Even among the guys supposedly getting paid to actually "watch the film", but especially from all the random YouTubers and whoever else, you just know there's not much in the way of actual scouting being done. Rather a whole bunch of groupthink, and guys parroting the leading voices, which is why all the rankings and mock drafts look exactly the same.
So the point of this thread is: if you've actually spent any time watching some video, or looking at their testing numbers, or whatever else (NOT just parroting XYZ dude) - share your takes that are different to the consensus. [Reply]
Originally Posted by CupidStunt:
Even among the guys supposedly getting paid to actually "watch the film", but especially from all the random YouTubers and whoever else, you just know there's not much in the way of actual scouting being done. Rather a whole bunch of groupthink, and guys parroting the leading voices, which is why all the rankings and mock drafts look exactly the same.
So the point of this thread is: if you've actually spent any time watching some video, or looking at their testing numbers, or whatever else (NOT just parroting XYZ dude) - share your takes that are different to the consensus.
That's the beauty of the draft forum. I'm anything but an expert but know enough to see when guys are rising because they have the right agent. CP has guys like Staylor, Duncan, Crow, modsocks ect that will constantly have me going back and questioning rankings and narratives. We have one of the last hold outs here and should enjoy it while it lasts. Twitters doubled the draft following while also watering it down. [Reply]
I don't really see it this way. I think you just have to weed through some of the bullshit and find the guys that are actually good and objective, but they absolutely exist. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I don't really see it this way. I think you just have to weed through some of the bullshit and find the guys that are actually good and objective, but they absolutely exist.
Too much signal static.
The guys with big names and any inside information aren't objective at all. They're getting fed intel and to get it, they have to shade stuff. Be it from agents or teams or schools. They have sources they have to maintain and keep happy. I think the mask fully came off in that regard last year.
So when you're looking to the guys that are still a little under the radar, A) they likely have less complete information (where they gonna get all that tape, especially if it's already pared down to relevant component parts so they can actually provide thorough review of the 200+ players they'll want to get eyes on) and B) A lot of them are just as full of shit as the next guy.
In wading through all those, it's just damn hard.
Mostly what I've started doing is a shotgun approach. I'll see snippets here and there, then I'll go look into them myself. But there's just not a holistic source worth a shit, IMO.
And I still think the KCSN guys lift our stuff. I'll never get over the Jabaal Sheard comp they dropped on Karlaftis like a week after I posted it here. I went obscure on purpose there and BOOM - it's in their draft guide. That's...odd. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Too much signal static.
The guys with big names and any inside information aren't objective at all. They're getting fed intel and to get it, they have to shade stuff. Be it from agents or teams or schools. They have sources they have to maintain and keep happy. I think the mask fully came off in that regard last year.
So when you're looking to the guys that are still a little under the radar, A) they likely have less complete information (where they gonna get all that tape, especially if it's already pared down to relevant component parts so they can actually provide thorough review of the 200+ players they'll want to get eyes on) and B) A lot of them are just as full of shit as the next guy.
In wading through all those, it's just damn hard.
Mostly what I've started doing is a shotgun approach. I'll see snippets here and there, then I'll go look into them myself. But there's just not a holistic source worth a shit, IMO.
And I still think the KCSN guys lift our stuff. I'll never get over the Jabaal Sheard comp they dropped on Karlaftis like a week after I posted it here. I went obscure on purpose there and BOOM - it's in their draft guide. That's...odd.
I really like Trevor Sikkema and Connor Rogers on the NFL Stock Exchange podcast. They recently had a collaborative mock with Brett Kollman and his YT partner (can't remember his name). All 4 of those guys have their own opinions and often disagree with each other. They aren't perfect by any means, and I disagree often, but I don't believe they're victims of draft groupthink.
I also think they have a good understanding of the majority of teams.
FYI, Trevor and Connor took Morgan at 32 in that mock. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I really like Trevor Sikkema and Connor Rogers on the NFL Stock Exchange podcast. They recently had a collaborative mock with Brett Kollman and his YT partner (can't remember his name). All 4 of those guys have their own opinions and often disagree with each other. They aren't perfect by any means, and I disagree often, but I don't believe they're victims of draft groupthink.
I also think they have a good understanding of the majority of teams.
FYI, Trevor and Connor took Morgan at 32 in that mock.
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I really like Trevor Sikkema and Connor Rogers on the NFL Stock Exchange podcast. They recently had a collaborative mock with Brett Kollman and his YT partner (can't remember his name). All 4 of those guys have their own opinions and often disagree with each other. They aren't perfect by any means, and I disagree often, but I don't believe they're victims of draft groupthink.
I also think they have a good understanding of the majority of teams.
FYI, Trevor and Connor took Morgan at 32 in that mock.
They're my favorite "draft guys" to watch...entertaining and informative and not hyperbolic or looking for headlines. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I really like Trevor Sikkema and Connor Rogers on the NFL Stock Exchange podcast. They recently had a collaborative mock with Brett Kollman and his YT partner (can't remember his name). All 4 of those guys have their own opinions and often disagree with each other. They aren't perfect by any means, and I disagree often, but I don't believe they're victims of draft groupthink.
I also think they have a good understanding of the majority of teams.
FYI, Trevor and Connor took Morgan at 32 in that mock.
Really like that podcast, they're also pretty honest about guys they've just not watched. Seems like very little bulls*** [Reply]
If the draft ever went this way, and bowers felt to 16 I sure would hope we could make a trade with Seattle to get him. We would get a good receiver, and Kelce eventual replacement. This would be a fantastic deal. And Seattle would probably be happy with the extra draft picks. Our 1 and 2 might get it done lol we might need to throw in something else from next year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by CupidStunt:
Even among the guys supposedly getting paid to actually "watch the film", but especially from all the random YouTubers and whoever else, you just know there's not much in the way of actual scouting being done. Rather a whole bunch of groupthink, and guys parroting the leading voices, which is why all the rankings and mock drafts look exactly the same.
So the point of this thread is: if you've actually spent any time watching some video, or looking at their testing numbers, or whatever else (NOT just parroting XYZ dude) - share your takes that are different to the consensus.
Why would most people want to go against consensus?
If you post an opinion on a guy that is different you will get yelled at and people lose their minds. [Reply]
Matt Waldman is a must follow if you care about the draft.
He does his own work and does not follow group think.
His report on Mahomes and footwork while ESPN and the dinosaurs were clueless:
My thoughts on Patrick Mahomes’ footwork runs counter to the analysis of most who will want to re-tool it so he plays like a traditional drop-back passer. The explanations they have spanned the following rationale:
Mahomes was allowed to play without strong footwork because of the Air Raid System, so his accuracy will improve with better footwork.
His stance is often too narrow after his drops, and those passes are off-target.
Better footwork will teach him better timing and feel for the pass rush and lead to better decision-making. These are all great points for a young quarterback – if they were giving this advice to an 8-year-old beginning his journey as a young passer. It’s not to say that Mahomes can’t develop and benefit from these areas, but it must be done without sublimating the best of his game.
Because if we return to the idea of the 8-year-old beginning his journey as a quarterback, eventually that young player will reach a point where technique is only part of the battle. We’d have to wait and see like every other coach in the U.S. whether that player develops the intuitive side of the game:
Play effectively off-script.
Make big plays off tricky pre-snap/post-snap reads that didn’t show up in pre-game homework.
Possess no gap of time between identifying a target and releasing the ball
These are vital skills that many NFL veterans can’t do well regardless of years’ work. Because the feet provide an important part of the physical structure for a quarterback’s mental processing, it’s assumed that Mahomes’ less structured execution of footwork is a big problem. I argue that Mahomes is not only an exception but in many respects, his footwork is unconventionally exceptional. [Reply]
