Strahm on picks

[Mike]

Originally Posted by bckey

As was said on another bb that if your scouts are spending 192 days on the road you are not doing your job very efficiently.

I disagree with that. They need to be on the road, hitting all the schools talking to coaches and finding out about these players. They need more than film to evaluate. Sometimes the best info comes from the Strength coach and other coaches who interact with the players on a regular basis. (who works hard in the offseason, why practices banged up, who is a turd). The scouts need to get to know the coaches at these programs, develop friendships with them so they don't just feed the NFL team a line of BS about the players.

[HPF Bob]

I suppose there were no team captain, has their degree, three year starter guys with FBIs that, oh, can also play kick-ass free safety for us??

The problem with scouts is that they fall in love with players and vastly overrate what they can accomplish at the next level. Then they take that back to the war room at draft time and convince others they've found that diamond in the rough. That's how we get Seth Wand. That's how we get Jacoby Jones. That's how we get C.C. Brown.

And, yes, sometimes that diamond in the rough turns into Tom Brady or Terrell Davis but, a lot of times, they were oversold because of everyone trying to be the smartest guy in the room.

I hate to pick on Roy because I like him but you may recall his infatuation a few years ago with a guy we dubbed "Captain America" because we didn't want his name circulated but his name was Boomer Grigsby. And where is Grigsby today? Just training camp fodder.

I'm glad to find high-character guys and I'm not against looking for that diamond in the rough. What I hate is reaching for guys when we have needs that aren't getting addressed. How many WRs and TEs do we need when those positions on the roster are largely filled?

There's also another problem. High-character guys are often not hell-raiser guys and every team needs a few hell-raisers (particularly on defense) who are simply not going to take getting embarrassed and will do whatever is needed to do something about it.

The Texans too often have no response when another team cheap-shots them. We need a few guys who are going to hit back and I don't care if they were team captains in college or three-year starters. I care that they'll care enough to hit back when Schaub gets knee-capped after the whistle. I don't mean stupid fouls like Antwan Peek did. I'm talking about sending the message that we won't tolerate cheap shots and a team of choir boys is highly unlikely to do that.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

How many WRs and TEs do we need when those positions on the roster are largely filled?

Sorry about going off on a tangent but there is something that occurred to me about the TEs. Both years we've drafted TEs because they were purportedly the BPA and great value. Don't recall about last year but at least this year, I also noticed on Saturday that ESPN's BPA tracker that they were running (probably Kiper's rankings) was dominated by TEs. It seemed like when the 4th round started, something like 4 of the top 6 BPAs (at least according to Kiper) were TEs. So, that got me thinking. Since most teams only carry 2-3 TEs and it is generally seen as a lesser position, maybe teams routinely pass over TEs carrying 2nd and 3rd round grades. Maybe finding all these great value TEs in the 4th and 5th rounds isn't that unusual and these guys drop to there every year. If TEs do usually drop because it's just not a premium position, we have to recognize that or we're going to end up drafting TEs every year.

[Mike]

We suffered without OD in the line-up. He was a third down security blanket and was a threat in the middle of the field. We are more efficient with him, and if they think they needed to find his replacement/compliment in case he gets hurt or is not resigned then I am all for it. Sorry, but I am not sure Casey is the answer for when OD goes down. Dreesen filled in admirably, but he is not the same threat.

We are becoming a mature team...Drafting players where we have talent already. Good teams do that all the time.

[Bigtinylittle]

1. I think Shelly is in serious need of a nickname. Shelly sounds too nice. How about Shellcrusher!

2. Right now, I love all of these guys. But I loved Freye and Harrison, who are gone. And Okam and Bennett, who may soon be gone. To my credit, I never liked that low round QB pick that we made. He was so forgettable I can't even remember his name.

3. It looks to me to be a pretty safe bet that we will get 3 guys who will be immediately on the field either as starters or rotation guys. Add in a new return man, and I'd say that's not bad for a team which was drafting at the 20 slot.

[NBT]

I hear all the pros and cons you guys have put out, either for what Smith and the scouts did, or what they supposedly didn't do. I guess I will have to fall in with the group who think we got a damn good Draft. True the elusive FS evaded us, but if Wilson and one or two others stay reasonably healthy this year, we will be OK back there. Besides who is to say we won't luck into a veteran FS like Pollard was for us at SS.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

I hate to pick on Roy because I like him but you may recall his infatuation a few years ago with a guy we dubbed "Captain America" because we didn't want his name circulated but his name was Boomer Grigsby. And where is Grigsby today?

They tried to make him a FB for some reason. I'd like to have seen him play LB, but he was 'too short' for the position.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

The problem with scouts is that they fall in love with players and vastly overrate what they can accomplish at the next level. Then they take that back to the war room at draft time and convince others they've found that diamond in the rough.

The scouts will say that it's the coaches who tend to fall in love with players. The scouts claim they spend months evaluating a player and then after the season the coaches get involved and all of that goes out the window. Supposedly Tim Tebow is a perfect example of this as he stock increased late after he wowed the coaches in his interviews despite the holes in his game identified by the scouts.

[HPF Bob]

Good point, Warren.

[Bigtinylittle]

I agree. Good point.

[bckey]

Originally Posted by Mike

I disagree with that. They need to be on the road, hitting all the schools talking to coaches and finding out about these players. They need more than film to evaluate. Sometimes the best info comes from the Strength coach and other coaches who interact with the players on a regular basis. (who works hard in the offseason, why practices banged up, who is a turd). The scouts need to get to know the coaches at these programs, develop friendships with them so they don't just feed the NFL team a line of BS about the players.

As a former basketball scout I can tell you that the research and time-in gathering that research is half the battle. The call on scale and fitting into the chemistry and playbook are about 40% of it, and lastly trusting your gut to put your badge on the table for a guy that you have researched.

Sleeping in a hotel room for 192 days, in my professional opinion, is a guy that is extremely inefficient and is working harder not smarter.

Thanks for sharing.

posted by kaiser toro

Here is the link to the thread at TT on the same subject just for the purpose of letting you see another perspective.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71547

[Mike]

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. I respect his opinion, but don't think that is comparing apples to apples. The NFL has much more ground to cover just in terms of sheer volume of player numbers. With 224 draft picks and then average 10-15 UDFA's you have to simply see more players. The NBA is much less limited in the number of prospects. NFL scouts have to cover IAA, DII and even DIII kids.

I bet MLB scouts spend even more time than NFL scouts, because they have to cover the HS kids.