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

[Cpt.Chaos47]

I think our scouting dept. has done a hell of a job. Everyone knows Cerrato did whatever he wanted and paid little attention to what the people under him said so judging them on that basis is just wrong. You look at our last 2 drafts and see future playmakers everywhere. Jenkins and Hankerson were looking good before their injuries then guys like Kerrigan, Trent Williams and Roy Helu. They've been piecing together the Oline all season and it somehow seems to still play well. When you completely gut the roster and rebuild it mostly through the draft you aren't gonna have instant success those guys have to have a couple years to grow or atleast a season

[KCClybun]

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.

But again, this is assuming that having more scouts would lead to better intel. Teams pick up late round gems all the time. Some teams have way more scouts, some teams have less scouts.

The problem here had always been that the Powers That Be---Vinny, Snyder and Gibbs---always seemed to ignore what the scouts were saying. They would fall in love with a prospect (Dan fell in love with Patrick Ramsey, Gibbs fell in love with Jason Campbell, Vinny and Dan fell in love with Malcolm Kelly), and despite what anyone else said, they would go all in for those guys. That was exacerbated by our lack of draft picks, so by the time we got to the later rounds, we were essentially throwing darts at a board, taking whoever was there just to take 'em.

It seems odd to me that we have, pretty much, the same scouts we've had since 2008, but the quality of the drafts has been MUCH better, despite the numerous reports that Mike Shanahan doesn't listen to his scouts and falls in love with prospects. With nearly the exact same scouting staff, we've somehow wound up with better return on our first round draft picks (so far, anyway), and ended up with better quality in the later rounds. With the exact same guys that Vinny had.

I think that speaks more to a general manager who didn't know his ass from his elbow than needing more scouts.

[MassSkinsFan]

Having as much information as possible is a good thing.

More people and more information is not the answer.

Smarter screening (e.g. not wasting time analyszing useless information, knowing when to cut bait on a prospect) and better analysis of the important information is really the way to go.

Throwing money and people at a problem almost never works out. There's a project management concept that applies here: no matter how many workers you assign to screw in a light bulb, you can't speed it up. Some organizations get their structures from the work they exist to do. Changing the organization in such cases generally doesn't work.

I work for a biotech and for a while our Quality Director put a ton of resources into auditing our vendors. Good move in theory; in practice we ended up losing good auditors (they knew they were being mismanaged) and auditing things like the Xerox copier repairman (total waste of time/money). And guess what - I inherited her ****show and spent three years righting the ship (auditing wasn't the only mismanaged area).

If, as I'm assuming, scouting work cannot sustain an organization as large as you're suggesting, yet you put it in place anyway, you'd quickly have by far the worst scouting team in the NFL.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

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.

Good counter.

[Timmy Smith]

Morocco Brown is a fantastic scout by all accounts, and one of the best in the NFL. I'm surprised the article glosses over this fact completely. Also, the article relies on football insiders, who - let's face it - probably work for other NFL teams. If you were them, wouldn't you WANT to criticize the Redskins, and do anything you could to stir up a hornet's nest around an opposing franchise?

I applaud the WaPo for trying to dig below the surface, but the article is kind of lame IMO. There's plenty to criticize about the Redskins but I think our scouting and recent drafts have been just fine.

[moondog]

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

I actually agree with your point here, but there are definitely more than just those two.

Ryan Clark comes to mind - guy has been the starting safety on one of the best defenses in the league ever since he left here.

Howard Green (I think that's his first name) a D-linemen that we cut last year starts (or at least is currently starting) for the Packers 3-4 defense.

Brandon Lloyd - argument can definitely be made, I think the talent was always there, just his character didn't fit in well with Gibbs.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think that speaks more to a general manager who didn't know his ass from his elbow than needing more scouts.

Agree with your overall theme, but I am trying to take this to the next level and make it even better. The notion that we are "good enough" simply doesn't work for me. We should be an organization that does things better then the Steelers and Ravens in regards to our scouting infrastructure and we clearly have the resources to do it.

More information, more time to focus on particular prospects that we want, more time to look ahead to future drafts and chart how players improve and adjust to coaching. There is plenty to do that doesn't lead to information overload. Why do it the conventional way?

More people and more information is not the answer.

Smarter screening (e.g. not wasting time analyszing useless information, knowing when to cut bait on a prospect) and better analysis of the important information is really the way to go.

Throwing money and people at a problem almost never works out. There's a project management concept that applies here: no matter how many workers you assign to screw in a light bulb, you can't speed it up. Some organizations get their structures from the work they exist to do. Changing the organization in such cases generally doesn't work.

I work for a biotech and for a while our Quality Director put a ton of resources into auditing our vendors. Good move in theory; in practice we ended up losing good auditors (they knew they were being mismanaged) and auditing things like the Xerox copier repairman (total waste of time/money). And guess what - I inherited her ****show and spent three years righting the ship (auditing wasn't the only mismanaged area).

If, as I'm assuming, scouting work cannot sustain an organization as large as you're suggesting, yet you put it in place anyway, you'd quickly have by far the worst scouting team in the NFL.

I agree when it comes to project management, you want appropriate processes in place that doesn't add bottle necks and maximizes efficiencey. 100 percent on the same page.

We are talking about information gathering, information analysis, information vetting. Lets get the whole picture, every nuance, discard what doesn't matter and disseminate what does. It is the USIC model, which despite obvious failures, works pretty damn well with the amount of Ops Officers we have in the field.

We aren't screwing in a light bulb, we aren't integrating systems, we aren't installing routers, we are scouting to figure out which player a) projects best in the NFL projects well in our system c) compares to other players and most importantly d) what other teams think of that particular player.

There is some "espionage' involved in that.

By having the right processes in place to analyze and disseminate the data, you can have a very effective scouting organization compared to the conventional model other teams have, and the skelatal staff we have.

Remember, and I think this is where you guys are making wrong assumptions with my model.

Mike Shanahan isn't going to see every single bit of data that my Moutain West scout has gathered on a prospect for Utah State. He is going to see what matters the most, because my FCS/NON AQ director and Scott Campbell have already vetted the data, pulled out useless data and compared it in the big picture to the data they are getting from my Conference USA scout, my WAC scout and my SEC scout.

Scott Campbell is able to see a very complete picture of a prospect because of the work my conference scouts are doing. But Scott Campbell doesn't have the time to speak to the assistant athletic trainer at Utah State, with whom my conference scout has developed a good relationship with

[MassSkinsFan]

By having the right processes in place to analyze and disseminate the data, you can have a very effective scouting organization compared to the conventional model other teams have, and the skelatal staff we have.

Having 50,000 scouts at various levels is not the same as having the right processes. You need to determine the right processes first, then staff accordingly. If you're familiar with project management, then you presumably know what gold plating is... I think your plan has a large element of that in it.

Remember, and I think this is where you guys are making wrong assumptions with my model.

Mike Shanahan isn't going to see every single bit of data that my Moutain West scout has gathered on a prospect for Utah State. He is going to see what matters the most, because my FCS/NON AQ director and Scott Campbell have already vetted the data, pulled out useless data and compared it in the big picture to the data they are getting from my Conference USA scout, my WAC scout and my SEC scout.

Scott Campbell is able to see a very complete picture of a prospect because of the work my conference scouts are doing. But Scott Campbell doesn't have the time to speak to the assistant athletic trainer at Utah State, with whom my conference scout has developed a good relationship with

Why do you need the directors to do that? Shouldn't the best scouts in the game be able to get together and decide?

I'm not making any wrong assumptions about your model. You say there is one decider, but in reality there are deciders everywhere above the level where raw data enters the model.

The more different people you have considering the data, the more likely that they will not be considering the data the same way, even if you very specifically spell out the criteria for measurement and train them on it. Believe me, I've seen this in action too.

I also don't buy that this is the same thing as espionage. I think the biggest challenge with espionage would be identifying the people you want to assess. With scouting, that's done ahead of time.

I'm not saying we shouldn't invest to get a better return from scouting. I'm just saying that I think employing as many additional scouts as we can, gathering too much and superfluous information and expecting it to work better isn't very realistic.

If there's an investment, it should be in talent and R&D. Figure out how to recruit and retain the best scouts out there, and see which ones have innovative ways of analysis. Adopt those innovations. Make sure you gather only the necessary data and analyze it properly. Then analyze your own process periodically.

[nonniey]

This board would probably unanimously agree that last year's draft was the best we've had in over a decade from top to bottom. We got Perry Riley in the 4th last year and Trent was definitely the better pick over Okung (both have missed significant time but Williams is the better player). So whatever the scouting department is doing or who is making the picks or who is listening to who, it is working. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.

It's working a better now but there is a lot of room (a whole lot) for improvement. The Scouting department under Snyder has always been scimped upon. BTW don't let your blinders affect you to much, from all I've read Okung has played better, when he plays, than Williams has and given Williams issue with his drug problem I wish we had taken Okung (despite the injuries).

[SKOALSKIN]

Yeah that scouting department was terrible this year.

Roy Helu - Sucks

Kerrigan- Sucks

Niles Paul (6th round)- He sucks

Hankerson- Injured so he sucks

Jarvis Jenkins- Injured in the 2nd to last preseason and even though he was gonna be a starter, he sucks

DeJon Gomes- Bust in the 5th round

Chris Nield- 2 picks from being mr irrelevant he sucks

[SKOALSKIN]

We should'a drafted blaine gabbert.

[KCClybun]

Remember, and I think this is where you guys are making wrong assumptions with my model.

Mike Shanahan isn't going to see every single bit of data that my Moutain West scout has gathered on a prospect for Utah State. He is going to see what matters the most, because my FCS/NON AQ director and Scott Campbell have already vetted the data, pulled out useless data and compared it in the big picture to the data they are getting from my Conference USA scout, my WAC scout and my SEC scout.

Scott Campbell is able to see a very complete picture of a prospect because of the work my conference scouts are doing. But Scott Campbell doesn't have the time to speak to the assistant athletic trainer at Utah State, with whom my conference scout has developed a good relationship with

This still isn't an efficient way to do things though, because it forces the scouting director to have to wade through the conflicting opinions of twenty or so scouts before he can bring that information to the big boys.

At some point, you're still going to gave a situation where you have those twenty men in a room. Maybe not with the coach and GM, but still.

What is more appealing to you, SHF? And really think about this.

You're the scouting director. You're trying to narrow down the prospects that you have so you can take a more focused approach to who you want to look at during the NFL Scouting Combine.

First; one has to consider that those scouts each have about...let's say...20 players that they feel will be a fit at any given position. So 20 scouts, with 20 or so players (give or take), at each of the positions on the football field.

The two scouting directors have to wade through the contrasting opinions of 20 people, who each have 20 players, from each of the positions on the football field. And that's not even including guys who could switch positions, like a 4-3 DE you want to stand up at linebacker, or a hybrid TE/FB. In each of the eleven football conferences, no less. Even having two scouting departments for the BCS and FCS, that is still a LOT of information you have to go through and organize, and then bring up to Scott Campbell, who would then have to wade through the distilled by still lengthy amount of information a SECOND time, before presenting all of that information to Bruce, Mike and the coaches, who themselves are probably going to be watching tape and who are then going to have their OWN ideas about what prospects are best.

I'll agree that we could use a few----FEW----more scouts. But we need quality scouting on the best prospects. Having fewer scouts means, after the first few weeks, scouts begin to focus more and more and more on the best players in their region, which means better, more detailed analysis and information on those prospects. Instead of schmoozing dozens upon dozens upon dozens of coaches (which I think would eventually become a bad thing, as college teams would come to think that, no, you don't really care about their prospects in particular), you can schmooze a few, select coaches for the best information, and form the best information that way. That way, you don't have to wade through buckets and buckets of information on a bunch of different prospects.

Instead of this group for the SEC, and this group of players from the WMC, and this group of players from the Pac 12, you can put it together and say "Okay; here are the best players from the SEC, Big 12 and ACC. Here are the best players from the Big Ten and the Big East. Here's the best from the ACC, Mountain West, etc., etc.,." You deal with less bullcrap and don't force a few people to wade through mountains of meaningless data on players you have no intention of drafting.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Instead of this group for the SEC, and this group of players from the WMC, and this group of players from the Pac 12, you can put it together and say "Okay; here are the best players from the SEC, Big 12 and ACC. Here are the best players from the Big Ten and the Big East. Here's the best from the ACC, Mountain West, etc., etc.,." You deal with less bullcrap and don't force a few people to wade through mountains of meaningless data on players you have no intention of drafting.

I have always been a "give me as much info as possible" type guy, in particular when you have a year to do this process for 1 weekend.

I don't expect my scouts to be all over the 3rd string kicker they have no intention of drafting. But I do expect my SEC scouts to know the schemes of each SEC school inside and out and be able to provide pertinent data to my directors with how they translate to our system.

I also expect my SEC scouts to know who other NFL teams are scouting in the SEC, where they place them and how they feel about those players. I want to be able to establish a draft board for every team in the NFL. These are my competitors, I will know what they are doing.

Along with that, I am going to have my SEC scouts charting underclassman and keeping a close eye on them. I want to see how a player improves when he goes from 210 in weight as a true frosh to 255 as a senior. I want to know how he took coaching early in his career and how he takes it now.

This is a very similar fashion to the intel community, and we are gathering intel, on players, on other teams, on schemes and future players.

None of my directors have 20 or so scouts to deal with. The most is 12, and that is for my BCS scouts. Every other is in the single digits.

Various opinions on guys is a good thing. I want varied opinions, I want competing opinions so we get a full view picture.

If not, we might as well just have Mike ask Mel Kiper what he thinks and save the time and money. No BS information to go through, just boom, what Mike feels at draft time is set.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

SHF,

It seems to me that you are creating a lot of inefficiency in the system simply for the sake of having a big system. Instead of having 100 scouts, I would simply try to hire the ten best scouts in the league and make them rich.

Why do the Steelers always find an awesome linebacker in the 3rd or 4th round? Why do they seemingly always have a really good undrafted free agent make the team? Who is the scout that finds these people? If it is not a scout, what is their process?

How is it that the Packers have seemingly had awesome wide receivers since the early 90s? What are they doing right?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm sure people who actually work in the NFL do.

There is a danger in my idea in that scouts can be just as lazy as players. The Redskins always pay for past performance in another organization. You don't want to do that here so maybe you create some kind of system based on incentives.

Dan Rooney, Jr. discovered Willie Parker for the Steelers, even though Willie Parker barely played at North Carolina. If a scout makes a discovery like that for you, you should buy them, I dunno, a new Nissan or something. Or some steak knives.

[SkinsHokieFan]

SHF' date='

It seems to me that you are creating a lot of inefficiency in the system simply for the sake of having a big system. Instead of having 100 scouts, I would simply try to hire the ten best scouts in the league and make them rich.

Why do the Steelers always find an awesome linebacker in the 3rd or 4th round? Why do they seemingly always have a really good undrafted free agent make the team? Who is the scout that finds these people? If it is not a scout, what is their process?

How is it that the Packers have seemingly had awesome wide receivers since the early 90s? What are they doing right?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm sure people who actually work in the NFL do.

There is a danger in my idea in that scouts can be just as lazy as players. The Redskins always pay for past performance in another organization. You don't want to do that here so maybe you create some kind of system based on incentives.

Dan Rooney, Jr. discovered Willie Parker for the Steelers, even though Willie Parker barely played at North Carolina. If a scout makes a discovery like that for you, you should buy them, I dunno, a new Nissan or something. Or some steak knives.[/quote']

You provide scouts a clear career path, and yes lots of incentives.

I am trying to hire every great scout in the NFL, not just a handful. I don't want the Steelers to have them

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have always been a "give me as much info as possible" type guy, in particular when you have a year to do this process for 1 weekend.

I have always been the exact opposite. I don't want all the information. I want people I can trust to give me the five most important pieces of information. The key is, those people need to know what those five pieces are.

Jimmy Johnson seemed to love volume. Jimmy Johnson is also insane. The Steelers don't seem to operate that way at all - though that place is the Kremlin so who really knows. The only two draft stories I know about them are 1) Bill Cowher wanting Shawn Andrews instead of Roethlisberger while Colbert wanted Roethlisberger and Dan Rooney broke the tie and 2) Dan Rooney's son signing Willie Parker because he saw him play a high school game once.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 06:52 PM ----------

You provide scouts a clear career path, and yes lots of incentives.

I am trying to hire every great scout in the NFL, not just a handful. I don't want the Steelers to have them

I think you are off-base here, and I'm simply going to blame in some kind of weird Pakistani thing because I'm a horrible bigot. I just know that no organization has ever gotten better through bloat. Would you hire 50 engineers if you needed 20? Even if you profit margins were such that you could afford it.

Because I'm an idiot I know that this was the approach WCW took when it came to pro wrestlers, and they went bankrupt as a result. You can't hire every person in the country who knows how to scout running backs. The Steelers are always going to find someone young and hungry and you are going to have a large "Scouting Annex" filled with fat rich guys who don't give a ****, because what are the chances anyone is going to hear their voice anyway? Seriously, a team might go five years without drafting a player out of the Pac 10. What the hell are those eight scouts you have in California going to start thinking after all that time?

[2cents]

You provide scouts a clear career path, and yes lots of incentives.

I am trying to hire every great scout in the NFL, not just a handful. I don't want the Steelers to have them

That's in no way realistic.

[KCClybun]

That's in no way realistic.

Otherwise known "The Madden Franchise Mode With No Salary Cap On" approach. Only with scouts.

[jthor99]

Shanahan needs to allow his power to entail hiring a GM. Allow, Bruce Allen and himself to hire someone who they can work with regarding personel decisions. McKenzie from GB to me seems like a good fit. Eric DeCosta from Baltimore seems like another guy who I would personally hire.

Someone who can bring structure to this organization from a scouting perspective, and allow Shanahan to simply be the coach. Working together in order find guys to fit the system.

Successful organizations allow their football people to work behind the scenes. In this day in age, unless your Belichick (which Mike is not) it's very difficult to wear all of the hats.

[jivelikenice]

I haven't read this thread throughout, but I think the team has done very well in the draft in Shanahan's two years. The only mistake was in researching Trent off the field (although I think its a much bigger problem than we all think league-wide and other players are just smarter about getting it out of their system in time for testing. Talent wise though they've picked up a good number of starters & quality depth:

Trent- Starter (pro-bowl potential)

Riley- Starter

Kerrigan- Starter (pro-bowl potential)

Jenkins- Potential Starter

Hankerson- Potential Starter

Helu- Starter

Paul/ Gomes/ Royster/ Neild/ Hurt- Quality depth

White/ Thompson/ and Robinson are still unknowns.....

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 12:19 AM ----------

I haven't read this thread throughout, but I think the team has done very well in the draft in Shanahan's two years. The only mistake was in researching Trent off the field (although I think its a much bigger problem than we all think league-wide and other players are just smarter about getting it out of their system in time for testing. Talent wise though they've picked up a good number of starters & quality depth:

Trent- Starter (pro-bowl potential)

Riley- Starter

Kerrigan- Starter (pro-bowl potential)

Jenkins- Potential Starter

Hankerson- Potential Starter

Helu- Starter

Paul/ Gomes/ Royster/ Neild/ Hurt- Quality depth

White/ Thompson/ and Robinson are still unknowns.....

[KCClybun]

Shanahan needs to allow his power to entail hiring a GM. Allow, Bruce Allen and himself to hire someone who they can work with regarding personel decisions. McKenzie from GB to me seems like a good fit. Eric DeCosta from Baltimore seems like another guy who I would personally hire.

Someone who can bring structure to this organization from a scouting perspective, and allow Shanahan to simply be the coach. Working together in order find guys to fit the system.

Successful organizations allow their football people to work behind the scenes. In this day in age, unless your Belichick (which Mike is not) it's very difficult to wear all of the hats.

*pinches bridge of nose* Uuuggghhh...

They have those guys in Morocco Brown and Scott Campbell. And Bruce Allen for that matter. For 90% of the season, all Mike is, is the head coach. The only time he wears his GM hat are during free agency and the draft. The rest of the time, he leaves the scouting and the smaller personnel decisions to his people. He of course always has a say, but all signs point to Mike letting his people do their jobs. So in essense, what you're saying should happen, already has happened.

And Belichick's track record is spotty at best in recent history.

[Tsoe]

Ok ok ok..... Final say doesn't mean that he is shooting down scouting or these scouts are doing all this work and he's just ignoring them. For the defense he probably rarely makes a veto on any player because it's not really his expertise. That is left up to Haslett and the scouts. And since he is heavily involved in the offense, he would try to bring HIS guys in. Cerrato was all about bringing a whole bunch of players together that really didn't mesh system wise. We won't be going buck wild in the FA anymore, so most of these players coming in will be system guys and we will begin to see homegrown roster numbers similar to the packers.

[SirClintonPortis]

We actually weren't that poor at drafting. What we had a problem was TRADING AWAY draft picks. You look at our first rounders, and the performance is pretty good.

Now, could we be even better if we expanded. Sure, if the new guys are quality guys who do the job right. But lets see here, our draft picks under Shanahan have mostly been good, so we're not THAT bad.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 06:59 PM ----------

Oh, and this sounds like some *****'s Okung plug. Well guess ****ing what? Trent had solidified his run blocking this season, kept DWare quiet, and was a stabalizing force on our OL. Yes, he has to cut the pot, but failing drug tests does not make him an incompetent football player, just a stupid one who can learn from his mistakes.

[authentic]

I'd love to laugh this article off, but the fact is, whenever an article like this shows up, it's almost always true in Redskinland. Hard to believe that anybody from the Cerrato days is still around.

Still, our last draft looks like it was very solid so let's see how things go this year.

Well, there it is. It pretty much fuels the theory that the scouts weren't the problem. Supported by many around the league which says that both Campbell and Brown are talented evaluators. Which means that the real issue was with the ones at the top of the organization (Vinny & Danny).

[SirClintonPortis]

Staff writers Jason Reid and Barry Svrluga contributed to this report.

Yeah, you can just feel the taint of some leading questions employed by crock of ****.