So Much For McCloughan

[Skin'EmAll]

I probably should actually read this article before commenting BUT, at first glance....I thought Scott reached and skipped on potential stars in the draft. However after reading various articles about his philosophy, am I very satisfied. The first 3 picks have tons of potential. The others are already accustomed to ST. one article stated tons of guys on our ST, viewed that job as beneath them...so now we have guys that will be willing to do one job and progress from there.

 

[ehb5]

If that was all there was to it I would be fine with it. However - you took it a step further & asked "Does Scotty really know what he is doing?". A statement like that makes it sound like SM may be no better than any average Joe in running this team. That is ridiculous. Luck is always involved to some degree in success, but long term success requires much more than than & SM has been a part of long term success.

If a guy has not earned the reputation of being the most qualified to run a team by already doing it to some extent for three of the most successful teams in the NFL then I am not sure what would qualify someone to assume this role. God knows that as a Redskins fan we should know this. We have seen numerous unqualified GMs or pseudo-GMs attempt to run this team with little to no success (& you can't blame that all on Snyder).

I love how some of these writers who are not considered elite in their profession feel compelled to attack people who are much, much more successful in their profession.

Your right I d take it a step further. That was mostly to help incite discussion on the topic. But regardless, McCloughan is not above questioning. Why can't I ask if he really knows what he's doing? The point of the article (from a very well respected site regardless of what you may think) was that even the best GMs really are just as good as the unqualified and pseudo-GMs. So nothing I have said is really ridiculous. Not to mention I haven't even come out and said I really agree with what the article states. Its just an interesting topic of discussion and one that makes me (and hopefully others) think.

 

[ehb5]

I probably should actually read this article before commenting BUT, at first glance....I thought Scott reached and skipped on potential stars in the draft. However after reading various articles about his philosophy, am I very satisfied. The first 3 picks have tons of potential. The others are already accustomed to ST. one article stated tons of guys on our ST, viewed that job as beneath them...so now we have guys that will be willing to do one job and progress from there.

I do think this is the key benefit of McCloughan. Maybe he really is just guessing on who's gonna be a star but he does understand football and how to build a team. That's something we can have faith in and haven't had around here in a while.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Interesting article. Does Scotty really know what he's doing?

No Team Can Beat the Draft | FiveThirtyEight

A couple of things immediately stood out to me. How was Ted Thompson's rated? Especially since GB has some ridiculous amount of home grown talent on its team, rarely losing players to FA.

I wonder if he was an outlier?

Also how do they account for injuries to players picked?

I'm no statistician, but I've always been leery about how stats can be manipulated to show most anything you want.

A good example would be Will Montgomery apparently being rated highly within the stat category but it was obvious to the eye test, that he just wasn't cutting it here in DC.

I don't dismiss stats, charts or graphs, I just feel they are a starting point for analysis and never the end all be all.

As to luck, I have to agree there is a great deal of it with draft picks. That's where I disconnect with the article. The reason for the luck is not in the choosing of the player necessarily but in health, fit, scheme, coaching and a bunch of other things that can't be accounted for by simple statistics.

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

when i seen this title of this thread i was like o shit scot quit lol

 

[SoCalWizFan]

A couple of things immediately stood out to me. How was Ted Thompson's rated? Especially since GB has some ridiculous amount of home grown talent on its team, rarely losing players to FA.

I wonder if he was an outlier?

Also how do they account for injuries to players picked?

I'm no statistician, but I've always been leery about how stats can be manipulated to show most anything you want.

A good example would be Will Montgomery apparently being rated highly within the stat category but it was obvious to the eye test, that he just wasn't cutting it here in DC.

I don't dismiss stats, charts or graphs, I just feel they are a starting point for analysis and never the end all be all.

As to luck, I have to agree there is a great deal of it with draft picks. That's where I disconnect with the article. The reason for the luck is not in the choosing of the player necessarily but in health, fit, scheme, coaching and a bunch of other things that can't be accounted for by simple statistics.

Your last pt is a good one & pretty much applies to any profession and any leader, mgr, etc. I could select the best person for any job & he/she could get run over by a car tomorrow.

However - I think that this is just one small part of the equation. You have to remember that one big part of the SM philosophy is acquiring as many draft picks as possible. This helps minimize any risks by basically not throwing all of your eggs in one basket. If luck were the major factor in all of this then I am sure that one of the less-than-stellar personnel folks who has been running the Redskins over the past 15+ years would have had more success. Wasting all your money on older free agents that don't perform or trading too many of your draft picks away is not bad luck - it is poor decision making.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

The intangible things that can't be measured is where stats fall short.

That's one thing I love about Scot. Character has a value that is wrapped into his eval process. How do you measure that on a graph? How do you measure 'grit'? How do you measure football IQ outside of actual stats on the field? You can't, at least not accurately. That is the 'eye test'. I think that's part of what Scot refers to as the 'it' quality.

My stance has never changed when it comes to high quality character football players. I simply do not want 'bad guys' on the team. Talent does not trump off the field issues for me.

I agree with you SoCal, more picks does Have an impact on the odds of success, if you can evaluate talent well.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Didn't want to start a new thread for this article but I thought it fit here. Some interesting things.