College Talent Scout

Analyzing and Scouting the Best of the NCAA

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.

March 14, 2009 - Posted by rotak | Uncategorized | | 1 Comment

1 Comment »

  1. I appreciate your work and the time it must take. The third option sounds best. There’s no way to know who we will really need in 2010, so you’re scouting has to be pretty broad early in the season. The third option gets the ball rolling. You may end up going back and reviewing a few guys who end up as likely suspects for our draft, but otherwise you’d be set.

    Comment by grid | March 15, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment