Posts tagged 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio

Teddy Bridgewater’s NFL Personality Assessment

Best Louisville prospect in this draft? Maybe, but don't give the short end of the stick to the Cardinals' safety Calvin Pryor. Photo by KYNGPAO
Teddy Bridgewater’s personality assessment flies in the face of statements about the QB’s personality-leadership-capability to learn . Photo by KYNGPAO

An NFL source confirmed to me that Teddy Bridgewater has scored exceptionally well on a league-used personality assessment. 

I know how some bloggers have develop some disdain for the anonymous source when it comes to football news.  If you’re one of them, this isn’t the post you want to read. If you don’t care, tonight I’ve been given the green light to share basics about Teddy Bridgewater’s personality assessment that at least two-thirds of the league uses for rookie prospects.

I know the scores, but I have been cautioned not to share the exact numbers. What the source has confirmed is that Bridgewater scored exceptionally well on his personality assessment-very close to the highest possible score. Bridgewater scored high in these categories:

  • Focus
  • Interpersonal skills
  • Dedication
  • Self Efficacy
  • Affective Commitment

This information–if accurate–calls into question the points we’ve been hearing in the media since the combine that Bridgewater is dull and lacks leadership skills. These results support what at least many have seen that opposes the statements to the media that Bridgewater doesn’t have “It”. It also pokes holes in the statements from anonymous executives through major media that Bridgewater can’t “be the face of the franchise” or lacks “CEO” qualities.

Based on what I’ve seen from Bridgewater in Jon Gruden’s QB Camp, Bridgewater was straight-forward, accountable, and engaging. Is he the classic personality type that charmed Jon Gruden like Aaron Murray? Not at all.

Neither was Joe Montana, Joe Flacco, or even Johnny Unitas. It’s been said that Mike Nolan and the 49ers preferred Alex Smith’s grounded personality to Aaron Rodgers, who came across as arrogant.

Where the Wonderlic assesses book smarts in a timed environment, this test–according to my source–uses fast-paced, jarring questions that can often be embarrassing and pointed in nature. Much of the NFL is apparently sold on this  interview-style test’s ability to assess leadership, emotions under pressure, how a player works with others, and behavior on and off the field.

Is it a good test? I have no idea. I’m sure folks with some expertise could find flaws with it just like the Wonderlic.

Does this assessment prove that the NFL is exhibiting some degree of bias? It’s a good indicator that at the very least, Bridgewater doesn’t fit the tried-and-true mold that the NFL prefers when it risks high draft picks on quarterbacks: big arm, big frame, and/or great mobility.

When it comes to precision passers with smarts but arms, athleticism, and frames that are “good enough,” but top-drawer, the NFL seems to balk at the idea of using a top-15 pick. On the other hand, they’ll err this high with good athletes possessing lesser football skills and football intelligence.

As my buddy Ryan Riddle says, “It means that teams have to determine if Bridgewater’s intelligence for the game is that much better than the norm and that’s a very hard thing to evaluate.”  Drew Brees is mobile, but not dynamically athletic and his arm strength was lacking for teams to feel he was a “can’t-miss” guy. However, San Diego GM John Butler was confident that he stole Brees at the top of the second round.

If me, Daniel Jeremiah, Kurt Warner, Josh Norris, Doug Farrar and the rest of Draft Twitter are correct, Bridgewater is going to be the best value among the quarterbacks in this class.

For analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

Reads Listens Views 5/2/2014 + My Take on MMQB Manziel Roundtable

I bought mine, thank you very much. Photo by Kevin Lu.
I bought mine, thank you very much. Photo by Kevin Lu.

My critique of Peter King’s Manziel roundtable, Beats Antique, Hangouts, Cramps and crablegs

What is Reads Listens Views?

If you’re new to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio blog, welcome.  I post links on Friday to content I’m saving for later consumption or content I’ve viewed that I found compelling. You may not like everything listed here, but you’re bound to like something.

Listens/Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/nWeYKrGQkR0]

Before I was writing about football, Friday nights for me after work often meant a couple of beers, some crab legs (don’t go there . . . ), and NBA on TNT. This is one sports show I do miss watching.

 Opinion- MMQB Johnny Manziel Analysis Article

Peter King wrote a roundtable piece on Johnny Manziel where he had a group of football men view some plays of Manziel at Texas A&M and comment on what they saw. I always enjoy these type of articles because the reader gets a chance to see the perspective of individuals who are paid to play, coach, and study the game. If the reader looks beyond the immediate information, he or she sees that there’s quite a bit of disagreement about Manziel among players who have all had success when it comes to the quarterback position.

Mike Holmgren is skeptical about Manziel; David Cutcliffe is optimistic. Kevin Gilbride is most critical of technique; Rich Gannon and Doug Flutie have a more pragmatic take. Think about the experiences of these five people in football and it provides opportunity to critique each critic.

Flutie and Gannon were successful quarterbacks who performed in the league with skill sets that approximate Manziel as a scrambler who can throw. I commend King for recruiting them for this analysis. While both are critical of Manziel’s behavior at times, they’re not dismissive of Manziel’s chances to play the position. Both Gannon and Flutie were in some respects exceptions to the rule of what the NFL values from the position and their perspective includes which quarterbacks in the NFL are exceptions to the rule in ways Manziel might be and why ; what factors will aid the rookie’s transition; and what he’ll see in the NFL that will require him to adjust based on their experience as successful scramblers and improvisors.

Kevin Gilbride has been a quarterback coach and offensive coordinator for several NFL teams and he’s known for an offense that is mostly pocket driven. Even the mobile Mark Brunell, who Gilbride described along with other mobile passers as “running around like a maniac,” threw for over 4000 yards in Gilbride’s offense in 1996. I do find it telling that Gilbride’s noun of choice to describe these quarterbacks is “maniac,” because his perspective is the most critical from a technical standpoint.

Although I’d bet Gilbride’s offensive philosophies have evolved over time, his strength as a coordinator was with pocket passers. Brunell could scramble, but at heart he was still a pocket passer. Kordell Stuart had his worst two seasons with Pittsburgh under Gilbride after having success in a mobile-friendly scheme under Chan Gailey. Gilbride’s criticisms of Manziel are just, but any conclusions drawn from these criticism come from a coach who didn’t have success molding a system to a player who wasn’t a strong pocket passer from the beginning.

I love how King emphasized Cutcliffe’s experience working with successful NFL quarterbacks, coaching the current college game that is feeding offensive concepts to the NFL, and competing against Manziel this year. Something that I believe is true, but King was right not to write as the host of this piece–if he even recognized it as a valid reason for highlighting Cutcliffe in the first place–is that Cutcliffe displayed more flexibility in his perspective than either Gilbride or Holmgren and he’s well-known for his work with classic pocket passers. If King states it as bluntly as I do, the statement would characterize Gilbride and Holmgren as stiff and inflexible minds rooted in their process.  Instead he lets the reader derive his own conclusions.

Holmgren has the greatest range of experiences as a coach and general manager. However, I think we see more of Holmgren the GM than Holmgren the coach when it comes to Manziel. If you recall, the former Packers and Seahawks head coach was very hands-on with his quarterbacks and not averse to critiquing his passers in the moment of the game. He had a very set idea of what he wanted from his passers and I think he emotionally thrived off being known as the quarterback guru as well as a coach. You don’t let media film you coaching your quarterbacks in meetings during the week if you don’t have pride in this aspect of your job.

Holmgren’s specific prescriptions for quarterback play as a coach and then his experience as a GM might actually limit his scope on what he believes works and doesn’t work in the NFL. Someone I spoke with last night told me that there are certain players that make coaches light up, but cause GM’s to squint their eyes and shake their heads. In this case, my friend was talking about running backs who play with little regard for their bodies. However, I can see how it translates to other positions–especially quarterback.

Of course, these perspectives are based on my views of them as a writer and film analyst. Take it for what you will.

Download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio

Friday’s are also my chance to thank you for reading my work, encourage you to follow the RSP blog, and download the Rookie Scouting Portfolio publication.

The RSP is available every April 1 for download. This year’s RSP is nearly 300 pages in the draft guide section and filled with analysis of  164 skill position prospects that has earned a loyal following:

  • Rankings
  • Draft history analysis
  • Overrated/Underrated analysis
  • Multidimensional player comparisons
  • Individual skills analysis by position

You can learn more about the RSP here. If you want to see samples of the play-by-play notes I take to write the analysis, you can find them here. If you want to know what my readers say about it, look here. If you want a quick video tour, here it is:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsQwtyOCDM&feature=share]

If you don’t have time to look into details, know that once you look through the RSP, there will be no question in your mind that I do the work, that I have a plan about the work that I do, and that you get more than your money’s worth. It’s why more and more draftniks every spring can’t wait until April 1.

If you think that’s a ton, you ain’t seen nothing. When you purchase the RSP, you also get a free post-draft publication that’s available for download a week after the NFL Draft. Fantasy football owners tell me all the time that this alone is worth the price.

Best yet, 10 percent of each RSP sale is donated to Darkness to Light, a non-profit devoted to preventing and addressing sexual abuse through community training in schools, religious groups, and a variety of civic groups across the U.S.

Here is what the RSP donated to D2L this year. According to D2L, the RSP’s 2013 donation amount was enough to train 250 adults in communities across the country.

Pre-order the 2014 RSP and/or download past versions of the publication (2006-2013).

In Case You Missed It/Coming Soon

  • Futures: Tom Savage – Why magnification exists in NFL scouting and why it demands more vigilant regulation so it doesn’t overshadow important issues.
  • Gruden QB Camp: The Teddy Bridgewater Interview – An experiment with interview analysis, including body language analysis. What’s the deal with Teddy licking his lips?
  • Gruden QB Camp: The Tajh Boyd Interview – Boyd sure likes to tell us he’s a top-three quarterback, but he’s as elusive with criticism as he is in the pocket.
  • Futures: My Expansion Franchise – I’ve just been awarded an NFL expansion team and must build my personnel department. Here’s how I departed from many in the NFL.
  • The Audible Hangout NFL Draft Show – Bloom and I will be hosting shows during the first and second nights of pro football’s annual selection process.
  • The 2014 RSP Writers Project -Sometime after the draft, we’ll get this rolling.

The Thursday Night Audible Hangout

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDWE5gWPE4&feature=share]

Reads (Football)

Listens

[youtube=http://youtu.be/YI8yvTXNNeU]

Hat-tip to Bryan Zukowski for sending this my way.

 Reads (Life In General)

Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/9nUAarErp5Y]
Another good one from Bryan from this South African group that says so much with who they are and what they do.

 

Futures: QB Tom Savage

Photo by Mike Pettigano.
Photo by Mike Pettigano.

Savage has the physical skills and flashes of on-field play that make him look like a first-rounder. Is his rumored late rise up draft boards a product of hyperbolic thinking?

Futures: Pittsburgh QB Tom Savage

By Matt Waldman

Beware of the fast rising quarterback. This is what Football Outsiders newcomer Jason Lisk wrote in 2012 after he did a search on quarterbacks whose stock rose in the month prior to the draft since 1990. His article led with Ryan Tannehill as the “buzz creator” approaching the 2012 NFL Draft that motivated his search for this dubious, late charge up draft boards to the first round.

While I liked Tannehill and still believe he is on his way to becoming a decent NFL starter, I think Lisk offered compelling examples why he could write an article about this subject. He mentions several players who reportedly had draft grades lower than the first round before the collective buzz from the postseason all-star games, combine, and workouts upped their draft stock in the final weeks.

I want to dig deeper than draft stock, which is shorthand for “ability and talent” for some, but as Lisk points out with some hindsight on his side, draft stock contains a healthy dose of other factors that influenced errors of judgment. One of these factors is what we might as well call “the eyeball test”—does he look like a franchise quarterback?

  • Does he have the requisite height?
  • Does he have the requisite weight?
  • Does he have a big arm?
  • Does he demonstrate the pro style throws that project well to the NFL?

If he has at least three of these four things, it appears that there are enough teams that believe that they can mold these players into good quarterbacks. They will often bet on these players at the expense of a more polished passer lacking the same qualities in abundance, but enough to get the job done.

Jim Druckenmiller is a great example. Tall, strong, and capable of throws that make people gush at workouts, Druckenmiller had trouble reading defenses and maneuvering the pocket.

Bill Walsh saw this was the case and told the 49ers to draft Jake Plummer. While Plummer never full lived up to his potential, he had enough moments to illustrate why Walsh liked the Arizona State Sun Devil the most from this quarterback class. Druckenmiller continued to have trouble with the same things he had in college and never left the San Francisco bench.

Patrick Ramsey was another late riser. ESPN’s Chris Mortensen relayed a lot of this sentiment in the final month prior to the draft for this strong-armed quarterback from Tulane with consistency issues. According to a Chicago Bears’ fans scouting site, Ramsey “looks like an All-American quarterback one play and totally different the next.”

Ramsey had difficulty reading defenses and maneuvering the pocket. Neither progressed enough for the former first-round pick to become a consistent NFL starter.

J.P. Losman was another Tulane product with a big arm and athleticism, who thought he could throw holes through defenders to get the ball to his wide receivers. He found out his ball didn’t burn through opposing defender’s flesh.

I’ll add Brandon Weeden to this list. A big guy with a big arm who had big production at a big-time school, add it all up and it still didn’t compensate for his big problem with rushing his reads under pressure because he didn’t maneuver the pocket with a comfort level desirable for an NFL quarterback. Weeden is now considered another one of Cleveland’s big mistakes on draft day.

I’m beginning to think there’s a pattern of mistakes that certain NFL teams make when it comes to evaluating quarterbacks. I don’t know if this is true, but after 10 years of studying players—9 of those where I published the RSP—it appears that some teams have too many magnifying factors and not enough knockout factors.

As I mentioned in my piece on Jimmy Garoppolo, I’m getting closer to the point of instituting knockout factors in evaluations. Certain mistakes in quarterbacking are fatal errors and might be too difficult to fix. How a passer reacts to pressure is one of them.

Magnifying factors is a term I thought of while writing this column. It’s a set of qualities that prospects display that get NFL decision makers excited—too excited. Scouts, general managers, coaches, or owners see some of these qualities and let them overshadow flaws.

Based on the strengths and weaknesses of these five players above, it appears some teams will rationalize that they can coach these flaws away where they might not feel the same if the prospect lacked these magnifying factors. A simply way of putting it is crass, but I believe it illustrates the point:

Some NFL analysts and decision-makers look at arm strength the way some men look at the quality of a woman’s chest when they decide whom to date—they’re focused solely on what’s below the neckline. Later, they have the nerve to complain about the person’s flaws.

I believe there is a lot of magnification happening with quarterback evaluation. None more apparent this year than with Pittsburgh quarterback Tom Savage.

The 6-5, 230-lb. quarterback is equipped with one of the strongest arms in this draft and that accounts for three of the four qualities that teams appear to magnify with their quarterback evaluation process. It’s easy to see how this magnification can take place with Savage. There are several plays that in a vacuum look like the passes of an NFL starter.

See enough of these on tape, and it’s understandable that a decision-maker will take this sum of good-looking moments and allow it to out-weight the bad. Because there’s no regulation of strength and weaknesses that prevent evaluators from exaggerating the importance of what they saw, it’s easy to hyperbolize rare physical characteristics.

Even if this is not their intent to do so, I don’t know of scouting reports that have embedded into their process defined scoring weights for certain qualities or knockout factors. Today I’ll show you some plays that I believe some evaluators might be prone to hyperbolizing and flawed plays where they may underestimate the difficulty of fixing.

Read the rest of Foobtall Outsiders.

Gruden QB Camp: Tajh Boyd

Tajh Boyd II by PDA.Photo

Reader Advisory: This series is an experiment. The takes within are not anything that I’m willing to stand behind as enhancing or detracting from the “draft value” of the players I am profiling here. I developed this series to illustrate the subjectivity of a player interview. There will be plenty of armchair psychology and body language analysis interlaced with opinions based on my experiences as a manager, a journalist, and a student of football.   

Intro

I have always thought Jon Gruden was sneaky-good at interviewing NFL prospects. The former coach is intelligent, he’s well-prepared, and he understands how to frame conversations that elicit information without attacking the player–even when delivering criticism. There’s a playfulness on the surface that belies the seriousness of Gruden’s points.

I repeat, this is an experiment and a series I’m writing because I’m curious what I’d see if I studied an interview as if I studied a game. There’s no weight I’m placing on this analysis. The intent is to show the variety of ways different observers can interpret the same interview.

I don’t agree with all the takes I’m positing. I will say that after studying three of these QB Camp shows, there are potential observations that are similar to observations I’ve seen others believe were valid points during job or field interviews as a writer.

Some of these insights may hit the mark–maybe even touch upon something deeper into the player’s personality. However, these takeaways may also be a reflection of a player’s nerves and insecurity about appearing on national television on the eve of the most important job selection process of his life to date.

I know that I’d be nervous about having my game dissected by a top expert in the field on national television. There are extraordinarily few people who wouldn’t feel this pressure and react with a measure of insecurity on some level.

I’m not telling you which of these takes I believe have actual merit.  These interviews are first impressions of a player’s personality away from the field. If I was a manager for a team’s front office, I’d want our organization to spend more time with the player to determine if a variety of co-workers had similar impressions.

For the last time,  these are hypothetical takes of one interview and these observations have no factor in my evaluation of the player as found in the RSP. As with every interview I’m studying in this series I watched it at least twice–often 3-4 times–to gather quotes and study the interaction between Gruden and his interview subject.

Gruden and Boyd: The Intro-Setting the Tone

“I”m definitely a top-three quarterback,” says Tajh Boyd in this opening segment talking to the camera

If you believe this statement then you’ll agree with him. However, most evaluators and scouts don’t share this opinion.

Take the statement for its surface value and Boyd is projecting confidence in his craft. Remember, Boyd isn’t talking to anyone on camera here so his response could be to a question posed by the production crew: “Where do you see yourself in this class of quarterbacks?”

Whether its true or not, what do you expect Boyd to say other than, “I’m definitely a top-three quarterback.”

If no one asked Boyd about where he fits in this class and the actual question was more open-ended question, then there’s some room for debate about Boyd’s answer. Some coaches might have preferred to see Boyd not make the statement about his spot in this class.

Instead, they might have preferred Boyd lead off with specific positive traits of his game (which he did after this initial proclamation that he was top-three). There are two potential reasons:

  • An observer might perceive Boyd’s statement as lacking self-awareness of his talents and shortcomings. No team wants to draft a player who overestimates his abilities to the extent that he doesn’t understand how to prioritize or address his shortcomings.
  • A straight shooter evaluating Boyd may feel the statement is the result of Boyd taking an agent’s advice and behaving too “coached up” for the interview, which can turn off some. Remember, these players and coaches have to work together every day–coaches want to have a sense of the personality they are working with and not be told what the player thinks the coach wants to hear.

Gruden’s initial assessment of Boyd before the two engage in conversation is a statement focused on Boyd’s personality. The coach spends no time in this intro listing any positives about Boyd’s hard skills (technique or understanding of the game or position). Gruden ends the intro by saying, “[Boyd] has a lot to have his eyes opened to.”

One might believe Gruden is saying that Boyd is inexperienced with the finer details of quarterbacking. Based on what I’ve seen on tape and what other analysts have said about Boyd’s on-field performances, there’s a good argument to be made that this is what Gruden meant.

It could also mean that Boyd is naive when it comes to assessing his own abilities. Clemson is a big-time college football program, but even the best college programs are “small ponds” relative to the NFL. A lot of the big fish in those small ponds are deluded into thinking they are a more prepared than they are. An experienced coach like Jon Gruden has seen this before.

The Opening Segment

The coach sets up the interview praising Boyd’s production. He shares that Boyd broke one of Philip Rivers’ records in college.

When Gruden asks Boyd why the quarterback returned to Clemson in 2013, Boyd’s response is thorough–arguably too thorough:

“When you leave you want to make sure you don’t have any questions about your career. About anything. I told myself that I wanted to be the best quarterback in this class. And ultimately I feel like I am most definitely. Does it appear that way to some others? Probably not. But it doesn’t really matter what they think at the end of the day. So for me I felt like I got everything I wanted out of this year. I feel like I matured. I feel like I’m ready to make the leap to this next level. Not only on the field, but off the field. If you can’t handle what happens off the field then you can’t handle what’s on the field. I feel like there’s a maturation process and I feel like I’m well prepared for it.”

Some might listen to this statement and note that Boyd not only brought up that idea about being the best quarterback in this class, but he also anticipated a question (underlined and bold above) that was not even asked: “How do you feel about the fact that most people don’t have you in the top-three of this quarterback class?”

This tactic in Boyd’s answer could indicate that the quarterback feels insecure about his standing in the class. Observers who believe this is the case will say this statement not only detracts from the preceding one saying, “I am most definitively [the best of the group],” but it severely undermines it.

Those who study Boyd’s body language might also see some defensiveness in his statement. After Boyd explains that others may not think he’s the best quarterback in this class and says, “But it doesn’t really matter what they think at the end of the day,” Boyd steeples his fingers towards Gruden.

When an interview subject steeples his fingers and the fingers are pointed upward, it’s a sign of thoughtfulness behind the words being spoken. When the fingers are pointed towards the speaker–which Boyd does towards Gruden–it can be a sign of the speaker creating a barrier of distance from the listener –a defensive position.

The body language and words could reinforce to an observer that Boyd feels defensive and insecure about the way he’s perceived as a prospect. Considering that we’ve heard Boyd say twice in the opening five minutes of the show that he believes he’s one of the top three quarterbacks in this class– it may seem to some that Boyd is trying to sell himself rather than prove himself.

If you buy into Boyd’s body language as a tell, this insecurity and desire to sell his take is further reinforced when the QB places his hand on his chin with his elbow on the table while finishing his final statement, “and I feel like I’m well prepared for it [the maturation process of becoming an NFL quarterback].”

This body language is said to be an indication that the subject is “evaluating” the reaction of the listener. In this case, Boyd’s body langauge could be a non-verbal question: “Is Gruden buying what I’m selling here?”

One could argue that this behavior is natural for a person who’s being interviewed. He’s there to make a good impression. However, some might say Boyd is too eager to make a good impression and he’s not giving enough substantive answers to do it–relying more on projecting confidence than illustrating competency.

Best Louisville prospect in this draft? Maybe, but don't give the short end of the stick to the Cardinals' safety Calvin Pryor. Photo by KYNGPAO
Boyd shows avoidance behaviors and defensive postures during his Gruden interview. Bridgewater also reveals defensive postures, but there’s also subconscious signs that Bridgewater could be disgusted with the conversation find out more later this week. Photo by KYNGPAO

Avoidance Behavior?

The body language analysis continues to point towards insecurity. Gruden tells Boyd that it’s a credit to the quarterback that he finished. The coach then says that he likes people who finish and not enough people do it.

Boyd responds by crossing his arms and holding his biceps in his hands. When a person hugs themselves, it’s considered a non-verbal effort of self-reassurance in a situation where the subject doesn’t feel safe.

To add context to the non-verbal reaction, Gruden told Boyd at the beginning of the segment–before this first question–that he’s praising the QB so it will be a little easier to “come after him.” Boyd has been anticipating this pending criticism and the non-verbal tell could be an indication that Boyd is trying to generate emotional reassurance with the praise he’s been given before the expected criticism.

Gruden continues praising Boyd for the quarterback’s arm strength, signs of accuracy and anticipation, and a quick release. Boyd continues to hug himself.

Then Gruden pulls out the hammer. He asks Boyd about working with his own private quarterback coach. Gruden mentions that some of the work is focused on throwing from different platforms. Gruden finishes by asking, “What are we fixing?”

“I don’t know…that’s the thing,” says Boyd, covering his mouth.  A non-verbal indication of surprise and shock. It can also be a physical manifestation of a person trying to suppress what he’s really thinking, but not saying. “Sometimes you try to fix what you hear and I don’t say I don’t have…I have all the confidence in the world in my arm. I feel like I have the best ball in college football, but you hearing this and that…”

As Boyd is talking, the monitor displays the Clemson quarterback completing a pass in a tight window up the sideline. Without finishing his last sentence, Boyd changes the subject while still covering his mouth with his hand.

“Droppin’ dimes on them coach, look at this,” says Boyd.

The response and the body language could indicate that Boyd is so uncomfortable with that question that he avoids giving specifics and at the first opportunity he changes the subject in a desperate attempt not to address his flaws. Some may believe that Boyd is displaying a consistent pattern of insecurity when it comes to facing his flaws.

There is evidence that he’s being vague, changing the subject, and anticipating or avoiding criticism to the detriment of his responses. The body language underscores this behavior as well.

A more confident interview subject would address specific flaws when asked a direct question about it. Instead, Boyd’s answer indicates either he doesn’t want to tell the audience his flaws or he truly doesn’t know why he he’s paying a quarterback coach a whole hell of a lot of money. Intentionally or otherwise, an observer might see Boyd as resistant to instruction–despite Gruden saying at the end of the episode that he believes Boyd is a player that the coach is confident will take to coaching.

Another perspective on this response could fall into the category of being “coached up” by an agent. Perhaps Boyd took the “project confidence” lessons to the extreme and became afraid of addressing his flaws. Or, perhaps the interview coaching wasn’t thorough and Boyd didn’t have a clear understanding of how to apply the advice.

Again, this appearance on ESPN may be a great opportunity, but it’s also a tough situation. If you’re invited to participate you do it, or else declining it will look bad.

Gruden whips out the Bison to hammer home a ponit about details to Boyd. Photo by Jeremy Kunz.
Gruden whips out the Bison to hammer home a point about details to Boyd. Photo by Jeremy Kunz.

Gruden’s Patience to Make His Point

Later on, Gruden asks Boyd to explain why the QB throws an interception inside the five in this year’s bowl game against Ohio State. Boyd is more relaxed with his body language–his arms are in a non-defensive position, he is leaning back in his chair,  and he goes through the details of the play. He didn’t throw the quick pass and tried to wait for Sammy Watkins to come open in the corner, admitting an error.

It was a genuine, open, and honest response. The body language and specific detail was opposite of the quality of explanation that Boyd gave about having a QB coach.

The fact that Boyd didn’t want to discuss the quarterback coaching but was open about his mistake in judgment on this red zone play could have multiple meanings. One person might say Boyd got more comfortable during the interview and loosened up. Another might say that Boyd is afraid to reveal the details of the coaching because he’s afraid of how the NFL might react and this was a simple decision-making flaw that Boyd knows happens to most quarterbacks from time to time.

After this explanation, Gruden tells Boyd that the QB has to keep growing mentally. Boyd continues to listen while covering his hand over his mouth. Gruden praises Boyd for his potential and then goes into great depth on Boyd’s ball handling as a positive with even greater potential if the quarterback works at the skill.

Gruden then circles back to a point about details. He criticizes Boyd’s poor ball security in a game one week after injuring his hand. It’s a point one begins to see that Gruden hopes to hammer home throughout this interview.

The coach began the show saying he hoped to open Boyd’s eyes. One could argue that Gruden’s question about the quarterback coach that went unanswered was something that the coach expected to happen.

There’s potential credence to his theory as the show progresses–especially when we see the coach stress details with greater emphasis.

The answer-dodging that Gruden gets from Boyd might also be an indicator that the quarterback has not bought into (consciously or otherwise) what he must do to improve his game. Gruden has seen this kind of thing before as a coach.

It is common for a young athlete who has had a lot of success not to realize how much work he truly has to do to get better. Remember, the fine details are the small things that spell a huge gap between college and pro talent. Without a clear perspective of self, it might be difficult to see one’s flaws accurately.

One of Gruden’s talents is setting up his guests. He’s not trying to make these guys look bad, but he continues to press if they dodge him. He’s firm about it, but he still gives a positive note of encouragement so he’s not actively trying to demoralize the guest. It’s important that the audience perceives Gruden as only “wearing” the bad guy hat and can remove it from one segment to the next.

Otherwise, there would be a lot more criticism leveled at Gruden. Imagine if agents didn’t think the coach handled this well? The show might not have made it into its fifth year.

Gruden makes a huge impression on Boyd about details in the next segment. It comes with Boyd’s handling of the Bison 2-Roll blitz.

It’s a play where the safety and outside linebacker blitz off one side while the corner and safety roll to accommodate the blitz side. The defense plays Cover 2 to help support the blitz while rolling over its coverage responsibilities.

Gruden illustrates to Boyd and the audience that the QB has not mastered details important to NFL QB play.

The first Bison 2-Roll Blitz that Gruden shows is a Lamarcus Joyner strip-sack that FSU returns for a touchdown in the first quarter. Boyd fails to recognize the blitz pre-snap.

Gruden gives the old, “fool me once/fool me twice,” quote to set up a clip of the Clemson coach on the sideline whispering to Boyd after the play. Gruden speculates that the coach is telling Boyd, “watch out for the Bison they’re going to come back to it.”

Boyd’s response is what could be described as nervous laughter and it’s accompanied by the phrase “Oh my God.” One could make the next assumption that Boyd is thinking I’‘m about to get reamed on national TV for missing this twice in a game.

What Gruden shows next is a play later in the game. FSU’s defense has nine guys on the field and Boyd fails to quick-snap the ball. He allows FSU to get a 10th player on the field. Even then, the defense is a player short when Boyd starts the play and the quarterback sill throws an interception in scoring territory.

The most damning part of this segment could be the fact that Gruden asks Boyd before the play begins how many players FSU has on the field. Boyd says “10” twice when it’s actually 9. When Gruden corrects Boyd, the QB purses his lips and his quiet reaction is a strong indication of disappointment if you buy into the body language.

Unlike Andrew Luck and some of the other players who appeared on this show, Boyd does not seem to remember this play. Luck seemed to know that Spider-Two, Y-Banana was leading to a specific play during the season.

It seems Boyd either didn’t know this was the play that was coming or if he did, he didn’t remember the details. Not remembering the details of a play that was a huge mistake might lead some observers to believe that Boyd doesn’t study the film as intently as he should. Others might say Boyd forgot and don’t over-analyze it.

One thing is apparent; Boyd is clearly withdrawn and angry.

“Does this piss you off?”

All Boyd can do is respond with a non-verbal affirmative

Valid reason, excuse, or denial. Three ways people might see Boyd's invocation of Favre. Photo by Elvis Kennedy.
Valid reason, excuse, or denial. Three ways people might see Boyd’s invocation of Favre. Photo by Elvis Kennedy.

Leadership

“What kind of a leader were you after this,” Gruden asks. Boyd responds with a longer answer:

“I learned a lot from it. Probably the biggest lesson I learned in my whole career. After my young guy came off the field after the first play (the strip by Joyner on a quick pass) nothing really happened. I just kind of came back to the sideline and didn’t say anything thinking we’d be okay, but we weren’t okay. We werent okay as a team. I wasn’t okay, he wasn’t okay, and we weren’t okay as a team. If I had talked to the team I could have change the course of that game for the team. I had a rough game and it was just a downhill spiral…one of the best things I learned was to make sure you’re proactive.”

Boyd is talking about leadership lessons, but not the details. Boyd appeared as if this was the first time he heard about Bison. This is something one could attribute to the Clemson coaching staff–right or wrong–but it could also be on Boyd. Either way, the better QB prospects already have the leadership component down and are focusing on the strategic improvements. Boyd talks as if he is a step behind as a leader and a quarterback.

“It’s all in the details,” says Gruden. “Film study and countless hours of work.”

Another thing I see with Boyd in this interview is forced laughter while he’s criticized. This is often a sign of nervousness, stress, and seeking empathy from other person. Again, can you blame him for feeling these emotions? Most of these prospects are going to show some level of insecurity with their body language in this environment.

Boyd’s laughter is much different from the chuckle when Gruden showed a tape of an N.C. State fan doubled over in grief in the stands. That laugh seemed more genuine and joyful–especially since Boyd had eight touchdowns in the game.

Gruden tells Boyd that he sees a player with peaks and valleys and the NFL sees it too. He asks Boyd what does he think about that perception.

“You know honestly, again I feel like consistency is what got me to the point where I’m at. I feel like I’m one of the more consistent players out there. But in order to be great in anything that you do you have to go out there and take risks,” says Boyd. At this point Gruden smiles a very tight-lipped smile and begins writing. Gruden’s body language here is often seen as “guarded,” indicating a reaction he doesn’t want to share because he doesn’t like or trust what he heard from Boyd. “You can take check-downs all day if you want to but check-downs don’t always lead to touchdowns. You have to go out there and try to make it happen sometimes.”

Boyd goes on to link his tendencies to Brett Favre’s risk-taking. Depending on the observer, Boyd’s use of Favre could be seen as a form of denial and delusions of grandeur about his play or if the observer thinks Boyd can develop into a starter then it’s a valid point.

Gruden’s response is to repeat the phrase, “peak and valley” three times.  This response from Gruden could come across as a subtle way of telling Boyd that he’s stubbornly refusing to admit fault or he’s in denial about the comparison. Either way, it there’s evidence that Gruden isn’t convinced that Boyd is a student of the game.

“Will you promise me that you’ll be relentless with the details,” asks Gruden, telling Boyd that many of these things are very easy to fix.

Gruden finishes the show explaining to the camera that he likes Boyd’s toughness, willingness to work, and the fact that he’s the type of player that a coach will feel confident that he can develop.

The most critical takeaway from his show might be that Boyd doesn’t have a clear picture of what he has to learn, doesn’t want to admit flaws, and doesn’t study the details. If these are all true, then observers who have this viewpoint will not be as optimistic about Boyd’s developmental potential.

Others may believe Boyd was coached not to discuss his flaws or took his media coaching to an extreme that wasn’t as nuanced as it should be. They might be more forgiving of his avoidance behavior. They might go either way on Boyd’s lack of detailed focus on the film.

However, many observers might see a confident young quarterback who might be a little too confident for own good and they’ll see this arrogance as a positive in some ways. They will see a friendly young man, who was clearly angry with his mistakes and guarded with his responses because he was under the microscope on national television. If they believe he can improve, there’s little here that might dissuade them from taking a shot on him.

For actual analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio – available now. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

 

Rehabbing the Wonderlic

It's a better fit to assess football intelligence than a standardized test. See below. Photo by Brandon Velasco.
It’s a better fit to assess football intelligence than a standardized test. See below. Photo by Brandon Velasco.

The Wonderlic and the NFL’s misguided use of it continues to fascinate. I propose a solution.

If you’ve seen the Audible Podcast where I commented on the Wonderlic exam, then you know my suggested alternative to the Wonderlic.

This test was designed in 1936 and the military adopted it for measuring a pilot’s ability to think fast. One way of looking at the Wonderlic is that it’s an exam twice removed from its original purpose–if it ever had one besides one form of measuring the ever-elusive concept of intelligence.

But let’s talk about the Wonderlic’s use as a test for our nation’s airmen. While true that pilots face life or death situations, the physical stress of flying a plane is different from that of a football player.

Pilots have to be in great physical condition due to the altitude and G-Force of aerial maneuvers that cause fast changes to blood pressure, heart rates, and blood flow through the body–often resulting blackouts if a pilot isn’t in supreme condition.

The G-Force of flying a fighter jet also creates a sensation of carrying extra weight.  Combine these sensations with the need to maintain a sharp mind and precision movements to control the plane, and it’s understandable why the NFL might look at the cardiovascular demands and draw a parallel between a cockpit and a pocket.

It’s one thing to be out of breath and weighed down while making lightning-quick decisions; it’s another to be breathless and pummeled from a series of moderate car accidents while trying to execute an offense. Yet what really separates the pocket from the cockpit is the type of decisions a quarterback makes that differ from a pilot.

Operating a fighter jet requires excellent skills in mathematics: reading performance tables; gauging time, speed, and fuel; understanding the geometry for specific weaponry; and mastering the impact that certain angles will have on a plane with challenging navigational movements.

A quarterback doesn’t need to know a lick of math. He doesn’t need to read anything but a clock. And his plays are diagrams and words that he has memorized. The Wonderlic tests more for math and language skills than visual diagrams and executing strategy. Moreover, it doesn’t test for the combination of the strategic integrated with motor skills and physical-mental stamina.

So like most non-NFL people, I think the Wonderlic is a useless–and often a counterproductive–assessment tool. If the league wants to make it remotely worthwhile, here’s what I suggest:

  • Lead the prospect to a room for an interview, workout, or press conference–whatever ruse necessary to set up an ambush.
  • At the ambush point, have 3 or 4 of your defensive linemen or linebackers grab the prospect, put a bag over his head and beat on him for 45 minutes.
  • Remove the bag, lead the prospect to a table, and administer the Wonderlic.
  • If the prospect can answer any question correct in 15 minutes, he passes.
  • If the prospect can avoid the bag or ambush and has a stand-off with his attackers, he should be considered for the top half of the draft.
  • If the prospect aces the test after getting beaten up or avoids the ambush altogether, he’s a first-round pick.

Yes, I’m kidding. However, a  player asked to think quickly and make good decisions with accurate execution after a 45-minute mugging is closer to the reality of what you want to see than a book-smart suburban kid who scored well in controlled, standardized test environment.

If you ask me, the NFL would be better off if it put a player through an exhaustive workout and then ask him to execute physical-mental football concepts that are basic to most college players at their positions. If you want to up the stakes, add less familiar concepts that are a logical extension or advanced wrinkle of this knowledge base.

It will require more work for the league to develop, but isn’t it worth it to assess a player’s intelligence free from the socio-economic bias that comes with standardized tests? More important, isn’t it worth it to assess intelligence that’s appropriate to the environment?

But what do I know, I’m just a writer.

Reads Listens Views 4/18/2014

Photo by Ashley Bovan. Solo by James Marshall Hendrix.
Photo by Ashley Bovan. Solo by James Marshall Hendrix.

Fran Duffy’s Scouting Notebooks, Voodoo Chile Trip, Trio of Doom, and Solar in the Dark

What is Reads Listens Views?

If you’re new to the Rookie Scouting Portfolio blog, welcome.  I post links on Friday to content I’m saving for later consumption. You may not like everything listed here, but you’re bound to like something.

Listens/Views

[youtube=http://youtu.be/MMGwTJ63jcA]

Love videos like this, although I’ve heard better Hendrix versions and I can’t talk about this song without sharing this version . . .

[youtube=http://youtu.be/OEJh2FFUUoU]

Download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio

Friday’s are also my chance to thank you for reading my work, encourage you to follow the RSP blog, and download the Rookie Scouting Portfolio publication.

The RSP is available every April 1 for download. This year’s RSP is nearly 300 pages in the draft guide section and filled with analysis of  164 skill position prospects that has earned a loyal following:

  • Rankings
  • Draft history analysis
  • Overrated/Underrated analysis
  • Multidimensional player comparisons
  • Individual skills analysis by position

You can learn more about the RSP here. If you want to see samples of the play-by-play notes I take to write the analysis, you can find them here. If you want to know what my readers say about it, look here. If you want a quick video tour, here it is:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsQwtyOCDM&feature=share]

If you don’t have time to look into details, know that once you look through the RSP, there will be no question in your mind that I do the work, that I have a plan about the work that I do, and that you get more than your money’s worth. It’s why more and more draftniks every spring can’t wait until April 1.

If you think that’s a ton, you ain’t seen nothing. When you purchase the RSP, you also get a free post-draft publication that’s available for download a week after the NFL Draft. Fantasy football owners tell me all the time that this alone is worth the price.

Best yet, 10 percent of each RSP sale is donated to Darkness to Light, a non-profit devoted to preventing and addressing sexual abuse through community training in schools, religious groups, and a variety of civic groups across the U.S.

Here is what the RSP donated to D2L this year. According to D2L, the RSP’s 2013 donation amount was enough to train 250 adults in communities across the country.

Pre-order the 2014 RSP and/or download past versions of the publication (2006-2012).

In Case You Missed It/Coming Soon

Reads (Football)

Listens

[youtube=http://youtu.be/zfFmTefVGg8]

 Reads (Life In General)

Listens

[youtube=http://youtu.be/Rf8m3Ww-Unk]

Futures: Alabama MLB C.J. Mosely

Mosely

Seeking an lesson in playing middle linebacker? C.J. Mosely’s game is instructive. 

Futures: Alabama MLB C.J. Mosely

By Matt Waldman

He can’t catch, he’s had numerous injuries, and a well-executed read-option keeper can trip him up. But if these are the only damning aspects to middle linebacker C.J. Mosely’s game, and his injuries don’t present a long-term concern, there aren’t 10 players in this class I want more.

Mosely’s game is instructive to playing middle linebacker:

  • Addressing run gaps to help teammates
  • Beating lead blockers and attacking the ball carrier
  • Strong pass coverage—man and zone
  • Making good pre-snap diagnosis
  • Finishing plays

He’s not the best middle linebacker you’ll ever see, but the Alabama defender should become a stalwart for an effective NFL unit. The more I study middle linebackers, the more I see the commonalities between them and their natural adversary the running back.

I have always ascribed multiple definitions for a running back’s vision:

  • The patience to allow the play to develop as close as possible to its design.
  • The skill to find and anticipate the creases as they open.
  • The ability to see and set up unblocked defenders at the other side of these creases.
  • The peripheral vision and/or understanding of the opponents’ tendencies to identify the cutback lanes and the timing to exploit them.
  • The judgment to know when to be patient and when to be decisive.
  • The maturity to understand when to resist the urge for the big play in lieu of the short, punishing play that moves the chains.

The last two are of monumental importance if a runner wants to succeed in the NFL. And in many ways, all of these points of vision apply to a good middle linebacker like Mosely. Read the rest at Football Outsiders.

Gray Matter: RBs Andre Williams and Anthony Dixon

Anthony Dixon isn't the athlete Andrew Williams is, but he has shown more as a football player. Photo by Jeffery Beall.
Anthony Dixon isn’t the athlete Andre Williams is, but he has shown more as a football player. Photo by Jeffery Beall.

I see the good from Andre Williams, but will he show it often enough on the field? 

I’m often asked about my “misses.” Who were they? What did I learn?

The answers aren’t always as simple as the questions.  Sometimes the outcome is wrong, but the process is right.

Cincinnati running back Cedric Peerman hasn’t shown me anything contrary to my take on the rare occasions he gets to carry the football. The fact that Jay Gruden admitted that they didn’t know what they had in Peerman adds to my take that Peerman could have developed into a starter if given a true shot.

Sometimes the arriving at a decisive take on a player isn’t incredibly difficult–even with a defined methodology. There are prospects whose tape is enough of a mixed bag when it comes to pivotal components of their games that determine which examples should carry more weight is a tough call.

While it’s natural to worry about being “right” or “wrong” with the call, what I learn from the players who fall into the grey areas of my process helps me tighten it over time. These adjustments are more gradual than immediate, but the potential lessons of these difficult evaluations hold great value.

This isn’t what some people want to hear. They want immediate answers and instant adjustments.

I’m not into the fly-by-night; I’m an aspiring craftsman. I’m hoping there will be many years ahead of valuable lessons based on mistakes.

One of my not-so-simple misses is Anthony Dixon, one of my favorite backs in the 2010 NFL Draft. The runner from Mississippi State  is a bruiser with the footwork and agility of a runner 20 pounds lighter than his 6’0″, 233-lb. frame.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/RjPpHxlSThk]

A sixth-round pick of the 49ers, Dixon has hung onto a roster spot thanks to his special teams play. However, the 26-year-old Dixon is unlikely to earn significant time as an NFL starter after failing to push Frank Gore for time on the San Francisco depth chart early in his career. One of the reasons that Dixon didn’t earn more chances is that he did not display consistent maturity as a decision maker.

The coaching staff expected its young runner to lower the pads and work downhill, but Dixon either bounced too many runs outside or displayed too much hesitation on plays designed to go between the tackles. The early take on Dixon is that he lacked the balance of decision-making maturity and creativity to solidify a spot in the offensive rotation early in his career.

Dixon has been pegged as a special teams performer and fullback-running back `tweener. He was a solid fit for Jim Harbaugh’s gap-style ground game, which wasn’t the predominant system during the Mike Singletary era. On rare occasions, fans saw Dixon earning time in Harbaugh’s backfield as big-lead closer.

Because Joique Bell, Alfred Morris, Knowshon Moreno, and Pierre Thomas aren’t extraordinary physical talents and they’re still making an impact ahead of more touted prospects, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more to come with Dixon’s story than what I mentioned above.

Even so, there is something I should have taken into account in hindsight: the Mississippi State ground game. The Bulldogs incorporated a lot misdirection with its run game in a gap-style offense: shotgun draws, counter plays, and traps.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/zvHPZi7_apk]

Although Dixon communicated a sound understanding of his keys at the line of scrimmage when I talked with him about his favorite plays at Mississippi State, the Bulldogs offense didn’t require sophisticated decisions from its backs. Dixon had to show just enough patience for one set of blocks to develop and make that destination of the run work. In most cases, Dixon’s physical skills were enough to earn yards after contact if Mississippi State failed to open wide lanes for its back.

Recently I went back to watch some of Dixon’s tape. I didn’t have the same impression of Dixon during my post-mortem analysis. The athleticism, power, and agility are all still there. However, I now see how the Mississippi State offense inflated my take of Dixon’s vision.

Where I missed on Dixon was his decision-making coming out school. Where I still may hit is his athleticism, burst, and balance if the decision-making has improved.

Funny enough, I wrote  90 percent of this piece and banked it in my archives well before Dixon earned a contract with the Bills and Mike Mayock announced his love for Boston College running back Andre Williams.

Williams is a big back like Dixon, but his evaluation has some difficult moments. The 6’0″, 227-pound Williams stars in a gap style ground game that loves to run traps, counters, and power. Both runners have enough quickness to move the chains, but neither shows the NFL speed to defeat a good angle from a defender in pursuit.

What adds complexity to this comparison contrast is that Dixon displays better athleticism on the field than Williams despite the fact that the Boston College back had an impressive combine. Williams’ physical skills don’t show up with the frequency that I expect from the top prospects at the position.

The professional market is too saturated with running backs who show more on a consistent basis for me to have as positive of a take on Williams as Mayock.

Even so, I like to explore the grey matter of my evaluations. Here are three plays that reveal glimpses of Williams’ best.

Power

Pair Williams in a power running game and the Boston College starter can get the job done. Here’s a 13-yard gain from a 23 personnel I-formation run against nine defenders in the box. The Eagles pulls its left guard to the right side and leads Williams to the hole behind his fullback.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/1lafGKn45VA?start=105]

Williams demonstrates some press-and-cut ability on this play. Ideally, I’d want to see Williams approach the hole outside the guard’s shoulder and then cut inside the guard at the line of scrimmage to exploit the hole opening to the inside.

Instead, Williams is positioned in the middle of the guard’s back. Yet it’s still a good enough spot for him to press the lane with a jab step to the outside shoulder and cut to the inside.

WilliamsA1

This move compels the defender on the pulling guard to peek outside and a beat late as Williams enters the hole inside the guard.

WilliamsA2

Williams gains three yards untouched through the hole and has some momentum to face the safety coming down hill and poised to deliver a shot to the runner’s legs. Williams’ knee level is high enough to repel the contact, maintain his balance, and earn another six yards before finishing the play coming over top of the defensive back making the tackle.

This is one of the better runs I’ve seen from Williams against contact where he doesn’t have a massive down-hill head start. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of them–even this one play doesn’t tip the scales for me over the wealth of plays where he’s unable to bully in tight spaces.

Here’s another nice press and cut from Williams from a heavy I-formation set.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/1lafGKn45VA?start=137]

Note the direction of the defense’s helmets after he executes the press and cutback. If Williams can make these cuts with this level of patience, agility, and burst more often in the NFL than he did at Boston College it will force me to re-examine how a small sample of plays can carry more weight despite being the exception to the rule in a player’s portfolio.

WilliamsA3

Speed

Williams’ difficulty opening his stride to reach that extra gear he showed at the combine limits his upside in the NFL. Here’s a play that would be a much bigger gain if Williams had elite speed for the NFL game. However, it’s a good example of enough speed to produce as a starter in the league.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/1lafGKn45VA?start=49]

As Williams reaches the flat, the safety has a bead on the running back. In this situation, Williams opens his stride enough that the safety cannot reach the runner at the eight-yard mark of the run.

Williams out runs this angle of the defender and earns another 16 yards beyond that safety’s original target trajectory.  If  not for the cornerback, Williams is off to the races.

But at this point, I have to stick with my take that Williams in pads doesn’t match his exploits in shorts. If not for Mike Mayock’s take likely reflecting the tenor of the NFL, I would have expected the Boston College starter to get a call in April as a late draft pick.

In the hyper-competitive world of professional sports and the perception-fueled environment of bloggers and fans, my assessment doesn’t sound complimentary. However, I remind you that for a player with an excellent mental-emotional approach to his career, the NFL Draft is only the beginning.

If the Boston College runner can demonstrate these skills with greater consistency, I’ll be eating my words. Of course, lessons like these offer plenty of nutritional value and build stronger bones for evaluation processes.

 For analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

2013 RSP Post-Draft Video Tour

“I first experienced the RSP last year and after reading several pages, you got me for only god knows how much time you’ll be doing it. I’d prepay this for the next ten years easily. I mean it in the most sincere way, this has become my most anticipated read of the year and once again, I know it will be awesome.” – Dom

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8f06wrsHVI&feature=share]

New to the RSP? Wondering what’s inside the RSP Post-Draft and how to use it? Take the video tour.

  • How the Pre-draft and Post-Draft work together.
  • Tour of the tiered cheat sheet. .
  • The use of ADP values and RSP values to help readers maximize dynasty draft value.

Download the RSP now and I’ll email you a week after the NFL Draft to let you know when the Post-Draft is ready for download. The publications are a package deal at $19.95.

I have readers tell me all the time that they would pay $19.95 just for the Post-Draft publication. I sell this as a package deal only because the pre-draft is just as important long-term as the post-draft. One feeds the other.

 

2014 RSP Ready For Download . . . Really!

2014 RSP

The 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio is now available for download . . . really!

There’s a first time for everything . . .

For the first time in over 700 posts, I hit “publish” instead of save and it had to be the post I was saving to announce the RSP and I can’t even blame it on the family pet. All’s good now. The 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio is ready for download.

The 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio Tale of the Tape

Standing at 1284 pages and covering 164 skill prospects, the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio is now available for download at www.mattwaldman.com. Because a post-draft addendum is now a regular part of the RSP purchase, it has allowed me the luxury to weigh my rankings less on draft stock and more on talent until we see how opportunity knocks at the NFL Draft. Take video tour.

As was the case last year, many of the climbers and fallers in my pre-draft rankings surprised me. I look forward to sharing more of my thoughts about these players and  the process in the coming weeks.

Here’s what my readers have to say about the RSP:

“You should also know, that in fifteen years of playing fantasy football (I started in 1999 – Senior year of high school), I have never paid for fantasy football information. Not magazines. Not websites. Nothing. I read/listen to everything possible as I digest information and draw my own conclusions. I was apprehensive about ‘wasting’ twenty dollars. Thank you for the hours spent doing something you love. I appreciate it. Again, quality in-depth work. I would would pay double the price. Easily. Get some sleep.” – Josh Corbett

“Purchased the RSP by @MattWaldman for the first time. Lots of “holy ____”‘s were said in an empty house. Incredible work” Zack Henkle via Twitter

“The only thing I have read that I looked forward to more than the RSP was the Harry Potter books. Football Nerd Goodness” – Lisa London

“I truly think the RSP is the best draft resource money can buy.” -Ryan Lownes, Draft Analyst for DraftBreakdown.com

” Best pre-draft scouting report on every conceivable guy [at the skills positions] is by @MattWaldman. Very good read – mattwaldman.com.”  –Chris Brown, author of Smartfootball.com and Grantland contributor

“Just pre-ordered my annual copy of football gold.” – Aaron Statts via Twitter

“Yours is the ONLY publication I ever pay for in fantasy football. Mahalo for the quality!!!” – Jim

“Can’t wait for the #RSP. I am like Billy Madison on nudie magazine day! – Matt Austin via Twitter

“I first experienced the RSP last year and after reading several pages, you got me for only god knows how much time you’ll be doing it. I’d prepay this for the next ten years easily. I mean it in the most sincere way, this has become my most anticipated read of the year and once again, I know it will be awesome.” – Dom

“BTW, I first purchased your RSP in 2011, won my league that year, had a middling team, repeated in 2012, still a middling team.  How I have used RSP the most is during the season for my waiver pickups, always nice to reference your report when trying to decide between a few players. Thank you again. Oh, btw, the other 11 owners think I am lucky, lol, I am but for different reasons than THEY think 🙂 ” – Warren

“You won’t find a better resource. Matt Waldman delivers. Period. Cannot recommend more highly.” – Bob Harris, FSTA Hall of Famer

 

 

 

“Best dynasty rookie document there is. Can’t live w/o it.” – Tim Stafford, Dynasty League Football staff writer.

 

“In case you guys havne’t heard, @MattWaldman’s RSP will be availalble April 1st. A must buy for fans of the NFL Draft.” – BillsTalk.com via Twitter

 

For analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio available NOW. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2014 RSP at no additional charge. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.