Are most GM's really that clueless?

So in the off time I've been watching a fair bit of biography's and football life docs and it really strikes me as just how clueless most GM's and owners seem to be.
Today a documentary on Tom Brady was on who of course was drafted in the 6th round behind countless quarterbacks including Spergon Wynn (picked by the Browns of course)... and yes of course Tom Brady became the 'chip on the shoulder' guy who proved his worth.
At a time when the only thing going on is the combine.. Tom Brady finished a dreadful 5.2 on the 40 yard dash and dead last in every other category. Yet he proved a comeback winner with great stats in college.

Why does it seem like so many GM's are clueless in picking talent? Especially at the quarterback position.

Football of any profession more and more to me (contrary to popular media) is a sport that takes mental determination and great smarts more so than raw talent. If anything our Seahawks exemplify this in every single fashion. Even Steve Largent was a small guy who was no Bo Jackson, but he had a long career and proved smart and determined enough to be one of the very best. Sherman himself admits he's not the greatest athlete.

But I'm fine with this. If the rest of the league continues to focus on purely stat line hopefully we can continue to draft extremely successfully and draft those who will work hard. Looking around the league I feel we're still at least 2 years ahead of the curve with our system.

Why does it seem like so many GM's are clueless in picking talent? Especially at the quarterback position.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing because hindsight is 20/20.

Nah, the GM's aren't clueless. They believe that if they have some numbers to justify their decision making they're safer than if they made their decision based on their gut or subjective evaluation of a player. They're probably right. I mean do you seriously think anyone got fired for not selecting Tom Brady or Russell Wilson earlier in the draft?

I actually think a lot of them ARE clueless. So many get caught up in the "conventional wisdom" BS, and are too stubborn to think outside of the box or are in fear of being ridiculed if they do.

Part of it is because there is a lot of luck in talent acquisition and development. But I think mostly the problems stem from GMs being algorithm based in their thought process. They follow a formula looking for the next Peyton Manning pocket passer. That formula is broken down into parts, and whenever you become focused on components too much you risk losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Sometimes when a player is very special they transcend what would normally be a deal breaker of an issue. It takes some abstract, subjective know-how to figure out which guys are going to be exceptions, and GMs with the talent to discern as much are pretty uncommon. We just happen to have one of those exceptional GMs.

I wouldn't use the word 'clueless' to describe it. Most all have a clue. The know what they see on tape, but will the ownership allow them flexibility to make the moves they want? If they make moves that are different than what's conventionally accepted, they will be that much more under the microscope if those decisions fail.

John Schneider is in a unique situation, and so is Pete. There are not many owners in the league that are willing let starting jobs be decided purely by competition. Most owners want their 'money's worth' out of a high-dollar free agent or high draft pick or . I think the Flynn and Whitehurst deals would have landed most GMs and coaches in hot water, but we are lucky to have an owner who is open-minded, sees the big picture and thinks long-term. Credit also goes to Pete for convincing Mr. Allen to buy into the philosophy. We are already seeing the ultimate validation of that philosophy.

Tim Ruskell was the best.

Unless you are walking in their shoes, I would give them some slack. Chuck Knox wanted to draft Brett Favre but his owner had a woody for Dan McGuire. You have to sell the pick to the owner sometimes. Also, there are egos involved and coaches and the FO don't always see eye to eye. The FO could pick a player that if developed correctly, might have turned out to be an outstanding pro.

What the draft shows is that there are humans involved and no matter the millions spent, there are factors that handicap all teams. I am sure there were players chosen after James Carpenter who could have made a big difference here. Or someone else besides John Moffitt or the 2nd round pick traded to Detroit that the team could have used. One of the main reasons that John and Pete are successful in many of the picks is because the coaching staff is not afraid to develop and play younger players. Something Mike Holmgren just did not seem to enjoy.

It can be a crapshoot and no one has it mastered.

Er...Tom Brady is an exception. For that matter, so is Russell Wilson. Fact is, most of the successful QBs have the measurables that GMs are looking for. And there is a greater percentage of highly-drafted QBs that have success than there are lower-drafted QBs. GMs could draft shorties for the next 20 years and not stumble on a Russell Wilson.

The Steve Largents, Tom Bradys, Russell Wilsons of the world are great picks precisely because they bucked the trend, that doesn't mean the trend is stupid.

If you're a special GM such as a John Schneider, go ahead and buck trends all you want. And Schneid missed on Flynn and CBJ. Simply put, there's no easy formula for drafting a good QB, and lacking some special talent evaluation insight, you're better off going with the measurables that have statistically shown success in the past.

Schneider and Pete are a one of a kind combination, as are most combos that are able strike it rich with a QB who isn't a lock like a Luck or Manning.

A week or so ago, I was reading a nice blurb about GMs and picking talent.

The word isn't "clueless", because someone is paying a whole lot of money for their skills and knowledge. The main word
that fits ALL head honchos (of any business) is "egotistical".

They all made it to the top of the heap by having, and believing in, a certain way of doing things. They have been successful
because of that vision. Even Pete and John have that quality.

As others have said, including hawk45 above me, they are a unique combination. They wouldn't be who they are without
trying, failing and then succeeding to develop their vision.

Riley12":1kc5v9w3 said:

A week or so ago, I was reading a nice blurb about GMs and picking talent.

The word isn't "clueless", because someone is paying a whole lot of money for their skills and knowledge. The main word
that fits ALL head honchos (of any business) is "egotistical".

They all made it to the top of the heap by having, and believing in, a certain way of doing things. They have been successful
because of that vision. Even Pete and John have that quality.

As others have said, including hawk45 above me, they are a unique combination. They wouldn't be who they are without
trying, failing and then succeeding to develop their vision.

Click to expand...

:13: Well put!

I just think that player evaluation is such a complex process that needs to be driven by a very consise and focused vision of where you want your team to go and what you want it to look like. I view scouting as a little bit of art meets science. I think the science part is built up using measurables and production to find a way to give a numerical grade to a prospect and the art side is built up through experience and a natural talent for evaluation. If the vision of the future isn't focused, you may draft two players that hurt each other rather than help, or draft a player that doesn't work with a coaches system. If the way a GM quantifies his grades is placing too much emphasis on certain traits such as height or straight line speed, he could eliminate good football players from his bored. If they lack experience evaluating and drafting certain types of players, they could make a bad call. Add to all that pressure from the owner to put on a certain kind of product and the GM could feel pressured to make or avoid certain decisions. Imagine if the Browns owner told his GM to get a Kam Chancellor and ET, that instantly tilts the way you evaluate players.

I'd almost compare it to writing a novel/screen play. It starts with a focused idea, knowing specifically what the story will be about. Then there are established formulas to building plots and reused tools (such as archetypes) to build characters. There is also the experience of using those tools in different ways to craft compelling stories. Then natural talent for story telling and the due diligence to work through and write it. If one of those is bad the story suffers. Add to that pressure from a publisher to put out a "marketable" story, and you could really run off course. For alot of people who enjoy movies and stories, it's easy to wonder how anyone thought a bad movie was written (let alone published), but it takes so much to make it all work together.

Drdiags pretty much nailed it.

Pete has a clear vision and scheme for how he wants to play, and looks for athletes/players that match his scheme, especially on the defensive side of the ball. John understands Pete's vision and is fully on board in carrying it out.
The last coach/GM combo you could say this about, that there was a vision for how to play the game, and the coach & GM were fully on the same page was probably the Al Davis/Al Davis team, back in the 60's.

Doug Baldwin (undrafted) had some good tweets on this subject today.

hawk45":lw7sivhn said:

Er...Tom Brady is an exception. For that matter, so is Russell Wilson. Fact is, most of the successful QBs have the measurables that GMs are looking for. And there is a greater percentage of highly-drafted QBs that have success than there are lower-drafted QBs. GMs could draft shorties for the next 20 years and not stumble on a Russell Wilson.

The Steve Largents, Tom Bradys, Russell Wilsons of the world are great picks precisely because they bucked the trend, that doesn't mean the trend is stupid.

If you're a special GM such as a John Schneider, go ahead and buck trends all you want. And Schneid missed on Flynn and CBJ. Simply put, there's no easy formula for drafting a good QB, and lacking some special talent evaluation insight, you're better off going with the measurables that have statistically shown success in the past.

Schneider and Pete are a one of a kind combination, as are most combos that are able strike it rich with a QB who isn't a lock like a Luck or Manning.

Click to expand...

This is it. QB/WR/ILB seem to be the toughest positions to project from college to pro. Complexity of offense is the main reason, and those positions have the steepest learning curves in that regard. And this is why I say the most important part of the Scouting Combine is the interview. The 40 time and vertical leap doesn't change what you see on film. Seeing a QB throw to uncovered WRs with no rush doesn't show you anything you can't see by watching the film.

QB is the toughest position to evaluate due to the immense intangibles that come into play. Height/weight/arm strength/accuracy/40 times, etc are baselines for what a player is able to build on, it's a foundation. Everything beyond that is mental acuity and anticipation.

In my opinion, it's a floor/ceiling thing. They always want the next Marino or Elway so they go for potential and usually get screwed for it. There are safer bets but they don't usually go as high.

Also QB's are always picked way ahead of their true value in the draft due to their importance relative to the game. They're involved in a larger percentage of plays and the outcome of those plays so it's a weighted curve. For instance, if you just went on talent, Manziel would probably be a 2nd or 3rd round pick. But since he's a QB and is a high risk/high reward guy, he's intriguing. If you hit on a guy like that, you're set for a while and are suddenly considered one of the better GM's in the league.

You also have to take into account the situation the rookie QB's come into. Alot of things go into that - coaching, talent already on the team around them.. all that. Some of these guys step right into some downright terrible situations with expectations of turning around franchises. Mirer, Carr, etc of the top of my head. Terrible teams with terrible o-lines and lacking offensive weapons.

There has to be synergy and a true spirit of collaboration within an organization. That doesn't mean everyone always agrees, but they have to be able to work through any disagreements without egos taking over to the point that things break down. There also needs to be a clear vision/philosophy/approach that everyone follows.

Seattle now has this. The Patriots certainly did, though I don't know whether it still holds true. The Packers had it under Lombardi.

The trick is not just getting there, it's sustaining that. Doing so is very hard, especially in the modern NFL. Win Forever and Always Compete are designed to try to combat the complacency that can set in. That approach worked pretty well at USC. Now we'll see how far they can take it in Seattle.

drdiags":3ikgz7nn said:

Unless you are walking in their shoes, I would give them some slack. Chuck Knox wanted to draft Brett Favre but his owner had a woody for Dan McGuire. You have to sell the pick to the owner sometimes. Also, there are egos involved and coaches and the FO don't always see eye to eye. The FO could pick a player that if developed correctly, might have turned out to be an outstanding pro.

What the draft shows is that there are humans involved and no matter the millions spent, there are factors that handicap all teams. I am sure there were players chosen after James Carpenter who could have made a big difference here. Or someone else besides John Moffitt or the 2nd round pick traded to Detroit that the team could have used. One of the main reasons that John and Pete are successful in many of the picks is because the coaching staff is not afraid to develop and play younger players. Something Mike Holmgren just did not seem to enjoy.

It can be a crapshoot and no one has it mastered.

Click to expand...

Yep, this was one of my misconceptions.
I expected that Like Mike Holmgren, Pete Carroll would just put Russell Wilson on the sidelines for a Season or so, and learn the system the old school ways.
It may be because Pete is fresh out of Coaching in College, he isn't mired in doing things the old ways, as he's playing guys that have the talent to compete NOW.
I do think that there are players like Christine Michaels that are being drafted by the Seahawks that they want to develop into a starting role, that won't get to start right away, as there are players like Marshawn Lynch that you just can't displace.