Jump to content
stitches

[Rapoport] Gruden and Mayock sent all their scouts home one week before the draft. Belief is they didn't know who is trustworthy

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

"Played pretty good for us," Brandt added, diplomatically, "but he wasn't Joe Montana."

 

:lol:

 

6 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

I'm not so sure that wasn't a tactic to get other teams to bite on a player they really have no interest in so they can get another player to slide through.

 

The cloak-and-dagger stuff this time of year is so crazy.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out teams employ former CIA agents to help out.  Or the CIA utilizes NFL lifers as "consultants"...:funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 6:54 PM, stitches said:

 

From the looks of it, the colts don't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

From the looks of it, the colts don't mind.

 

Colts have been tight lipped about everything.  It appears they have a close net on potential 'leaks'.  From FA, to trades, to draft.  Still, it would not surprise me to hear the scouts not actually in the draft room until day 3 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might not have really understood the whole story when I first chimed in, if what follows has any semblance of truth. There's more to this story, the take from the scouting side, which I've become privy to.  This take is likely going to ruffle some feathers, but it is not mine, but from one who was a scout, still has access and knows people, and who states they talked with Raiders personnel in the know.  I'm not direct quoting, but shortening it and often paraphrasing it without losing sight of the focus of the article.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The head coach has to coach his coaches.  The GM has to scout his scouts, and coach them. GM's that were scouts get respect of the scouting staff.


Here is the Raiders scouts / draft saga.  C. Landry says teams do not send all of their scouts (10 or 11) home for the week. Yes, it's true some teams don't have the scouts in the draft room, just a handful of guys.  Raiders situation - Mike Mayock has no background in coaching or scouting. He got his information (and good info too) from inside trusted sources and rehashed it on TV.  True scouting is not just spotting and mentioning good traits, you have to be able to explain how a player exhibits those traits by examples, and place a numerical grade to it.  Like math where you have to show your work, so it is also in scouting. Detailed reports and a quantifiable grade. Now, some Raiders scouts had feathers ruffled that a 'TV guy', a media member, gets the GM job. Probably as a favor from ex media guy Jon Gruden.

 

As Raiders had draft meetings, there were thoughts that Mayock was lost in those meetings. He would comment about a guy, but couldn't properly defend it when discussions/objections came up. {we even saw in Colts productions teasers that Ballard wants opinions, even dissenting, but it has to be backed up... show your work. But don't be quiet, don't be a 'yes' man} So, they'd put on the tape and Mayock's assessments weren't backed up.


It is felt/known that Mayock watches film, and lots of it.  But it is also felt in the pro scouting community that he doesn't have training or knowledge on the full details to look for, or experience at it. He gleans traits, but cannot break it down in the depth necessary for a detailed scouting report.  Nobody (in those meetings) ever said anything directly about his lack of film room ability, but he was often embarrassed in film sessions (objections/rebuttals) and the scouting staff by and large felt he was clueless, or at the minimum improperly evaluating. And a TV scout is different than a real scout pervasiveness permeated the draft room meetings.


The building tension between the scouts and GM moved Mayock to remove them, and yes, to reduce the potential for leaks. But these scouts really already know who Gruden / Mayock like.  If there was any potential disloyalty, sending them home (if they are essentially fired) possibly poured more fuel on the fire. Keeping them in the building (but not in draft room/meetings would have been better stance.  They could keep tabs better, and other teams would view it as disloyal if those scouts tried to spill any beans, weakening their chance to land jobs at other teams if fully let go.


It is felt the Raiders will difficulty hiring 'good scouts' now (if those others are truly fired). And the GM doesn't have the knowledge or ability to 'improve' any of their new scouts they may have to hire; which may be less experienced and not as good as veteran scouts.


If these scouts were truly let go, (basically fired) they are more likely to spill the beans now (even though scouts contracts last through the draft), and other teams probably won't look at it as disloyalty, which they likely would have if the scouts were kept in the building and leaked info, even if excluded from any/all further draft proceedings.


Gruden controls it, and thoughts are he hired a GM to do his bidding. The scouts were Reggie McKenzie's. And it is thought it was Mayock himself that leaked the story of the scouts being sent home.  And those scouts were probably located and asked later, and possibly even confirmed the story.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I remember the stories about Rapoport's news flash-

 

"On Friday, Rapoport reported that the Raiders new GM Mike Mayock and head coach Jon Gruden sent home their scouts for the weekend and through the lead-up to the draft. While Rapoport said some teams send their scouts home early, in the Raiders' case, the early dismissal is over concerns of trust.

"Mike Mayock does not know who he can trust with his draft secrets," Rapoport said. "He does not know who he can talk to, who he can kind of confide in. It's no surprise there's gonna be some significant turnover in the scouting department for the Raiders after the draft."

 

There hasn't been any media follow up on this since.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 3:37 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

:lol:

 

 

The cloak-and-dagger stuff this time of year is so crazy.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out teams employ former CIA agents to help out.  Or the CIA utilizes NFL lifers as "consultants"...:funny:

I've heard about some actual cloak and dagger stuff that I can't share on a site like this.  It is anything but funny.  More bummer than anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JPFolks said:

I've heard about some actual cloak and dagger stuff that I can't share on a site like this.  It is anything but funny.  More bummer than anything.  

 

Football related?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
    • I had us 9-7 just based on guessing/hoping/predicting Luck would be healthy and play great. I was right but a lucky guess, I guess  . I thought that would get us a 6th seed. We won 10 games which got us in.
    • For the first time in a while, I am impressed with the Colts development of players. If this current trend continues, a lot of opinions will change. 
  • Members

    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 110

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 12213

      12213 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lollygagger8

      lollygagger8 9,484

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,322

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 16,053

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 1,110

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyEric07

      IndyEric07 8

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfanej

      coltsfanej 159

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...