Date Archives May 2011

Losing Your Football Innocence

0 Comments read Matt Waldman
Photo by Jill Greenspeth.

Readers often ask me for advice on how to watch football with a more critical eye. My answers are below, but if you take my advice you’ll lose your football innocence.

Let’s dispense with the obvious:

You love football.

I love football.

We wouldn’t be interacting on this blog if we didn’t.

I’m stating these facts because, in lieu of what I’m about to share, you may forget that I love football. And that’s a shame.

You’ll probably never know how much I love football. It was as regular a part of my day as brushing my teeth during my youth in Cleveland, Ohio and Atlanta, Georgia. Backyards. Playgrounds. Practice fields.  Summer camps. Streets. Even hallways of apartment complexes.

As a latch-key kid, I loved football so much that I used to prepare for my truancy from elementary school with “pre-skip” visits to the library. There I would check out books featuring the likes of Red Grange, George Halas, the T-formation, Gale Sayers, Deacon Jones,  Sam Huff, Jim Brown, and Bronko Nagurski.  I’d then spend my “day off” reading out loud to the bewildered family parakeet.

Yes, I had my own special bus…

I think you need to know this about me in light of the fact that for the person interested in film study my advice seems dour. The first thought that comes to mind: Say goodbye to a normal life.

There is a reason football people call film study grinding tape. When done well, it’s a methodical, unrelenting process that ultimately turns into a job. Granted, it’s often a fun job, but it’s still work.

I have frequently spent as many as eight hours studying a single player in one game – and that includes fast forwarding through plays where he’s not on the field. I realize most of you aren’t that serious about studying film and you don’t need to make that kind of commitment to developing a more critical eye. However, you do have to be willing to give up some of your football innocence.

At first, you might not enjoy taking a sober look at the game. However, the deeper appreciation gained is worth the effort. I make my share of mistakes and I’m sure there are experienced scouts or draft analysts who would disagree with some of the points I’m about to share. But I’m sharing part of my path and what has been valuable to me.

10 things you can do to become a more critical viewer:

1. Watch football alone: Football is a great outlet to let off some steam and bond with friends and family. However, what you’ll be doing requires more focus than what the average fan is going to enjoy. Trust me.

If you want to develop a more critical eye you need to be willing to set aside a game to watch by yourself on a regular basis. While watching games with an experienced tape grinder can be helpful, there is no substitute for logging those hours on your own road to self-discovery.

2. Become a student, not a fan: You have to temporarily put aside your game day habits as a fan. I’m not telling you to abandon watching football for the sheer enjoyment of it. However, you have to have the mindset that this is homework.

Set aside time where you’ll have minimal interruptions. Although most don’t have  an eight-hour block to watch an entire game in one sitting, making the commitment to take as much time as needed to break down and understand what you’re seeing is vital.  If it takes you two weeks to finish studying a facet of a game (be it a player or a unit of a team) that’s okay. It’s the journey that’s important.

3. Pick a player, any player: In the beginning, focus your attention on one player. Pick a position that you really enjoy watching. I suggest the first group of players you study are NFL veterans renown for their technique because they are the standard setters for developing a more critical eye (see point No. 8).

Since the “tape” you’ll be using is a televised game and not coaches tape, it will be more difficult to examine certain aspects of wide receiver, safety, and quarterback play on a consistent basis. Although I believe there are times where the televised games actually offer better details of specific techniques that you need to see from these positions, the coaches tape’s end zone view provides a better macro view of the X’s and O’s.

That said, nearly all of my evaluations are based on recordings of televised games and me and many of my peers have delivered solid analysis.  What you’re going to discover is that although your primary focus is on one player you’re going to develop a greater awareness of what several other players on the field are doing. Over time you’re going to develop an enhanced understanding of the game.

4. Wear out these three remote buttons:  l l,  <<, & >> : Pause, rewind, and better yet, the combo of pausing and using frame-by-frame fast forward in slow motion will be your best friends.  These symbols on my six-year-old remote are worn off the buttons.

I suggest you begin studying by watching every play at least three times:

  • In real time.
  • In slow motion. Use frame-by-frame rewind and fast forward as often as needed to see everything that the player you’re studying is doing, what his teammates are doing in support, and how his opponents are acting or reacting to the player you’re studying.
  • Watch the play again in real time.

Take your time with the slow-motion viewing. Don’t regard it as some form of training wheels to help you eventually notice more in real time. It might be an indirect benefit, but it isn’t the goal.

The slow-motion viewing helps you see keys to a player’s motivation: where is he looking, what are his teammates doing to set him up for success or failure, and how that player and his opponents act or react to each others’ decisions.

5. Sometimes you’re going to discover more questions than answers: It’s okay if you finish watching a series of plays or a performance of a player and you feel like you have more questions than when you began. That’s a good sign.  It means you’re figuring out what you specifically need to learn.

NFL Films Producer and avid film watcher, Greg Cosell has the luxury of calling NFL coaches to ask questions about plays, and he does so regularly. If a guy who has watched the film for 30-plus years, 5 days a week has moments with more questions than answers after watching the film, then you’re in good company.

6. Take notes: Whether it’s a laptop,  an iPad, a spiral bound notebook, or to-go napkins from the barbeque joint down the street, take notes. Organize those notes into sections for questions, a place to diagram plays, and an area to describe examples of good technique. You can always use the glossary from the Rookie Scouting Portfolios.  I break down in detail what I’m using to evaluate skill position prospects.

In lieu of the RSP, here are some very basic, common sense things that you should be watching to learn more about technique:

  • How a player uses his hands.
  • How a player uses his feet.
  • How a player uses his shoulders and upper body.
  • How a player uses his knees.
  • The angle a player bends when engaging an opponent.

As for getting your questions answered, additional film study, reading, and listening to experienced NFL players (see below) talk about technique or strategy are good options.

7. Listen to ex-players: There is a great deal you can learn about the game from ex-players analyzing tape or discussing techniques and concepts of their position. I have learned a ton just from watching pregame shows. Who better to learn from than former NFL starters – many with Pro Bowls on their resume?

The way Steve Young once described how footwork bridges the mental and physical sides of football was one of the more insightful pointers I’ve seen. Cris Carter made a great presentation on the way receivers should use their hands. Merrill Hoge’s film break downs of blocking schemes on running plays are frequently excellent.

If you’re here I probably don’t have to mention this, but I will just in case someone referred you here: Don’t fall into the trap of letting an ex-player’s personality, speech, or other on-air tendencies annoy you. There are definitely personalities I enjoy watching more than others, but what I’m seeking is information. Why should I discard gems from knowledgeable players because they have difficulty enunciating a word correctly or they have incorrect grammar?

Remember, most politicians have great enunciation and grammar and we’re still buying what they’re selling even when we know we shouldn’t.

8. The NFL is the standard you use to study college players: This is perhaps the most important of concepts you need to remember. If you want to really become more observant of what separates a good college player from a good NFL prospect, you need to study NFL players and use their techniques as the standard to evaluate college players. You’re going to discover that the better NFL veterans are far more consistent executing techniques on plays with smaller margins for error than their college counterparts.

Top NFL quarterbacks operate more consistently and productively from a tighter pocket. Top NFL running backs display better judgment with when to bounce a play outside and when to get the pads down and grind out the play inside as designed. And top NFL receivers are far more precise with their footwork and more skilled at turning and cutting at top speed without tipping off a change of direction.

Listen to who the ex-players-turned-analysts say are the best NFL players in the game and why. Then take those reasons and study those players until you can apply that standard to another player. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have great footwork and presence in the pocket. That’s the standard you should be using to judge the development of other college quarterbacks.

I have had the pleasure to speak with Greg Cosell a couple of times at length and each time we’ve talked (with years going by in between), he remains astonished that evaluators of college players aren’t required to study NFL players. One would think this is how scouts should calibrate their observation techniques. If I ran a scouting department, I would require each scout to have a laptop or iPad with film highlights of specific players who our organization believes set the standard at every position when it comes to proper technique.

9. Ignore most statistics:  If you’re studying a player’s technique, execution of the game plan, decision-making, and athleticism, most stats are not only useless but misleading—at least until you’ve taken the time to study the player’s film. Once you have, data can help clarify what you’ve seen—especially a player speed, acceleration, quickness, and strength.

The only stats I seek from a box score before I sit down to study a player’s performance are those that show enough opportunities to get a strong sample size (attempts and targets/catches).  There are many stats linked to players that are more indicative of how well the team executed, rather than the player.

A perfect example is a running back I once saw who averaged less than two yards per carry. If gave any real weight to his stats, this player sucked. However,  I looked solely at technique and because I did,  I graded him as a future NFL starter.

One of his games that I studied was against a national championship-caliber defense.  His opponents were far more athletic than his offensive line. In fact, all but seven players on the entire roster of the opposition could bench press as much,  if not more,  than all but the strongest offensive lineman on this runner’s team.

Although this runner had as poor of a statistical game as one can imagine, his technique attempts to execute the game plan, decision-making, and athleticism was strong. In three NFL seasons, that player has started all 48 regular season games; averaged four yards per carry behind a mediocre offensive line; and has at least 50 catches and 1400 yards from scrimmage each year. That player is Matt Forte.

In contrast, I’ve seen players compile great stats, yet lack the skills to even come close to approaching the standards we see in the pros. While I will display game stats for each player’s game that I study, it’s just to provide the reader with another layer of context. A player with great stats but sub-par skills could indicate he’s a great fit for his college team due to the system or his athleticism. A player with sub-par stats but great skills could be a fine performer surrounded by lesser talent.

10. Have a slice of humble pie: It’s easy to tell the difference between the average football fan and the guy who grinds tape. The average fan behaves as if he’s a football genius. The average tape grinder knows he’s a football idiot. He also can explain why in great detail.

Part of adopting a student mindset is having the willingness to accept that you’ll be wrong a lot. Learning requires the ability to accept your errors.

I recently wrote an article about this topic. The subject was an accounting professor whose award-winning research was recently cited in Forbes. Her study dealt with the concept of cognitive dissonance in investing.

What she discovered is that people tend to make emotional choices once they commit to a decision. Moreover, it doesn’t matter if they are an expert in their field. If they’ve taken a stance, they defend that stance even if presented with evidence to the contrary.

In fact, they will seek analysis from sources that aren’t even as credible as the information presented to them in order to get validation that they made a good choice,  even if the result eventually says otherwise.

In essence, we stand by our decisions to placate our egos because it’s often more important for us to be perceived as experts than behave like them. The sad, but comical thing about this is that we all do it if we make a decision before we fully weigh the evidence. I have no problem admitting I do it. The only real cure for this problem is having insight – and that’s a topic for another time…

Hopefully, this will help you shed your football-genius innocence and become a student of the game.

Speed In Context

0 Comments read Matt Waldman

Jerry Rice is a perfect example of speed in the proper context. 

Speed (noun, verb, sped or speed·ed, speed·ing. –noun)

1. rapidity in moving, going, traveling, proceeding, or performing; swiftness; celerity: the speed of light;the speed of sound…

6. Slang . a stimulating drug, as caffeine, ephedrine, or especially methamphetamine or amphetamine.

Legendary NFL owner Al Davis coined the phrase Speed Kills. Because the long-term demise of the Oakland Raiders can be attributed in part of Davis’ addiction to speed over anything else, there’s no shortage of irony in his statement. However, Davis is just one of many in the NFL whose beliefs and actions indicate that they are intoxicated by speed. It has become the football equivalent of beer goggles.

I have been studying college and NFL games 60 hours a week, 8 months a year since 2005 and one of the things I have learned is that speed should not be regarded solely as a physical attribute. The NFL may be one of the most physical games in the world, but the strategic side of the game beyond the quarterback position is overlooked more often than it should.

NFL players have to be strong at processing information quickly. They have to understand the roles of their teammates, the tendencies of their opponents, and how to anticipate what is going to happen before the play even begins. They also have to have strong technique that they can execute without thinking about it. There is still a far greater variation physical talent in college football than in the NFL and this is why college teams can dominate with far simpler schemes. Pro football has very little variation in physical talent, which is why a back like Reggie Bush cannot make the same kinds of reversal of field runs with success with the Saints that he did at Southern Cal.

Because the strength, speed, and agility gap is so much narrower in the NFL, anticipation, precision, and consistency of technique becomes vital. Take an RB with 4.4 speed in a workout and put him in a situation where he doesn’t have the blocking scheme, offensive verbiage, audibles, or defensive tendencies under his fingers, and he’s going to hesitate because he’s thinking rather than reacting. You can reasonably add between 0.2-1 seconds of hesitation time to that 4.4 workout speed and what you get is a fast player who plays slow. The less knowledgeable and confident a player is with his role the more likely this hesitation time has a compounding effect on his quickness and accuracy of execution and the overall effectiveness of his teammates relying on him.

In contrast, a player with strong technique, knowledge of his role, and knowledge of his opponent has little to no hesitation in his execution. This is why there are numerous examples of RBs or WRs with 4.6 speed who can make big plays. NFL Quarterbacks talk about the game “slowing down” after they accumulate a better understanding of the demands of the position in the pros. However, the game doesn’t really slow down, their reaction time speeds up because the confusion with the playbook, technique, and defensive schemes are no longer creating hesitation. This is no different with any other position.

Speed is not just a number on a stopwatch. Imbibe those times with moderation.

Evaluating the Evaluator

0 Comments read Matt Waldman

With its vast knowledge of strategy and technique and a wealth of  financial resources at their disposal, NFL organizations not only have the potential to discover if that linebacker prospect fits their scheme, but they can also find out what he did with that blue pencil sharpener in Mrs. Beam’s second grade social studies class. So why do they still have a huge opportunity to improve as evaluators of talent? The answer is in the process.

During his 2011 NFL Draft Confidential special that aired on ESPN,  Bill Parcells describes football as a “talent-acquisition” industry.  And during the show’s next 90 minutes, Parcells provides great insights into the scouting process, how it generates a draft board, and its economic impact on the game.

But what got my attention as a former operations manager and director of a service sector business is the issues that NFL teams face to do consistent, accurate, and quality work.

One of the things I took away from the show is that the NFL has a lot in common with other businesses – especially those in the service and manufacturing sectors.

As with other industries, the word tenure isn’t a common way to describe jobs in the NFL. General managers, coaches, and personnel feel tremendous pressure to win now, which can lead to a results-driven mentality.

This is perfectly natural. However during those long hours of work in an urgent quest to attain these results, it’s difficult for an organization to feel the same urgency to scrutinize its processes that are in use to reach its goals.

The Inexact Science of Evaluation

During the ESPN special, Parcells repeatedly described talent evaluation as an “inexact science.” Once again, this is no different than the service and manufacturing industries where statistics are essential to measure productivity.

But what makes talent evaluation an inexact science is the fact that statistics cannot provide a full or accurate measure of an individual’s performance. Nor can statistics alone gauge talent or project future performance.

Because measuring and projecting individual performance deals with both objective and subjective criteria, it is vitally important that there is a strong methodology in place to ensure that evaluators are consistent with their approach to the work. Many service and manufacturing businesses have figured this out by embracing an approach that I call “quality-driven processes.”

These processes not only generate results that are more accurate and productive, but the structure of the process itself also helps these businesses get better at what they do with each passing year while saving money.

Don’t Blame The Evaluators, Focus on The Process

Based on the processes Parcells explained in this show, as well as conversations I have had with former scouts, I believe that as knowledgeable as teams are about the game, they lack of a high-quality, well-defined evaluation process. The current process isn’t designed to help them continuously improve and I think it is a reason why NFL teams frequently contribute to their own scouting mistakes.

Exhibit one is the NFL’s grading system. Most teams use a grading system that inherently create a high level of variability. And when individual evaluators have a different understanding of how a system is supposed to work because the system isn’t well-defined, differences of opinion among evaluators can be avoided.

Here is the basic system that most NFL teams use. There will be differences in the range of numbers, but this is essentially it.

Typical NFL Prospect Grading Scale

  • 9.00 –  A player for the ages (Jim Brown).
  • 8.00-8.99 – A perennial All-Pro.
  • 7.50 – 7.99 – Future All-Pro.
  • 7.00-7.49 – Pro-Bowl-caliber potential.
  • 6.50-6.99 – First-round-caliber player with Pro Bowl potential.  
  • 6.00-6.49 – Potential to become a quality NFL starter.
  •  5.50-5.99 – Potential starter and likely first-day pick.
  • 5.10-5.49 – Potential to make an NFL roster and contribute.
  • 5.01-5.09 – Has a better than 50/50 chance to make a roster.
  • 5.00 – Has an even chance to make a roster.
  • 4.75–4.99 – Training camp player.
  • 4.50-4.74 – Potential invitee to an NFL training camp.
  • 4.00-4.49 – Needs developmental time in another league.

On the surface this might seem like a very clear scoring system, but it’s not clear at all.

After talking with former scouts with recent stints in the NFL within the past 10 years, all of them explained to me that the score is a “hard grade.” This means the scout watches the player, writes some notes, and then assigns an overall grade according to these type of general definitions.

The potential problem is that it appears that none of these grades explicitly define what NFL scouts should be considering when evaluating a player:

  • Athletic skills (speed, flexibility, strength, agility, etc.)
  • Position-specific techniques (pad level, routes, blocking, etc.)
  • Conceptual knowledge of the game (vision, pocket presence, etc.)

You might argue, of course scouts understand what to look for when evaluating a player – that’s their job!

However, look at any industry that hasn’t really examined its processes and there are frequent errors that occur among employees with regards to how they define the criteria they use to evaluate performance. This is especially the case in the NFL.

According to ex-scouts there is an unwritten truism called the 25/25 Rule, which describes the tendency for NFL organizations to fire veteran scouts and replace them with new scouts in their mid-twenties (25) at an annual salary of 25K. This practice often occurs when teams change leadership. It also keeps scout salaries low – a nice side benefit.

However, the 25/25 Rule also creates an environment where scouts are more reticent to stand up for their takes on players. Working for the NFL is a dream job for many and job security is already a tenuous thing.

Training for scouts also appears to be lacking with some teams. One former scout for a team in the AFC North explained to me that his team never had a defined training for the position. New scouts were put to work and given the option to attend position meetings at the team complex when not engaged in 90-hour work weeks.

He explained that the skills portion of his job interview was to watch film and write notes about what he saw, but he never knew exactly what he specifically did that separated him from the other candidates for the job. Obviously, he was doing something right, but imagine what kind of things he was doing wrong that were tacitly reinforced because he didn’t get any formalized training.

The dynamic this creates within a team’s scouting department is similar to any business where there is a group of individuals made up of  different ages, different levels of job experience, and different levels of knowledge about the job.

Think I’m wrong? Next time you’re at work, gather a group of your peers and ask them all to define in writing how a simple task: how the receptionist should answer the telephone.

Then pretend you’re the receptionist answering the phone while they grade your performance using this 1-5 scale:

  1. Poor
  2. Fair
  3. Meets Expectations
  4. Good
  5. Excellent

Unless your company has very clear guidelines for every process, you’ll not only find that each of your peers has a different answer how the receptionist should answer the phone, but they also will have a very different idea of how well/poorly the job was done. To compound the problem, ask them after the fact how they define each of these grades and you’ll likely get a different answer from each person.

The problem this example underscores is that a lack of clearly defined criteria increases variation among those assigned to judge performance.

Where one scout might define a player’s performance as Good, another may define it as Meets Expectations. The difference between these two scores in the NFL might be the difference between a player projected to become a starter and one projected only to make a roster.

Undefined Processes + Process Variation = Poor Results

Former 49ers, Rams, and Cardinals scout Dave Razzano’s account [as told to Yahoo! writer Michael Silver] of a much-publicized run-in with Rams GM Charlie Armey over his scouting report of Utah QB Alex Smith is a glaring example.

Razzano’s refusal to fall in line with the widespread belief that Smith was a big-time quarterback prospect led to a heated confrontation with Armey in a meeting at Rams headquarters a couple of weeks before the ’05 draft. Razzano’s report on the former Utah quarterback opined that Smith was “not as good as our backup, Jeff Smoker. Backup only for the Rams.”

Armey, who declined to discuss the incident after it was initially reported by Santa Rosa Press Democrat’s Matt Maiocco, solicited the input of other scouts and coaches who’d studied far less tape (if any) of Smith, who ended up being picked No. 1 overall by the 49ers.

“There were 12 guys around the table, and Charley had them rate him on every attribute – arm strength; accuracy short; accuracy long; judgment; game management; ad-lib ability under pressure. And he put a highlight tape on the projector. I mean, obviously, he’s gonna be 30 out of 30, and every throw’s a great pass … it’s a highlight tape!

“He said, ‘Are you gonna sit there and be stubborn? Why can’t you see what we see?’ I got heated. I said, ‘I’ve watched seven tapes, and I’m not changing my grade.’ He told one of our assistants, ‘Go get all seven tapes.’ I started screaming, ‘You’re gonna look at highlight tapes? That’s how Akili Smith got drafted!’ [Scout] Tom Marino had me in a bear hug. I just lost my mind.”

Not only did they differ on how to score the player’s overall performance, but also what type of criteria (highlights of preselected plays or actual game conditions) to use to arrive at that grade.

Another former scout of an AFC East team said he saw his peers paraphrase material from print and Internet publications to complete his scouting reports.

These examples aren’t meant to cast NFL teams in a bad light. These are common issues in any industry where its processes aren’t given the scrutiny they deserve.  These are symptoms of poor processes management and poor processes create variation that can have a negative impact on the team on the field as well as economically.

Overestimate a player’s skill level and a team could wind up overpaying a player who cannot start for them. Underestimate a player’s skill level and a team can miss on the opportunity to acquire him.

This is the kind of variation that can be corrected with a good process, which:

  1. Defines specifically in writing what the team values in players.
  2. Defines which settings scouts can use to grade players.
  3. Clearly defines a grading system.
  4. Uses a system that incorporates all skills and techniques that a team wants to see from its prospects into the grading system.
  5. Prioritizes the importance of those skills and techniques with a weighted score the contributes to the overall evaluation.
  6. Scores players as only meeting or not meeting expectations of those scoring criteria rather than using a highly subjective number system.

No evaluation process is perfect, but I believe NFL teams will see great improvement to its talent evaluation process – and bottom line – once it decides to explore best practices in process management.

Doing so will help them create an evaluation process that will help their scouts and management stay on the same page and prevent issues that they have control over. In addition, when they do have a vast difference in opinion the process should be structured so it will help address the larger problem and continuously refine what they are doing as the game evolves.

The Rookie Scouting Portfolio already does this because it adopts and customizes best-practice methodologies for its performance monitoring that Fortune 500 companies use in the service and manufacturing sectors. I believe if an NFL team, and its wealth of resources and vast knowledge about the game, applied similar best practices in process management they would produce an incredibly strong scouting department that could give them a huge edge over their competition and ultimately save their team money.

Although I came to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio lacking NFL-caliber knowledge or football experience, I possessed the knowledge to build a process that would help me use others’ knowledge of the game to successfully evaluate the skills of NFL prospects. Moreover, my process continues to help me refine my knowledge and end product.

I don’t think it will be long before teams explore this avenue to improve their scouting process. The Saints recently purchased a system to refine their tracking and management of data. This is a step in the right direction. However, the same could be said about the use of video tape to record games for scouting.

What NFL teams need to consider is that a system only works well if you have a strong process to incorporate that system to fulfill an overall objective.

Otherwise, it’s just expensive technology.