Looking ahead to next year

Hey Guys,

So, running this site (along with the scouting I do this year being much more intense than what I’ve done previously) has been a learning experience. For one, I’m trying to run a full-fledged site on WordPress, which is really just an exceptionally powerful blog. It makes formatting tough, but also free. However, I’m beginning to look towards next year (primarily because, due to other events, I’m taking the summer off) and the new scouting class. I know changes need to be made in how things are run, but since you guys are the reason I actually go to the effort to post this stuff, I want to get your takes… Which means I better ask this before the draft, ’cause 3 days after the draft this will become a ghost-site.

The good news is that this site didn’t get rolling until my External Hard Drive arrived in November or December. I didn’t figure out how to efficiently convert files until February. So, with a plan in place, I ought to be able to get more games, particularly on the smaller-school prospects that I’m struggling with right now (not D2, but just guys from programs like Kansas State, Virginia, or UConn.). There should be a lot more information. The problem is primarily processing it.

One of the biggest problems here currently is that the “normal” scouting reports are just too damn long to write up. I type all of these by laptop, which means no mouse (which makes it take even longer). Furthermore, I’ll spend 10 minutes arguing with myself about if a guy deserves a 6.0 or a 6.5. This may make my reports exact, but it also cuts on the reports you guys get to read (or, inversely, the guys I get to scout). I’m debating alternatives and wanted to present some to you guys, as well as creating a forum for you guys to talk about them in.

Some ideas I’ve thrown around:

If finances work out, I might be able to buy a camcorder/microphone and create podcasts or videos (the videos would probably be of me talking, not of the prospect, I don’t have the time to make my own highlight video of each prospect, no matter how cool an idea that sounds). Advantages would be that the scouting would remain the same, the reports would cover the important stuff, it wouldn’t require a lot of reading. This would probably be predicated on a few economic issues that would let me afford that + a real web domain. The disadvantages would be that I’m not a great orator so expect a little bit of stuttering and such, you probably don’t want to listen to the reports at work where everyone can hear you slacking off, and frankly if we do video I’m not THAT good looking. Truth be told, I can’t think of a reason not to just make it a podcast, but I’m all ears.

Another idea would be, again, the same scouting involved, but shorter reports, I actually didn’t mind writing the Donald Brown/William Beatty abbreviated reports, and I could work on ways to improve the reports. It would cut down on the time I spend formatting, while still providing a good amount of detailed information. Downside is that I wouldn’t mention some skills (like OL lateral slide) unless it was remarkable in some way.

Third idea is one I’m a little hesitant on, but might be the most efficient. Since it will take me until November/December to obtain enough games to scout most players, that leaves a lot of the college football season up in the air. What I would do during that time is essentially present “notes” (like the impressions, but probably a little more focused) during the season. If, say, after a game I decide a guy has 6.5 quickness, I’ll put that down. I take notes during my normal scouting process anyways. I’d be posting these notes as I write them, but the new twist would be using the information on the notes in the reports. So if I takes notes on 3 games for a team, I might only need to pop in 2 more games to finish up a report. It would speed things up greatly. Unfortunately, I have no idea what it would do to the quality of my reports – normall a guy is evaluated over the course of a coupledays, not a couple months. It may be that there is no loss in quality, and of course if I disagree with a grade I can change it.

So those are the three that I have going so far. I’m also debating how to work with my grading system in general (for one, Quickness and Explosion seem to be grades that need more defining, I want to add change-of-direction, etc.) so any input on what you want for that would be appreciated. If you have some other advice on how to improve the format, by all means let me know. I certainly haven’t thought of everything. As well, if there are readers who are not Seahawk fans and would like to see this site take on a less-Seahawks oriented  feel, chime in now. I’m debating how I want to work with grades and if the readerbase isn’t as heavily composed of Seahawk fans as I think, that influences my decision as well.

Lastly, has anyone tried to submit a mock draft, I’ve recieved none, but maybe people don’t want to make a Mock this early. I certainly understand that. I just want to know if the mailing feature works or not.

Donald Brown, RB, UConn

Name: Donald Brown
Position: RB
School: UConn
Height: 5103 E
Weight: 210 V
40 Yard: 4.48 V

Athleticism: 6.0
Brown is a good but unspectactular athlete. He has good foot speed, but his top speed is not overly impressive and he cannot keep it up during a long run (when he gets caught from behind, it is because he loses gas). He has very good balance in a back and runs with good pad level. He has the ability to change directions quickly, but for some reason I rarely saw him truly plant off his foot and explode, more interested in pitter-pattering steps.

Physical Talents: 6.0
Good but not great size, at 5’10 210 he is the build I like from my backs but may have trouble adding weight. Looks thinner than 210lbs, to be honest, but not a lot smaller. He has a good amount of explosion, at least a 6.5 there, as he bursts through the hole with surprising speed. While he does not get overpowered and plays tough, strength is not a big part of his game.

Polish: 7.0
I wish I could have seen Brown more as a pass receiver and blocker so I could get a better grasp for that aspect of his game, but as a runner Brown is very polished and instinctive. He runs with very good patience and vision, it will be interesting to see how he compares to Knowshon Moreno, another back with great vision… I believe those two are at the top of the class when it comes to vision.

Competitiveness: 6.5
I didn’t see a whole lot either way to get a good feel for Brown. He was hugely productive and consistent for UConn, and was almost their entire offense in the two games I saw. He plays tough, but not spectactular for a RB. Certainly not a back who avoids contact but absorbs it rather than dishes it out. High effort player.

Strengths: Very instinctive, smart runner. Does not try to score a TD every play, knows when to accept a 3 yard gain. Very good burst through the hole and can pick up 20 yard chunks of yardage as fast as anyone. Not afraid of contact. Follows his blocks with patience. Very good character guy who takes fantastic care of his body (cold-tub fanatic). Supposedly has a fantastic stiff-arm, but I never saw it.

Weaknesses: Really only had one good year, his junior year at UConn (became a starter due to pre-season injury). Does not maintain great speed on breakaway runs, allowing defenders to catch up to him. May not have potential for more growth. If a defender squares up on him, is not especially difficult to tackle but plays angles well (minimizing head-on hits). Long term durability has not been answered. Only sometimes does he plant his foot and cut upfield, preferring to pick and slide.

Summary: Brown is the kind of runner I would love to have for my team. He has a good build for the position and excellent burst when he finds the hole. He’s a patient runner and has the ability to rip of yardage in chunks. He’s a good character sort and takes care of himself, and has a reputation as a good blocker and receiver. Unfortunately for Brown, Seattle’s zone-blocking scheme will not utilize Brown’s vision or patience especially well, and his inconsistency with his cuts will be a glaring weakness. Is Brown good enough to play RB in a good zone? No doubt. But Brown has more value to a scheme that will utilize his vision and instincts. This grade is on his value to Seattle, which simply isn’t as great as his value to another team.

Final Grade: 6.1

William Beatty, OT, UConn

Name: William Beatty
Position: OT
School: UConn
Height: 6060 V
Weight: 307 V
40 Yard: 5.06 V

Athleticism: 7.0
Beatty is every bit as athletically gifted as the top OTs in this draft. He has exceptionally quick feet, evident when pulling or on screens as he runs in a straight line extremely well. He changes directions well when adjusting to the linebacker and has good (but not great) balance, rarely getting overextended.

Physical Talents: 6.0
Beatty has some problems that lower this grade more than just what the film would show. If he can play with the same sort of speed he showed on film with the 6’6 307lb frame he showed at the combine, his future team will be very happy, but he did not play at that high a weight in college and has admitted a difficulty keeping weight on (came to college at 265lbs). He has enough strength to protect the quarterback and be an effective blocker, but overall his strength is nothing special. He is quick off the snap but does not explode into DL when he run blocks, despite showing decent aggression.

Polish: 6.0
Beatty looks to have a good understanding of what his assignment is and what he has to do to complete it. He gets to the 2^nd level well and had no mental lapses in the two games I saw. The only area where I feel Beatty is deficient is his individual technique, as he really needs to learn how to use his hands when protecting the quarterback, lacking any kind of punch. Rarely saw him as a pass protector due to limited tape and UConn’s offense, but what I saw was not endearing.

Competitiveness: 6.0
Beatty was a good competitor in his senior year, showing a decent amount of aggression and desire while blocking and playing at a consistently high level. He really strives to make the block on the second level, which is a big plus in a zone blocking scheme. The only concern I have is that this is supposedly a big change from the Wiliam Beatty of 2007.

Strengths: Eye-popping athleticism. Good height and weight at the combine, if he can keep it up he can play in some systems as an OT. Does a good job using his feet as a pass protector and showed a good understanding for the playbook. Blocks well on the move and shows a desire to block the LB on the second level. Perfect fit for a zone blocking scheme.

Weaknesses: Not a finished product – lacks any punch in protection. A little grabby and while it only resulted in one penalty (2 games), it could bite him at the NFL. Almost all other problems are off-film problems: Not really known as a hard worker until his senior year at UConn, so teams will have to ask if he will slack off once he gets an NFL pay-check or if he has rededicated himself. Allowed 5 ½ sacks as a junior compared to 1 as a senior, so consistency could be an issue. Ability to maintain 300+lbs over an NFL season is also a concern.

Summary: Going just off film, the comparisons between Beatty and D’Brickashaw Ferguson are uncanny. Ferguson was a little more polished, but just on film the similarities were far more similar than different. Unfortunately for Beatty, Ferguson also had multiple years playing at an extremely high level while Beatty burst onto the scene his senior season. With Beatty, it is all going to come down to his dedication for football – will he work his butt off to keep on weight, improve his technique, and get better in general? In any case, he is probably not ready to protect a quarterback’s blind side this year but would be a good developmental project if a team that runs primarily zone running plays believes he is ready for that kind of responsibility. I am admittedly an optimist when it comes to these kids working hard to better themselves. Since I can’t ask around the UConn campus to get a feel for Beatty’s character, I take an innocent-til-proven-lazy approach with most prospects and for the sake of consistency I will give Beatty the grade his senior film warrants. While I rate Beatty highly, I am concerned about these issues so it is somewhat reluctantly I don the mask of the optimist.

Final Grade: 6.4 I (broken leg Sophomore year should be looked at but is likely alright)