Savage on scouting and drafting

[usmccharles]

Great post as all have said

What has seemed clear is that there is a did-connect between the players we draft and the scheme we put them in. You would draft a Shaq like player to fit with the golden state warriors. I think too many coaches try to change a player to fit their system because they want to prove how smart they are and show they can make anything work.

[Coram_Nobis]

This thread, for me, ties in with the Crockett Gillmore thread.

I hated the Gillmore selection. A tight end whose Combine numbers were that of a nimble footed OL was not worhy of the 99th overall selection.

But why was he selected?
Gary Kubiak.

Kubiak's son was Gillmore's teammate. Kubiak watched Gillmore while watching his son.

Here's the story.

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/spo...vens/22020981/

This was an indication to me that coach's were shopping for the groceries. Maybe it was a “let's make the new guy feel comfortable and give him the toy he wants.” I would have been inclined to believe that had it not been for the 2013 purge and draft that included John Simon, a player so beloved by the OSU head coach that he named his son after him (or some such thing).

I can't help but think there's been more conflict on draft day between the scouts, who see and project talent, and the coaches (particularly the head coach) who want players with the character that will accept coaching and fight through adversity.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, something about John Harbaugh's coaching seems to cap the ceilings of young players, or maybe they are already capped by virtue of being deemed worthy of selection. In other words, we get get Gillmore because the coach wouldn’t accept Martavis Bryant and players similar to him.

[The Excellector]

Ideally, what you would want is for the coach to describe the type of role he needs filled, within his scheme and philosophy, and the General Manager finds that player. Before Harbaugh, that is what was happening. Also early in his tenure. However, as Bisciotti grew closer to Harbaugh and Harbaugh gained clout, the dynamic changed. It used to be that Ozzie was Emperor. He had his advisers and listened to what they all had to say. Ultimately, nonetheless, the decision came down to the Emperor. Now, I believe that Steve Bisciotti has been the root cause of the over-thinking, because he is the one who has enabled Harbaugh. To use a wrestling analogy, since there are a lot of wrestling fans on this board, there used to be a booker. Now, there's a booking committee.

[Shas]

I believe that Steve Bisciotti has been the root cause of the over-thinking, because he is the one who has enabled Harbaugh.s

Well, if so, sounds like he's seen the error in his ways. Let's hope.

[AmishlandRavenFan]

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.

Great post Shas! I doubt I'd get more out of it listening myself...thanks for the synopsis.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[The Fanatic]

Well, if so, sounds like he's seen the error in his ways. Let's hope.

Indeed...because if not he's setting Decosta up to fail .

[sawraven1]

This thread, for me, ties in with the Crockett Gillmore thread.

I hated the Gillmore selection. A tight end whose Combine numbers were that of a nimble footed OL was not worhy of the 99th overall selection.

But why was he selected?
Gary Kubiak.

Kubiak's son was Gillmore's teammate. Kubiak watched Gillmore while watching his son.

Here's the story.

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/spo...vens/22020981/

This was an indication to me that coach's were shopping for the groceries. Maybe it was a “let's make the new guy feel comfortable and give him the toy he wants.” I would have been inclined to believe that had it not been for the 2013 purge and draft that included John Simon, a player so beloved by the OSU head coach that he named his son after him (or some such thing).

I can't help but think there's been more conflict on draft day between the scouts, who see and project talent, and the coaches (particularly the head coach) who want players with the character that will accept coaching and fight through adversity.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, something about John Harbaugh's coaching seems to cap the ceilings of young players, or maybe they are already capped by virtue of being deemed worthy of selection. In other words, we get get Gillmore because the coach wouldn’t accept Martavis Bryant and players similar to him.

Wow, great pull on this article. I never heard this before. Now that explains why we took a guy in the 3rd round when most figured he would go undrafted or be a 6th or 7th rounder.

So now Gilmore who was a DE, switched to TE to appease Kubiak so he could draft him now is switching positions again?

This is why I have said for years Harbaugh and his crew has too much input on the draft. I love Kubiak and can give him credit for having eye for TE Talent, he has coached some good ones. But now he seems like a bust with the injuries and who knows if he gains 30 lbs and cant even play the position?

[Jamauler2066]

Ideally, what you would want is for the coach to describe the type of role he needs filled, within his scheme and philosophy, and the General Manager finds that player. Before Harbaugh, that is what was happening. Also early in his tenure. However, as Bisciotti grew closer to Harbaugh and Harbaugh gained clout, the dynamic changed. It used to be that Ozzie was Emperor. He had his advisers and listened to what they all had to say. Ultimately, nonetheless, the decision came down to the Emperor. Now, I believe that Steve Bisciotti has been the root cause of the over-thinking, because he is the one who has enabled Harbaugh. To use a wrestling analogy, since there are a lot of wrestling fans on this board, there used to be a booker. Now, there's a booking committee.

This exactly. You pretty much describe how I'd envision a successful relationship between the coaching staff and the GM. I assume that the moment the season ends, you all sit down, you decide that this sucked, this needs work, we need this and that and the meeting adjourns. At that point, the GM should have an idea what the coaches look for to fill those needs in a way that best fits their schemes. The coaching staff goes away and the next few months things are left in the hands of the GM and the scouts with as little background noise from the rest of the organization as possible. I think there has to be a certain amount of trust that when the DC says he prefers speedy LBs for his scheme, that the GM won't grab some lumbering tank. This seems to happen more than it ever should.

[rhapsody]

Ideally, what you would want is for the coach to describe the type of role he needs filled, within his scheme and philosophy, and the General Manager finds that player. Before Harbaugh, that is what was happening. Also early in his tenure. However, as Bisciotti grew closer to Harbaugh and Harbaugh gained clout, the dynamic changed. It used to be that Ozzie was Emperor. He had his advisers and listened to what they all had to say. Ultimately, nonetheless, the decision came down to the Emperor. Now, I believe that Steve Bisciotti has been the root cause of the over-thinking, because he is the one who has enabled Harbaugh. To use a wrestling analogy, since there are a lot of wrestling fans on this board, there used to be a booker. Now, there's a booking committee.

This is a fine statement. Harbaugh has indeed been Bisciotti's weakness. The winds have changed though - in some measure - if you consider Bisciotti's recent indirect comments on the draft process and his HC, and Tony's more direct, yet restrained, comments on Ozzie and Eric a couple of months ago. The GM is regaining more clear control again, it appears, and I hope.

But, as to the scouts and the selection process, something does not make sense to me. Clearly our recent bad drafts were 2013 and 2015. But in those years the heralded Ravens' personnel people who flocked to Philly were still with the Ravens. Bisciotti recently commented that maybe we shouldn't be relying on such young scouts as we apparently now have. But Ozzie and Eric fielded the spectacular 2016 (with unprecedented intelligent mining) draft and still promising 2017 draft - on the strength of those young replacement scouts. Either those young scouts are a lot better than they are getting credit for, or Ozzie and Eric are doing a tremendous job by themselves.

[JimZipCode]

Phil said that in his experience a lot of coaches are really, really bad at player evaluation, but ...

Doesn't that seem odd? I wouldn't think that coaches – well, head coaches – could get to their positions while being bad at film evals off film.

Maybe he's referring to the difference between how a guy is playing now, vs how his development projects at the next level?

[Coram_Nobis]

Doesn't that seem odd? I wouldn't think that coaches – well, head coaches – could get to their positions while being bad at film evals off film.

Maybe he's referring to the difference between how a guy is playing now, vs how his development projects at the next level?

I've wondered if it’s a chasm between knowing more and knowing different.

Presumably anyone with eyes can see if a player is fast, or if he has a good punch, or if he can bend at the knees. Do scouts know more because they've had the time to see bad bend 1,2,3 while coaches only have the time to see bad bend 1 and thus dismiss 2 and 3 as correctible with coaching? Thus scouts know more.

Or, do scouts know that the bad bend is because he was nursing a secret injury. A source on campus reveals the secret. Thus, scouts know different, know better.

If I were a scout I think I would be insulted if a coach claimed to have the better evaluation. After all, it's what I'm doing for a living, 60 hours per week. The part-time evaluator, the coach, should have the onus of convincing the GM that the scout is wrong. Burden of production, and burden of persuasion should be on the coach.

[JimZipCode]

If I were a scout I think I would be insulted if a coach claimed to have the better evaluation. After all, it's what I'm doing for a living, 60 hours per week. The part-time evaluator, the coach...

Coaches are not exactly "part time". They're looking at film every week, both in-season and training camp. Maybe not COLLEGE players until the offseason; but they've been watching football film their whole professional lives.

I can easily understand that some would be better at it than others. But that they as a class tend to be bad at it - that's odd.