The true mark of quality draft evaluators is not necessarily their “hit rate”. The general success of draft projections in itself is an inexact science; each and every person who looks at players does so through their own unique scope of valued traits and without the context of a system/philosophical structure that can be found in NFL front offices. To boot, player evaluation done prior to the draft does not take into context the landing spot of players, which can drastically change their projection when factoring in what it is they will be asked to do throughout the life of their rookie contract and potentially beyond. When these factors are all wrapped together with the fact that the outside world is lacking in a number of notable factors (medicals, player personality/background, etc.) and expecting external draft evaluators to hit on a very high percentage of their evaluations is a difficult mentality to embrace.
Rather, the continued pursuit of perfection and evolution of one’s own process is the mark that all should strive to covet. Diagnosing feedback and processing new information as a means of altering one’s process for the better is something that actually IS under our control as outside individuals. The moment one assumes they have the perfect system or there is nothing left to learn, all is lost. The wealth of quality content and information paired with the unique outputs and results of each and every draft and subsequent season(s) is enough to provide endless lessons and feedback for us all. With that in mind, I would like to share some of the more notable lessons I’ve learned in the past calendar year which have manifested themselves in my approach to draft evaluation.
1. Expand your vocabulary. The ability to properly identify traits and process play responsibility/results is paramount but there is skill in communicating those observations concisely. For example, a phrase I frequently used throughout the 2014 NFL Draft process in terms to open field tackles was “break down in space”. Adequate? Sure. But doesn’t the term “come to balance” paint a more effective picture in your mind? (Note: I first heard of ‘come to balance’ watching John Owning speak with Matt Waldman on the RSP Film Room: Owamagbe Odighizuwa and I believe I’ve seen it tied to Wade Phillips’ contributions to The Scouting Academy) As someone who prefers to be called a scout rather than a writer, the constant influx of new vocabulary (“stack and shed”, “come to balance”, “bucket step”, “pressing the sideline”, “climb the pocket”, “bend the edge”, etc.) is a valuable and worthwhile effort to pursue. The flow of player summaries is much smoother when you take 3-4 words to say what you’re trying to illustrate rather than 2-3 sentences.
2. Remove hard barriers to player evaluation. Let’s call this one my own personal ‘Mike Evans Rule’. (I swung and missed badly on Evans in 2014; feeling his lack of route versatility and stiffness would create a notable lag in transition time to the NFL. Oops!) Players will have flaws. All of them. But focusing on them incessantly will prove to be a red herring when the subsequent question of “where does he win” (Thank you, Mr. Josh Norris) will provide just as much context but without the negativity. Prospects who are raw/undeveloped as players but yet illustrate a high end trait which should translate to the next level immediately should not be regarded as complete projects or Day 3 talents but rather coveted for what they CAN provide immediately (and subsequently what they can eventually be is an added bonus).
3. Group-think versus Group Study. Group-think, to me, is one of the most damaging aspects of the draft community online. Someone says a player is great, provides (in most cases) a well educated and supported argument as to why and suddenly said opinion is cold, hard fact. The evaluation process has enough bias in it without having other people’s opinions creep in to influence your own (whether those biases are conscious or subconscious, make no mistake they are very real) and muddle things even more. I am often credited (and chastised) for my board being “unconventional”, “unique”, etc. but in reality, I don’t read another writer/draftnik/evaluator’s player rankings or boards until I’m finished with my complete body of work. I value the process being MINE, not someone else’s.
With that said, there is significant value to be found in group film studies. Something I only begun to engage in this past winter, group study allows for various inputs on every play, every outcome. Perhaps someone can point out a trend or tell that you missed your first time through. Of course, these engagements should be met with dialogue and discussed appropriately but group study is a viable and valuable resource if conducted with people you trust and will help you to maximize the efficiency of your film work.
4. Be clear with your objective and state it regularly. When boards and rankings are changing in the media this late in the game, it’s due to information being pumped. I have never wavered from my original goal to evaluate the players, rather than forecast the draft. I am not and do not pretend to be a reporter or a NFL insider. I have minimal league contacts and those I do have I have never asked for “what they’re thinking” information to pump out. I try to stay in my lane and I’ve found it to be increasingly important for me to regularly state as such. Without doing so, I will frequently get questioned or called out for player rankings and lectured on how “Jake Fisher won’t be the first Tackle taken this year”. I’m not suggesting that he will…I’m suggesting that he SHOULD, though! Communicate your goal and remove gray area from your work to provide readers with as much context as possible.
5. Utilize our endless resources every day. The online draft community, or #DraftTwitter, catches a lot of flak at times: impulsive and quick to overreact, condescending, negative and of course the dreaded “Has never worked in the NFL before, so can’t possibly have any context of value”. But there are an endless supply of resources available to us all that you’re only doing yourself a disservice to by not actively consuming and engaging. Draftbreakdown.com’s very own team of Bryan Perez, Luke Easterling, Joe Marino, John Owning, Justin Higdon, the ENTIRE video team, etc. are all extremely intelligent and very active on social networking. Professionals such as Josh Norris, Dane Brugler, Lance Zierlein are all well versed with the process and connected to the “beat of the league” to provide information of value (see Dane’s input of RB Jay Ajayi’s medicals this past week for all the evidence you need.) B/R has an endless haul of valuable social media accounts to provide context. Matt Waldman’s RSP Film Room may be the best damn thing running out there. Dan Hatman on Twitter provides excellent perspective from an inside angle and the services he provides have been given nothing but rave reviews from all I know who have used them. Matt Harmon’s Reception Perception added unparalleled context to Wide Receivers and provides depth that will only continue to grow as he continues to grow his sample size. Emory Hunt’s Football Gameplan. James Light’s unparalleled film study and X’s and O’s collection. Field Yates’ daily scouting terms. There are many, many more who are out there. Read. Learn. Read more. There is a wealth of knowledge and we are arguably in the golden age of football information to the public eye because of it. If you find a new link, click on it. It may not tell you anything you don’t already know. But maybe it does. And the hunt for knowledge is just as rewarding as the hunt for the next blue chip prospect when you come across something (or someone) new.