Savage on scouting and drafting

[Shas]

I've noticed that Phil Savage's reputation around here isn't exactly as lofty as it once was--and there have been rumors he didn't leave the Ravens in good standing either.

Still, I find him interesting to listen to. And you can't deny that he's well connected with college football as a radio analyst for Alabama football, and as director of the Senior Bowl.

With that in mind, you may want to listen in on his appearance on the b-mo-opinioniated podcast, with Jason LaCanfora and Jerry Coleman. Phil's segment starts 38-minutes into the show, although they touch on some other Ravens issues prior to that, if you care to hear it all (and their usual, incessant criticism of everything happening in Baltimore sports).

A couple things stood out to me in the interview. Being close to Alabama, Phil was asked if he was surprised the Ravens didn't get more production out of Tim Williams. Phil's answer is no, Williams was slow to figure things out at Alabama too, and once it clicked, he was dominant. Phil expressed that he expects Williams to show a lot more this year (players typically do in their second year, particularly along the d line)...and if he doesn't, then yeah, they're in trouble with this pick. Judon is mentioned as a guy who was a productive pass rusher--and we all know he didn't dominate from day one.

A related question was about the zero sacks, not only from Williams, but Kafusi, Wormley, Correa, and Bowser too. Savage didn't say it, but to me, you could apply the same comment about rookie learning curve here, and there is an injury issue to throw in, too.

Savage, while not answering it directly, did transition to a discussion about how draft decisions are made. He related it back to when he took the job in Cleveland and tried to duplicate the democratic process he learned under Ozzie, where many opinions are shared before the GM makes the final call.

Phil admitted he allowed too many different voices in the room and regretted how he ran things in Cleveland. He stated his belief that teams now have too many people involved in player evaluation and all the opinions put forth are impossible to break down into a coherent decision.

While he admitted he no longer knows how things work in Baltimore, he definitely implied too many voices in the draft room may be an issue for the Ravens. He talked about how in his days with the team Brian Billick was interested in the draft, but not at all focused on it--not nearly as much as he was motivating people and gameplanning. Phil said that in his experience a lot of coaches are really, really bad at player evaluation, but they won't admit it, and they can really screw up a draft. He cited former D-line coach Mike Smith at being a rare exception--Smith apparently was very good at evaluating players on film. Almost the exception that proves the rule.

This all brings us back to a topic that was hinted at here a month or so ago. And that's the question of whether the Ravens decline in quality drafts can be attributed to John Harbaugh and perhaps some of his coaches asserting themselves too vociferously in the process of setting up the draft board--a situation that Savage, having lived it, described as being very emotionally charged and difficult to navigate. One suggestion proffered on this board is that Ozzie was worn down by all this and didn't put his foot down hard enough in recent years, giving in to John's wishes.

Steve Bisciotti seemed to be hinting at some of this when laid-out the theory that some of the Ravens draft misses, particularly in the early rounds of recent drafts, have been due to having too many voices involved in making the decisions--too much over-analysis.

That's pretty much in line with what Savage is talking about in this podcast interview. You could argue that "over analysis" refers to relying on character evaluation rather than different people weighing in on player evaluation. But when he specifically refers to "too many voices" it's hard not to conclude it has been coaching staff voices that need to be toned down (and in a way, maybe this is really the same issue if you can imagine Harbaugh's voice chiming in, lobbying for "mighty men" who have certain character traits...faith, perhaps. All just speculation on my part here).

I'm picturing now how the meeting in Jupiter went as Bisciotti pressed his guys on this issue of missing on high draft picks. I can guess that it could have been a fairly candid, heated bit of finger pointing...front office personnel pointing at members of the coaching staff that might have "stood on the table" for some of the guys the scouts didn't particularly like and who ended up being less than stellar.

If you can picture that, you can easily imagine how Bisciotti came away from that retreat convinced that he has to restore the decision making back to his GM and limit the amount of influence his coaches have over the draft. Which is essentially what he said at the State Of presser.

A related question some of us may have is whether Ozzie's retirement at the end of this season was truly planned-for five years ago...or whether Bisciotti determined that Ozzie is no longer willing to fight for what the scouts are telling him, so maybe now is the time to hand things over to Eric, with a renewed commitment (edict?) to restore the old process that Phil Savage learned under.

Maybe I'm being overly suspicious. Let's just say that all the statements about Dean Pee's retirement, and his reasons for quickly "un-retiring" don't exactly line up. If the team pushed Pees out "honorably" in this way, could they have similarly protected Ozzie's reputation by suggesting he'd make a much better scout, and telling the public the move has nothing to do with recent draft misses?

Savage was asked whether we should expect a different, more modern approach under Eric.

He didn't exactly answer that.

But it did lead to an interesting observation as to whether Bisciotti's re-commitment to old-school Ravens-style football can work in today's NFL. Savage's view is if you are going to rely on a dominate defense, you need to have a dominate player at all eleven positions...plus a dominant special teams to carry a mediocre offense. Whereas with today's rules franchise quarterback with a couple playmakers can carry an entire team. I'm not sure it's as dramatic as all that, but certainly it's interesting to think about it as we try to understand in what direction the team may be headed, and whether the move to a more youthful GM signals an attempt to better align the team with modern realities while hoping to hold on some of the culture the built their reputation on.

[Bhcforlife]

Really great post.

I'm just going to comment on the last paragraph. I don't think he's correct in saying you need a dominant player at all 11 positions to win with defense. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, what you need is a dominant pass rusher or two, and a dominant CB. You need a Von Miller, maybe a DeMarcus Ware, and you need an Aqib Talib. Of course, you can't have subpar players at all the other positions but if you have those pieces, it goes a long way. You look at the great defensive SB teams since 2000...we had McCrary and Boulware, Bucs had Rice and Sapp, if you want to include the Steelers even though they were a pretty balanced team, they had Harrison, the Seahawks with Avril and Bennett, and of course the Broncos I already mentioned. And other than the Steelers, all those teams had really good CB play from one or both of the starting spots as well. That's where I think the Ravens went wrong. You add a legit pass rusher to the roster we had last season and I think the outcome is a lot different.

[Jsmoove]

Great great great Post Shas,

To follwo up on Bhc I agree but i do think you have to have at least one dominant player at each position on the defense to make it something special. On all our great defenses through out the years we had at least one dominant player at every position sometimes even more.

I know most folks here don't care for Savage anymore and he hasn't done anything since leaving this team, but when he was here we can't deny that Savage and Ozzie worked.

[Jfoh]

You don't need 11 great players but you do need one or more great players at each of the three levels. Suggs on the line, Ray Lewis at lb and Ed Reed at safety is a classic example. You had a top level player, a on field coach at each level who could direct everyone at that level to be in exactly the right place at the right time. Plus they could adjust on the fly.

[unbelievable]

Great post.

Makes you wonder what's truly been going on behind the scenes these last couple years.

[GOTA]

Very interesting shas.

I've heard a lot of stories about different coaches and their involvement in the draft.

John Fox would write down exactly the type of players he wanted for every position but he would never evaluate college players. He was so removed that when the Bears traded up and drafted Trubisky that past year, Fox heard about it only after the deal was made. He didn't even know it was an option.

Belichick has a very detailed system that he sticks to. Every draft decision goes through him and even who they pick up as undrafted free agents. He demands lots of information but no one talks him into any pick.

Pete Carroll makes the decisions but trusts hist front office. He admits he really didn't want Russell Wilson but his GM pushed so hard and was so emphatic about making that pick that Pete went with him. He said that's why John Schnieder has that job. He believes more in his people than his own gut.

Bill Parcells loved evaluating college players. A lot of what Belichick does started with him. Parcells was the only coach of the Cowboys under Jerry outside of Jimmy Johnson to be allowed to make personnel decisions.

Bill Walsh was also involved in every aspect of personnel. When he drafted Jerry Rice everyone thought he was nuts trading up to get a player from a nothing school in round 1. He had seen Rice on TV when he was stuck in a hotel room and knew he had to draft him.

Mike Zimmer loves veterans but just can't see how college players will do in the pros. He's heavily involved in the free agent signings but another guy who wants a type as opposed to specific prospects in the draft.

These are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. What it tells me is that there are all sorts of ways for head coaches to manage their team. Some just like to coach and others want to manage every aspect. YMMV

[BcRaven]

I've heard a lot of stories about different coaches and their involvement in the draft.

Bill Parcells loved evaluating college players. A lot of what Belichick does started with him. Parcells was the only coach of the Cowboys under Jerry outside of Jimmy Johnson to be allowed to make personnel decisions.

Parcells quote, "If they want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries" tells his feeling about draft involvement... Bc

[The Excellector]

This is a thoroughly intriguing thread Shaslers.

I feel that, while someone may not have had the best resume at their job, much can still be learned from them if they are willing to be candid about their weaknesses and short-comings. Savage may not have done much once he left, but he also gives reasons why. The point about coaches not being honest with themselves about their porous player evaluation skills is plausible. Coaches are stubborn. They often try to keep players in their proper place, but don't like taking their own medicine. I could definitely see that in John Harbaugh.

The other comment I found interesting was about the defense. While needing eleven great players may have been hyperbole, I don't believe that it is far off from the truth. The 2015 Broncos were more than Ware, Miller and Talib. The 2013 Seahawks almost had a great player at every single position. Off the top of my head, they had Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Bobby Wagner, Kam Chancellor, Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman.

I've always thought about the argument that it's easier to build a defense. In today's game, I'm not sure that's true. Now, it's certainly not a widespread argument, but one I've heard. I will say that it is harder to go against the grain of the rules. Once upon a time, it was harder to build the offense, because the rules favored the defense. Many top offenses were annihilated by great defenses. Today, a great defense can still dominate a great offense. However, due to the rule changes, it's harder to build that defense to begin with. That's the problem with that approach.

[GOTA]

Parcells quote, "If they want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries" tells his feeling about draft involvement... Bc

Yes. That was his famous quote that he gave because he was pissed about George Young making the personnel decisions. That was a constant battle between those 2.

[Dade]

Great post Shas. I think it's pretty clear to everyone now that Harbs is heavily involved in the draft. Ozzie may still have final say but Harbs has a lot of influence in the decision. Harbuagh isn't a player evaluator or a X's and O's guy, he should stick to motivating the players. Something he is very good.

[srobert96]

To me there are two issues going on with the Ravens when it comes to defensive misses. 1. Coaching philosophy. We have had a very non aggressive approach to defense. Our approach to rushing the QB lacks creativity. The coaches are not putting players in a position to succeed. 2. Scouts and Front Office are not on the same page. The Front office drafts a player with a position in mind and the coaching staff does not agree with it.

I am not a football analysis guru but it feels as though our defensive approach for the front seven is more of a read and react. No your responsibility see what the offense does and that dictates what you do. It is less about being disruptive and dictating what the offense is going to do. We basically slow down players for the first three years because we don't put them in a position to use their athletic ability to make things happen. Basically it is a defense that caters to veterans because young guys are being asked to think way too much.

[HotInHere]

Great post Shas. I listened that podcast yesterday and had many of those same thoughts. Phil has always been great to listen to. Talent evaluation is tricky, and it's one of those things the everyone thinks they can do. Hell, everyone on THIS BOARD thinks they can evaluate talent. And sometimes, they will be right and somebody who is great at it and does it for a living will be wrong. (Which, I guess, is exactly why everybody thinks they can do it.)

But it's all about *consistency.* How do you know who you can trust in evaluations? Example: 'Position Coach X' correctly assessed 'Prospect Y' at the draft last year as an absolute beast. We didn't take Prospect Y and now he's a stud for someone else. So do we listen to Position Coach X this year? Or was he just lucky?

Now multiply that problem times an entire coaching staff and you can see why we are hearing things coming out of the Castle about "too many voices" and "over-analyzing."