WP: Under Mike Shanahan, Redskins’ roster could benefit from more delegation, better scouting infrastructure, NFL observers say

[SkinsHokieFan]

This is how much the organization would cost. You are talking about 5.5 million per year (based all on guessing) to have potentially the best scouting organization in the NFL. You would certainly have your scouts see every player in college football live and be able to set up not only draft boards for the upcoming draft, but subsequent drafts beyond that

[MassSkinsFan]

Good scouts are a zero sum game...

So what happens when good scouts die or retire? WIll we eventually see them go extinct?

I have to add to this. Your approach of buying up all the scouts and keeping them idle to stifle the competition might sound like a good idea in theory but it almost never works.

Some people will not be happy sitting around playing solitaire all day long. For them, it's important to have a challenge and fulfillment. Those ones will get away. And, I'd imagine most good pro or college scouts aren't the kind of guys who like to sit idle.

Finally, have you done a comparative analysis of our scouting organization against those of the best NFL teams? Probably not since you're unlikely to get your hands on the org charts from Redskins Park. But, even if you did, I'll bet you don't see a huge disparity between our scouting department and those of the best teams in terms of numbers.

Unless either of us has actually run a scouting department for an NFL team, I think we're not qualified to eyeball the organization as presented on www.redskins.com and make sweeping pronouncements about how it should change.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So what happens when good scouts die or retire? WIll we eventually see them go extinct?

Obviously there is the next generation of "good scouts" coming up. My thing is, why not have them work for us, and not other teams.

This helps us by a) providing us better scouting and preventing other teams from having as good scouting.

I agree, its not possible to corner the market, but we sure as hell have the resources to try and do that

I want our organization to a) have the most information and have the best information. This is how we become the smartest organization in football. And all of this, for a measly 5.7 million per year

[joeknows]

the issue has never been getting talent to Washington but the misuse or non use of that talent. many have gone to be steady elsewhere after playing or being drafted by us.

[SkinsHokieFan]

the issue has never been getting talent to Washington but the misuse or non use of that talent. many have gone to be steady elsewhere after playing or being drafted by us.

I think our 2008 draft only has 2 guys still in the NFL. NLC outlined this in another thread, our drafts have been horrid until the last 2 years

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The Bengals have been better than us the last 10 years.

Oh, really?

Overall record:

Bengals: 68-91-1

Redskins: 68-92

Playoff births:

Bengals: 2

Redskins: 2

Playoff records:

Bengals: 0-2

Redskins: 1-2

Winning seasons:

Bengals: 2

Redskins: 2

Losing seasons:

Bengals: 5

Redskins: 6

Worst season:

Bengals: 2-14

Redskins: 4-12

Best season:

Bengals: 11-5

Redskins: 10-6

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I want our organization to a) have the most information and have the best information. This is how we become the smartest organization in football. And all of this, for a measly 5.7 million per year

They should also invest in predictive modeling software so that they can build a model and punch in attributes of every prospect and figure out if they can predict the likelihood of successes, busts, etc. based on historical trends.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So what happens when good scouts die or retire? WIll we eventually see them go extinct?

I have to add to this. Your approach of buying up all the scouts and keeping them idle to stifle the competition might sound like a good idea in theory but it almost never works.

Some people will not be happy sitting around playing solitaire all day long. For them, it's important to have a challenge and fulfillment. Those ones will get away. And, I'd imagine most good pro or college scouts aren't the kind of guys who like to sit idle.

Finally, have you done a comparative analysis of our scouting organization against those of the best NFL teams? Probably not since you're unlikely to get your hands on the org charts from Redskins Park. But, even if you did, I'll bet you don't see a huge disparity between our scouting department and those of the best teams in terms of numbers.

Unless either of us has actually run a scouting department for an NFL team, I think we're not qualified to eyeball the organization as presented on www.redskins.com and make sweeping pronouncements about how it should change.

I clearly have no clue how scouting organizations are run.

This is all in my ideal world. I think it is one of the areas we could have a major advantage for a fraction of the cost that we spent on Albert Haynesworth.

And I agree, people don't want to just sit on their hands all day. I'd want my scouts essentially as spies, talking with college coaches, people around the program, developing great relationships in those communities so our guys really know the players inside and out, and have been watching them for years, not just 1 year.

Imagine if we already had reports written up on 2013, and 2014 prospects and an initial draft board. You could fine tune that as you got closer to the draft and have much more to work off.

[GibbsFactor]

SHF, I don't think there's enough work for all of those scouts. I could see one per NFL conference and then divvy up the college scouting by geographical region. But you don't need one scout per 4 NFL teams. Especially not for a full time year round job.

The same could be said for college. Quality over quantity. Get a couple boss' and let them do their thing. But for the love of God, take their opinion to heart!

[Califan007 The Constipated]

the issue has never been getting talent to Washington but the misuse or non use of that talent. many have gone to be steady elsewhere after playing or being drafted by us.

Name those "many" lol...Pierce (who wasn't actually drafted) and Rogers are probably the only ones that have.

[SkinsHokieFan]

SHF, I don't think there's enough work for all of those scouts. I could see one per NFL conference and then divvy up the college scouting by geographical region. But you don't need one scout per 4 NFL teams. Especially not for a full time year round job.

The same could be said for college. Quality over quantity. Get a couple boss' and let them do their thing. But for the love of God, take their opinion to heart!

I agree quality, but the quantity is to keep these guys away from other teams.

ESPN.com has a "blogger" for each division, who does it as a full time job. I am certain there would be lots for pro scouts to do in February/March before FA. During the season, obviously they are at the games, observing sidelines, patterns, etc. During those weeks they are breaking down film and writing weekly reports. When mini camps roll around, they are talking to media sources they have developed with the local media in those cities and filing more reports.

They would take vacation like the rest of the NFL does, between the last mini camp and traning camp.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 02:51 PM ----------

They should also invest in predictive modeling software so that they can build a model and punch in attributes of every prospect and figure out if they can predict the likelihood of successes, busts, etc. based on historical trends.

Can;t they just hire ASF to do that?

[MassSkinsFan]

SHF, I don't think there's enough work for all of those scouts. I could see one per NFL conference and then divvy up the college scouting by geographical region. But you don't need one scout per 4 NFL teams. Especially not for a full time year round job.

The same could be said for college. Quality over quantity. Get a couple boss' and let them do their thing. But for the love of God, take their opinion to heart!

This is where I was going SHF.

One thing about managing teams successfully is that you learn there can be too many people. Once that happens it affects everyone on the team and generally the good ones are the first to go because they can smell the reek of managerial incompetence.

I think focusing on getting the best scouts you can get, and setting up the organization so their workloads make good sense, then spending a lot on managing the generated information (as TD suggests) is the way to go. Quality not quantity. Didn't you learn anything from Fat Albert?

[KCClybun]

SHF, the problem is that, that is a LOT of voices to have in the room during scouting time.

If you have one scout for both NFL conferences, plus scouts for every division, plus scouts for every college conference in the BCS AND the FCS, naturally, you've got over a dozen voices all banging for widely different talents.

This is why you have regional scouts instead of scouts for every conference. Having fewer scouts actually winds up being more effiecient. If you have three scouts that are in charge of scouting the SEC and ACC, and then 3 or four scouts is working on the Big 12, Big Ten and Big East, it's much easier to get a clear picture of who the best prospects are.

If you have a bunch of scouts all scouting a bunch of different conferences, then when you get in the room at draft time or evaluation time, you're essentially going to be getting 19 completely different opinions about who the best OLB prospect is, and everyone is going to be banging the table hard for their guy. And that's not including the opinion of the offensive and defensive coordinators and then the position coaches who are going to have their input as well.

Less scouts allows for more concentrated analysis and less voices cluttering the room, which makes it's easier to formulate a board, at which point Mike can sit down with his coaching staff and begin evaluating the best talents more thoroughly. I can't imagine would a large scale clusterfrak having 20 scouts in the room would end up being. And that's not even including the scouts for the NFL you're suggesting.

[GibbsFactor]

Name those "many" lol...Pierce (who wasn't actually drafted) and Rogers are probably the only ones that have.

Brandon Lloyd

Brad Johnson

Ryan Clark

Rich Gannon

Trent Green

Frank Wycheck

Stephen Davis

Kenard Lang

Stephen Alexander

Champ Bailey

David Akers

Just to name a few.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 02:57 PM ----------

I

Can;t they just hire ASF to do that?

Have you lost your damn mind??

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Can;t they just hire ASF to do that?

That's my fault. I forgot the word "accurate" in my post.

[KCClybun]

I agree quality, but the quantity is to keep these guys away from other teams.

This just isn't a very good way to look at it.

Making your own job less efficient for the sake of maybe making some other teams jobs less efficient is kind of a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" move. You might be hurting other teams (which is doubtful, because some of the scouts are going to leave anyway if it gets crazy enough, and teams will simply find more scouts if they need them) by taking more guys, but you're also hurting the quality of your own work, which is worse.

[SkinsNoles21]

I have really enjoyed the players we have added, aside from Mcnabb (who was essentially just a stopgap) since Shanahan and Allen took over. The fact that we passed on Gabbert and turned that into a wealth of talent speaks to what they have done. Guys like Bowen, Carriker, Cofield, and Atogwe have been good signings. In general, the team is headed in the right direction. We need a qb, and more focus on the offense as a whole ... but I trust they will get the right players ... like they did with Hankerson and Helu.

[SkinsHokieFan]

SHF, the problem is that, that is a LOT of voices to have in the room during scouting time.

If you have one scout for both NFL conferences, plus scouts for every division, plus scouts for every college conference in the BCS AND the FCS, naturally, you've got over a dozen voices all banging for widely different talents.

This is why you have regional scouts instead of scouts for every conference. Having fewer scouts actually winds up being more effiecient. If you have three scouts that are in charge of scouting the SEC and ACC, and then 3 or four scouts is working on the Big 12, Big Ten and Big East, it's much easier to get a clear picture of who the best prospects are.

If you have a bunch of scouts all scouting a bunch of different conferences, then when you get in the room at draft time or evaluation time, you're essentially going to be getting 19 completely different opinions about who the best OLB prospect is, and everyone is going to be banging the table hard for their guy. And that's not including the opinion of the offensive and defensive coordinators and then the position coaches who are going to have their input as well.

Less scouts allows for more concentrated analysis and less voices cluttering the room, which makes it's easier to formulate a board, at which point Mike can sit down with his coaching staff and begin evaluating the best talents more thoroughly. I can't imagine would a large scale clusterfrak having 20 scouts in the room would end up being. And that's not even including the scouts for the NFL you're suggesting.

Thats why I funnel them up to the "scouting directors"

20 scouts won't be in a meeting with Mike. Those 20 scouts may never meet Mike and Bruce. They are on the ground getting raw data.

The guys in the room are my NFC/AFC scouting directors, BCS/FCS scouting directors, Morroco and Scott.

Mike Shanahan only hears from these 6 guys, who have already analyzed the data. This is essentially the model used for the Presidential Daily Briefing the President gets every morning. Lots of people doing research and finding information, fewer people analyzing and being responsible for dissemination, and 1 decider.

[MattFancy]

I don't think we have a scouting problem. We were worried when we drafted all those Nebraska guys this year, but they all seem to be working out. Helu, Paul, and Gomes have all played this year and have played well when given a chance.

I do agree that we should spend more money on scouting, I mean what could it hurt? But overall, I think our scouts are pretty solid.

[SkinsHokieFan]

This just isn't a very good way to look at it.

Making your own job less efficient for the sake of maybe making some other teams jobs less efficient is kind of a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" move. You might be hurting other teams (which is doubtful, because some of the scouts are going to leave anyway if it gets crazy enough, and teams will simply find more scouts if they need them) by taking more guys, but you're also hurting the quality of your own work, which is worse.

I think the big worry is that there won't be enough work to do. Oh there will be plenty.

My Redskins would know every thing about every NFL prospect. My scouts will have spoken to each of his coaches going back to middle school. My scouts will know which bar this guy hangs out at on Saturday, what he got on his chemistry exam. This will be for every prospect on my draft board.

This information will be reported to the directors, who will take the most pertinent information and get it to Morocco Brown or Scott Campbell. They will analyze these reports and get it to our decider.

We'll know ahead of time that Fred Davis sleeps in a bit. That he may enjoy pot a bit too much

We'll damn well know how bad Malcolm Kelly's injury is.

We'll know that Reed Doughty has a hearing problem and address it right away. We'll know Carlos Rogers is blind. We'll know if the system they currently run will allow them to trasnlate to our systems and fit in it nicely. W

And we will know this for all 250+ prospects on our draft board. This will be a scouting empire

[KCClybun]

Thats why I funnel them up to the "scouting directors"

20 scouts won't be in a meeting with Mike. Those 20 scouts may never meet Mike and Bruce. They are on the ground getting raw data.

The guys in the room are my NFC/AFC scouting directors, BCS/FCS scouting directors, Morroco and Scott.

Mike Shanahan only hears from these 6 guys, who have already analyzed the data. This is essentially the model used for the Presidential Daily Briefing the President gets every morning. Lots of people doing research and finding information, fewer people analyzing and being responsible for dissemination, and 1 decider.

Even still, the scouting directors would have to funnel through the information of nearly thirty people, all who will likely have widely different opinions. The scouting director would likely have to sit down and watch hours and hours and hours of tape themselves, because with that many voices, it'd be hard to make any sort of sound judgment, because everyone is going to be steadfast their opinion and is unlikely to break it.

Quality over quantity. Scouting is a full-time, all year long job, so there's more than enough opportunities for fewer guys to make sound judgments. And the closer you get to the end of the season and the draft, the more you've starting to key in on the guys you really think will fit.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Brandon Lloyd (he never actually "played" for us lol)

Brad Johnson (1999)

Ryan Clark

Rich Gannon (1993)

Trent Green (1998)

Frank Wycheck (1492)

Stephen Davis (2001)

Kenard Lang (2001)

Stephen Alexander (2001)

Champ Bailey

David Akers (1998...for 1 game lol)

Just to name a few.

Only, what...3 of the players you mentioned were on the Redskins over the last 10 years...and 4 of them never even played during Snyder's tenure as owner. Not to mention guys like Alexander, Davis, Bailey, Johnson and Lang we DID get to perform well for us, so they weren't "misused" nor were they discarded too soon (with the exception of Davis).

[SkinsHokieFan]

Even still, the scouting directors would have to funnel through the information of nearly thirty people, all who will likely have widely different opinions. The scouting director would likely have to sit down and watch hours and hours and hours of tape themselves, because with that many voices, it'd be hard to make any sort of sound judgment, because everyone is going to be steadfast their opinion and is unlikely to break it.

Quality over quantity. Scouting is a full-time, all year long job, so there's more than enough opportunities for fewer guys to make sound judgments. And the closer you get to the end of the season and the draft, the more you've starting to key in on the guys you really think will fit.

Thats why you have multiple scouting directors. And the most any scouting director has under him is 12, my BCS scouting director. My NFC has 5, AFC 4, FCS/Non AQ has 7. You are talking in total 28 scouts between college and pro

My model is essentially based on the United States Intel Community model. In the CIA you have tons and tons of ops officers who collect data, get it up to SOO's (Staff Officers) who push it up the chain.

The President never meets with an Ops Officer, nor does he meet a SOO.

Having as much information as possible is a good thing. The scouting directors get plenty of information to analyze and push up the chain. They aren't married to a particular prospect, but they have as much information as possible on every prospect.

Jimmy Johnson had 45 college scouts when he was in Dallas. The quantity of picks+the quantity of scouts and information he had led to a dynasty. They were finding Leon Lett's in round 7. Jim Jeffcoat in round 3. Etc, etc.

This is a place where we can leverage our resources with no restraint. I would rather have our budget spend on "too many scouts" then on 2-3 FA's from another team. It is efficient, smart and adds value in the long run.

Here is the Pittsburgh Steelers organization.

http://www.steelers.com/team/front-office.html

Football Operations

Kevin Colbert, General Manager

Ron Hughes, College Scouting Coordinator

Brandon Hunt, Pro Personnel Coordinator

Joe Greene, Special Assistant/Pro and College Personnel

Mark Gorscak, College Scout

Phil Kreidler, Pro/College Scout

Kelvin Fisher, College Scout

Bruce McNorton, College Scout

Dan Rooney, College Scout

Dave Petett , College/Pro Scout

Bill Nunn, College Personnel

Mark Bruener, BLESTO Scout

Dan Colbert, Player Personnel Intern

[KCClybun]

I think the big worry is that there won't be enough work to do. Oh there will be plenty.

My Redskins would know every thing about every NFL prospect. My scouts will have spoken to each of his coaches going back to middle school. My scouts will know which bar this guy hangs out at on Saturday, what he got on his chemistry exam. This will be for every prospect on my draft board.

This information will be reported to the directors, who will take the most pertinent information and get it to Morocco Brown or Scott Campbell. They will analyze these reports and get it to our decider.

We'll know ahead of time that Fred Davis sleeps in a bit. That he may enjoy pot a bit too much

We'll damn well know how bad Malcolm Kelly's injury is.

We'll know that Reed Doughty has a hearing problem and address it right away. We'll know Carlos Rogers is blind. We'll know if the system they currently run will allow them to trasnlate to our systems and fit in it nicely. W

And we will know this for all 250+ prospects on our draft board. This will be a scouting empire

This is assuming that Vinny didn't know about these things, instead of choosing to simply ignore them.

You didn't need a bunch of different scouts to know Malcolm Kelly's knees were held together with a couple rubber bands and some silly putty. You didn't need a bunch of different scouts to tell you that Devin Thomas only ran two or three routes in college and was a one year wonder who needed to stay in school one more year to prove himself. These were widely known things, which is why those two picks were so ****ing baffling at the time. Everyone knew they were bad prospects, but Vinny just didn't care. Everyone ****ed about not having tall receivers, so he went out and drafted the two tallest receivers that he possibly could.

Anything medical, like Reed's hearing, or like 'Los eyesight, would've been found out during the Combine or during physicals. NFL teams get a full medical report on every prospect that comes out. They're not dumb, they know the medical risk. But again, this is assuming that Vinny didn't know. All signs point to Vinny knowing, but simply not giving a ****. That could go for Davis' pot smoking too. (It's important to point out that Maurice Hurt failed a test at the Combine for pot and Mike still drafted him, and if you think that's silly, Bill Belichick took Aaron Hernandez even though he failed a drug test at the Combine as well).

What you're assuming is that we didn't have enough scouts to tell us these things. The truth is, our scouts probably DID know these things, but Vinny, being the ****head he was, didn't care and was going to draft whoever he wanted anyway.

[SkinsHokieFan]

What you're assuming is that we didn't have enough scouts to tell us these things. The truth is, our scouts probably DID know these things, but Vinny, being the ****head he was, didn't care and was going to draft whoever he wanted anyway.

Ultimatley it does come down to the decider. Vinny being that was terrible. Joe Gibbs wasn't much better.

I know it seems like a lot for picking 7-10 guys once a year, but this is the life blood of the organization. I never want to have to go through a 4-12, 6-10, 4-12 stretch ever again.

Lets make sure we know all we can about all the blood coming in. And lets make sure other teams don't have the ability we do

I know I am shifting the paraidgm completely. And that is the point, a major shift in how we have done things. Just because the rest of the NFL does it a certain way, doesn't mean we can't flip this thing on its head and do it 10 times better.