With conference championships this weekend and all-star games ahead in January, former NFL scout Ken Moll tackles another question related to the draft process: How much weight does a scout put into “one big game” from a collegiate player? Can one performance really move the needle? And if so, what are the conditions for such a performance?

Every player, coach, parent and agent needs to know that the bigger the stage, the bigger the impact in regards to how a player is viewed during the evaluation process. Ninety percent of all NFL personnel (and I, as well) consider three factors to be extra-special during evaluation. These are: level of competition; how recent the contest was; and the importance of the game. This is true whether you’re evaluating high school players for college or college players for the NFL.

When a scout makes his school visit and is making his film decisions, usually he wants to watch the most recent competition against the best-available competition. Many will go back to the previous season if there is a bowl game or a big rivalry match-up (Alabama-Auburn, Ohio State-Michigan) to scrutinize how well an athlete performs under the most intense circumstances. It matters a lot how well players perform “under the big lights.”

The other huge factor is how well a player performs versus the best competition. Let’s say a defensive end has a ton of sacks and tackles for loss throughout the season, but doesn’t show up in a matchup with a highly regarded offensive tackle who’s an NFL prospect himself. That could really affect his grade. Like him or not, former Texas A&M QB Johnny Manziel (who went 1/22 to the Browns last spring) came up big most of the time versus the top competition. For example, he generated a record 516 total yards versus Oklahoma in the 2013 Cotton Bowl. People like to pick apart the couple of games when he was banged up or playing in poor weather and didn’t put up numbers, but he did more than enough versus Alabama and other great teams to warrant a high draft choice. If he doesn’t succeed in the NFL it won’t be because of a lack of talent or moxie.

Obviously, a player’s entire body of work is considered during the evaluation process. Still, when the “brass” (head coach, coordinator, GM, director of college scouting and, in some cases, the owner) wants to take a look at a prospect, games under the brightest lights possible are usually in highest demand.

Our most recent War Story Wednesday involved a classic draft-day tete-a-tete between former NFL scout Ken Moll and a fellow scout in his days in pro football war rooms. Today, more thoughts on the fallout from that near-brawl.

———————————————————————————–

Last Wednesday, I spoke of a near chest-to-chest dust-up (which didn’t end up happening) over a player’s grade. Again it’s not unusual for tension and feathers being ruffled in pre-draft meetings, but most of the time the organization will come to a consensus on where a player fits on their board.

Now, I really don’t like using the term “being right” on players because most of the time there are so many circumstances (player work ethic, injuries, opportunity, system, scheme, coaching, mental makeup of the player, character, talent of the roster and yes, even a little luck) around each athlete that factor into a player’s chances of NFL success. Without mentioning that particular player’s name, I can say that we (as an organization) slotted him as a mid-second round draft choice and he was selected late in that round.

Does that always happen? Absolutely not, but you better be “right” more often than not. Now, you don’t go back to that particular co-worker and say, ‘you see? I was right!’ That didn’t and shouldn’t happen. To really know if a player has lived up to his draft status, he will need to perform at a particular expectation level for an extended period of time. In this case, most second-round draft choices are expected to start or at least be a big contributor in their rookie seasons. This player did start and was a solid contributor for three seasons before an injury shortened his career. I guess you can say we were “right” in that situation. I will say that when there is such a contentious discussion that was so visible within the organization, your opinion is held in a higher regard (if you happen to be right) in the future.

Oh yeah, I didn’t just let it go. I was able to, in my own subtle way, let him know that you might want to listen to this cagey veteran; my 15 years of college coaching as well as, at the time, four years of NFL personnel draft meetings trumped his somewhat thin resume. Make no mistake about it: you will be “wrong” on players (even personnel types that have tons of experience) but your “hit ratio” is much better if you can draw on your football experiences.

This time of year, all-star game invites are starting to get published frequently. This is one of the most important things we track this time of year, and these slots are much-coveted, especially by players who came from struggling programs or smaller schools. These games (there are five this draft cycle) are a major proving ground for players with NFL dreams but thin resumes.

I asked Ken to give his take on all-star games. What are the merits? Can players lose ground in these games? How does a scout dissect a week’s worth of practices? His thoughts follow.

__________________________________________________________________

My thoughts on all-star games are mixed. I have attended the week of practices for almost 40 all-star game and evaluated more than 500 players during that time.

Depending on how the director structures the evaluation process, scouts may be exposed to players they haven’t seen prior to that week. Some personnel departments will have each scout concentrate on players from his assigned region. I much preferred to evaluate a position, as was the case most of the time for me. My favorite way to do it was to follow an entire group the week of padded practices (Monday through Wednesday), then attend the game (which didn’t happen often; most scouts depart before the game is played). By the time I had broken down the practice and game tapes, I had a great perspective on how a player fit alongside like-caliber athletes at the same position. I really enjoyed all-star practices as you can see specific drills (individual, one on one, inside-outside and team periods) with all of the highest-level players in one spot.

The best thing about these games is that you get great exposure to your assigned group, on and off the field. If you know what the coaching staff is trying to get out of a player (technique, scheme, etc.), it can be very helpful in knowing what you’ve seen, and how you grade a player at the end of the week. Also, having access to each player in an interview setting is very helpful in getting to know what makes a player tick.

All-star game weeks are part of the puzzle for every scout, personnel director, coaching staff and GM. That being said, don’t let the old bromide that ‘you can’t lose ground on your draft status in an all-star game’ fool you. Everything a player does or doesn’t do in any game, practice, interview, workout or combine matters. It does affect his draft status. Now, there’s a difference between ‘graded players’ and ‘players that have grades.’ What I mean by that is, some collegiate players have done so much for such an extended period of time that their grade is pretty much set in stone, regardless of what they might do in an all-star game. On the other hand, many players ‘have grades,’ but there is some uncertainty within an organization on how solid that grade is.

I have seen players gain draft status (sometimes, two or even three rounds) after an outstanding all-star week. And yes, I’ve seen players lose ground with a poor all-star week. Often the biggest swing (draft status or grade) can come from when a small-college player makes it to a higher level all-star game and really impresses versus tougher competition. Believe me, if you accept an invitation to compete in an all-star game, you better be ready to perform at a high level, as all of that is discussed at some point in the draft process.

Today, former NFL and CFL scout Ken Moll gives us his account, in extreme detail, of a typical week for an area scout.

———————————————————-

If you’re a football fan, I’m sure it sounds glamorous to travel to schools like Notre Dame, Ohio State, Florida State and Alabama to evaluate players. OK, maybe it is a little glamorous.

On the other hand, try checking in and out of four hotels in five nights while traveling through West Virginia. That junket might involve a Morgantown-to-Glenville-State stretch (both places Arizona head coach Rich Rodriguez has coached), possibly checking out a free agent at Concord College or Fairmont State after (or before) a stop in Huntington. From there, it’s a several-hour trip to Blacksburg, Va., to attend a Saturday afternoon Virginia Tech game.

The next morning is Sunday. Time to get some sleep? Not quite. I need to catch up on my player reports (which I work on 2-3 hours a night during the week), then it’s usually laundry day and getting my travel expenses together while settling in to watch my team play on Sunday afternoon.

Come Monday, I start my day usually 7:15 a.m.-ish (no later than 8) with a trip to the school’s film room. At some point, I may thank heavens that we live in the digital age; the old-timers tell stories of having to splice 16 mm film together when it broke after running plays back numerous times.

After 3-4 game tapes (on each side of the ball) and several cups of coffee, it’s time to visit with the trainer, strength coach and pro liaison. These information-gathering meetings may take place in consecutive stints, but they’re most likely chopped up throughout the day (as you’re on their time schedule). It takes time to decipher which information is reliable and which isn’t; it’s a wonder why some within an organization wouldn’t be totally forthright when discussing one of their own, but I digress. Sometimes it’s tricky deciding which information will be part of your official report. This is why experience is extremely important when covering a territory, as relationships built over time tend to produce the most reliable information. That’s important when you’re evaluating not only their game tape, but their injuries, character, weight room numbers and work ethic.

Along the way, you might get an hour to grab lunch before practice. Sometimes, your lunchtime occurs when you have to vacate the film room for a team’s positional meetings before practice.

Practice is approximately two-plus hours (depending on the day of the week) and a great time for up-close access to players you have scrutinized on tape most of the day. You always make note of body types, i.e., high-cut, short arms, soft body, etc., while getting a feel for work ethic and how a player reacts to the ups and downs of competing in practice. You can really see how quickly a quarterback releases the ball, the closing burst of a cornerback, or the ‘get-off’ burst of a defensive end when evaluating a live practice. You also get to see how a player reacts to coaches’ criticism as well as how he relates to his teammates (is he a leader?).

There are other subtleties you can pick up. How does he treat the student trainer when he needs to have his ankle taped during the middle of practice? How does he relate to the assistant (to the assistant) equipment manager that has to fix his face mask after a grueling hit in a live goal-line drill?

Most scouts leave the practice field at the beginning of the ‘team’ period; often the college coaches prefer it that way as they are installing game plans, trick plays, etc. and the pace may be a little slower.

If you’re lucky, travel to your next destination is less than an hour, but often it’s much more than that. Your routine becomes checking into the hotel, getting some grub, then maybe catching some relaxation time. After that, what do you think you do with all those notes and information gathered during the day? You got it. You get on the computer and usually bang out at least a couple of hours of reports before you get some shut-eye. The next morning, sometime before daybreak, you get ready to do it all over again.

If this sound glamorous, you’re ‘approved’ to proceed with your dreams of becoming an NFL scout. And maybe a little crazy.

Today we continue our series with Ken Moll as he discusses the value (and difficulty) of independent thought to scouts, along with a focus on why scouting grades can differ, even among knowledgeable evaluators.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Cross-checking — reviewing the prospects other area scouts on the team have seen (and liked) to verify their opinions — is an important part of the overall puzzle. Scouting isn’t an exact science, but effective cross-checking can provide for a more secure decision. Of course, it’s not easy. Obviously, the travel isn’t as familiar, but more importantly, the exposure to the players is limited compared to the previous scout, who had much more time to conduct the evaluation.

What’s more, I learned early in my scouting career that it takes balls to go against the grain and to counter the “conventional wisdom” on high-profile players. Obviously, every scout sees, reads and hears about most draftable collegiate players, but blocking the “noise” out is extremely important to the evaluation process.

Another thing that makes cross-checking difficult is that it takes place after a long, hard slog through the meat of the season. I remember one of my first seasons in the league (as a Midwest area scout for Jacksonville), my cross-check area was the West Coast. Hitting 11 colleges in 15 days can be a daunting task, especially after a full schedule of three-and-a-half months of travel through Big Ten country. Come November, going from the Arizona schools to Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA and Fresno State, then out to New Mexico and New Mexico State, as well as a trip up to the great Northwest (University of Washington, State, the Ducks and Beavers, and others) is exhausting. There was also a stop in the state of Utah (where I wasn’t able to find a good cup of coffee at the campus at BYU), that really was difficult. No one was more excited about settling in at home for a Thanksgiving meal.

One other thought on cross-checking. It’s amazing how one “set of eyes” sees a particular player differently from another scout. Often this is due to a player being injured at a particular time during the season, or the marked improvement of a player due to more playing time, or a better understanding of the position that enhanced his development. Many people outside the industry tend to develop an opinion of collegiate players based on limited information and exposure, whereas NFL scouts are better-qualified to grade a player. This is because their evaluations are based on their experience and knowledge of specific programs; how a player is coached; and what has been successful in the past.

For today’s War Story Wednesday, I’m going to give the floor to Ken for a true ‘inside the war room’ account.

“There are a plethora of stories (first-hand) that I could share with many that have an interest in this kind of thing but many names will need to be left out to keep careers protected.

“When I was in draft meetings (my third season) with the Jacksonville Jaguars, there was a very heated discussion on a particular player. Now, it’s not unusual that these high-level meetings bring out some strong opinions on where a player should be stacked in regards to his specific position as well as where he fits in the big picture. Usually there are several reports (area scout, regional scout, college director, general manager, cross-checking scout, position coach, coordinator, head coach as well as all-star reports) discussed on each player when considering the overall draft process. Not all players have all of these specific reports, but the higher-profile players have this many and more.

“We all know about opinions; they’re like backsides. Everyone has one and they’re all just a bit different. After several hours of information and opinions shared (on this one particular player), the last report was presented to the group in the room. That was the all-star report, which is based on just three days in pads and obviously has a limited amount of exposure to the athlete. Now this was my player, in my area, where I had seen him for more than two years with several visits to the university. There, I had gathered a ton of information on work ethic, injury history, ability to grasp football concepts and leadership, as well as several practices viewed and a multitude of games tapes evaluated. Usually, though not always, the specific area scout (especially an experienced one) should have the best feel for where a player fits in regards to that particular team.

“Most of the opinions (grades) were fairly close (within a couple of rounds) but the “all-star” evaluation by this one scout was a bit out in left field with this player based on two days of practice (and all-star game tape) with a scheme he didn’t know, a new coaching system and teammates he had never competed with in the past. It’s never a problem having a different view of a player, but this particular scout tried to push and push a second- or third-round draft choice to the seventh round, or even free agent, category. As it were, he and I got into it in a chest-to-chest confrontation, almost like an umpire and baseball manager arguing a call at home plate. We were able to know what kind of salad dressing each of us had for lunch, and others had to separate us. Yes, two grown men almost coming to blows over a grade on a college player.

“This isn’t the norm, but believe me, the amount of time, effort, work and money that goes into evaluating these collegiate athletes can flare tempers especially after 20 consecutive days of 12-hour meetings.

“I’ll let you know what actually happened to that specific player in the next war story.”