Cross sports
This will be an opinion piece.
I'm reading this article on ESPN and I found the first few paragraphs about the Houston Texans, and Chicago Bears to be enlightening.
A few sentences sprang to mind.
Houston: "...because O'Brien has starting quarterback ADD."
Chicago: "The pressure to play him (Trubisky) will be intense, and Glennon doesn't have enough around him to succeed in enough of a way to hold off the rookie."
I find the NFL fascinating. Knowing little about how a franchise is run, I can only go off of what analysts discuss, or certain histories.
The ESPN article is talking about quarterbacks, rookie quarterbacks to be specific, and whom among them is ready to play right away, and who can succeed. In general. And I find this fascinating because it wasn't too long ago that I heard the NFL draft is little more than a crapshoot. For all the money, and all the time, and scouting, and experts a franchise has, spends, and brings in, drafting is still no better than 50/50.
What I've heard is that you have to draft a quarterback. If you scan down the article to the Denver Broncos - my favorite team - you'll note that their paragraph begins by declaring them a playoff-caliber team save the starting quarterback. They haven't found their replacement for Peyton Manning.
Why do I find this interesting? I find it interesting because the NFL, in my opinion, is littered with history of how to build a successful franchise, and I believe everyone, or nearly everyone gets it wrong.
And this ties into my recruiting beliefs, and the system I've been trying to develop.
First, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong tangibles are valued. Again I stress this is an opinion piece. Robert Griffin III, and Johnny Manziel were very exciting quarterbacks, wildly successful in college, and both Heisman trophy winners as the best player in college football. Both were drafted in the first round, and both had analysts and coaches drooling over their talents that they displayed in college. RGIII was in Cleveland, and Manziel is out of the league. Both are more than likely done for different reasons - injury, behavior - but both dazzled scouts and team owners, and yet both seem to lack the one thing you'd like a franchise quarterback, or a franchise starving for a quarterback to have.
The ability to throw the ball.
Analysts talk about how much faster the NFL is than college football is. I liken it to college being novice rowing, and the NFL being top tier varsity. In college there are a handful of good teams, and if you do a few things right, you're probably going to be alright. Yes that is over simplification, but for the purpose of this analogy, I'll roll with it. Again, opinion, not fact here. The NFL is varsity, and how I describe varsity is that everyone is good, everyone is fit, everyone is fast, everyone rows well, and it's up to the athletes and the coach to find a way to work into the top. Again, over simplification.
But what you see are analysts, typically when looking at college athletes early to midway through the season, and post careers discussing the points that should have been discussed prior to the draft. Again, this goes into my recruiting idea.
Are you asking the right questions?
If you read the book, "Moneyball," you read about scouts talking about a player's girlfriend on a sliding scale. Pretty girls (7+) indicate confidence. Plain girls (5-) indicate no confidence. They talk about, "A good baseball body." They talk about things that don't seem to have much to do with how someone can play baseball, the one thing they are being drafted for.
It's what I see in the NFL, and rowing. In the NFL the RGIII and Manziel type quarterbacks are super exciting. Multiple rushing touchdowns, scrambles, rushes, etc. The highlight reels are incredible.
Can they pass the ball? Do they know how to stand under center - the way most teams play? Can they check down?
The lightning is fun and exciting, but is that going to win you ball games? The thing you need quarterbacks to do is make reads, and throw the ball - simplification. But those aren't questions being asked.
The other piece that pops up with me is the bit about Chicago. I've heard many times that teams have to draft their franchise quarterback. Have to. The can't miss prospect must be taken. You need a franchise quarterback.
I agree. However, as the report on Chicago points out, there's not a lot of talent there for the quarterback. We tend to see analysts and fans call quarterbacks busts, yet we focus on the quarterbacks, and not the team or how they draft. Andrew Luck is a good example. Andrew Luck looked like a Hall of Fame quarterback his first three seasons. But the Colts are thin, and Andrew Luck got hurt last year. Andrew Luck is a once in a lifetime talent for quarterback, but what good is he when you don't have the pieces around him to help him succeed? Football, like all team sports, isn't a one man show. There are sports where one person can take over in a way, the "refuse to lose" mentality, but you don't see that often. Ask the Oklahoma City Thunder and Russell Westbrook about one man shows.
So you draft a quarterback, a great quarterback, the guy you think will be the cornerstone of your franchise. But you can't develop him - Alex Smith for the 49ers. Or he is constantly under duress by the other team - Detroit, Houston when they were new to the league. Or they can't do the job - Cleveland and Johnny Manziel.
There's so much onus on the franchise, the scouts, the GMs to find the quarterback because, "That's what this team needs," yet when they find them, 50 percent of the time they're not going to work out, and the question about the makeup of the team stands. Who truly knows if all the, "busts" are truly busts when the team around them can't help, or the coaching staff doesn't develop them or put them in a position to succeed? Remember Alex Smith? Total bust. Then Jim Harbaugh comes along, someone who was a quarterback in the NFL, and he develops Smith, and now Smith is a very serviceable quarterback working with another coach who can develop quarterbacks in Andy Reid in Kansas City.
Ok so how does this tie into rowing?
I see this with rowing as well. And this is where my recruitment ideas come in.
Let's ask better questions. In fact, let's ask the deeper questions. And those questions don't begin with the athletes. Those questions begin with the coaches.
- What makes a boat go fast?
- Are we a, "plug and play" program or are we a development program? Are the athletes who come in going to improve under us, or are we going to recruit, "better" ones next year in hopes of finding top tier talent?
- Who are we going to surround our, "star recruits" with? What is their development? Current NCAA and IRA regattas don't have singles, so our top athlete can't row alone.
- Can we develop a 3-star athlete into a 4 or 5?
These are questions I believe we need to ask. We're bringing in a star athlete. We got lucky and landed a kid who should be going to ____ but instead is coming to _____. Great. They can't row the 8 or 4 by themselves. Now what?
Coxswains! We need coxswains! How do we determine coxswains? Height, weight. What do coxswains do? They motivate and steer the boat. So what do height and weight have to do with either of those two qualities? Nothing. And before you bring height and weight into the picture, stop and think on this:
"If you're considering them as a coxswain, doesn't it make sense to assume that they physically look like a stereotypical coxswain?" It does. You're most likely not going to ask your 5'11-6'6, 170-220 lb athlete to be a coxswain, so let's drop the obvious, and ask the harder questions.
This post is getting long so let's wrap here.
Again, all of this, NFL and rowing is simply my opinion.
But I believe it's something to chew on. If you're team isn't ready, one player, one athlete probably won't make a massive difference. Your franchise quarterback can't throw the ball to himself, run the ball, block, and defend. If your franchise quarterback can't throw the ball period, that's another concern.
Same with rowing. "Height, weight, boat you rowed, 2k score, 6k score, 10k score." Great. I use a combination of those numbers when I start looking at building boats, but not just those numbers.
I believe we can learn a lot from history. History of other sports, history of our sport, history in general. What makes the best programs and franchises, and coaches, and what do many of those failed three have in common?
Something to consider as we go forward in the season and prepare for next year.
I'm reading this article on ESPN and I found the first few paragraphs about the Houston Texans, and Chicago Bears to be enlightening.
A few sentences sprang to mind.
Houston: "...because O'Brien has starting quarterback ADD."
Chicago: "The pressure to play him (Trubisky) will be intense, and Glennon doesn't have enough around him to succeed in enough of a way to hold off the rookie."
I find the NFL fascinating. Knowing little about how a franchise is run, I can only go off of what analysts discuss, or certain histories.
The ESPN article is talking about quarterbacks, rookie quarterbacks to be specific, and whom among them is ready to play right away, and who can succeed. In general. And I find this fascinating because it wasn't too long ago that I heard the NFL draft is little more than a crapshoot. For all the money, and all the time, and scouting, and experts a franchise has, spends, and brings in, drafting is still no better than 50/50.
What I've heard is that you have to draft a quarterback. If you scan down the article to the Denver Broncos - my favorite team - you'll note that their paragraph begins by declaring them a playoff-caliber team save the starting quarterback. They haven't found their replacement for Peyton Manning.
Why do I find this interesting? I find it interesting because the NFL, in my opinion, is littered with history of how to build a successful franchise, and I believe everyone, or nearly everyone gets it wrong.
And this ties into my recruiting beliefs, and the system I've been trying to develop.
First, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong tangibles are valued. Again I stress this is an opinion piece. Robert Griffin III, and Johnny Manziel were very exciting quarterbacks, wildly successful in college, and both Heisman trophy winners as the best player in college football. Both were drafted in the first round, and both had analysts and coaches drooling over their talents that they displayed in college. RGIII was in Cleveland, and Manziel is out of the league. Both are more than likely done for different reasons - injury, behavior - but both dazzled scouts and team owners, and yet both seem to lack the one thing you'd like a franchise quarterback, or a franchise starving for a quarterback to have.
The ability to throw the ball.
Analysts talk about how much faster the NFL is than college football is. I liken it to college being novice rowing, and the NFL being top tier varsity. In college there are a handful of good teams, and if you do a few things right, you're probably going to be alright. Yes that is over simplification, but for the purpose of this analogy, I'll roll with it. Again, opinion, not fact here. The NFL is varsity, and how I describe varsity is that everyone is good, everyone is fit, everyone is fast, everyone rows well, and it's up to the athletes and the coach to find a way to work into the top. Again, over simplification.
But what you see are analysts, typically when looking at college athletes early to midway through the season, and post careers discussing the points that should have been discussed prior to the draft. Again, this goes into my recruiting idea.
Are you asking the right questions?
If you read the book, "Moneyball," you read about scouts talking about a player's girlfriend on a sliding scale. Pretty girls (7+) indicate confidence. Plain girls (5-) indicate no confidence. They talk about, "A good baseball body." They talk about things that don't seem to have much to do with how someone can play baseball, the one thing they are being drafted for.
It's what I see in the NFL, and rowing. In the NFL the RGIII and Manziel type quarterbacks are super exciting. Multiple rushing touchdowns, scrambles, rushes, etc. The highlight reels are incredible.
Can they pass the ball? Do they know how to stand under center - the way most teams play? Can they check down?
The lightning is fun and exciting, but is that going to win you ball games? The thing you need quarterbacks to do is make reads, and throw the ball - simplification. But those aren't questions being asked.
The other piece that pops up with me is the bit about Chicago. I've heard many times that teams have to draft their franchise quarterback. Have to. The can't miss prospect must be taken. You need a franchise quarterback.
I agree. However, as the report on Chicago points out, there's not a lot of talent there for the quarterback. We tend to see analysts and fans call quarterbacks busts, yet we focus on the quarterbacks, and not the team or how they draft. Andrew Luck is a good example. Andrew Luck looked like a Hall of Fame quarterback his first three seasons. But the Colts are thin, and Andrew Luck got hurt last year. Andrew Luck is a once in a lifetime talent for quarterback, but what good is he when you don't have the pieces around him to help him succeed? Football, like all team sports, isn't a one man show. There are sports where one person can take over in a way, the "refuse to lose" mentality, but you don't see that often. Ask the Oklahoma City Thunder and Russell Westbrook about one man shows.
So you draft a quarterback, a great quarterback, the guy you think will be the cornerstone of your franchise. But you can't develop him - Alex Smith for the 49ers. Or he is constantly under duress by the other team - Detroit, Houston when they were new to the league. Or they can't do the job - Cleveland and Johnny Manziel.
There's so much onus on the franchise, the scouts, the GMs to find the quarterback because, "That's what this team needs," yet when they find them, 50 percent of the time they're not going to work out, and the question about the makeup of the team stands. Who truly knows if all the, "busts" are truly busts when the team around them can't help, or the coaching staff doesn't develop them or put them in a position to succeed? Remember Alex Smith? Total bust. Then Jim Harbaugh comes along, someone who was a quarterback in the NFL, and he develops Smith, and now Smith is a very serviceable quarterback working with another coach who can develop quarterbacks in Andy Reid in Kansas City.
Ok so how does this tie into rowing?
I see this with rowing as well. And this is where my recruitment ideas come in.
Let's ask better questions. In fact, let's ask the deeper questions. And those questions don't begin with the athletes. Those questions begin with the coaches.
- What makes a boat go fast?
- Are we a, "plug and play" program or are we a development program? Are the athletes who come in going to improve under us, or are we going to recruit, "better" ones next year in hopes of finding top tier talent?
- Who are we going to surround our, "star recruits" with? What is their development? Current NCAA and IRA regattas don't have singles, so our top athlete can't row alone.
- Can we develop a 3-star athlete into a 4 or 5?
These are questions I believe we need to ask. We're bringing in a star athlete. We got lucky and landed a kid who should be going to ____ but instead is coming to _____. Great. They can't row the 8 or 4 by themselves. Now what?
Coxswains! We need coxswains! How do we determine coxswains? Height, weight. What do coxswains do? They motivate and steer the boat. So what do height and weight have to do with either of those two qualities? Nothing. And before you bring height and weight into the picture, stop and think on this:
"If you're considering them as a coxswain, doesn't it make sense to assume that they physically look like a stereotypical coxswain?" It does. You're most likely not going to ask your 5'11-6'6, 170-220 lb athlete to be a coxswain, so let's drop the obvious, and ask the harder questions.
This post is getting long so let's wrap here.
Again, all of this, NFL and rowing is simply my opinion.
But I believe it's something to chew on. If you're team isn't ready, one player, one athlete probably won't make a massive difference. Your franchise quarterback can't throw the ball to himself, run the ball, block, and defend. If your franchise quarterback can't throw the ball period, that's another concern.
Same with rowing. "Height, weight, boat you rowed, 2k score, 6k score, 10k score." Great. I use a combination of those numbers when I start looking at building boats, but not just those numbers.
I believe we can learn a lot from history. History of other sports, history of our sport, history in general. What makes the best programs and franchises, and coaches, and what do many of those failed three have in common?
Something to consider as we go forward in the season and prepare for next year.
Comments