Scouting Department vs. Front Office

[kungfoodude]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's been a while...

If I recall correctly, there were a lot of changes when Rhule and Fitterer took over. And I remember in recent years feeling like we didn't have enough experience in that department. I'd probably need to take a closer look though. Sometimes it felt like we were just hiring people who were available as opposed to the best candidates.

Historically, they had some decent guys under Marty (many of whom have risen to executive level since), a good number of which got here earlier, some from the beginning of the franchise. With Marty making the final decisions though, a lot went wrong. There were always gonna be limits to that setup no matter how good the scouts were.

Gettleman? I know he made some changes (chief among them elevating Brandon Beans) but also said he didn't wanna make too many. During his time we had our best overall roster management, but it was inconsistent at points. Then he went to the Giants and took the opposite approach, kicking out well established people.

Fitt brought in some people that had decent reputations, but also some that were head scratchers. Never totally understood going with Cole Spencer to run college scouting when I felt like there were more qualified people like his old buddy Scot McCloughan (whose son is still on staff, I believe)

Like others, I was thrilled when we brought Adrian Wilson aboard but...oy

Where are we now? Well, our GM is a pro personnel guy by trade. Are we doing better in that department than we are in college scouting? Maybe, but it's kinda hard to tell when nobody can stay healthy.

Honestly, it feels as if there's not a consistent vision or structure in the scouting, like if you threw a bunch of Coryell and WCO guys together on a roster and expected a smooth offense. Not sure if I'm explaining those thoughts clearly, but hey

My vote, as I've said many times, is a full overhaul by someone who knows his sh-t, but I'm not holding my breath. I like Morgan, and if he's willing to stand up to Tepper that's a plus...

...but not enough on its own.

Yeah, that sums up my thoughts and, as always, thanks for your insight. I know you follow this stuff very closely.

The 2024 draft felt like another complete mess with very little rhyme or reason to the decisions.

 

[TD alt]

27 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, that sums up my thoughts and, as always, thanks for your insight. I know you follow this stuff very closely.

The 2024 draft felt like another complete mess with very little rhyme or reason to the decisions.

 

There was plenty of rhyme or reason to the decisions. We invested in the O-line (and D-line for that matter) in free agency. We took a step back overall on defense in order to invest in the offense. 

During the draft, we needed a play-making receiver, so we drafted one. We also drafted what many analysts considered the best RB in the draft---a true three-down back with legit play-making potential as well. Moreover, the hope is that Ja'Tavion Sanders will develop into a complete TE as well. All of these weapons will only help a QB in theory, and the offense in general. 

Of course they didn't exactly abandon the BPA philosophy, so when Wallace was available, they got him. If his 15 tackles yesterday is any indication, as well as his flash plays in earlier games (and the preseason), then there's some reason for optimism. And it's not like we don't need playmakers at LB.

As for anyone else, it's a dart throw. Day three picks are truly developmental and hit-or-miss. You should be taking guys that you feel may develop into something more, but if they don't they're not players you'll lose sleep over. 

Just because you don't agree with the strategy doesn't mean that they didn't have one. 

Edited October 8 by TD alt

[kungfoodude]

5 minutes ago, TD alt said:

There was plenty of rhyme or reason to the decisions. We invested in the O-line (and D-line for that matter) in free agency. We took a step back overall on defense in order to invest in the offense. 

During the draft, we needed a play-making receiver, so we drafted one. We also drafted what many analysts considered the best RB in the draft---a true three-down back with legit play-making potential as well. Moreover, the hope is that Ja'Tavion Sanders will develop into a complete TE as well. All of these weapons will only help a QB in theory, and the offense in general. 

Of course they didn't exactly abandon the BPA philosophy, so when Wallace was available, they got him. If his 15 tackles yesterday is any indication, as well as his flash plays in earlier games (and the preseason), then there's some reason for optimism. And it's not like we don't need playmakers at LB.

As for anyone else, it's a dart throw. Day three picks are truly developmental and hit-or-miss. You should be taking guys that you feel may develop into something more, but if they don't they're not players you'll lose sleep over. 

Just because you don't agree with the strategy doesn't mean that they didn't have one. 

Yeah, I have no idea what you saw but it's definitely not what I saw. There is very, very little logic or reason to the players we picked in that draft nor the position we took quite a few of them. If anything, it telegraphed that they don't have any intention of getting better through the draft for at least a couple of seasons.

The free agency moves seem to be above Panthers average in some regards. OG overhaul was a big success, DB signings seem very sound, addition of Diontae was excellent. The rest of the signings are a mixed bag.

I would say the disparity between the pro personnel decisions and draft decisions are massive.

We will see how it turns out. 

[TD alt]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, I have no idea what you saw but it's definitely not what I saw. There is very, very little logic or reason to the players we picked in that draft nor the position we took quite a few of them. If anything, it telegraphed that they don't have any intention of getting better through the draft for at least a couple of seasons.

The free agency moves seem to be above Panthers average in some regards. OG overhaul was a big success, DB signings seem very sound, addition of Diontae was excellent. The rest of the signings are a mixed bag.

I would say the disparity between the pro personnel decisions and draft decisions are massive.

We will see how it turns out. 

You can't expect multiple train wrecks to be handled with precision. The FO had to have a certain amount of dart throws, so of course the results are a mixed bag. But for what we focused on, which was the O-line and the first couple of days of the draft, the plan was kinda obvious. And, you're right; we will see how it turns out. But the expectation should not be perfection. By many many accounts, if you come out of a draft with two legit starters, that's a good draft. I suspect that we may have three (maybe four if we're lucky). It will take a little time,  maybe one to three seasons before we can judge the success or failure of the draft.

[kungfoodude]

29 minutes ago, TD alt said:

You can't expect multiple train wrecks to be handled with precision. The FO had to have a certain amount of dart throws, so of course the results are a mixed bag. But for what we focused on, which was the O-line and the first couple of days of the draft, the plan was kinda obvious. And, you're right; we will see how it turns out. But the expectation should not be perfection. By many many accounts, if you come out of a draft with two legit starters, that's a good draft. I suspect that we may have three (maybe four if we're lucky). It will take a little time,  maybe one to three seasons before we can judge the success or failure of the draft.

I have yet to see any starting caliber players from this draft yet but hopefully they will emerge eventually.

[Tbe]

Dan changed up the scouting dept a little after the draft.

Who knows what that will do. His big hire was a guy who spent 15 years with the commanders. Meh

He did get an eagles guy though.

Edited October 8 by Tbe

[PNW_PantherMan]

14 hours ago, 45catfan said:

You know when this downward spiral started?  When Tepper went all-in on analytics. Let scouts scout and let the nerds play Xbox.

Analytics doesn’t even make sense as a decision making rubric in football.  It can work in baseball because you have a million at bats for the numbers to even out.  Football is a game of small sample sizes and outliers.

[kungfoodude]

8 hours ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Analytics doesn’t even make sense as a decision making rubric in football.  It can work in baseball because you have a million at bats for the numbers to even out.  Football is a game of small sample sizes and outliers.

Analytics has its uses but it isn't a substitute for using experienced eyes.

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Analytics has its uses but it isn't a substitute for using experienced eyes.

I had read a while back (can't remember the source, might have been Person) that Fittterer took a heavily analytics based approach when he got here (most likely aligning with Tepper since he's big on that stuff) whereas Morgan reportedly prefers old fashioned scouting.

On that front, I can definitely support Morgan. The question though is how well he'll do 

Even with the right approach, you still have to be good at it.

Edited October 8 by Mr. Scot

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I had read a while back (can't remember the source, might have been Person) that Fittterer took a heavily analytics based approach when he got here (most likely aligning with Tepper since he's big on that stuff) whereas Morgan reportedly prefers old fashioned scouting.

On that front, I can definitely support Morgan. The question though is how well he'll do 

Even with the right approach, you still have to be good at it.

Yeah and this last draft is heavy on analytics takes and pretty light on "eyeball" takes, IMO. 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah and this last draft is heavy on analytics takes and pretty light on "eyeball" takes, IMO. 

Groundwork would have been laid largely under Fitterer, so there's that.

Now that said, and granting that I was somewhat incapacitated for a lot of this offseason, If there were major changes to the scouting staff and executives (other than Wilson being let go) I missed it.

If Dan Is going to be like our old buddy Riverboat and be reluctant to part ways with people, he could end up sinking along with them.

Edited October 8 by Mr. Scot

[AU-panther]

Its pretty clear that a lot of people around here really don't understand analytics. 

What exactly are we considering analytics?  Measurables? Advanced metrics? such as success against pressure for a QB?  If a guy watches a film and can see that qb struggles against pressure is that really any different than when a guy watch's film and tracks how often a QB struggles against pressure and assigns it a number?  

People are quick to say I prefer the "eye test", really?  One reason Young was on top of the QB draft board was because of the "eye test", he had good film.  Made a lot of next level throws, maybe not the 60-yard bombs, but the anticipatory type throws scouts look for, also he did well when he got off platform and things started to break down.  Analytics would tell you he was an outlier based on height and weight at the next level.  Everyone remembers stroud from the GA game, but they didn't' really watch some of the tape from earlier in the season.  

Also most analytics would tell you trading up like we did for said QB isn't the smart play over time.  

People treat analytics as one super number when in reality analytics covers a broad range of factors that often overlap the so called "eye test".

 

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Its pretty clear that a lot of people around here really don't understand analytics. 

What exactly are we considering analytics?  Measurables? Advanced metrics? such as success against pressure for a QB?  If a guy watches a film and can see that qb struggles against pressure is that really any different than when a guy watch's film and tracks how often a QB struggles against pressure and assigns it a number?  

People are quick to say I prefer the "eye test", really?  One reason Young was on top of the QB draft board was because of the "eye test", he had good film.  Made a lot of next level throws, maybe not the 60-yard bombs, but the anticipatory type throws scouts look for, also he did well when he got off platform and things started to break down.  Analytics would tell you he was an outlier based on height and weight at the next level.  Everyone remembers stroud from the GA game, but they didn't' really watch some of the tape from earlier in the season.  

Also most analytics would tell you trading up like we did for said QB isn't the smart play over time.  

People treat analytics as one super number when in reality analytics covers a broad range of factors that often overlap the so called "eye test".

 

Well most people hate math, so I think that is why they distrust metrics(unless those metrics support their preconceived notions). I mean, except that numerology guy that sometimes posts here. He really loves numbers.

Anyway, ultimately I think you are right that having an analytical approach is not a bad thing. You just can't get too entranced with metrics over experienced eyeballs or vice versa. It has to a a logical approach with plenty of checks and balances. And it needs to be a living thing that constantly gets tweaked, adjusted and improved. 

Our failings are the cohesion(and competence, TBH) of the entire organization. We have no unified goal, it seems. It strikes me externally as a kingdom filled with warring feifdoms all trying to protect their own interests and skins.