The NFL Pre-Draft Process

[TylerVagyler]

ESPN is running an interesting article on Robert Nkemdiche, and the general pre-draft process as a whole. While this article primarily focused on Nkemdiche, I was hoping to open up some discussion on the latter. Here are a couple excerpts from the article that I find interesting:

Quote

Let's face it: The draft evaluation process is out of control. In free agency, the Texans gave quarterback Brock Osweiler $37 million guaranteed -- and head coach Bill O'Brien never met him. But in the draft, teams look at years of video, piles of dirt and hours logged at the combine, at pro days, at private workouts, in exclusive interviews, and at complete medical and psychological records. Teams rationalize the hoarding of information and trampling of privacy as an attempt to mitigate risk. But no team, not even the Browns, is teetering on insolvency because of bad drafts. Even the architects of depleted rosters -- Trent Baalke, Thomas Dimitroff, Jerry Reese -- who helped contribute to the dismissal of head coaches still have jobs. The entire evaluation process has dissolved into theater, and the biggest risk is assumed by the prospects. Only the prospects.

Article also discusses how scouts are asking him if he would distance himself from his brother if drafted by their team. While his brother might be a "trouble-maker" is it fair to ask someone to distance themselves from their family? It reminds me, and the writer, of some of the other personal questions we've read about scouts asking players:

Quote

IT'S EASY TO nod along. It's easy to play armchair GM and defend the right of an NFL team to do whatever it wants under the guise of due diligence, even asking questions -- So do you like men? Is your mother a prostitute? -- that are clearly out of bounds. And so the football world managed a collective shrug when word surfaced that teams were essentially asking Nkemdiche to disavow his brother as a term of employment. Forget that it wouldn't stand in a normal workplace. Forget that nobody asked it of Bill Clinton when he ran for president.

The incident in December is obviously Nkemdiche's fault. He put himself in that situation. However, should it be the only focus of the pre-draft due diligence? 

Quote

Nkemdiche wishes scouts would ask him actual football questions. When one team did ask, he rose to the whiteboard and drew defensive assignments for every position, even the secondary. "Very smart, football-wise," says a scout who witnessed it. Nkemdiche wishes scouts would ask about his impact.

I guess having 2-3 months with nothing to do but dig into these players creates this ridiculous process. But has it gone too far? Should scouts dig into players' personal lives as much as they do? Remember all the "character concerns" with Cam prior to the draft? Look how that turned out.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15159447/should-teams-worry-robert-nkemdic-nfl-future

**Disclaimer: this is not a cry to draft Nkemdiche. He just happens to be the subject of the article**

[LinvilleGorge]

The only risk is the prospects'?  Bullshit.  Teams are going to sign these guys to contracts worth potentially millions of dollars, not to even mention the value of the pick spent.  Those draft picks are a team's best way to acquire talent.

If you have a decent job, think about the background process you had to go through to get hired? I had to go through a criminal background check, credit check, drug test, thorough check of references, etc. not to mention the actual interview process which consisted of HR first, hiring manager second, manager's manager third, and finally a panel interview.  

If a team isn't doing thorough background checks on these guys then they're morons and deserve whatever train wreck of a person they end up drafting.  It's complete bullshit for these PC crusader writers to act like an employer doing due diligence on a potential employee, especially one making NFL player salaries, is somehow overstepping their bounds.  Would you commit to paying someone potentially millions of dollars without doing some thorough research on the person?  Not just the skill set, but the actual person.

[motocross_cat]

Its an investment.  Anytime you invest your thorough.

He doesnt have to cut ties with his brother, just dont be in the streets with him.  Pretty easy i think.

 

[Bartin]

Quote

Should scouts dig into players' personal lives as much as they do? Remember all the "character concerns" with Cam prior to the draft? Look how that turned out.

What about the pre-draft character concerns with Johnny Manziel, Randy Gregory, Greg Hardy, Aaron Hernandez and Percy Harvin? The list of players who have pre-draft character concerns then continue to have them in the NFL is far longer than the list of players who have pre-draft character concerns and then have no problems with it in the NFL. There will always be exceptions. Teams and scouts are perfectly within their rights to look into the players background and any problems they may have had in the past because past behavior is a great indicator of future behavior.

[TylerVagyler]

17 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The only risk is the prospects'?  Bullshit.  Teams are going to sign these guys to contracts worth potentially millions of dollars, not to even mention the value of the pick spent.  Those draft picks are a team's best way to acquire talent.

If you have a decent job, think about the background process you had to go through to get hired? I had to go through a criminal background check, credit check, drug test, thorough check of references, etc. not to mention the actual interview process which consisted of HR first, hiring manager second, manager's manager third, and finally a panel interview.  

If a team isn't doing thorough background checks on these guys then they're morons and deserve whatever train wreck of a person they end up drafting.  It's complete bullshit for these PC crusader writers to act like an employer doing due diligence on a potential employee, especially one making NFL player salaries, is somehow overstepping their bounds.  Would you commit to paying someone potentially millions of dollars without doing some thorough research on the person?  Not just the skill set, but the actual person.

I don't disagree with this at all. But it seems like teams take a single incident and focus so heavily on that they end up making it look like a bigger deal than it is (not speaking specifically on Nkemdiche). Are some of these guys really trouble-makers or do we just have that perception because of the repetitive news cycle during the offseason? The media is always looking for chaos, looking for the downfall. Just look at Cam. Before he was drafted all you heard was talk about his "character issues". Even today you hear more about his post-SB interview than you do about his MVP award. 

When you have guys like Johnny Manziel and Josh Gordon consistently screwing up it scares teams even more, which is basically the reason we see this from scouts. But I feel like it often makes things a bigger deal than they are, and causes scouts to have to, I guess, cross some lines.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, TylerVagyler said:

I don't disagree with this at all. But it seems like teams take a single incident and focus so heavily on that they end up making it look like a bigger deal than it is (not speaking specifically on Nkemdiche). Are some of these guys really trouble-makers or do we just have that perception because of the repetitive news cycle during the offseason? The media is always looking for chaos, looking for the downfall. Just look at Cam. Before he was drafted him all you heard was talk about his "character issues". Even today you hear more about his post-SB interview than you do about his MVP award. 

When you have guys like Johnny Manziel and Josh Gordon consistently screwing up it scares teams even more, which is basically the reason we see this from scouts. But I feel like it often makes things a bigger deal than they are, and causes scouts to have to, I guess, cross some lines.

Are teams doing this or is it the media? Teams are doing actual research into a guy to determine if it's wise to invest in him.  The media is just trying to generate clicks on their websites.  Cam was crucified by the media leading up to the draft and to a lesser degree extending all the way to the present because media types never want to admit that they were wrong and negative press generates a lot more interest than positive press.  The Panthers did their due diligence and obviously came to the conclusion that he was a good investment. In hindsight, that was a very good decision.

[TylerVagyler]

20 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Are teams doing this or is it the media? Teams are doing actual research into a guy to determine if it's wise to invest in him.  The media is just trying to generate clicks on their websites.  Cam was crucified by the media leading up to the draft and to a lesser degree extending all the way to the present because media types never want to admit that they were wrong and negative press generates a lot more interest than positive press.  The Panthers did their due diligence and obviously came to the conclusion that he was a good investment. In hindsight, that was a very good decision.

I'd argue the media does have an influence on teams decisions in today's world. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think teams would be as concerned with some of these off field issues if it wasn't for the media coverage the incidents receive. Obviously cases like Manziel don't fall into this category because he's a crazy person. But public image is a much bigger deal these days because of social media and the constant news cycle.

I guess I'm answering my own question as to why teams dig this deep into players. How personal scouts go still seems...weird to me. And outside of the character issues, the combine process is also crazy to me. Every year there's a new intangible or drill that is magnified and obsessed over. For example, this year the whole hand size thing. 

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, TylerVagyler said:

I'd argue the media does have an influence on teams decisions in today's world. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think teams would be as concerned with some of these off field issues if it wasn't for the media coverage the incidents receive. Obviously cases like Manziel don't fall into this category. But public image is a much bigger deal these days because of social media and the constant news cycle.

I guess I'm answering my own question as to why teams dig this deep into players. How personal scouts go still seems...weird to me. And outside of the character issues, the combine process is also crazy to me. Every year there's a new intangible or drill that is magnified and obsessed over. For example, this year the whole hand size thing. 

The media definitely puts more focus on off-field issues for teams.

Not sure the hand size thing is new.  It's always been a big deal for QBs, WRs, and OTs and to a lesser degree RBs.  Big hands simply tend to secure footballs better than smaller hands and small handed QBs tend to not fair well in poor weather conditions.  Remember Gettleman raving about KB's hand size? Big handed OTs can generally do a better job of securing blocks without allowing their hands to get outside of the pads which can trigger a flag for holding.

[Frank Hollywood]

I'm sure most people realize this, but the reason teams ask if someone is gay or if their mom is a prostitute is not for the answer, but rather HOW they answer. They want to ensure the person isn't a total hothead who cn be manipulated on the field by other teams, or be trouble in the locker room. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the reason.

[Bartin]

6 minutes ago, Frank Hollywood said:

I'm sure most people realize this, but the reason teams ask if someone is gay or if their mom is a prostitute is not for the answer, but rather HOW they answer. They want to ensure the person isn't a total hothead who cn be manipulated on the field by other teams, or be trouble in the locker room. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the reason.

The "is your mom a prostitute?" question is so overblown.

The Dolphins GM asked Dez what his mom's job was and Dez said that she worked for his dad. So he then asked Dez what his dad did and Dez said he was a pimp. What's the logical conclusion there? Obviously it probably could have been handled with more tact than it was, but I have a hard time really blaming the guy for coming to the same conclusion that 99% people would have come to given the context. It's not like he out of the blue asked Dez if his mom was a whore.