Colts Hosting Another Workout With Reggie Ragland

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Let's be clear of the distinction between NFL scouts and people like Mike Mayock. I have no problem with any of the network or Internet analysts, nor do I claim to be better than them, so if it's their word aagainst mine, feel free to side with them. However, they are NOT NFL scouts.

 

I'd like to offer that my sources ARE NFL scouts.  And they also Charge for their most prized inside info (and I admit to being a willing consumer):

 

Chris Landry, NFL scout (coach and administrator)-

https://landryfootball.com/about-chris/

https://landryfootball.com/updated-off-season-game-plan-for-afc-south-teams/

 

And Landry also has the War Room = "Landry Football's War Room provides insight directly from an NFL Scout."

 

Pat Kirwan (was and has NFL scouts working for him)

https://realfootballnetwork.com/rfn-staff/pat-kirwan/

https://realfootballnetwork.com/2016/01/07/reggie-ragland/

 

Pat still has tight ties and is still an NFL insider with connections.  I'm now studying all of their new analytics they and now many teams are using.

 

Yes, I have ESPN Insider too, as I think Todd McShay might have qualified scouts that follow college football all season at Scouts Inc. that he collects info from, So I like to get their side of the equation as well, but they might be closer to Mike Mayock (and actually accused of stealing his info at one time)  than Kirwan/Landry.  It was originally birthed as the War Room (not to be confused with Chris Landry's) by Dave Geaslen.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfldraft/columnist?id=1542041

 

 

 

Quote

We won't hear much from actual NFL scouts about any draft prospects. What we do hear will be anonymous. But when you dig for team personnel comments about Ragland, not media people, you'll see mixed comments about his coverage ability and potential. Lots of stuff about him being a "throwback linebacker," which is thinly veiled code for 'he can't cover.' Same for comments like "it's okay because he can rush on third down," again, code for 'he can't cover.'

 

 

Most every player has a weakness, but when you have a potential game changer on your doorstep, you don't let him go to the next house. The Colts interest might be a smoke screen, or that they want to really see if he is a potential game changer in case he is there at 18 and compare him to those left on the board.

 

Everyone has an opinion, and even the pro teams/scouts miss; not just fans and internet analysts.  But I know where I feel more comfortable hitching my wagons.

[CR91]

im thinking smokescreen. way better players to take 

[Superman]

32 minutes ago, gregr507 said:

And for the record, that play against Henry that everyone is talking about, was actually called PI against Ragland. 

 

I was gonna say, I thought he made contact early, and I vaguely remembered the play being flagged. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Everyone has an opinion, and even the pro teams/scouts miss; not just fans and internet analysts.  But I know where I feel more comfortable hitching my wagons.

 

Some of those guys even worked for NFL teams in the past. LandryFootball claims to have current NFL scouts that work with/consult with them. Daniel Jeremiah is a former league scout and was offered a job by the Eagles this offseason. I'm not mocking any of their credentials.

 

But NFL scouts are people who work for teams, who answer to front offices, have a mandate to find players, who know what teams are looking for and are willing to sacrifice, etc. A former scout, even a good one, isn't working for a GM who is trying to find the kind of players that his coaching staff is begging for.

 

Those guys might be very capable and know what they're doing, but those guys saying 'you can scheme for a coverage liability' is a third party viewpoint; they aren't being influenced by the staff that actually has to develop gameplans with a coverage liability in the middle of their defense. That might seem like a nitpick, but I think it's relevant. The coaching staff of the team that's been getting killed in the middle for four years might not be interested in an ILB who isn't good in coverage.

 

As for what's quoted, I have no problem with that. I've just stated and supported my opinion, based on how I see things. Agree or disagree, I think what I've said has merit, but I'm just a guy on the Internet with zero real credentials.

[ColtsBlueFL]

 

All highlight reel tapes make a player look good, but there are plenty of nic e plays against the run and pass in many of Reggie's tape.  I expected ever RB and TE to burn him for a TD judging by responses from many here.

 

Gil Brandt said tonight  that he feels this draft is very different than most before.  He feels there are around 16 grade 1 / round 1 players. from 17 to 52, he feels teams could take a number 52 at 17 .and the another team eventually taking #17 at 52 or anything in between.  He feels they are just that close in that range.  So people liking a certain player might not be far off even if others think they are 'reaching'.

[ColtsBlueFL]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I was gonna say, I thought he made contact early, and I vaguely remembered the play being flagged. 

 

It was real close, but because he never looked back on his closing burst, they did flag him. Not everybody agreed it was. If he looked back, I doubt they flag that.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

All highlight reel tapes make a player look good, but there are plenty of nic e plays against the run and pass in many of Reggie's tape.  I expected ever RB and TE to burn him for a TD judging by responses from many here.

 

Gil Brandt said tonight  that he feels this draft is very different than most before.  He feels there are around 16 grade 1 / round 1 players. from 17 to 52, he feels teams could take a number 52 at 17 .and the another team eventually taking #17 at 52 or anything in between.  He feels they are just that close in that range.  So people liking a certain player might not be far off even if others think they are 'reaching'.

 

I've been saying roughly the same thing since I showed up here 4 years ago.

 

There are almost never 32 players with first round grades.    Often that number is closer to 20-24,  sometimes less.       So players 17 through 48 (middle of the 2nd round)  have roughly similar grades.     You might find a 1st round talent in the 2nd,  and you might be taking a 2nd round talent in the back-half of the first round.

 

This is far more common than many here realize....

 

[Superman]

49 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

I expected ever RB and TE to burn him for a TD judging by responses from many here.

 

In a highlight tape?

 

Don't make me extract gifs. I'll go scorched earth like Frank Underwood... ;) 

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Gil Brandt said tonight  that he feels this draft is very different than most before.  He feels there are around 16 grade 1 / round 1 players. from 17 to 52, he feels teams could take a number 52 at 17 .and the another team eventually taking #17 at 52 or anything in between.  He feels they are just that close in that range.  So people liking a certain player might not be far off even if others think they are 'reaching'.

 

I definitely agree there. My hope is that three QBs and at least one RB go before the Colts are on the clock, then maybe someone like Shaq Lawson lasts to #18. 

 

I really want Myles Jack, but he won't be there. He's my fourth favorite player in the draft, behind Tunsil, Ramsey and Buckner.

[ColtsBlueFL]

M. Jack would be great, but he is gone by #10 I'll bet. :-(

 

Another interesting factoid, Floyd drew all 32 teams reps, but the only head coaches were Belichick, Rex Ryan, Todd Bowles, and Dan Quinn with GM's Thomas Dimitroff and Jerry Resse.  Floyd was dong well (35-inch vertical jump. He did the 20-yard short shuttle in 4.32 seconds and the three-cone drill in 7.18 seconds) but could not complete workout.  Food poisoning. Wow!

 

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Let's be clear of the distinction between NFL scouts and people like Mike Mayock. I have no problem with any of the network or Internet analysts, nor do I claim to be better than them, so if it's their word aagainst mine, feel free to side with them.  However, they are NOT NFL scouts.

 

 

 

Ummm....    I don't mean to be disagreeable here,  but that's not true.

 

NFL.com's Daniel Jeremiah was an NFL scout for 9 years and 3 teams.

 

NFL.com's Bucky Brooks was an NFL scout for 2 teams over I don't know how many years.

 

And I think NFL.com's Lance Zeirlien, and Mike Mayock and ESPN's Kiper and McShay, and the two guys who work with McShay could all be NFL scouts tomorrow if they wanted.    But they don't, because they've got a gig that pays them more without the brutal days on the road in all types of weather and conditions.    These guys have been doing this for roughly between 10 and 35 years.    They've got very good track records.

 

The inference is that these guys really don't know much about real scouting, and could not be a scout in the NFL world.    So, let me put it this way,  if these guys don't really know what they're doing then they are all on the longest streak of wild guesses that just turn out to be right.     That's too much coincidence.

 

They've all got a great idea of who is going to go in what rounds.   1st thru 7th.    Typically when they're way off,  they're off because a team has medical and character info that these guys are not privy to.    But as far as evaluating and grading players -- these guys understand what they're seeing.    They know how to evaluate talent and to judge roughly what round the player is worth taking in.

 

Put another way,   these guys are NOT the guys who program the computer simulation games!

 

I hope readers will consider this and perhaps re-consider their view.     Because if you're not reading the work that these draft writers are turning out,  then you're not getting all the info that's out there.    And in most cases,  it's free!

 

 

  

[Superman]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

The inference is that these guys really don't know much about real scouting, and could not be a scout in the NFL world.

 

Some may feel that way. I don't, and I'm not implying that at all. 

 

Most of those guys are plenty qualified to be NFL scouts. They go on the road, they attend pro days, they talk with players, coaches, agents, families, etc. They do a lot of the things that NFL scouts do. Daniel Jeremiah got offered a front office job with the Eagles this year, so even league people don't disregard the credentials of the media guys for no reason (except Bill Tobin). I may at times disagree with some of them on specific things, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them.

 

However, and I mentioned this earlier, they don't answer to NFL front offices and coaching staffs, and that's a huge deal. One team might be willing to compromise, for instance, taking a RB who can't pass block; another team might not. A media guy might say something like 'he's not a great pass blocker, but that's okay because he's great with the ball in his hands.' An NFL scout would be told 'he's not what we want from a RB,' because the GM and coach get to pick what compromises they're willing to make, not the scout. The scout has a mandate to present backs who can play every down, not rationalize why a one-dimensional back would be great for the team.

 

When media guys are in love with a player who flops, there are no repercussions. NFL staffs get fired when they miss too often, including the scouts. Nobody cares that Mike Mayock had Jermaine Gresham over Rob Gronkowski, and it doesn't matter that he would have hitched his wagon to Johnny Manziel, which he admits isn't contrary to his beliefs about QBs and character concerns. Meanwhile, how many staffs get overturned every offseason? Yeah, everybody misses, but when the Jets miss, the scouting director and five of his scouts get walking papers. When Kiper misses, he just revisits his draft grades and says 'oops, I was wrong on that one.' The stakes are totally different.

 

And then, how many media guys fill hours on the air talking about team needs, when virtually every NFL front office preaches talent over need? The Kiper/McShay mock draft last year was a farce, primarily because they couldn't figure out whether they wanted to make picks for need or value. 

 

It might sound like I'm nitpicking or being overly critical, and I don't mean to. This is really not even my point, especially when it comes to Ragland. All I'm saying is that there's doing it on the Internet or on TV, and then there's actually doing it, building a team, making decisions, working with a coaching staff, knowing that jobs are on the line every day.

 

So, specific to Ragland, the media guys -- who have their merits when it comes to scouting -- might be okay with his limitations in coverage, but that's different from using a first rounder on him and then telling the coaching staff to figure out how to use him. 

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Some may feel that way. I don't, and I'm not implying that at all. 

 

Most of those guys are plenty qualified to be NFL scouts. They go on the road, they attend pro days, they talk with players, coaches, agents, families, etc. They do a lot of the things that NFL scouts do. Daniel Jeremiah got offered a front office job with the Eagles this year, so even league people don't disregard the credentials of the media guys for no reason (except Bill Tobin). I may at times disagree with some of them on specific things, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them.

 

However, and I mentioned this earlier, they don't answer to NFL front offices and coaching staffs, and that's a huge deal. One team might be willing to compromise, for instance, taking a RB who can't pass block; another team might not. A media guy might say something like 'he's not a great pass blocker, but that's okay because he's great with the ball in his hands.' An NFL scout would be told 'he's not what we want from a RB,' because the GM and coach get to pick what compromises they're willing to make, not the scout. The scout has a mandate to present backs who can play every down, not rationalize why a one-dimensional back would be great for the team.

 

When media guys are in love with a player who flops, there are no repercussions. NFL staffs get fired when they miss too often, including the scouts. Nobody cares that Mike Mayock had Jermaine Gresham over Rob Gronkowski, and it doesn't matter that he would have hitched his wagon to Johnny Manziel, which he admits isn't contrary to his beliefs about QBs and character concerns. Meanwhile, how many staffs get overturned every offseason? Yeah, everybody misses, but when the Jets miss, the scouting director and five of his scouts get walking papers. When Kiper misses, he just revisits his draft grades and says 'oops, I was wrong on that one.' The stakes are totally different.

 

And then, how many media guys fill hours on the air talking about team needs, when virtually every NFL front office preaches talent over need? The Kiper/McShay mock draft last year was a farce, primarily because they couldn't figure out whether they wanted to make picks for need or value. 

 

It might sound like I'm nitpicking or being overly critical, and I don't mean to. This is really not even my point, especially when it comes to Ragland. All I'm saying is that there's doing it on the Internet or on TV, and then there's actually doing it, building a team, making decisions, working with a coaching staff, knowing that jobs are on the line every day.

 

So, specific to Ragland, the media guys -- who have their merits when it comes to scouting -- might be okay with his limitations in coverage, but that's different from using a first rounder on him and then telling the coaching staff to figure out how to use him. 

 

Good post.     Fair points.     But in terms of consequences,  if Kiper and McShay don't have the right names, then they'll get fired.     But that's one of my points.     They're on the right guys for most of the season.  And when there's a late riser,  they jump on to them.   Me's been doing it for roughly 35 years.  McShay, about 10 years.     There's a pretty good track record there.

 

But my basic point remains....   if these guys wanted to scout for an NFL team,  they could.   They know what to look for.     If an NFL team said "we value pass blocking a lot and we don't like backs who don't protect the ball"  then that's how'd they'd grade them for their team.     They wouldn't hand in a high grade for back who can't block and always fumbles, but say -- "yeah,  he does all those bad things,  but you should seem him run?!"   They'd take their marching orders and act accordingly.

 

One of the handicaps that the TV and Internet scouts have that regular scouts don't is this.....   a typical scout has a region.   And perhaps a couple of dozen schools that he goes to over and over and over again.   But guys like Kiper and McShay and Zierlein have to scout EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL.    That's a lot of tape covering a lot of games.    And that increases the chances they'll make a mistake because they're spread so thin.   They just can't see every game.   

 

The guy Zierlein replaced, Nolan Nawrocki...   well, NN was late on Aaron Donald.    And he had a mid-round grade on him for a long time.    All the other serves we all watch were on Donald much sooner.     But Nawrocki was late on viewing Pittsburgh tape.     Just a quirk on how things unfolded.    And people here were hammering the guy for having an obviously wrong grade on Donald.    Then, finally, he saw him....    and BAM!   There was Donald, right in the middle of the first round,  and then he inched up toward the top-10 where he finally went 12th to St. Louis.      I'm only pointing out that it's hard to cover all schools.    You're not an area scout, in essence,  you're the scouting director because you have to sign-off on EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.  

 

Just wanted to expand and clarify some thoughts....    appreciate the long and thoughtful response....

 

[Defjamz26]

The idea about LBs needing to be able to cover is a but overstated IMO. With safety's getting more dime looks, you might just want to put your SS on TEs and RBs. There are very few good coverage inside/middle LBs in the game. Keuchly and Wagner are exceptional at it. Mosely and Kendricks are good at it. Miller can cover but he's an OLB.