Walkthrough
A look at the upcoming week in the NFL, from the players on the field to the fans in the stands

Walkthrough: Made, not Born

by Mike Tanier

Welcome to Walkthrough, where we're posting a new, complete mock draft every hour! That's right: seven rounds, 256 picks, updated every sixty minutes, all week long. So keep clicking and re-clicking "refresh" like some stalker girlfriend waiting for a return e-mail, and we'll keep flooding you with breathless, ill-founded speculation.

1) Detroit Lions: Jason Smith, OT, Baylor. We've had Matthew Stafford going to the Lions in our last 12 mock drafts, dating back to last night. But then we wondered: What if the Lions' courting of Stafford is an elaborate smoke screen to confuse other teams? Granted, there's no good reason for such disinformation, and the Lions are barely able to target and sign players they want, let alone use skullduggery to mislead opponents. Still, there's a chance they'll go in another direction, take an offensive lineman, then grab a guy like John Parker Wilson later in the draft. Next hour, we'll explore the possibility of a three-way, six-pick deal involving the Lions, Eagles, and Broncos, a possibility we just dreamed up while shotgunning Red Bull in the middle of the night.

2) St. Louis Rams: Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia. Marc Bulger is getting old, right? The Rams need to groom a replacement, don't they? This makes sense. Tell me it makes sense. Reassure me it makes sense. Please, I've been awake for 114 straight hours.

3) Kansas City Chiefs: Aaron Curry, LB, Louisville. Curry is a great player who perfectly fits the system the Chiefs plan to run this year. Whatever that is. Wait, who's coaching the Chiefs?

4) Seattle Seahawks: Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech. So groggy. Something something despite signing T.J. Houshmandzadeh something something Jim Mora is a ninny something.

5) Cleveland Browns: Mark Sanchez, QB, USC. The presence of Sanchez and Brady Quinn on the same roster will cause a Golden Boy explosion that will destabilize the global precious metals market. Yes! Still got it!

Commercial: This hour of Walkthrough's Hourly Mock Drafts is brought to you by MindCrime Games, makers of Harmonica Hero. That's right: Grab your wireless mouthpiece controller and saturate its spit valve as you blow your way through more than 50 harp classics by artists like Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan, and Blues Traveler. Then, share the plastic harmonica with friends and trade riffs in the ultimate spit-brother experience. Harmonica Hero is not recommended for anyone with mononucleosis, but it's perfect for anyone who wants to brag that he beat "Hook Brings You Around" on expert setting. Harmonica Hero: Catch the Spirit, Catch the Spit.

6) Bengals: B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College. Raji has been all over the board in recent hours. We had him in Denver with the 12th pick last hour, Atlanta with the 24th pick before that, and Green Bay with the ninth pick in the infamous 5 a.m. draft that was the talk of the blogosphere for more than 20 minutes. The marijuana allegations make Raji difficult to project. If only there was some precedent to base conclusions on -- say, a massive defensive tackle who battled pot allegations before the draft but went on to multiple Pro Bowls. You know, a guy who went through this about 14 years ago who proved that despite using marijuana, the most dangerous of the performance enhancers, a player can get drafted early in the first round and go on to great success. But there's no such player, not a single one, to use for comparison. So we'll keep ping-ponging Raji around the board and harping on the pot story, because it's more interesting than talking about his footwork.

7) Oakland Raiders: Jeremy Maclin, WR, Mizzou. Leave it to the Raiders to draft the fastest player on the board. Hey, you know what: I got paid to write that last sentence! You could have written it. Any football fan over the age of 15 could have made such an obvious, oversimplified remark. But I made it, and it probably netted me about 30 cents, prorated across my fee for this column. Isn't life grossly unfair?

8) Jacksonville Jaguars: Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia. In an hour, we'll flip this pick with Crabtree and call it an "update."

9) Green Bay Packers: Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas. Orakpo is a good fit for a 4-3 team that needs depth and versatility on the defensive line. Wait, did Mayock just say something nice about Aaron Maybin on NFL Network? Red alert! Move him up the board!

10) San Francisco 49ers: Aaron Maybin, DE, Penn State. Nice work.

Commercial: Just a reminder that Hourly Mock Drafts continue until midnight, April 18th. After that, you can look forward to:

  • April 19th-20th: Mock Drafts on the Eights. Get a mock draft at eight, 18, 28, 38, 48, and 58 past the hour, plus local weather and traffic.
  • April 20th-23rd: Live Mock Draft updates on Facebook, Twitter, Blackberry, iPhone, and whatever that old thing was teenagers used to post dirty stuff three years ago. Oh yeah, MySpace.
  • April 24th: Quantum Mock Drafts that update more than 23,000 times before you reach the end of this sentence.

11) Buffalo Bills: Brandon Pettigrew, TE Oklahoma State. The Bills need ... no, I quit. This is insane! It's all just idle speculation. I mean, we all know the top 20 to 30 prospects. Some teams have really obvious needs. But really, aren't we just shuffling a deck over and over again here? Is there any accountability? Is a mock draft any more interesting or useful than, say, a player profile? Or a study to determine whether 40-times are really valuable for running backs?

Oh wait: Mock Drafts generate eyeballs. Casual fans click the link, read about their favorite team for 30 seconds, then move on. It's a proven, easy-to-generate commodity in the marketplace. Heck, this isn't even that much work, even if I am chained to the keyboard and producing them round-the-clock. And in two weeks, it will be over, and I will be writing about actual picks by actual teams that will affect the future of the entire league. Hooray! I have found my motivation.

12) Denver Broncos: Brian Cushing, LB, USC. With two No. 1 picks and a host of needs on defense, the Broncos will try to shore up their front seven. That means grabbing a sure-thing run-stopping linebacker like Cushing, who will help blah blah blah blah...

Commercial: Just a reminder that Walkthrough Hourly Mock Drafts are brought to you by MindCrime Games, makers of Lego Pulp Fiction. Jules, Vince, Mia, Marcellus, Winston Wolf, the Gimp, and others: They are all playable, and they are all made out of multi-colored bricks! Unlock usable weapons like the Samurai Sword and vehicles like Fabienne's Honda. Fight, shoot, dance, and overdose your way through 18 exciting levels. Lego Pulp Fiction is rated ADHD-10: Recommended only for hyperactive 10-year-olds and their borderline negligent parents.

Scouting Reports of the Past

Here are some scouting reports from old Pro Football Weekly draft guides. Can you figure out who the player is?

Tight End, 1997: "A huge blocking tight end who could eventually wind up where he started his college career -- as an offensive lineman -- if he learns to translate his strength onto the gridiron."

Linebacker, 2002: "Negatives: Lacks height, does not look that fast or athletic. Was really helped by his team's defensive scheme last season."

Quarterback, 2002: "Has the tools to develop into an NFL quarterback if he keeps his weight down, becomes more consistent, and learns to play within himself ... Is not the second coming of Daunte Culpepper, but there are similarities."

Quarterback, 2004: "Very good size and instincts for the position. Can manage the offense and is efficient with good leadership qualities ... Reminds scouts of Marc Bulger."

Defensive Tackle, 2004: "If the light stays on, has the talent to be a starter. If he resorts to earlier up-and-down effort and plays without desire, he's just a big backup with the underachiever label."

Cornerback, 2004: "Instinctive zone corner with outstanding production. Limited by his size and man cover speed but is a good football player in the right situation. Training camp player."

Ready for the answers? Matt Lepsis, James Harrison, David Garrard, Matt Schaub, Marcus Tubbs, and Nick Harper.

Old scouting guides are like old farmer's almanacs: There are pockets of wisdom buried in vast canyons of outdated guesswork. It's fascinating to see scouts nail an inconsistent player like Tubbs or predict that Lepsis would turn into a quality tackle. The world where "Culpepper-like" was a compliment seems to have disappeared long ago: Did people live in straw huts back then?

But the Harper scouting report is the most interesting: a situational player, a training camp filler who could improve. Scouting reports like Harper's help us cut through the hype and remind us that for all of the draft talk, player acquisition is not as important as player development.

The Developmental Secret

Great players are made, not born.

If there's anything that eight years of draft analysis has taught me, that's it. Great players become great when they reach the NFL. They don't become Pro Bowlers or Hall of Famers in college, at the Combine or at the draft. They enter the NFL as raw material. They become players -- good, great, exceptional, legendary -- later in their lives.

Each draft class contains dozens of "potentially great" players, but each Michelangelo is still hidden in the hunk of marble. There's no secret method to reveal the masterpiece, because the master still hasn't carved it. The differences between the productive player and the bust, the good player and the all-time great, usually don't even exist yet on Draft Day.

Over the years, I've often been asked how so many teams could overlook Tom Brady. The answer is that he wasn't Tom Brady yet. He was just a second-tier Big-10 prospect with a decent arm and a good head on his shoulders. The Patriots coaches made him Tom Brady, and he made himself Tom Brady. To a degree, fate made him Tom Brady. A dozen other guys might have become Tom Brady, but instead became David Greene or Tim Rattay. Brady wasn't so much a draft-day steal but a triumph of postdraft management and development.

How did so many teams overlook James Harrison, an undrafted rookie in 2002? That's easy: Harrison wasn't Harrison. He was a raw, small-school athlete who wasn't even all that athletic. Justin Tuck wasn't Justin Tuck. Jeff Saturday wasn't Jeff Saturday. They were just athletes: very good ones, not exceptional ones. They became great in the NFL.

Archetypes: Every draft class includes a few outliers, followed by dozens of players that fall into one or more archetypes.

At the top of many draft classes are one or two transcendent athletes: Deion Sanders, Randy Moss, Michael Vick, Lawrence Taylor. These players are so gifted that the only force that can stop them is themselves. There is no such player this year.

Beneath them are usually two or three standouts whose gifts are not quite so preternatural: the Julius Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden class. Again, these players are capable of falling on their faces, but they are so talented that they look pretty good doing it. Michael Crabtree and Matthew Stafford are in this class. Andre Smith might also fit here. Standing beside these athletes are players with great athleticism and exceptional motivation and drive: the Ray Lewis, Peyton Manning types. Aaron Curry and Eugene Monroe fall into this category. With great work habits and top-notch skills, such players rarely go bust.

After the fifth or sixth pick, all the "can't lose" players are usually gone. What's left?

Two hundred-fifty-pound defensive end/linebackers, guys with a quick first step but raw pass rushing skills. Every draft produces about a dozen of them.

Tall wide receivers with 4.45 speed and great hands who never had to run a route tree. Again, every draft produces plenty.

Jumbo offensive tackles with good athleticism but bad footwork and exercise habits.

Cornerbacks who stand about 5-foot-10 and can outrun most wide receivers, but who know little about zone coverage or tackling and have king-sized egos.

Three-year starting defenders in Big-10 or SEC programs who are big, strong, and field smart but a step slow for the NFL.

Running backs galore, most of them around 215 pounds with good cutback ability and poor blocking skills.

And so on. All of these players can be ranked and graded, analyzed and scrutinized. One player has more experience, another played in a tougher conference. One left tackle has longer arms, another appears to have better balance. I can make a list, Mike Mayock can make his, Mel Kiper his, yours your own. The lists will be meaningless, for one simple reason:

The difference between the third and 13th best player at any position on these lists is infinitesimally small compared to the variables that will shape their growth once they reach the NFL.

When I put together draft lists, I usually follow a 1-2-3-Other rule. I study the first three to five prospects carefully, learning about their backgrounds, studying their game tape, reading about them and talking to experts. Everyone else gets a thumbnail sketch: stats, strengths, weaknesses, tidbits. I may list one prospect sixth and another 16th, but that's only for convenience, not because the sixth player is a significantly better prospect. The greatest experts in the world, be they Mayock, Kiper, or some Ravens scout on Ozzie Newsome's speed dial, may be able to discern a two percent difference between them. More likely, Mayock and Kiper are doing the best they can, and that Ravens scout is more interested in what his coaches need, and what they plan to do with their prospects, than in any two percent gradiation.

The Variables: Who is ranked fourth on your defensive tackle list? I have Evander Hood from Missouri. Who is 14th? Myron Pryor of Kentucky? Clinton McDonald of Memphis? All three of these guys are between 290 and 310 pounds, between 6-0 and 6-2. They all have pluses and minuses: Hood is the best athlete of the three and gets high marks for character, so he may be selected in the second round while Pryor and McDonald wait until the fourth or fifth.

Is Hood five percent more athletic than Pryor or McDonald? Ten percent? How do you calculate "athleticism" by percentage, anyway? Give Hood a half-step of quickness and a few pounds of strength over the others. Give him a few IQ points if you want. Those gifts will give him an edge. But these factors will have a much bigger impact on his future success than that edge:

  • The workout and conditioning plan given to him by coaches in minicamp.
  • The role he is expected to play, and his suitability that role.
  • The skills and techniques he is taught in camp, and the reinforcement he receives in those skills.
  • The advice and support he gets from family, agent, and teammates in the first months of his career.
  • The quality and success of the players around him.
  • Truly unpredictable factors, like dumb luck or freak injuries.

Most of these conditions are invisible or inscrutable to the mass media. We don't know what coaches teach in minicamps or how well they teach it, the exact minituae of each system and how well a given player fits it except at the most superficial level. So we focus on draft status, heights and weights, Wonderlics and scouting reports. We anoint "good drafts and bad drafts": silly articles the morning after, serious ones dissecting the drafts of four or five years ago.

If Hood plays for a decade and goes to four Pro Bowls, he was a good pick. If he rides the bench for four years, then washes out, he was a bad pick. Most likely, he was just an ordinary pick: a big guy who fills a team's need. Pryor and McDonald, in either order, will just be picks, though they could grow into superstars or private citizens. What we are really seeing isn't really scouting acumen; it's the difference between good coaches and organizations and bad coaches and organizations.

Situation Nowhere: Let's give Hood and the other tackles a rest. Let's talk about pass rushing ends; not elite specimens like Peppers or Dwight Freeney, but the garden-variety early round pick. We're going to take the same player, a 260-pound 21-year-old with 4.6 speed, excellent agility, and 30 sacks at a major conference program. Let's call him Sack Man. We'll put him in two different situations. We'll call the good situation The Steelers Program. The bad situation is called The Lions Program.

In The Lions Program, Sack Man joins a team whose coaching staff is in its third year but has had no winning seasons. They are on the hot seat, and the team has a mediocre defensive line with no other pass rush threat. Sack Man's coaches are below average by NFL standards. At minicamps, the drills aren't sharp and instructions are often confusing or contradictory. The defensive coordinator wants a point-of-attack defender, but the defensive line coach stresses finesse moves. Specific skills aren't reinforced, so Sack Man doesn't get careful instruction and correction to his footwork or pass rush technique.

Because the team is bad, Sack Man is expected to be an every-down starter from Day One. The whole playbook is thrown at him. He's expected to stop the run, blitz, stunt, and drop into coverage during zone blitzes. He learns slowly and is yelled at by the coaches. Priorities shift as coaches juggle the roster or add new plays in a desperate attempt to change their fortunes. Sack Man sometimes plays out of position or is given no-win assignments. The locker room atmosphere is negative during camp and poisonous as losses mount. Other players shrug off coaches' criticism or go through the motions during drills. Sack Man has a good work ethic, but the organizational malaise rubs off on him, and he lacks role models to show him the best way to improve himself at practice. He keeps trying, but some bad habits rub off.

Sack Man's rookie season is pretty good: six sacks, a bunch of highlights. But the team goes 6-10 again, and the coaches are replaced. The new coaches have new terminology, new roles, new procedures. The old squad wanted Sack Man to line up on the tight end's outside shoulder, twist inside, and attack the tackle between the numbers on a Texas stunt. The new coaches want him head-up on the tight end and attack the tackle-guard gap on the same play. Sack Man barely learned the basics under the old coach, and now he's trying to adjust. The new staff isn't markedly more competent than the old, and they are much less experienced. The new coach is eager to put his stamp on the roster, and Sack Man is under pressure to make a big improvement, even though his skills are still raw and he never had time to grow into his role. Suddenly, he's talked about as a disappointment, a holdover from a failed regime.

Where is Sack Man in four years? Maybe he keeps battling, rises above the turmoil, and becomes an All-Pro. More likely, he hangs around for a few years, garners a few more sacks, but starts to fade as his athleticism slips. If his work ethic sustains him, he becomes a high-motor guy with a little speed who becomes a rotation lineman. If he was drafted in the first two rounds, he's a "bust."

In the Steelers situation, Sack Man joins a team whose experienced coaching staff has run the same kind of system for years. The scouting department works hand-in-glove with the coaches, finding players with the exact skill sets needed to thrive in the system. The defensive line coach has a precise regimen he uses for new pass rushers, and Sack Man learns the basics during tightly run camps. Coaches knew they were getting a kid who needed to improve his footwork; they told the scouts that footwork wasn't a major issue for a player with Sack Man's other talents. The coaches are masters of footwork improvement, and that's what Sack Man works on most during practice.

Sack Man doesn't have to start as a rookie because the team's overall talent level is solid. Coaches can emphasize techniques instead of teaching him the entire playbook. Sack Man has time to develop. He learns to tackle by playing special teams. Coaches measure and monitor everything, including his workouts. There's no pressure to throw him into the lineup, because everyone's job is relatively secure.

Sack Man gets into some games as a situational pass rusher and notches a few sacks. In his second year, the coaches change his goals: He becomes a starter, though he still leaves the field in some packages. The new goals are clearly articulated, and practices are adjusted to prepare him for his new role. Sack Man didn't take a rookie pounding; instead, he bulked up and learned. He wasn't forced to change schemes, wasn't asked to play roles he wasn't ready for. In his second year, he records 10 sacks and makes a bunch of plays in the backfield.

Where is Sack Man in four years? A perennial Pro-Bowler, barring injury. If he was selected in the third round, he's a draft day "steal." No one wonders what might have happened to him in the Lions situation.

Variables and Possibilities: In between the Lions and the Steelers are 30 other teams, some with better coaches than others, better training staffs, better locker room cultures. Some coaching staffs can develop one type of player well but not another. Most staffs have mixed resumes, which is understandable since coaches are just a few of the thousand variables affecting player performance. Some teams have scout-to-coach communication issues, others don't. Some do a better job at player guidance and counseling than others. And so on.

No one can account for all of the variables, but we must admit that they are more important than predraft scouting reports for all but the most gifted or unusual players. In the right situation, Josh Freeman could emerge as a superstar, but if the 49ers draft him and throw him in the starting lineup, he'll flop. Michael Oher might get your quarterback killed as a Day One left tackle starter, but he could anchor the right side of your line after a year on the bench. As an in-space, Cover-2, weakside backer, Clay Matthews could play for 12 years. Make him play close to the line of scrimmage and battle tight ends on every snap, and he'll wear down immediately.

Even our FO metrics only take us so far. The Lewin Forecast is best used as a red flag, a sign that scouts grew enamored of a quarterback's size, speed, or arm, ignoring a (usually skimpy) collegiate resume. Speed Scores identify running backs who fit a mold: They can pick out the very good and weed out the very bad, but they only fill in a little detail for dozens of running backs who fall into an acceptable size-speed range.

Perhaps the best lesson learned by deep analysis is that we shouldn't analyze too deeply. Hour ten of film study won't tell us much about a fourth-round pick. The 21st scouting report on a player offers nothing that wasn't covered in the first 20. The time spent determining whether Chip Vaughn is a better safety than Patrick Chung would be better spent watching NFL game film, learning just how each team uses its safeties, determining if safety is a team's major need, and perhaps checking the coaching staff's track record in developing safeties. That kind of research can tell us if either rookie safety, or any other, is in good position to develop.

So as I assemble my scouting reports for the New York Times draft blog, I separate big from small, slow from fast, experienced from green. I write vignettes about the prospects: pertinent stats, interesting stories, jokes about their famous uncles. I add some color from my notes and tape study. But I don't micro-analyze the players. It's a fool's errand, searching for features that aren't yet there or haven't yet developed. The marble hasn't been carved yet. All we can say for sure is that there are many very promising slabs.

Comments

89 comments, Last at 30 Apr 2009, 8:49am

1 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Great article, one of the best of many superb from the FO staff.

3 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

A good point well argued.

The idea that most rookies need to be developed does lend weight to the arguments for reducing the salaries paid to first round prospects. If you are not paying a guy millions of dollars a year you don't mind him not playing every down before he is ready.

4 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Right in the head!, the Situation is everything, well, almost everything, young kids should not be expected to be thrown into the fire and save by themselves failed organizations. Coaching Staff and Team Management should get most of the criticism regarding the failure to develop young players.

There are no saviors nor messiahs, just well thought plans and hard work.

6 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Nice Queensryche reference...

Great article during this silly season.

-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

7 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Excellent point about organizational strengths/weaknesses and expectations placed on rookies. To be fair to the mainstream press, writers occasionally hypothesize that rookie QBs placed in bad situations will struggle to succeed, that Harrington or Carr never had a chance.

Is "Aaron Curry, LB, Louisville" an obscure reference? He's a Wake Forest product.

9 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

This article reminded me of an article I'd read a while ago over at Baseball Prospectus (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4026).

Essentially, after a lot of data analysis, the writer comes to two conclusions about the amateur baseball draft:

Draft Rule #1: The greatest difference in value between consecutive draft picks is the difference between the first and second picks in a draft.

Draft Rule #2: There is surprisingly little difference in value between second-round and third-round draft picks.

Of course, this is baseball and not football, but I'd love to see similar studies in football to try and fit with your theory that for the vast majority of players (those that are not preternaturally gifted), the spread of talent is pretty much equal, as seems to be the case with baseball.

"Then again, I'm a Bobby Carpenter believer." -- Barnwell

10 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Outstanding. This is one the best, most rational pieces I've ever read on the draft (and scouting and organizational development more broadly). Well, maybe not the mock mock, but even that was more rational than other things I've read lately. Context is extraordinarily important to how well a player performs (as well as how we perceive that performance). Excellent job.

11 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Nice return to form, Mike.

Although, I must admit, it may be a fools errand, but I still want to know who's a better prospect - Eugine Chung or Chip Vaughan.

29 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

I don't think there is a 'Eugine Chung' in this draft. There is a Patrick Chung, who played at Oregon (my alma mater) in Eugene, though. Three- or four-year starter (not that a 3- or 4-year defensive starter at a non-defensive program necessarily means much).

Re: Harmonica Hero. I'm starting slow, on the Neil Young setting. 'Heart of Gold'.

Brilliant, Tanier.

12 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

At minicamps, the drills aren't sharp and instructions are often confusing or contradictory. The defensive coordinator wants a point-of-attack defender, but the defensive line coach stresses finesse moves. Specific skills aren't reinforced, so Sack Man doesn't get careful instruction and correction to his footwork or pass rush technique.

This happens? Dude, that's not just an excellent cause to fire coaches. By football standards, that should be a hanging offense. Jeepers. I'm a football idiot who's never played the game, and even I know you can't do that.

I wonder if it's that the higher-level coaches fail to make clear what they want to the position coaches, or if the position coaches simply do what they think is best? And if it's the latter, do the higher-up coaches not notice, or do they figure that the position coach "knows what he's doing?" I'm sure it's all of the above, but which is the most common reason? Ye friggin' gods.

67 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

The problem on that unsettled staff that Mike described is that football practices are very compartmentalized. It is quite possible for the position coach and coordinator to be on different pages, technique-wise. They shouldn't be, but it happens. Unless somebody notices, Sack Man could get two different sets of instructions. Or, it could be that Sack Man's been so dang dominant all the way through college that he hasn't had to worry much about technique. The same two moves have done just fine and the rest of the college scheme was based off of what he was doing. It's possible that the walk-on OLB Sack Man pushed aside has a better grasp of the scheme than the superstar. Now, add in an unsettled pro coaching staff that assumes that he knows stuff he doesn't, a timid rookie who doesn't want to piss anyone off and doesn't say anything, and you've got a situation that sets Sack Man up to fail.

14 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Re: 12

I'd have a similar reaction as you.

However...

Over the years there have been multiple quotes from multiple free agents signed by the Patriots expressing surprise at the amount of situational practice that NE does. The thing is, the stuff the signees are talking about is (to naive me) basic situational practice that I would have thought every team would do.

Now, while I'm sure there's at least some puffery going on, it leads me to believe there really is a significant, meaningful difference in coaching quality across the NFL teams (and not just in terms of gameday Xs and Os).

15 Raji

Raji to Cinci's pack of thugs! Brilliant!

30 Re: Raji

In reply to by Pete (not verified)

He'd probably prefer to slip one more spot. That way he could follow the footsteps of a certain 'other' defensive tackel-with-marijuana-issues.

And Oakland is a lot closer to Humboldt, CA.

37 Re: Raji

In reply to by Pete (not verified)

Cinci's pack of thugs!

Trollish, baseless, and an old dead horse anyway.

16 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Great article.

Given the Panthers' lack of a first-round pick, I find the fan/pundit speculation about who might still be available at pick 59 to be incredibily funny.

17 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Are you telling me that if the Eagles had drafted Chad Johnson or Reggie Wayne instead of Freddie Mitchell, they'd have been busts? It may take a Michaelangelo to carve a masterpiece, but I'm pretty sure you need a REALLY good chunk of marble, too.

31 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

A first-round wideout, even from a 'really good chunk' of marble, is probably not going to have soft hands.

...

(sigh) Sometimes I'm more funny, sometimes less. Sadly, I can't filter this myself.

54 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Nope. He's saying that Reggie Wayne was about as good as Freddie Mitchell at the time, but several people, including Wayne himself, helped Wayne to become far better than he was on draft day.

It's not hard to imagine that there is something intrinsic about Wayne's character that meant he would try hard to continue to get better. Manning, Dungy, and Moore obviously helped him, but he also clearly chose to put a monstrous effort in to improve.

Maybe Freddie Mitchell tried to improve, but I doubt he tried as hard as Wayne did. I seem to remember that he was yelled at for not learning the Eagles' playbook well. Maybe some of that is that he was dumber than Reggie Wayne, but I bet some of it is simply that he didn't put in the effort.

Wayne and Mitchell were about equally good at playing receiver when they were drafted. But Wayne was intrinsically better at getting better at playing receiver.

71 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Wayne also had Marvin Harrison as a role model, and Harrison's pretty much the platonic ideal, especially when you stack his work ethic and behavior up next to guys like T.O., Randy Moss, Ocho Cinco, etc. Whereas I don't remember the Eagles having any other receivers on the team. Granted, there may have been other stand-up guys on the team, but you don't learn how to be a good receiver from Troy Vincent, you learn from a good receiver.

77 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

especially when you stack his work ethic and behavior up next to guys like T.O., Randy Moss, Ocho Cinco,

Now, Randy Moss has been accused of taking plays off, but Ocho Cinco and TO are both gym rats who spend a ton of time working out and preparing themselves. They both have great work ethic.

Ocho Cinco is a good example here of a player rising above terrible coaching because of his talents and work ethic. Its not surprising that hes disgruntled with the coaching staff and their inability to put together even a decent team.

18 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

I guess the made/born deal could be used to explain the UFA's who lead their teams to the Superbowl after having been on the couch or bagging groceries or whatever.

19 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Sack Man piece was epic......i think there is a ready made example in Michigan's very own LaMarr Woodley, i just shudder to think what might have happened to him if the Lions had drafted him early round two, his career would have progressed exactly as you had laid out. There was great angst amongst the M community towards the Lions for missing out on a great prospect and picking up a mediocre one (Stanton), a Sparty no less. But thank god he went on to join a winning organization and is headed for an excellent career (already has a ring!!), a second round steal for the folks in Steel city.

20 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Sack Man piece was epic......i think there is a ready made example in Michigan's very own LaMarr Woodley, i just shudder to think what might have happened to him if the Lions had drafted him early round two, his career would have progressed exactly as you had laid out. There was great angst amongst the M community towards the Lions for missing out on a great prospect and picking up a mediocre one (Stanton), a Sparty no less. But thank god he went on to join a winning organization and is headed for an excellent career (already has a ring!!), a second round steal for the folks in Steel city.

22 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Big fan of FO and Mike T., ..... BUT there is really little evidence that the "NFL nurture" hypothesis put forward here is right. One could just as easily say it's all nature (i.e., the athlete and 'work ethic' football IQ etc. package inherent in the guy). The variability *might* be in development (across teams) as argued above, or it *might* be in the guys, and the problem with drafting is the complex of talents is so unreadable.

A test? If there are good developmental teams, then they should win more and if there are really bad developmental teams they should lose a lot. So a comparison of (say) the careers of first picks of the third round (make by winning teams) to those of the last picks of the second round (similar overall pick position in an attempt to control for nature) should reveal an interesting reversal. The high third rounders should have better careers. Obviously the test could be generalized to other rounds of the draft.

Just a thought.

I am nobody; Nobody is perfect: Therefore, I am perfect

28 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The first pick in the 3rd round goes to the team with the worst record while late 2nd rounders go to Super Bowl participants and the teams with the best records.

23 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Solid argument for development over talent, but obviously nothing is as simple as that. The Steelers drafted Alonzo Jackson in the 2nd round and developed him into a player that couldn't even cover a kick. James Harrison had the same coaching staff and became DPOY. It's still up to the player to be coached.

24 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Very good stuff, and spot on in a lot of different ways.

I might humbly submit, however, that some of the "randomness" may actually be something akin to true hidden potential that would develop independently of the team or situation, or at least that could be driven by factors more "internal" to the player. A couple examples come to mind - Steve Largent, Jamal Anderson, Tony Romo, TJ Houshmandzadeh. I would have trouble arguing that any of these guys were really put in team and coaching situations that set them up for success, but they achieved it anyway.

I think a lot of players that seem, on the surface, to be relatively indistinguishable from others in their class are in fact substantially different in real potential, completely independent of their team/coaching situation.

That doesn't mean that those characteristics are consistently scoutable, though...so no real conflict with the article, which, again, I think is pretty admirable work.

26 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Wonderful article. Loved it. I think underestimating the role of coaching and development is one of the biggest mistakes casual fans often make (I remember one thread where one FO poster was claiming that the coaching staff accounted for 10% of a team's performance and the rest was about the players...).

I like the marble metaphor. To answer Kevin from Philly: I don't think Mike is saying that if the Eagles had taken Wayne instead of FredEx he would have been a bust. I don't think you need a really good piece of marble...you just need one without any flaws. FredEx had some collassally big flaws in the middle of his marble block, and once the Eagles started sculpting they exposed them and he fell apart.

A player needs the raw physical tools to succeed. A very small percentage of people have those tools. They are the ones made of marble. Everyone else is granite.

Some percentage of those "marble" people have some critical flaw that has nothing to do with their physical tools (e.g. PacMan's propensity for stippers, night-clubs, and troublemakers) that will cripple their development. These people have big old cracks in the marble. Sometimes these cracks are visible, and sometimes you can judge that they are very small and can be chipped off without compromising your sculpture. Others you judge that the crack is too big and avoid that marble block. Sometimes you misjudge the size of the crack, or it's inside and you don't see it until you buy (draft) the marble and start chipping, and you sculpture is a bust.

But assuming you have an unflawed piece of marble, what kind of sculpture it turns into depends on the sculptor and his tools. The one thing the metaphor doesn't take into account is the player himself. Tom Brady didn't just become Tom Brady because of Belichick, Weis, and McDaniels, but also because HE was highly motivated, where as Bethel Johnson just...wasn't.

Now, granted, some players have more tools than others. They are purer or whiter marble. For the same level of development, the same skill of the sculptor, one will produce a prettier sculpture. However, anyone can have their sculpture derailed by a big flaw, and anyone can take a perfect piece of marble and shatter it.

35 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

Actually, it wasn't so much a 'colossally big flaw' in FredEx's marble block, but rather that he had hollowed out his marble block to transport weed to his rib joint. He did the same with his hair.

Anyhow, the point appears to be that a successful pro depends on not only his own 'potential' (as displayed by a combination of college production, interviews, and other statistics), but also on successful scouting AND successful development.

And the Eagles either can't scout or can't develop wide receivers on a regular basis. The WR position is Andy Reid's kryptonite, just as defensive backs were Shanahan's.

27 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

In the nature/nurture debate, I generally agree with nurture, but the HOF quality, Deion Sanders type talents will be good wherever they go. At worst, maybe you see these great guys as only "good".

By definition, most guys are going to be average or slightly/better or worse. That's where the scheme will come into play etc. That's where Bill Bellicheck/Josh Mcdaniels can make Matt Cassell look good whether or not he is. ( You can replace this with Elvis Grbac, Scott Mitchell or anybody else) because Matt Cassell might be good for real.

I think in your article you tended to overrate "drills" players participate in, you tended to overrate "locker room chemistry", but the biggest thing that depends on success or not is Scheme and WHAT YOU ASK THE PLAYER TO DO!

Are you throwing 5 yard slants to Wes Welker, or are you taking 7 and 9 step drops before your offensive line gets you killed? Are you playing an aggressive 1 gap system on defense or are you playing a more passive 2 gap system? Is your receiver to told the route called in the huddle, or is he going to have to read the defense and make adjustments. Does your coaching staff allow your RB to cut back against the grain on the play when he feels it will work, or is your RB told to strictly hit the A gap when the the run is called through the A gap. Are you offensive lineman doing zone blocking or man/man blocking? Is your lineman asked to pull and run and think or is he asked to just overpower the guy in front of him...

It's about what you are asking players to DO, and how well coaching staffs know their personel and USE them. It's about play calling, philosophy, scouting the other teams and a whole lot of stuff. Some coaches are comically predictable in their play calling ( Hey it's 3rd and 11, I'll bet you 100 bucks they run a draw), while others keep you on your toes.

The hyperbole and jokes as usual didn't make me laugh ( as usual). But I agreed with the main part of your thesis. ( Hey, a little constructive criticism?) Oh, and the Aaron Curry slip up was pretty big... But Congrats on the NYT gig Mr. Tanier.

78 Re: Walkthrough: Made, not Born

"I think in your article you tended to overrate "drills" players participate"

I don't Chris. Football is definitely harder to judge, but in MLB, you have some players who have been in professional organizations, since they were 18, have been trained by professional coaches, and still have simple mechanical flaws in their swings.

They're still teaching fundamentals even at the pro level. Sometimes the kids with the most natural talent are the ones with the worst fundamentals. They've never needed to fix the poor swing because they still crushed HS pitching with it.

32 It's an interesting and, well, passionately argued point that

"The difference between the third and 13th best player at any position on these lists is infinitesimally small compared to the variables that will shape their growth once they reach the NFL."

But it doesn't conform to reality. As Brian Burke, who is studying this, concludes:

"The continuing theme in this series is that the best players really do come from the top of the draft. No surprise there. But the top players have more than just an incrementally higher chance of great success, but double or triple the chance. The scouts and GMs do have an ability to recognize the players with the most potential at every position we've looked at so far. It's interesting to see just how steep the drop off really is after the first few players."

Mike Tanier's argument has two problems as I see it. You try a lot of angles, sort of overwhelm with ideas, but none of those angles are substantiated. You also attempt to prove that talent development is highly unpredictable, but do so by citing unusual players like Harrison and Brady.

38 Disagree

The article you link to doesn't contradict Tanier's thesis. Note that MT is saying there is little difference between #3 and #13 at a given position.

Note that Burke concludes: "It's interesting to see just how steep the drop off really is after the first few players." Which is what Tanier is saying. Maybe placing the cutoff at #3 is too high, but the general rule seems to be borne out.