Gotcha, and no I've never said that just hiring Gaine was going to fix anything. (In fact I'm not a big fan of the hire at all). But the buck stops with the GM. You can start to tell after 2 or 3 years which guys were on to good players and which guys weren't (within reason), no matter what team drafted them or signed them. Especially once you get past the "consensus first 100 picks" or so. But I'm sorry, Mr Clutch, I totally disagree. Some scouts ARE better than others, some guys draft better than others, some guys can "look at the same things" and see vastly different things. If not, why is Cleveland Cleveland? Bad luck?
I think Cleveland has had bad GMs, front office, and coaches. I think it's more how they use the scouting vs the scouting itself. I think there are definitely better scouts than others, but I think for the most part they end up with similar assessments. That's why they don't get the big bucks, but coaches and GMs do. Scouts don't make final decisions, trades, salary offers, overall strategy like rebuilding vs win now, acquire assets vs trade assets, focus on draft vs free agency, what position to emphasize, etc.
Seriously......? LOL! WTF? Spoiler The first thing that popped into my head when I saw that they had hired somebody that used to work for them was Yakety Sax (Benny Hill Music) .... Aka the Texans theme song.
Yeah. I think it's kinda similar. More data and analytics exist in baseball, but you still need scouts there to see guys and interpret the data. But ultimately it will be how the GM interprets all that info and uses it wisely (aka not signing Brock to a huge contract). Here's a good article on baseball scouts. Talks a little about how they can easily change teams so all teams are pretty much getting similar info. https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-status-of-the-scouts-vs-stats-debate/ The Reality of Scouting There is no replacement for having current tool grades on players. The further from the big leagues, the more important it becomes. One R&D analyst told me he thought scouts were essentially snake-oil salesmen until he did the research and found their reports were the single most important input in a draft model. He didn’t mean their individual rankings were critically important or even the difference between the scouts was enormous and measurable, so much as the tool grades give invaluable context to what the stats and TrackMan data mean. It helped this analyst create a draft board that’s been tested to have greater predictability than any one scout’s list.
Some scouts are certainly better than others, and it all starts at the top with a central general philosophy. Hard work, and being on the same page is huge. Scouts need to be familiar with the type of schemes that the team intends to run, because it has a direct bearing on how a particular player is viewed as a potential prospect. You see that reflected strongly in organizations like the Patriots and Steelers and Ravens. They know what their franchise values in a player, and they prioritize it when they scout players. Also organizations can and do turn over scouts fairly quickly if there is a major change in the team philosophy.
Not to mention the execs, owners, and coaches being on the same page. Somehow we still don't know exactly who is to blame for the Osweiler debacle. Smith? McNair? O'Brien?? When there is no clear cut accountability and boundaries between each "division" of leadership, it all becomes out of sorts and ultimately the team and fans suffer for it.
You can give out useful information, especially after the fact, to the media without giving away strategy to opponents. Lunhow and Morey are very forthright and it hasn't hurt them. Savvy fans want some sort of explanation, especially when things aren't going right (see entire Rick Smith tenure save for two years). The fans are the shareholders. But with our fan base I guess it doesn't matter because they are still selling plenty of tickets.
Hmm, everything I've heard from them tells me there gonna draft explosive athletes. Height/weight/speed.
I think that’s being misunderstood. Texans need more tough guys. The difference from the Texans drafting Kevin Johnson and Marcus Peters was character issues. I’m not saying they should go out and get the guys always in trouble with the law or anything. But Texans want the players that are never in trouble and are basically yes sir no sir type of guys. Marcus Peters on the other hand is expressive and has a mean streak. Those are the ones that strike fear in opponents and aren’t afraid to do a little extra. Some might say well look at JJ but he is a clear exemption. I’m probably not explaining it right but I’m sure most of you understand.
The difference on Peters was Rick, who thought Johnson was the better prospect. The difference generally was and is Bob McNair’s edicts. You’ll need a new owner to change that. I have zero issue with avoiding woman-beaters and psych issues. But sometimes you’ve got to take a guy to the owner and lobby for him — Derek Carr, anyone? To win that you need a GM and a HC who have the same goals who’ll do that together. We haven’t had that. I don’t think the guy who wrote that is very bright. Or he and his buddies just make up isht to gossip about because they’ve more wayyy more airtime than intelligent conversation accessible to them. I mean, Payne was holding up Max Bullough as an example of whatever they’re trying to say is wrong with the Texans. Bullough barely played.