your mark if you are around to do it.

[Gunsmoke]

So in summation Andre sucks and was drafted too high for the following reasons;

Coach Brooks and Coach Ortmayer do not have the expertise to reach an informed decision and conclusion with regards to Andre's skills and how said skills or the lack thereof translate into pro potential because they are NFL has-beens or better yet "never-was." They obviously did not observe the kid long enough or close enough in a football setting.

NFL scouts who had Andre listed as a 1st round draft choice for the last year or so as they watched him on the field lead us to victory over the likes of numeral uno LSU and now pegged him in a draft spot that was obviously too high because he developed a "hitch" since the end of the season were either wrong when they watched him perform week in or week out or when he played briefly in that piece of crap post-season game. (How's that for a run on and on again sentence?) Hmm it all is clear to me now and makes sense. Thanks.

[RCS]

Who says failures don't exist & that you can't give multiple examples? I don't.

But to leap from that to, "Scouting.....is incredibly inaccurate.", just isn't justified by those examples nor the overall data. To say that to me says you could do just as well putting all college FB seniors names in a hat & draw names & do just as well.

I'd like to see anyone here complaining about drafting to list in January 2009, say 32, 2008 college football senior FB players and stack their NFL performances from 2009-2013 up against the top 32 seniors drafted in Spring, 2009. Then I'll bet against whomever does the picking in Jan 2009 in favor of the draft choices doing better. The measure would be the number of games played by those picks over the five seasons. OK?


Scouting clearly works to a degree. The NFL doesn't pay these guys because they are a bunch of idiots, they are not. It just isn't as accurate as one would think given the time, amount of money, amount of film, private workouts, etc that go into the NFL draft. That was my only point. It is true in every sport, not just the NFL. There are so many variables that there is no such thing as a lock to be a success in a given sport. That was my only point.