Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Press Release: #REDSKINS ANNOUNCE CHANGES TO SCOUTING STAFF


TK

Recommended Posts

For Immediate Release

August 1, 2017

 

REDSKINS ANNOUNCE CHANGES TO SCOUTING STAFF

 

RICHMOND, Va. – The Washington Redskins announced today that they have finalized additions and new assignments for the team’s personnel department for the 2017 season. The new additions and new assignments are as follows:

 

            Brent Caprio*             Scouting Assistant

            Chuck Cook*              College Scout (Midwest)

            Harrison Ritcher*        BLESTO Scout

            Paul Skansi*                College Scout (West Coast)

            Cole Spencer               College Scout (Southeast)

            Roger Terry                 College Scout (Midlands)

            

* Indicates new hire

 

Caprio joins the Redskins after spending his first two NFL seasons with the Indianapolis Colts as a scouting assistant from 2015-16. Prior to entering pro football, he also worked in the accounting sector, spending parts of 2014 and 2015 with EY (formerly Ernst & Young). The native of Somers Point, N.J., played quarterback at William & Mary from 2009-13 and earned four consecutive CAA Academic All-Conference honors.

 

Cook is a veteran of 33 previous NFL seasons. He most recently spent six seasons with the Buffalo Bills from 2011-16. He served in various capacities in his time with the Bills, including two seasons each as Director of College Scouting, as a national scout and as an area scout. A native of Andalusia, Ala., Cook’s personnel background includes stints with the Bills, Miami Dolphins and Kansas City Chiefs.

 

Ritcher is entering his fifth NFL season. He began his career as a recruiting intern at Florida State prior to spending his first four NFL seasons with the Cleveland Browns from 2012-15. Ritcher, a native of Raleigh, N.C., is the son of 16-year NFL veteran Jim Ritcher, who played for the Bills and Falcons from 1980-95.

 

Skansi is a veteran of 25 previous NFL seasons, including a nine-year playing career with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks from 1983-91. The native of Gig Harbor, Wash., most recently spent 16 seasons scouting the Southwest region for the San Diego Chargers from 2000-15. Skansi will assume scouting responsibility on the West Coast from Jim Zeches, who retired this offseason following 44 years in coaching and front office capacities across various levels, including spending the final 12 of his 16 NFL seasons with the Redskins.

 

Now in his eighth season with the Redskins, Spencer will transition to oversee scouting efforts in the Southeast region. He originally joined the Redskins as an intern in 2010 and had most recently coordinated scouting efforts for the team in the Midwest region.

 

Terry is in the midst of his third NFL season and will now oversee the team’s scouting in the Midlands area. He initially joined the Redskins in 2015 after working as a recruiting assistant at Ohio State during the 2013-14 seasons, helping the Buckeyes to a Big Ten championship, Sugar Bowl championship and national championship in 2014.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impossible for us to truly know if these hires and promotions are good or not, but I will say that the new guys mostly come from underwhelming teams. No real scouting juggernauts or anything. 

 

But that might not mean a thing. At least the scouting department is getting some level of focus it deserves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thesubmittedone said:

Impossible for us to truly know if these hires and promotions are good or not, but I will say that the new guys mostly come from underwhelming teams. No real scouting juggernauts or anything. 

 

But that might not mean a thing. At least the scouting department is getting some level of focus it deserves. 

 

This is exactly it.  It's like when someone is trying to pull their grades up.  Sure they may still get a bad grade on their paper, but it's better than not turning in anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

Impossible for us to truly know if these hires and promotions are good or not, but I will say that the new guys mostly come from underwhelming teams. No real scouting juggernauts or anything. 

 

I was thinking the same. Kept on reading, and every carefully as to not miss a word, on every selection to see if at least one of them came from the Patriots. :806:

 

I hope they do a good job though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine these are just the managers and there are more persons underneath?  I am not sure if having 6 scouts for the whole country is enough.  Does anyone have any comparison to how many scouts other teams have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zskins said:

 

I was thinking the same. Kept on reading, and every carefully as to not miss a word, on every selection to see if at least one of them came from the Patriots. :806:

 

I hope they do a good job though. 

 

Ironically I don't think we'd want scouts from the Patriots. They are taught to look for very specific traits for Belichick and then he and his top personnel man basically piece it all together and find the fits for their scheme among it all. Very few of their personnel guys, even the top ones, have found success elsewhere unlike other scouting trees around the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr. S said:

I imagine these are just the managers and there are more persons underneath?  I am not sure if having 6 scouts for the whole country is enough.  Does anyone have any comparison to how many scouts other teams have?

 

 

These are just the changes, the entire scouting staff. I count 9 scouts and then a director and assistant director of college scouting. Here is the list:

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zskins said:

 

I was thinking the same. Kept on reading, and every carefully as to not miss a word, on every selection to see if at least one of them came from the Patriots. :806:

 

I hope they do a good job though. 

 

Preferably the Packers, Steelers, Seahawks, Ravens, Bengals, Broncos, and Raiders. 

 

Wouldn't have minded seeing guys from the Vikings, Titans, Texans, Chiefs, Panthers, Falcons, and as you just mentioned from the Pats, either. 

 

Bills and Colts are pretty meh. Browns from 2012-2015? Terrible. That's three of them and their most recent work. 

 

The last one, Skansi, was with the Chargers from 2000-2015, guy has a ton of experience to say the least. Been with an effective scouting department and an ineffective one I guess. We replaced Zeches, another seemingly super experienced guy who just retired, with him. 

 

Two of the new guys, including him, weren't working last year with any team. 

 

But, yeah, overall underwhelming if one is to simply look at recent teams.

 

But it could easily mean nothing. For all we know they weren't behind much of any bad moves and were voices of reason within their respective departments. Or it's the opposite.

 

And I'm sure it's tough to pluck scouts from teams that are experiencing any semblance of success right now. 

 

Just would've liked to feel, as a fan, like we got some guys who were successful recently (with evidence of such on their resumé) versus just having to hope. 

 

I can also admit this goes back to how we approached the entire GM search for me. Seeing the Bills and Colts interviewing guys from teams like the Packers and Steelers to replace their GMs this offseason while our search was, uhm, yeah... what it was. Just frustrates the heck out of me, so I'm seeing all of this through that (rightfully) tainted lens. :/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Burgold said:

Glad to see us beefing up the scouting department. I don't know these guys are good, great, or terrible, but I do know that our scouting department has been understaffed for a long time.

 

Welcome to the 'skins.

 

Yeah that's my most positive take on this.  This most befuddling by a mile aspect of Dan's tenure is we keep hearing all he wants to do is win.  But at the same time we always hear about how the Steelers, the Packers and other perennial winners in this league dedicate more resources to scouting whereas the Redskins lag the league in that department let alone they don't seem determined to put at the head really accomplished highly regarded personnel guys. 

 

I didn't love the Doug promotion. But the one thing he said that I liked is the shuffling people up the ladder would demand that the staff be beefed up below.  So while I'm not sure about these guys they hired but it gives the impression that at least they won't be understaffed.  And according to some including Laconfora recently, the Redskins FO has the rep of being understaffed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dan's fixation has always been on the star. He figures if you have a great chef the restaurant will prosper... if you have a great CEO the business will soar, but while the leaders are key and having stars are nice... you need prep staff, you need good buyers, you need efficiency for your restaurant to succeed and maintain quality.

 

It's great to have that star that gets the butts in the seats, but the invisibles matter almost as much. After all, if the star has bad data he'll make bad decisions. Snyder has assembled all star coaching staffs. He's gotten big, big star athletes to sign. He has also neglected the invisibles. The guys maintaining the field, the guys doing the scouting, the medical and training staff (though with Andrews once again he did hire the biggest name in the field).

 

I don't think Dan has been only about the top line, but I think that is his "marketer's" weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

I don't think Dan has been only about the top line, but I think that is his "marketer's" weakness.

 

It's so with coaching and FA but not for the GM position.   Cerrato wasn't viewed as a star personnel guy.   Ditto Gibbs (star coach, though but it was Beathard who picked the groceries in his first stint).  Ditto Shanny (star coach, though but ironically many say got dumped in Denver because of his personnel decisions).  Ditto Bruce Allen.  Ditto Doug Williams.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@thesubmittedone I was about to make a comment on the same lines as yours, but you couldn't have laid it out any better. I want to be excited about these hires, but we chose guys whose recent history was with the worst drafting teams; just missing the Jets and Bears. I don't see these hires being very beneficial, but the more the merrier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Preferably the Packers, Steelers, Seahawks, Ravens, Bengals, Broncos, and Raiders. 

 

Wouldn't have minded seeing guys from the Vikings, Titans, Texans, Chiefs, Panthers, Falcons, and as you just mentioned from the Pats, either.

 

According to this article anyway, the Steelers, Ravens, Bengals, Broncos, Chiefs, Titans, Texans and Pats should be hiring scouts from the Redskins instead:

 

Ranking all 32 NFL teams' five-year success by draft class

 

Two teams ahead of the Skins: Colts and Chargers, two teams our new hires worked for last.

 

Ironically enough, when Morocco Brown was hired by the Browns there was a TON of negative press aimed at the Redskins for letting him go...It was seen as yet another sign of dysfunction and "He's well-respected around the league" was a regular comment tossed into the debate by the press. Yet it wasn't as if the Redskins had this stellar reputation in terms of scouting and drafts lol...if we weren't the Redskins, would we fans have been excited about someone from the Redskins' personnel department joining our front office? Yet it was apparently possible for Brown to be seen in a positive light even if the team he worked for regularly sucked eggs.

 

Of course, we even had some fans wanting Morocco back after Scot was fired...surprised someone didn't say "He worked for the Browns and the Redskins! Why?" lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

According to this article anyway, the Steelers, Ravens, Bengals, Broncos, Chiefs, Titans, Texans and Pats should be hiring scouts from the Redskins instead:

 

Ranking all 32 NFL teams' five-year success by draft class

 

Two teams ahead of the Skins: Colts and Chargers, two teams our new hires worked for last.

 

Great, we've had some recent draft success. Of course, very much aided by the GM we just fired. Yay. 

 

One article from PFF isn't going to move me much on my thoughts towards the Colts or other teams for that matter. I can see one issue with their rankings real fast in that teams that have had players they drafted  with long term success previously will get punished because their recent picks won't be able to do much since there are starters in front of them producing. 

 

Look at how they came up with their rankings: 

 

Quote

We computed WAR for each player drafted while they were with their drafting team, and summed these numbers for each team from the years 2012 to 2016, excluding seasons where a player had a negative wins above replacement as we felt that players that saw snaps yet were below replacement level should be treated the same as draft picks that never saw the field. We weighed the most recent season’s class as if their productivity is going to be repeated for the subsequent four seasons, weighed the second-most recent class as if the combined productivity from 2015 and 2016 is going to be repeated the subsequent three seasons, and so on. Below are the teams ranked from highest to lowest WAR total, along with some of the top scoring players from each squad.

 

See the part that's bolded? Pretty hefty friggin assumption there they're making, right? Also means our two draft classes under Scot are being very heavily weighed. 

 

What you should've responded to me with, instead of that take, was, "man, I see now why you're so frustrated about firing Scot, the way it happened, and then not bringing someone of his caliber in to assume that title like every other normal team does after firing their GM". 

 

But even if I'm wrong about the issues with their rankings, I'm not sure this even matters in terms of how one perceives these scouting departments. It's not only tied to the draft, it's about consistency for a long time, and parts are always moving, just like how one would put an asterisk on our rank here since Scot was just fired. 

 

Furthermore, I was talking about the recent stints of the scouts we just hired. The first scout mentioned in the release that we hired was only with the Colts for the 2015 and 2016 seasons. 

 

Here's what the article says about their Colts' ranking: 

 

Quote

7.IND-Colts-Header.png

For the Colts it’s all about the value of the quarterback position, coupled with their best skill player. Andrew Luck and T.Y. Hilton were deadly on deep targets last year, as the duo connected on 17 of 32 attempts for 528 yards and three scores on throws that traveled at least 20 yards through the air. Hilton’s catch rate of 51.5 percent on deep targets was the best in the NFL in 2016.

 

Two players giving them that rank, based on how PFF came up with this, pretty much, lol. Really?

 

And two players that were drafted pre-2015 when that scout wasn't even with them. Come on, just a precursory glance at that and you wouldn't have thrown in how the Colts were ranked ahead of us as meaning crap here! :ols:  

 

My post that you responded to said "Colts and Bills, meh. Browns from 2012-2015, terrible." 

 

I didn't say anything about the Chargers except that the guy we got from them has experience with successful scouting departments and unsuccessful ones. Is that not true? I wonder how heavily weighed in their 2016 draft was, because that guy wasn't with the Chargers for that. 

 

Yeah, I stand by my assessment of those teams, and I'll dispute the PFF ranking there regarding the Colts as meaning anything necessarily good about their scouting departments. 

 

Bringing up Morrocco Brown doesn't do anything for me, either, because: 

 

1) I said that, no matter what, we don't know if these are good or bad hires even though they come from underwhelming teams, and that it might mean nothing, so I don't know who you're arguing with there, and; 

 

2) There's always been a question with our franchise about who gets listened to or not. Kinda sucks that we've got that problem, doesn't it? Any of us, including those within the media, can say, "that guy was right all along, respected around the league, but he was ignored or undermined". Unfortunately, when it comes to the Skins' organization and for anyone looking at the results with their brains and not their hearts... well, it's impossible to just deny that that's not a pretty damn likely possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Great, we've had some recent draft success. Of course, very much aided by the GM we just fired. Yay. 

 

(bunch of other stuff as well thrown in)

 

Wait...did you just write a War & Peace response to refute something that you already said was "impossible for us to truly know if these hires and promotions are good or not"? lol...You spent a lot of energy wanting to convince us (or me) that they shouldn't be seen as good after saying there wasn't any real way to know if they're good or not.

 

If you really meant that (which I'm highly doubting now), there wouldn't be such a strong desire to try and back up why basically saying "Who knows, they may be good hires afterall" should be laughed at.

 

You would have read where I said "According to this article anyway"...meaning, this is one article, and an article worth throwing into the discussion. And it's an article that was made into a thread within the last day lol...it's on the first page! That's why I brought it up. If there were an article saying the Skins' ranked #30 instead of #12 I still would have brought it up in connection to what you wrote-since you were the one who listed a bunch of teams that you would, for some reason, feel more confident about us getting scouts from (the Pats haven't done **** in the draft for like a decade lol)...would love for you to return to the guy who could be objective instead of reactionary.

 

You also got this part wrong:

 

We weighed the most recent season’s class as if their productivity is going to be repeated for the subsequent four seasons, weighed the second-most recent class as if the combined productivity from 2015 and 2016 is going to be repeated the subsequent three seasons, and so on.

 

You felt this means Scot's drafts weigh heavily in the grading of the Skins so high ("Also means our two draft classes under Scot are being very heavily weighed.  "). Read that part again and you'll see why it wouldn't (and skinsinparadise touched on this in the other thread for that article).

 

If they assign the amount of productivity we got from the 2016 draft class to the other four years, then the 2016 draft class is an absolute and total failure that would have brought the Skins ranking DOWN...not propped it up. How does that help? I mean, I would think the 2012-2014 draft classes would weigh far, FAR more towards the Skins being ranked #12 considering how many starters we have from those years. Cousins, Reed, Moses, Breeland, etc...compare that to having Doctson's productivity in 2016 spread over all 5 years lol...or Cravens or Fullers'....Hell, I would bet Moses by himself trumps those three draft picks from 2016 in terms of how this article weighs things. 2015 would help...2016, not in the slightest.

 

Then again, the article does say that they eliminated players who had negative WAR numbers, so maybe that would have negated Scot's entire 2016 draft class, thus helping the Skins' ranking lol...

 

So 'splain again to me why I would be saying this?

 

"man, I see now why you're so frustrated about firing Scot, the way it happened, and then not bringing someone of his caliber in to assume that title like every other normal team does after firing their GM". 

 

Hint: I wouldn't. Because your logic is flawed from the get-go. And the WAR rating would eliminate a lot of the production from guys like Matt Jones--we saw what happened when Rob Kelly replaced him, so his "wins above replacement" rating would probably be rather low. Compare that to, say, Long's WAR rating probably is after replacing Licht.

 

And this part you said about the Colts pretty much contradicts your earlier comments about Scot:

 

"Two players giving them that rank, based on how PFF came up with this, pretty much, lol. Really? "

 

Can you guess why? lol...the article lists Reed as being the Highest scoring Redskin player for the team...my guess would be Cousins isn't far behind, especially since we're talking wins above replacement. Both of those players probably made up a bigh chunk of the Skins' overall score. Both of those players were drafted before Scot was hired. Which means your assertion that Scot's drafts were "weighted heavily" in the Skins' overall ranking is contrary to what you said about the Colts' and their ranking.

 

And a more than just "precursory glance" would have told you that the same guy who came up with the WAR stats/rankings had ranked the Colts' STs incredibly high last year...so there's a good chance that more than just Luck and Hilton played a role in the Colts being in the top 10.

 

 

Also, this:

 

"I can see one issue with their rankings real fast in that teams that have had players they drafted  with long term success previously will get punished because their recent picks won't be able to do much since there are starters in front of them producing.  "

 

Can you name ONE team that has had such stellar starters and backups that were either drafted 6+ years ago or were signed free agents (at any time) that almost none of their draft picks over the last 5 years have had a chance to produce much for them...at any time in the history of the NFL? lol...If drafted players don't produce much in 5 years, it's because they weren't very good. You may have an exception here and there (like the TE Bennett who was stuck behind Witten), but not 5 whole draft classes like that.

 

 

Seriously...my post was not about Scot, Allen, or Allen firing Scot lol...that you still find it damn near impossible to react without filtering everything through those lenses says a lot.

 

As for Morocco Brown, I wasn't trying to "do anything" for you, or convince you of anything...it was a general observation on the contradictory stances we as fans take. We don't want personnel executives from bad teams but feel our bad team's personnel executives should be valued much more lol...it wasn't a comment about you, I just used the post as a jumping off point. I personally think the WAR ratings are sketchy at best (said so on the other thread), but I also think it's laughable to claim that a scout who worked for the Colts for 2 years somehow brings less confidence that a scout who worked for the Pats for 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

Wait...did you just write a War & Peace response to refute something that you already said was "impossible for us to truly know if these hires and promotions are good or not"? lol...You spent a lot of energy wanting to convince us (or me) that they shouldn't be seen as good after saying there wasn't any real way to know if they're good or not.

 

Ewwwww, you went there with a shot at the length of my post? Unnecessary man. 

 

Reading your post, I felt that it, wrongly, tried to convince me that I wasn't being fair when I claimed the hires were coming from underwhelming teams. 

 

You were doing that, right? Because, if not, you have one heck of a weird way of showing it. 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

If you really meant that (which I'm highly doubting now), there wouldn't be such a strong desire to try and back up why basically saying "Who knows, they may be good hires afterall" should be laughed at.

 

I meant everything I said, stand by assessment that those scouts come from underwhelming teams, and that it may mean nothing. Don't give a damn if you think the length of my post means otherwise. 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

You would have read where I said "According to this article anyway"...meaning, this is one article, and an article worth throwing into the discussion. And it's an article that was made into a thread within the last day lol...it's on the first page! That's why I brought it up. If there were an article saying the Skins' ranked #30 instead of #12 I still would have brought it up in connection to what you wrote-since you were the one who listed a bunch of teams that you would, for some reason, feel more confident about us getting scouts from (the Pats haven't done **** in the draft for like a decade lol)...would love for you to return to the guy who could be objective instead of reactionary.

 

Starting with the bolded here.... If I'm reactionary to you, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

Your idea of "objective" seems to exclusively be, "whatever the FO does, I'm perfectly okay with. I'll act like I'm not here and there just so I can claim I'm objective, but the overriding point of every single one of my posts will be to crap on any criticism leveled towards Allen and/or Snyder while self-righteously claiming I'm neutral or objective". You're not fooling most of us, though. 

 

But, yeah, I'm pretty damn sure I know why you wanted to post that article. 

 

Sorry, I don't believe you'd post it if it ranked the Redskins at "#30 instead of #12". You think I'm full of ****, and I think you are. :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

You also got this part wrong:

 

We weighed the most recent season’s class as if their productivity is going to be repeated for the subsequent four seasons, weighed the second-most recent class as if the combined productivity from 2015 and 2016 is going to be repeated the subsequent three seasons, and so on.

 

You felt this means Scot's drafts weigh heavily in the grading of the Skins so high ("Also means our two draft classes under Scot are being very heavily weighed.  "). Read that part again and you'll see why it wouldn't (and skinsinparadise touched on this in the other thread for that article).

 

If they assign the amount of productivity we got from the 2016 draft class to the other four years, then the 2016 draft class is an absolute and total failure that would have brought the Skins ranking DOWN...not propped it up. How does that help? I mean, I would think the 2012-2014 draft classes would weigh far, FAR more towards the Skins being ranked #12 considering how many starters we have from those years. Cousins, Reed, Moses, Breeland, etc...compare that to having Doctson's productivity in 2016 spread over all 5 years lol...or Cravens or Fullers'....Hell, I would bet Moses by himself trumps those three draft picks from 2016 in terms of how this article weighs things. 2015 would help...2016, not in the slightest.

 

Then again, the article does say that they eliminated players who had negative WAR numbers, so maybe that would have negated Scot's entire 2016 draft class, thus helping the Skins' ranking lol...

 

So 'splain again to me why I would be saying this?

 

"man, I see now why you're so frustrated about firing Scot, the way it happened, and then not bringing someone of his caliber in to assume that title like every other normal team does after firing their GM". 

 

Hint: I wouldn't. Because your logic is flawed from the get-go. And the WAR rating would eliminate a lot of the production from guys like Matt Jones--we saw what happened when Rob Kelly replaced him, so his "wins above replacement" rating would probably be rather low. Compare that to, say, Long's WAR rating probably is after replacing Licht.

 

No, I didn't get that wrong. 

 

It seems you're ignoring the part where they're assuming production will remain for the duration of four years after of the most recent drafts, whereas the other draft classes technically aren't. That was my biggest issue with it. That's why I think it's too heavily weighted towards recent drafts, since it's a "hefty assumption" they're making there. I specifically called it a "hefty assumption" for crying out loud. 

 

Maybe I'm not explaining this good enough. My problem is in assuming that draft production will remain as is for the next four years, you know? 

 

So, really, what I was saying is that they're likely giving Scot's drafts TOO MUCH CREDIT in the soup and that it should be otherwise. Even more than what you're stating here, so I have no idea why you'd go through all of that, you just proved my point. :ols: 

 

For all we know, all his draft picks can flame out over the course of the next four years and/or be replaced by better players. 

 

But I think YOU were the one being overly reactionary and misinterpreting me here. 

 

So when it comes to Scot, the 2015 draft class alone would boost our rankings for sure, and too much so. The article itself says, about our ranking, that it's mostly tied to "recent draft classes". They do mention Reed, but I wouldn't assume what you are about it meaning the 2014 draft class (per your mention of Long, for instance) more than Scot's. Rob Kelley would also count for Scot. 

 

Plus, you don't want to play that game, trust me. I can say 2014's draft was heavily influenced by Scot since that's what Allen himself said, right? Wasn't that one of the reasons Allen said he hired Scot in the first place? 

 

So I don't see why it's hard for you to understand why I would say: 

 

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

What you should've responded to me with, instead of that take, was, "man, I see now why you're so frustrated about firing Scot, the way it happened, and then not bringing someone of his caliber in to assume that title like every other normal team does after firing their GM". 

 

But, I admitted I could be wrong about that (I mean, for God's sake, how lame is it trying to friggin decipher PFF's explanations to how they come up with their methods of ranking) and it still wouldn't have much of anything to do with the respective teams scouting departments. I explained here:

 

3 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

But even if I'm wrong about the issues with their rankings, I'm not sure this even matters in terms of how one perceives these scouting departments. It's not only tied to the draft, it's about consistency for a long time, and parts are always moving, just like how one would put an asterisk on our rank here since Scot was just fired. 

 

Thanks for ignoring that. :) 

 

Oh, and since we're on the topic of long posts and what that insinuates... well, I'll just say you trying your hardest to disprove my understandings of the PFF method here and writing a "War and Peace" treatise on it suggests I'm totally right in my opinion that you're full of **** regarding what you were trying to do here by posting that article in the first place. 

 

 

Only fair, right? 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

Also, this:

 

"I can see one issue with their rankings real fast in that teams that have had players they drafted  with long term success previously will get punished because their recent picks won't be able to do much since there are starters in front of them producing.  "

 

Can you name ONE team that has had such stellar starters and backups that were either drafted 6+ years ago or were signed free agents (at any time) that almost none of their draft picks over the last 5 years have had a chance to produce much for them...at any time in the history of the NFL? lol...If drafted players don't produce much in 5 years, it's because they weren't very good. You may have an exception here and there (like the TE Bennett who was stuck behind Witten), but not 5 whole draft classes like that.

 

My understanding of the problem here is that, for instance, a team like the Steelers who drafted Ben Roethlisberger a million years ago doesn't get the benefit of that draft pick, or replacing him, versus the Colts getting the benefit of Luck since they start at 2012. Here, it's not fair because the Steelers don't have to replace Ben. 

 

So teams with players entrenched at positions for a long time now, players they drafted, are automatically losing points here. 

 

Is that not true? I don't think I need to

go through the entire list for you. Here's one from our team if you need it. Kerrigan was drafted in 2011. Should we be penalized for not having a draft pick overtake him? 

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, and I can fully acknowledge that I have neither the time nor desire to actually sift through the PFF methodology regarding their rankings, but I feel pretty confident in that assessment. 

 

Nothing you've said here changed that, oh objective one. Maybe I'm just too reactionary.

 

Save me!

 

Quote

And this part you said about the Colts pretty much contradicts your earlier comments about Scot:

 

"Two players giving them that rank, based on how PFF came up with this, pretty much, lol. Really? "

 

Can you guess why? lol...the article lists Reed as being the Highest scoring Redskin player for the team...my guess would be Cousins isn't far behind, especially since we're talking wins above replacement. Both of those players probably made up a bigh chunk of the Skins' overall score. Both of those players were drafted before Scot was hired. Which means your assertion that Scot's drafts were "weighted heavily" in the Skins' overall ranking is contrary to what you said about the Colts' and their ranking.

 

And a more than just "precursory glance" would have told you that the same guy who came up with the WAR stats/rankings had ranked the Colts' STs incredibly high last year...so there's a good chance that more than just Luck and Hilton played a role in the Colts being in the top 10.

 

I don't see a contradiction at all. Like you said: 

 

Quote

Then again, the article does say that they eliminated players who had negative WAR numbers, so maybe that would have negated Scot's entire 2016 draft class, thus helping the Skin

 

You answered that right there. Each team would have different situations and contexts. I saw the same thing, but I didn't think it necessary to go into. Guess I was wrong about that, yeesh. I should know better when responding to anything from you, so it is totally my fault. :ols: 

 

I'm assuming PFF's description there is accurate, though. That it's Luck and Hilton mainly boosting their ranking, regardless of who else is helping. Which means it's two players that were drafted before the scout we picked up was on their team. 

 

I mean, are you disputing that? 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

As for Morocco Brown, I wasn't trying to "do anything" for you, or convince you of anything...it was a general observation on the contradictory stances we as fans take. We don't want personnel executives from bad teams but feel our bad team's personnel executives should be valued much more lol...it wasn't a comment about you, I just used the post as a jumping off point.

 

Ok, fair enough, but if it wasn't directed at me maybe say something so I can know? I've gotten into trouble with that in the past where I go off on a tangent after quoting a poster, and then he/she thinks my tangent is directed at them. That's on me, it's not their fault. 

 

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

I personally think the WAR ratings are sketchy at best (said so on the other thread), but I also think it's laughable to claim that a scout who worked for the Colts for 2 years somehow brings less confidence that a scout who worked for the Pats for 2 years. 

 

Aaaaand that's where we have major disagreement. I think it's "laughable" you think that. 

 

It's friggin common sense that you'd want to hire from a pool of success versus one of failure, in ANY industry.

 

Now, you can debate the teams I listed all you want, and where they fall into that pool, that's fine, but I don't think it's crazy to suggest the Colts, Bills and Browns are  "underwhelming" pools of scouting talent, at least on the surface. I even agree that the Pats are questionable, but I still would place them slightly above the Colts. 

 

I even said that's only from the perspective of a fan who doesn't know who did what there. How is that not true? 

 

You really wouldn't be more confident had the newly recruited scouts came from teams with more success recently and/or in general? Or are you just specifically saying the Colts versus the Pats (which is silly)? 

 

I mean, I just don't buy it. If the Skins released this press release and it was all about the success of the teams these scouts were previously on, you're absolutely full of it if you're going to tell me you'd feel the same way. 

 

If so, that's crazy talk. 

 

I bet you you're the only one actually disagreeing here about that, if that's the case. I think everyone here agrees that it would've given us more confidence as fans. Again, that doesn't mean they are bad hires. But this is common sense. 

 

I'm honestly interested in knowing if there's anyone else who actually feels like there's no difference? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CTskin said:

@thesubmittedone I was about to make a comment on the same lines as yours, but you couldn't have laid it out any better. I want to be excited about these hires, but we chose guys whose recent history was with the worst drafting teams; just missing the Jets and Bears. I don't see these hires being very beneficial, but the more the merrier?

 

To me the operative point is yeah we don't know about these guys but if doesn't come off on the surface exciting when its something relating to the FO -- the FO hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.   Sheehan on 980 likes to goof about how Bruce talks up the "Redskins Way" as if their FO represents a model of excellence for all to emulate.  Sheehan likes to joke about it, saying variations of do these guys realize they are if anything made fun of by NFL pundit types versus seen as a model for anything?    

 

The Redskins have had a litany of shake your head moves over the years as to the FO.  Tops on my list is dumping John Schneider for Vinny Cerrato.  And yeah if you read the clippings back then Schneider was indeed a hot shot in demand up and comer, then.  The hire at the time got high praise.   Now, he's regarded by many as the best GM in the league and Vinny is just a punch line.  There are plenty more examples.  But that one seems to go below the radar.

 

As for the scouts hired.  I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another.  Like I said, I like the fact that they are at least adding staff.  I hate reading stories about them being understaffed and or not dedicating the resources that some other teams do for scouting.  So on that front these hires to me are a positive.  But as for some questioning the pedigree of these guys -- I think its more than fair -- like I said the Redskins FO hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt where we should just assume they are making all the right moves.    This same FO was mocked league wide not that long ago for their weird press release on July 17th.  So I'm not sure I can say they've really turned a big corner.  

 

I'd love to see them get their stuff together.  I was listening to Chris Russell today who arguably more than any other has been on fire about the FO (including breaking the Scot story) and I heard him say Eric Schaffer is at the moment the guy with the power (as to people below Bruce) or something to that effect (I was doing something else so I was only half listening) and more powerful than Doug.   It came off like its a new development behind the scenes but I'm not totally sure if I heard that part right as to it being a new thing versus it being so all along.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@thesubmittedone (whew, did that right lol)...on my phone now--and it really is a pain in the ass to scroll long posts lol--but just to let you know I asked the guy who came up with the WAR stat algorithm where the rankings could be found and he said they weren't public, only internal right now. But he did ask me what players I was interested in. I told him mostly just interested in the Skins and maybe their top 3 ranked players according to his WAR stat. He hasn't answered back yet but will post what he says when he does. Will read your response later as well once I'm on a screen bigger than a playing card lol...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...