Football 101: The Talent Evaluation Process

[ethiostar]

Great post and very informative. Thanks for sharing!

 

[NoDak Cowboy]

I've been a Cowboy fan since their beginning...so I've seen worse, a lot worse.

Since the beginning, eh?

I'd be interested in which 16 yr period you deem 'worse, a lot worse.'

 

[Hostile]

The moral to the backlash of this story is...everybody loves a winner. The winner never has any warts or flaws. Forget the fact that Coughlin seems to be on the hot seat every other year. Green Bay had no flaws until they lost. Johnny come lately rules.

 

[Risen Star]

Yeah, it sucks how teams are judged on performance. If we could get past that, we might have something special here.

 

[SWG9]

All of those teams have an organizational direction. And most were built through rational, methodical and non-reactive drafting.

Everyone knows what a Steeler LBer is going to be like. Everyone knows the Giants under Reese are going to build around the pass rush. Everyone knows with Ted Thompson, the Packers will take a QB every year and stockpile depth across the roster. Everyone knew how Polian operated his drafts taking players that best fit their defensive and offensive systems.

These teams are consistent and have a singular direction. And what you always saw with those clubs is process improvement, every year being self-critical. They were not tweaking the systems that worked. They were layering into that system and getting the best fits. If there is one other major problem with Dallas is that with our leadership, we are horrible at self-evaluation and are too apt to think areas are okay that when it actually is not, it turns into a complete disaster. There is no planning for contingencies because we are far too busy plugging whatever hole popped up the previous season.

Dallas is not consistent from year to year in regards to drafting directives. One year it is special teams only because the roster is set. The next there is a full blown panic to get whatever perceived weak group on the roster addressed. Regardless of who the information gatherer is (in our case Ciskowski) or how thorough they are, if the organizational tone that is set by the GM is wrong or misguided, it does not matter.

We do have SOME organizational direction and consistency; target WR's and CB's, overreact to whatever your biggest problem was the year before, install a series of one year plans, go after the most expensive players in FA, never have a contingency plan in place, and re-sign every single marginal player on your team regardless of age or performance.

So I do think we have a plan, it just sucks.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Yeah, it sucks how teams are judged on performance. If we could get past that, we might have something special here.

POST OF THE THREAD!!!!!

 

[Apollo Creed]

POST OF THE THREAD!!!!!

Yea that made me literally lol.:laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

Yeah, it sucks how teams are judged on performance. If we could get past that, we might have something special here.

You miss the point. Johnny Come Lately's around this place are going to focus on the Giants all off season. The Giants this, the Giants that. Giants, Giants, Giants.

The Packers and Saints are actually better football teams with a brighter future. You'll hardly hear much about them because Johnny Come Lately only looks at one game.

Notice I did not mention the Dallas Cowboys at all until now. I am not praising them. I am talking only about a myopic view.

 

[junk]

You miss the point. Johnny Come Lately's around this place are going to focus on the Giants all off season. The Giants this, the Giants that. Giants, Giants, Giants.

The Packers and Saints are actually better football teams with a brighter future. You'll hardly hear much about them because Johnny Come Lately only looks at one game.

Notice I did not mention the Dallas Cowboys at all until now. I am not praising them. I am talking only about a myopic view.

The Giants are the champs and were the champs in 2008. They are a pretty good measuring stick. Plus they are in the Cowboys division so they should be a focus.

The Packers, the Saints, the Patriots and the Steelers should all be measuring sticks as well.

I think Baltimore is a well run franchise that has a solid front office, but they are definitely having problems taking that last step.

SF looked pretty impressive with their new regime as well. I'm interested to see if they can keep that momentum going.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

All of those teams have an organizational direction. And most were built through rational, methodical and non-reactive drafting.

Everyone knows what a Steeler LBer is going to be like. Everyone knows the Giants under Reese are going to build around the pass rush. Everyone knows with Ted Thompson, the Packers will take a QB every year and stockpile depth across the roster. Everyone knew how Polian operated his drafts taking players that best fit their defensive and offensive systems.

These teams are consistent and have a singular direction. And what you always saw with those clubs is process improvement, every year being self-critical. They were not tweaking the systems that worked. They were layering into that system and getting the best fits. If there is one other major problem with Dallas is that with our leadership, we are horrible at self-evaluation and are too apt to think areas are okay that when it actually is not, it turns into a complete disaster. There is no planning for contingencies because we are far too busy plugging whatever hole popped up the previous season.

Dallas is not consistent from year to year in regards to drafting directives. One year it is special teams only because the roster is set. The next there is a full blown panic to get whatever perceived weak group on the roster addressed. Regardless of who the information gatherer is (in our case Ciskowski) or how thorough they are, if the organizational tone that is set by the GM is wrong or misguided, it does not matter.

Excellent post. But every team has holes they need to plug in. How are the successful organizations able to do this in a non-reactive way? It's not a rhetorical question, btw. One way, it seems to me, some teams do this is by finding something you're particularly good at and making sure that gets addressed, above all else, year in and year out -- see Commanders/Hogs in the 80s, see Pittsburgh linebackers arguably.

Garrett may or may not work out but if he does it very well may be because he identifies, addresses and prioritizes that one core area. I've argued recently here that he has an ideal opportunity to do that with the OL.

That's just one strategy, though, and it certainly doesn't guarantee success.

 

[Hostile]

The Giants are the champs and were the champs in 2008. They are a pretty good measuring stick. Plus they are in the Cowboys division so they should be a focus.

The Packers, the Saints, the Patriots and the Steelers should all be measuring sticks as well.

I think Baltimore is a well run franchise that has a solid front office, but they are definitely having problems taking that last step.

SF looked pretty impressive with their new regime as well. I'm interested to see if they can keep that momentum going.

No, in 2008 the Steelers were Champs. 2007 for the Giants.

Good old measuring sticks. Whip it out, let's see who has ***** envy.

 

[junk]

No, in 2008 the Steelers were Champs. 2007 for the Giants.

Good old measuring sticks. Whip it out, let's see who has ***** envy.

The Giants Super Bowl win was after the 2007 season, but the Super Bowl itself was 2008.

Anyway, great response. How are you ever going to get better if you aren't judging yourself against your competition? It isn't just the NFL that does that. Any well run business is very aware of their competition.

However, I guess you could just continue to operate the same way and hope something changes. I guess you're happy and think this is just a string of bad luck, but the bottom line is that this team isn't good enough, hasn't been good enough and hasn't been as well run as the rest of the upper echelon teams in the league.

 

[Dodger12]

Hos, let me ask you one thing and I'd like an honest answer. You may have already answered this in the past but I don't recall seeing it; do you think JG appreciated or approved of Jerry coming down to the sidelines to discuss gameday strategy during a live game with playoff implications?

 

[scottsp]

This is why he is the real problem. He should be setting the direction and tone for the franchise. But he changes coaches and methods constantly.

One minute, the coaches have the most say in the process. The next time, he is listening to the scouts more. If they had a decent season, they stand pat and think every spot in the roster is filled.

And it all boils down to the fact that he has no eye for talent and no stable vision for how to win. You would think a man who has three trophies would have a method. He does not. He is all over the place, reacting to trends he sees around him.

Yep. This is a an problem that shall haunt this franchise for the foreseeable future, or as long the Cowboys operate under this model.

Personally, I am not a fan of the coaching staff having that much voice in the warroom. Input, yes, but not as much as we have here. Decisions should be primary to the GM and his staff based on intel from the scouting department. Head of personnel or scouting must also be in the middle of it. After all, it's his board.

Jimmy was the exception because he was, in effect, the GM and had a grasp on the college game that was unusual for a head coach. Simply put, the man could identify talent.

As far as the organizational philosophy here, yes it is a problem with Jerry's overreactions from one extreme to the other every couple of years. There is no real direction or commitment to one. It seems to be patchwork for most of this roster. It's a shame, too, because Tony Romo is a rare talent with only so many years remaining in that window of his.

It's a shame on so many levels.

 

[Risen Star]

Excellent post. But every team has holes they need to plug in. How are the successful organizations able to do this in a non-reactive way? It's not a rhetorical question, btw. One way, it seems to me, some teams do this is by finding something you're particularly good at and making sure that gets addressed, above all else, year in and year out -- see Commanders/Hogs in the 80s, see Pittsburgh linebackers arguably.

Garrett may or may not work out but if he does it very well may be because he identifies, addresses and prioritizes that one core area. I've argued recently here that he has an ideal opportunity to do that with the OL.

That's just one strategy, though, and it certainly doesn't guarantee success.

Great post. We're an OL away from having a really potent offense and we have the ammo to pretty much complete that OL this offseason if we get aggressive.

With a stacked offense and Garrett in charge, I like our chances of out scoring people. Combine that with my complete faith that a Ryan will get the defense at least up to par, and I think we'd be a serious contender.

But I completely agree with all teams having holes. As a fan, you can get caught up in trying to build a flawless team by filling every possible need ASAP, but that just isn't going to happen nor is it needed to win anymore. The Giants have their flaws. So did the Patriots.

 

[Risen Star]

Yep. This is a an problem that shall haunt this franchise for the foreseeable future, or as long the Cowboys operate under this model.

Personally, I am not a fan of the coaching staff having that much voice in the warroom. Input, yes, but not as much as we have here. Decisions should be primary to the GM and his staff based on intel from the scouting department. Head of personnel or scouting must also be in the middle of it. After all, it's his board.

Jimmy was the exception because he was, in effect, the GM and had a grasp on the college game that was unusual for a head coach. Simply put, the man could identify talent.

As far as the organizational philosophy here, yes it is a problem with Jerry's overreactions from one extreme to the other every couple of years. There is no real direction or commitment to one. It seems to be patchwork for most of this roster. It's a shame, too, because Tony Romo is a rare talent with only so many years remaining in that window of his.

It's a shame on so many levels.

Some head coaches have the ability to evaluate talent as well or better than any scout, so I can't say I'd never want the head coach to have a lot of say in the war room.

But your premise is sound, IMO. More often that not the most informed opinions reside on the scouting side. Including the GM. The head coach needs to communicate what he feels he needs and what kinds of players fit into his system but it's up to the scouts to identify those players.

We really can't do that in Dallas. We've got Harry and Lloyd heading the personnel.

 

[scottsp]

Some head coaches have the ability to evaluate talent as well or better than any scout, so I can't say I'd never want the head coach to have a lot of say in the war room.

But your premise is sound, IMO. More often that not the most informed opinions reside on the scouting side. Including the GM. The head coach needs to communicate what he feels he needs and what kinds of players fit into his system but it's up to the scouts to identify those players.

We really can't do that in Dallas. We've got Harry and Lloyd heading the personnel.

No doubt, I am simply not a fan of that particular model. For me, I prefer the scouts handling the lion's share of those duties with the coaches having some input. An NFL coach can't possibly have "the book" on college kids like someone who does that sort of thing year-round.

That said, I cannot argue that some coaches have that ability. Those are the exceptions and in those cases, they should have more say. The problem here is, Dave Campo to Wade Phillips seem to be given that sort of latitude.

 

[birdwells1]

Great post. We're an OL away from having a really potent offense and we have the ammo to pretty much complete that OL this offseason if we get aggressive.

With a stacked offense and Garrett in charge, I like our chances of out scoring people. Combine that with my complete faith that a Ryan will get the defense at least up to par, and I think we'd be a serious contender.

But I completely agree with all teams having holes. As a fan, you can get caught up in trying to build a flawless team by filling every possible need ASAP, but that just isn't going to happen nor is it needed to win anymore. The Giants have their flaws. So did the Patriots.

I agree, the 1999 Rams and the 2010 Saints offense's were so good that they dictated what the opposing offense was going to have to do to try to keep up with them. Their defenses were mediocre at best but when you're up 28-3 at the half you can make a team one dimensional.

I agree that we need to identify where we want to be elite and go about doing it, for the Giants it the Dline rushing the passer.

I've said before that this team has no identity or a way that they want to try to win the game, it time to establish that.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Some head coaches have the ability to evaluate talent as well or better than any scout, so I can't say I'd never want the head coach to have a lot of say in the war room.

But your premise is sound, IMO. More often that not the most informed opinions reside on the scouting side. Including the GM. The head coach needs to communicate what he feels he needs and what kinds of players fit into his system but it's up to the scouts to identify those players.

We really can't do that in Dallas. We've got Harry and Lloyd heading the personnel.

I would add that one added benefit of the OL strategy is that once you've got it in place, it's relatively easy and cheap to keep maintained. This is really my favorite part. If your strategy is based on having great skill players (which if you had to assign a strategy to what has been happening the last 16 years, that'd be it) then you've got a difficult, expensive task to make sure they're in constant supply. Once you've got a solid OL, you can draft in later rounds for depth, give those guys time to mature and plug them in as necessary. On occasion, you'll have to spend resources to grab guys in the first or second round but it shouldn't be that often. And when you do have to do it, these are relatively safe picks to make.

As a strategy, it has promise for the short, medium and long term.

On edit: this was meant as a reply to your reply to my post.

 

[Hostile]

Hos, let me ask you one thing and I'd like an honest answer. You may have already answered this in the past but I don't recall seeing it; do you think JG appreciated or approved of Jerry coming down to the sidelines to discuss gameday strategy during a live game with playoff implications?

He said it didn't bother him and I took him at his word.