Category Matt Waldman

Conversation with Footballguys & Draftguys Sigmund Bloom

Footballguys.com senior staff writer Sigmund Bloom wants to know if you use stats the way a drunk uses a lamppost. Photo by Eirian Evans.

Ask Sigmund Bloom who he became a football writer and draft analyst and he’ll tell you that its because he’s a compulsive talker, narcissist, and egomaniac and he found and audience that accepted it. As his colleague at Footballguys.com I can assure you that he’s not a narcissist or an egomaniac. However if you heard last week’s Audible Roundable podcast, you witnessed an impressive feat of compulsive talking when Bloom ran down just about every move made in a  free agency period that has been slammed with moves in a compacted period of time. Bloom might be best known as a senior staff writer and podcast host at Footballguys.com but he is also a co-founder of Draftguys.com, a site that was one of the pioneers of using the Internet to broadcast video analysis of players they filmed at all-star practices. Personally, I think the “Bloom 100,” is one of the best quick reference, fantasy-friendly rankings of draftable rookie prospects available. Bloom and I spent an hour discussing when he got the football bug, his love for the machinations of the game, and the role of stats in fantasy analysis.

Waldman: When did you catch the football bug?

Bloom: I was born the year the Steelers won their first Super Bowl. I can remember being inundated with Steelers football as much as anything I can remember from my childhood. The first really big moment for me as a football fan was John Riggins run in the Super Bowl versus Miami. It was a disappointing year as Steelers fan as they got knocked out by the Chargers and I had high hopes for them. But I really grew to love the Smurfs and Riggins and everything about that team. That was a totally electrifying moment. I think when I look back on my life as an NFL fan it was after that when I was totally hooked.

Waldman: I remember that season and Riggins play fondly as well. He had been in the NFL for a while and that year was a great way to wind down his career. I remember in Jim Brown’s autobiography how much respect the all-time great had for Riggins as a running back.

Bloom: On a personal note, any of the true individuals that have been the best at what they do in the NFL are guys like I admire: Riggins, Joe Namath, and other guys who are clearly march to the beat of their own drummer. Another guy we recently talked about before we began this interview was Continue reading

NFL Draft Scout’s Chad Reuter – Part IV

Chad Reuter and Matt Waldman explain that learning about the game of football comes down to good, old-fashioned hard work. Photo by Duke Yearlook

If you thought ESPN analyst Matt Williamson’s path to becoming a paid evaluator of talent was unusual, consider NFL Draft Scout.com senior analyst Chad Reuter. The Wisconsin native lacks a football background, but he managed to transform a hobby into a job because of his tremendous analytical skills, sincere passion for the game, and a veteran scout’s work ethic. In this multi-part conversation, Reuter and I spent a couple of hours discussing a variety of topics related to player evaluation.

In Part I of this conversation, Chad and I discuss why he enjoys studying offensive line play, evaluating technique versus results, and balancing these two behaviors with the craft of projecting a player’s future in the NFL. In Part II  we covered Reuter’s path to  studying football as a full-time job, a defensive position that is difficult to evaluate, and why “instincts” and “intangibles” may not be innate after all. In Part III, Chad and I discuss sabermetrics and football, the mathematical logic of drafting a quarterback in the first round, and the importance of tiers when building a draftboard.

The final part of our conversation covers Reuter’s typical work process as a talent analyst and the resources he recommends to the general audience to become students of the game.

Waldman: Share with everyone what your typical day at work is like to completely a long-term project of scouting all draft-eligible players for a given season?

Reuter: The process occurs in stages. You study film for 12 months. A lot of the film work on rising seniors and juniors comes immediately after the draft. You want to get ready for the approaching season and to get the know the players. During that time and throughout the summer, you’re watching tape, you’re researching, and learning about the senior prospects and underclassmen with the end goal of producing our preseason draft guide in August. It’s not just a matter of watching tape, but also looking through media guide information. You’re also talking to sources to find out about any off-field stuff. You want to know as much as you can going into the year. During the summer, I’m working between 8am-6pm at a minimum during the week.  During the weekends I try to put in anywhere between 4-8 hours each day depending on what else is going on – including trying to maintain some sort of life outside of this.

Waldman: How do you try to maintain a life outside of this?

Reuter: You try to schedule things in a way where you find time to work around those events. If we’re going out in the afternoon then I try to do work in the morning.

Waldman: Based on my own level of self-awareness, I would think it takes somewhat of an obsessive personality to do this job.

Reuter: Yeah, I think that’s right. Continue reading

NFL Draft Scout’s Chad Reuter-Part III

Despite the low success rate of first-round quarterbacks, Chad Reuter explains why drafting a QB in subsequent rounds who turns out even as productive as Matt Hasselbeck is a rarity. Photo by Matt McGee

If you thought ESPN analyst Matt Williamson’s path to becoming a paid evaluator of talent was unusual, consider NFL Draft Scout.com senior analyst Chad Reuter. The Wisconsin native lacks a football background, but he managed to transform a hobby into a job because of his tremendous analytical skills, sincere passion for the game, and a veteran scout’s work ethic. In this multi-part conversation, Reuter and I spent a couple of hours discussing a variety of topics related to player evaluation.

In Part I of this conversation, Chad and I discuss why he enjoys studying offensive line play, evaluating technique versus results, and balancing these two behaviors with the craft of projecting a player’s future in the NFL. In Part II  we covered Reuter’s path to  studying football as a full-time job, a defensive position that is difficult to evaluate, and why “instincts” and “intangibles” may not be innate after all. In this segment, Chad and I discuss sabermetrics and football, the mathematical logic of drafting a quarterback in the first round, and the importance of tiers when building a draftboard.

Waldman: There’s a growing camp of  sabermetricians in football as well as the football media. While many understand why Bill Belicheck might use data to learn the odds strategic decisions, there are others who believe football can never completely embrace the Moneyball route.   It’s obvious that you are both fluent in statistics and the craft of film evaluation. What’s your take on these two camps?

Reuter:  I think data analysis is little more than a study of history. And I think you have to be cognizant of history when you are evaluating players — not just on the statistical side, but grouping characteristics with guys such as similarities in styles, size, etc.

But you can’t be a slave to it. Continue reading

Conversation With NFL Draft Scout’s Chad Reuter-Part II

Clemson's DeAndre McDaniel plays a position that Chad Reuter says has an underrated difficulty to evaluate. Photo by whateyesee13 http://www.flickr.com/photos/whateyesee13/

If you thought ESPN analyst Matt Williamson’s path to becoming a paid evaluator of talent was unusual, consider NFL Draft Scout.com senior analyst Chad Reuter. The Wisconsin native learned about the craft of personnel evaluation from a decade of interactions with NFL scouts and general managers.  Although he lacks a football background, he managed to transform a hobby into a job because of his tremendous analytical skills, sincere passion for the game, and a veteran scout’s work ethic.

In this multi-part conversation, Reuter and I spent a couple of hours discussing a variety of topics related to player evaluation. In Part I of this conversation, Chad and I discuss why he enjoys studying offensive line play, evaluating technique versus results, and balancing these two behaviors with the craft of projecting a player’s future in the NFL. In this portion of our discussion we cover his path to studying football as a full-time job, a defensive position that is difficult to evaluate, and why “instincts” and “intangibles” may not be innate after all.

Waldman:Tell me about your background and how you got into this profession.

Reuter: I came into it kind of backwards. I’m not Mr. Athlete by any stretch. I was not a player. But I knew enough about the game. I think most athletes who get into scouting or work in a front office have the initial advantage of having played, but then they have to learn how to analyze what they are seeing when they are watching film. Obviously some of them may know their position, but they don’t know all of the positions. I came in backwards. I had the analytic skills and then I applied them to football.

I had a fan site called Packerdraft.com and I started in in 2000. I started applying my analytic skills to football in terms of what was being seen on the field, but also looking at the data side – analyzing trends and trying to figure out what some of the numbers really mean.  So I started doing that and it earned me opportunities to work with teams doing some consulting.  After a few years of that, I left my state government gig to do this full-time.

Waldman: What was that gig?

Reuter: I was a research analyst for the department of transportation. My education is in economics and public policy analysis.

Waldman: With that kind of education and position you must have a fairly extensive understanding of statistics.

Reuter: My job was more or less to ferret out information that was helpful for our decision makers in the building – not just putting a bunch of numbers in front of people. I spent a lot of time pointing to things that some people said had merit, but actually didn’t. Most of the time I was telling people that statistics could be misinterpreted and used to mislead people than actually used to help!

(Laughter)

I find it also being the same thing I do with football. Continue reading

Conversation with NFL Draft Scout’s Chad Reuter Part I

NFL Draft Scout Senior Analyst Chad Reuter and Matt Waldman discuss the science, craft, and art of talent evaluation.

If you thought ESPN analyst Matt Williamson’s path to becoming a paid evaluator of talent was unusual, consider NFL Draft Scout.com senior analyst Chad Reuter. The Wisconsin native learned about the craft of personnel evaluation from a decade of interactions with NFL scouts and general managers. Although he lacks a football background, he managed to transform a hobby into a job because of his tremendous analytical skills, sincere passion for the game, and a veteran scout’s work ethic.  In this multi-part conversation, Reuter and I spent a couple of hours discussing a variety of topics related to player evaluation. In this portion of the conversation, Chad and I talk about offensive line play, evaluating technique versus results, and balancing these two behaviors with the craft of projecting a player’s future in the NFL. 

Waldman: Are there any positions you enjoy evaluating more than others?

Reuter: I’m an offensive line guy. I love watching the line. I think it is one of the more under-appreciated positions in terms of scouting because it is not just about the physical or mental characteristics of the player. There is also a lot of differences with what coaches want.

Waldman: What are things the average person should appreciate more about line play? Continue reading

ESPN Analyst Matt Williamson Part III

ESPN NFL analyst Matt Williamson discusses his transition from the NFL to major media. Photo by The Brit_2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/26686573@N00

ESPN analyst Matt Williamson is a former NFL scout for the Cleveland Browns. He agreed to talk about a variety of topics in a three-part interview at The Rookie Scouting Portfolio. In Part I, Williamson discusses an emerging NFL offensive trend with personnel and then explains the difference between scouting for a football team and a media conglomerate. In Part II, Williamson tells the story of his ascent to football’s biggest stage despite never playing the game. In this final installment, Williamson discusses his role with the Browns, his transition to ESPN, and the resources he uses to continue learning about the game and its players. 

Waldman: What were your responsibilities with the Browns?

Williamson: I was equal parts NFL and college scout. I was in charge of the NFC West. I had to have a grade on every player in the NFC West at all times and be on top of all of the player movement for that position.

Then I had 20-25 schools: Penn State, Maryland, Marshall, West Virginia, Pitt, the New York area. More or less anywhere you could drive six hours from Cleveland. You put a circle around Cleveland – more east than anything – and that’s where I was. Then I was crosschecking on a lot of the other stuff, too. Everyone had their own region.

Waldman: You were there for the 2005 NFL Draft. Were you a part of that process?

Williamson: That’s the year we selected Braylon Edwards. We picked third in the draft. The war room leading up to the draft was amazing. I did speak my mind a little too much, but oh well.

Waldman: Why do you think that?

Williamson: Every GM or head coach is different. Some want more conversation about players in the war room than others. It’s something you have to get a feel for.

But it did surprise me how bashful some guys were. I mean, all of our reports were due well before we sat down to talk about these players so everyone knew what you thought of the player.

Speak your mind. The only way to be great and be able to sleep at night is to say what you think. You do that well on the air.

Waldman: Thanks. Without getting into too much detail, what was the basic scouting system like in Cleveland?

Williamson: It’s a standardized report that is entered into their system They still have them. I’m sure they can access my scouting report on DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman, Pac-Man Jones, and all the guys I went to see.

Waldman: What were some of your favorite parts of the job?

Williamson: Like I said before, the war room leading up to the draft was great. So was game day. The intensity of it and being on the sideline was unbelievable – I really miss that.  I also learned a lot from having the chance to drop into position meetings whenever I wanted.

Waldman:  How did your time come to an end in Cleveland? Continue reading

ESPN Analyst Matt Williamson Part II

ESPN Analyst Matt Williamson discusses his ascent from watching film for a high school recruiting firm in exchange for lunch to working for the Cleveland Browns as an NFL scout. Photo by U.S. Coast Guard http://www.flickr.com/photos/coast_guard/5435865047/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ESPN analyst Matt Williamson is a former NFL scout for the Cleveland Browns. He agreed to talk about a variety of topics in a three-part interview at The Rookie Scouting Portfolio. In Part I, Williamson discusses an emerging NFL offensive trend with personnel and then explains the difference between scouting for a football team and a media conglomerate. In this post, Williamson tells the story of his ascent to football’s biggest stage despite never playing the game.

Waldman: Tell me about your football background.

Williamson: I never put pads on in my life. I came from a rather nonathletic family. I played baseball and basketball like every kid, but I was never picked for an all-star game. I was never the first kid picked for a team. I am slow. But the love for football was always there.

When I was six years old and we would go on vacation I got preview guides and just read them the whole time. That’s all I cared about. I was a huge Steelers fan growing up here in Pittsburgh, and obviously football is “sort of big” in this town. I’m sure that had something to do with it.

Waldman: How did you get into scouting?

Williamson: I went to school at Pitt at Johnstown. Throughout college my neighbor owned a swimming pool servicing company. It was a really small organization all based on service. Every summer I would  come home and work for him. Over those five summers I gained more and more responsibility and eventually I was running my own crew at the end.

I was a creative writing major. When I graduated, my grades weren’t great and I didn’t have a great direction. I didn’t know what I was going to do. So I bought the swimming pool company. The owner was an older guy and I got a great price on it. I was my own boss when I was 22 years old and I had an employee or two. It made money and allowed me to do whatever I wanted during the winters. Continue reading

ESPN Analyst Matt Williamson Part I

ESPN analyst Matt Williamson joined Matt Waldman to talk football. Williamson, a former college director and NFL scout, shares his story and perspective on the game in this multi-part conversation. Photo by Jayel Aheram

ESPN analyst Matt Williamson is a former NFL scout for the Cleveland Browns. He agreed to talk about a variety of topics in a three-part interview at The Rookie Scouting Portfolio. In this post, Williamson discusses an emerging NFL offensive trend with personnel and then explains the difference between scouting for a football team and a media conglomerate.

Waldman: What is a positional trend in the NFL that you believe is really making a league-wide impact?

Williamson: One thing that I think is really becoming more prevalent and I think that we’ll continue to see much more of it is hybrid offensive players. People that come to mind are Aaron Hernandez, Dallas Clark, Reggie Bush, and Percy Harvin. Now Harvin doesn’t count as much as those others, but the rest of those guys are all in really good offenses with smart quarterbacks – which is absolutely a necessity.

The problem they present to defenses is how do you count them? If you are a defensive coordinator and Reggie Bush is on the field with a fullback, a tight end, and two wide outs are you going to call Bush a running back and just play a base defense against him? Okay, that’s cool… Continue reading

Losing Your Football Innocence

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

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.