Recruiting and Revisionists
I'm prepping for my move in a week, and I'm killing some time by watching short films on the NFL YouTube channel. They have a remarkable collection of films that range from highlights of teams, seasons, and plays to player histories.
What I find most fascinating are the shorts done on current or former athletes playing in the NFL. I recently finished watching two shorts on Aaron Rogers, the future Hall of Fame quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, and Tom Brady, the future Hall of Fame quarterback for the New England Patriots. And what struck me as most interesting isn't that both players were drafted late - in the case of Rogers, extremely late given he was sitting in at the draft and tumbled like Marino did - but that one franchise had an opportunity to draft both athletes and passed. That franchise is the San Francisco 49ers, and of course they've been taken to task in the comment section over what Rogers and Brady have become, and what the 49ers have done since those drafts.
I find this amusing because it's not unexpected. Dick Crum, the former football coach for the University of North Carolina once told an upset fan, "There are two things every man in America knows how to do: Charcoal a steak, and coach a football team."
I love that quote, and it's one that comes to mind each time I watch draft coverage for the MLB, NFL, or NBA, and whenever I see fans "bravely" arguing from behind computer screens.
It's revisionist history. You can make a compelling argument that passing on Rogers wasn't a shrewd move, and given his pre draft status as an excellent quarterback, I don't think you'd be hard pressed to make a strong case. But remember that 23 - I believe it was 23 or 24 - other teams passed on drafting him before Green Bay snapped him up. There are at least twenty other franchises that made the same decision the 49ers made, and at the time, I doubt many of these same fans were calling foul on that decision.
With Brady it's even more amusing to see the comments flying about what the 49ers and other franchises did in passing on him. Remember that Brady was drafted 199th in the draft. At that point, even the Patriots had passed on him several times. In the film on the NFL channel, Coach Belichick himself wasn't entirely certain what they'd drafted other than having a feeling about it. Of course, fans are going crazy on the social media talking about, "Well if I'd been the GM..."
If you'd been the GM, you would have passed on him as well. His combine workout was mediocre. 198 athletes were drafted ahead of him. He wasn't touched till the 6th round.
It's very simple and disingenuous to sit here and say, "Well I would have taken a chance on Rogers/Brady." Of course you would have because it's 2018 and you've have over a decade of film and stats to draw upon to make that decision. But at the time? That is not the case.
This brings me to one of the key elements I believe is missing in recruiting athletes, specifically rowers.
I'm not an NFL coach, and I have no background in football other than being a fan. And what follows is simple conjecture coming back to the point I'm making above.
Time and again I listen to the draft analysis discuss certain athletes, specifically quarterbacks, and I hear them talk about tangibles or in platitudes that build hype and excitement, but don't necessarily ask or answer basic questions.
I don't believe in curses so the Madden front cover curse, or the Heisman trophy curse don't interest me. However, in the case of the Heisman, I do believe it's a catalyst for problems.
In general, I believe all of us in control have problems with optics. We fall in love with things that we see. We discount the things we don't see. And we're lazy. We have part of the answer in front of us, but time and again we revert back to the same behaviors and attitudes that feed that problem.
I'll pick on three quarterbacks, but only superficially. Robert Griffin III, Johnny Manziel, and Tim Tebow. All three won the Heisman trophy as quarterbacks. All three were arguably the most exciting, dynamic athletes in the country at one point during their career. When they entered the draft, the talk was about winning, running, making plays happen or extending plays. But we hardly discussed the fundamental responsibility of a quarterback: Pass the ball. Accurate reads, and throws. Leading receivers. Moving the chains. We discussed their dynamic ability on the field to stretch the field of play with their feet, but we didn't talk about standing in the pocket in the face of a vicious pass rush and delivering a pinpoint strike to a streaking receiver 25 yards down the field, or fitting the ball into a window between two defenders where only their teammate could make the play.
And throughout their short careers, that was the most discussed criticism: Their inability to pass. I know that I'm glossing over a few things here, but this is the critical point. They couldn't reliably throw the ball. RGIII is on his third or fourth team. Tebow is out of the league trying baseball. Manziel is attempting to resurrect his career in the CFL.
Now let's bring this back to something that I know but remembering those opinions.
When we discuss recruiting athletes, we dive into some generally accepted criteria for evaluation.
* Height
* Weight
* Erg scores
* Athletic success
I believe those are important measurements and ones that can be graded and evaluated. But I don't believe they answer certain questions that are fundamental to success in rowing.
Can you move a boat?
I don't believe any of those recruiting evaluations listed above are able to tell you that Person A is a great recruit and Person B won't make your D list eight. They may give you an idea, but coaches who've been involved in this business for at least five years know that more often than not, outliers come into play.
I'm not saying that the top recruit wasn't worth pursuing. What I'm saying is that for most programs, you'll build your useable depth through a walkon/novice program. And you'll find that the walkon program, if run well, is going to produce solid athletes.
My question becomes: As we're evaluating athletes to recruit and offer scholarships to, or make primary targets, what are we missing? Like the draft, what attributes are we being blinded by and what should we be looking for?
I believe, firmly, that every year an Aaron Rogers, and Tom Brady are sitting in your walkon class or on your campus waiting to be discovered. They're waiting because they don't know what rowing is. Forget finding them. Let's assume that you have. What we should focus on is improving our evaluation of the athletes so that we don't have social media warriors ripping our decisions five or ten years down the road.
What I find most fascinating are the shorts done on current or former athletes playing in the NFL. I recently finished watching two shorts on Aaron Rogers, the future Hall of Fame quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, and Tom Brady, the future Hall of Fame quarterback for the New England Patriots. And what struck me as most interesting isn't that both players were drafted late - in the case of Rogers, extremely late given he was sitting in at the draft and tumbled like Marino did - but that one franchise had an opportunity to draft both athletes and passed. That franchise is the San Francisco 49ers, and of course they've been taken to task in the comment section over what Rogers and Brady have become, and what the 49ers have done since those drafts.
I find this amusing because it's not unexpected. Dick Crum, the former football coach for the University of North Carolina once told an upset fan, "There are two things every man in America knows how to do: Charcoal a steak, and coach a football team."
I love that quote, and it's one that comes to mind each time I watch draft coverage for the MLB, NFL, or NBA, and whenever I see fans "bravely" arguing from behind computer screens.
It's revisionist history. You can make a compelling argument that passing on Rogers wasn't a shrewd move, and given his pre draft status as an excellent quarterback, I don't think you'd be hard pressed to make a strong case. But remember that 23 - I believe it was 23 or 24 - other teams passed on drafting him before Green Bay snapped him up. There are at least twenty other franchises that made the same decision the 49ers made, and at the time, I doubt many of these same fans were calling foul on that decision.
With Brady it's even more amusing to see the comments flying about what the 49ers and other franchises did in passing on him. Remember that Brady was drafted 199th in the draft. At that point, even the Patriots had passed on him several times. In the film on the NFL channel, Coach Belichick himself wasn't entirely certain what they'd drafted other than having a feeling about it. Of course, fans are going crazy on the social media talking about, "Well if I'd been the GM..."
If you'd been the GM, you would have passed on him as well. His combine workout was mediocre. 198 athletes were drafted ahead of him. He wasn't touched till the 6th round.
It's very simple and disingenuous to sit here and say, "Well I would have taken a chance on Rogers/Brady." Of course you would have because it's 2018 and you've have over a decade of film and stats to draw upon to make that decision. But at the time? That is not the case.
This brings me to one of the key elements I believe is missing in recruiting athletes, specifically rowers.
I'm not an NFL coach, and I have no background in football other than being a fan. And what follows is simple conjecture coming back to the point I'm making above.
Time and again I listen to the draft analysis discuss certain athletes, specifically quarterbacks, and I hear them talk about tangibles or in platitudes that build hype and excitement, but don't necessarily ask or answer basic questions.
I don't believe in curses so the Madden front cover curse, or the Heisman trophy curse don't interest me. However, in the case of the Heisman, I do believe it's a catalyst for problems.
In general, I believe all of us in control have problems with optics. We fall in love with things that we see. We discount the things we don't see. And we're lazy. We have part of the answer in front of us, but time and again we revert back to the same behaviors and attitudes that feed that problem.
I'll pick on three quarterbacks, but only superficially. Robert Griffin III, Johnny Manziel, and Tim Tebow. All three won the Heisman trophy as quarterbacks. All three were arguably the most exciting, dynamic athletes in the country at one point during their career. When they entered the draft, the talk was about winning, running, making plays happen or extending plays. But we hardly discussed the fundamental responsibility of a quarterback: Pass the ball. Accurate reads, and throws. Leading receivers. Moving the chains. We discussed their dynamic ability on the field to stretch the field of play with their feet, but we didn't talk about standing in the pocket in the face of a vicious pass rush and delivering a pinpoint strike to a streaking receiver 25 yards down the field, or fitting the ball into a window between two defenders where only their teammate could make the play.
And throughout their short careers, that was the most discussed criticism: Their inability to pass. I know that I'm glossing over a few things here, but this is the critical point. They couldn't reliably throw the ball. RGIII is on his third or fourth team. Tebow is out of the league trying baseball. Manziel is attempting to resurrect his career in the CFL.
Now let's bring this back to something that I know but remembering those opinions.
When we discuss recruiting athletes, we dive into some generally accepted criteria for evaluation.
* Height
* Weight
* Erg scores
* Athletic success
I believe those are important measurements and ones that can be graded and evaluated. But I don't believe they answer certain questions that are fundamental to success in rowing.
Can you move a boat?
I don't believe any of those recruiting evaluations listed above are able to tell you that Person A is a great recruit and Person B won't make your D list eight. They may give you an idea, but coaches who've been involved in this business for at least five years know that more often than not, outliers come into play.
I'm not saying that the top recruit wasn't worth pursuing. What I'm saying is that for most programs, you'll build your useable depth through a walkon/novice program. And you'll find that the walkon program, if run well, is going to produce solid athletes.
My question becomes: As we're evaluating athletes to recruit and offer scholarships to, or make primary targets, what are we missing? Like the draft, what attributes are we being blinded by and what should we be looking for?
I believe, firmly, that every year an Aaron Rogers, and Tom Brady are sitting in your walkon class or on your campus waiting to be discovered. They're waiting because they don't know what rowing is. Forget finding them. Let's assume that you have. What we should focus on is improving our evaluation of the athletes so that we don't have social media warriors ripping our decisions five or ten years down the road.
Comments