The 12th annual Hound Talint Inside the League Seminar presented by Magnolia Capital Partners is just a few hours away, and I’m super-excited about this year’s event, for a number of reasons. One reason, of course, is that I’m glad we’re even having it given the challenges (no combine, etc.). Two, I’m really excited about our award-winners this year. But the third reason is, I’m excited about my address to wrap things up tonight. Here are a few thoughts on what you’ll see and hear tonight on the NFL Draft Bible on Sports Illustrated Twitch channel.

If you tune in (8 p.m. ET, https://www.twitch.tv/nfldraftbible), and you’re interested in the scouting industry, I think you’ll see and hear information that you won’t find anywhere else. People always ask me what NFL scouts make, and I used to wonder that myself. Well, tonight, after my closing remarks, you won’t wonder any longer. About a quarter of the active NFL scouting community (and growing) responds to our survey annually, and we’re starting to get a good idea of what pay looks like. It’s an honor to provide this service to the NFL evaluation family. We look at each segment of scouting, based on four tiers (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 and 16+). If you’re an NFL scout and you wonder if you’re making what your brethren make, you’ll wonder no more after tonight. What’s more, if you have questions about the information I’ll be presenting, ask me. One of the exciting aspects of Twitch is that you can send questions as we go, so it will be fully interactive, and I encourage you to let me know if you need more information while we’re under way.

We’ll also hand out awards. As you know, for the fourth year, we’ve commissioned active NFL scouts to vote on which team did best on draft day last spring, and we’ll hand the Best Draft Award for 2020 to the personnel director of that winning team. That will be fun, and it’s gratifying to offer that “job well done” to a team executive each year, because they rarely get any positive feedback when things go right. We’ve also got the Eugene E. Parker Award for lifetime achievement in the agent industry, and the C.O. Brocato Award for service to the scouting industry. Once again, these awards will go to the overshadowed stars of the game. Maybe the coolest aspect of things is that Eugene Parker’s son, an established NFL agent in his own right, will present the award, while Becky Brocato, C.O.’s daughter, will hand out the prize that has her father’s name on it. Quite an honor for me.

It’s disappointing that we won’t all be able to gather together in the Indiana Convention Center to do this, like we normally do. On the other hand, it’s exciting that we will be able to bring the seminar, the honors, and the information to a much wider audience, as it happens, courtesy of Ric Serritella and his team at NFL Draft Bible, as well as our two great sponsors, Hound Talint and Barry Ozer of Magnolia Capital Partners. 

Make sure to join us here. If you’re interested in the football industry, you won’t want to miss this. See you tonight.

 

If there’s one question I always get from young people who love the game, it’s, “how do I become a scout?” Most often, they want to get into scouting because their ultimate goal is to be a GM. Shoot, I can relate. That was once my ambition, as well. 

With that in mind, I decided to look at the men hired this cycle. There’s no better gauge of what NFL teams are looking for than to look at who they hired. Five years ago, we took a detailed look at who was getting hired at the position, and found that teams sought people less than 50; with Patriots experience; and who had been around, but not necessarily a very long time.  

So what’s the profile of this season’s GM hires? Let’s take an alphabetical look at them.

Trent Baalke, Jaguars 

• Age: 56
• First NFL experience: 1998, Jets pro scout
• Prior GM experience: 49ers, 2011-2016
• Background: Baalke’s rise to the job in San Francisco, followed by his assumption of  the role in Jacksonville, has been pretty traditional. He’s got some pro experience with the Jets when he started out, but he’s mostly held a series of college scouting jobs since.

Nick Caserio, Texans

• Age: 45
• First NFL experience: 2001, Patriots personnel assistant
• Prior GM experience: None
• Background: Caserio is unique because he’s so well-rounded. Between being hired in New England in 2001 and taking over as Director of Player Personnel in 2008, he was an entry-level scout, an entry-level coach and an area scout for one year each. Then he was pro director for three seasons before jumping all the way to DPP, where he’d been for 13 seasons.

Scott Fitterer, Panthers

• Age: 47
• First NFL experience: 1998, Giants part-time scout
• Prior GM experience: None
• Background: Like Baalke, Fitterer followed an exclusively college scouting path as he climbed the ladder. Obviously, he’s had pro experience in his more recent senior roles in Seattle, but the lion’s share of his career has been on the college side. 

Terry Fontenot, Falcons

• Age: 40
• First NFL experience: 2003, Saints marketing intern
• Prior GM experience: None
• Background: Fontenot is unusual because he’s been exclusively on the pro side during his climb. Naturally, no scout does only college or pro, but he’s been decidedly more pointed toward pro scouting. He’s not unprecedented, though, as Bears GM Ryan Pace and former Lions GM Bob Quinn are two similar examples of pro-oriented hires.

Brad Holmes, Lions

• Age: 41
• First NFL experience: 2003, Rams public relations intern
• Prior GM experience: None
• Background: This is a hire I’m excited about, because Holmes is a scout’s scout. He’s done plenty of ‘road warrior’ work, all on the college side, moving from scouting assistant to combine scout to area, then national, scout. That’s the route most people perceive as the road to the GM chair, though it’s less and less likely to be true.

Martin Mayhew, Washington

• Age: 55
• First NFL experience: 1999, Redskins personnel intern
• Prior GM experience: Lions, 2008-2015
• Background: Mayhew has seen all sides of the game, having played in the NFL, served with the XFL in its first iteration, served as a cap guy, and worked for three organizations, gathering plenty of personnel experience with a team (49ers) that went to the Super Bowl last year. 

George Paton, Broncos 

• Age: 50
• First NFL experience: 1997, Bears scouting intern
• Prior GM experience: None
• Background: Paton, like Fontenot, has spent the majority of his career on the pro side. On the other hand, he’s spent more than a decade in a DPP role, so he’s gotten plenty of time on the college side, as well. That’s one reason he was seen as one of the most prepared candidates on the market. 

Conclusion: I like it when people who’ve paid their dues are rewarded, and we’ve seen that during this hiring cycle. We’ve also seen a refreshing respect for age; though Holmes and Fontenot are barely out of their 30s, the idea that no one past 45 gets hired is dead, at least for now. Here’s hoping all seven enjoy successful runs.

After dismissals in Jacksonville and Detroit last weekend, there are four GM chairs open as we head down the season’s stretch run. And while today’s GMs are more likely to be beholden to the head coach than in previous eras, they’ll still have plenty of weight when it comes to building out the scouting staff. 

Today, I took a look at each of the teams who’ll hire GMs this offseason and tried to answer the question, what, if any, changes will be made to the team’s staff? Obviously, a new GM will bring in his confidantes, but will each team see a house-cleaning, Bills-style? Here’s a look at what I see (I’ve included ITL’s most recent Know Your Scouts breakdown of each team; sorry, each one is a pay link, but you can subscribe here).

Detroit: When we broke down each NFL scouting department by years of experience in August, the Lions came out on top with an aggregate of 268 years in the business. What’s more, the team has 18 scouts who’ve been with the team since at least 2016. Many teams don’t even have 18 scouts. In addition, the team is a little top-heavy with a V.P. of Player Personnel, a Director of Player Personnel and a Senior Personnel Executive. That’s a lot of salary to carry given the results. What does it all mean?: Whoever comes in as the next GM will likely heavily retool things. 

Atlanta: With two ex-GMs as national scouts, the Falcons are another team that has made a big commitment to its scouting staff financially. On the other hand, the team has done a good job of integrating its staff with younger blood with three area scouts having less than three years in the league (this also balances the ledger a bit financially). As much as almost any other team, the staff is well-versed in “the Falcon way;” of 16 scouts and evaluators on staff below the GM level, nine have never scouted for any other teams. What does it all mean?: Whoever comes in will probably have to adapt, at least in the short term, rather than turning over the whole staff.

Jacksonville: Depending on how successful a team has been, stability could be good or bad. Jags owner Shahid Khan is known as one of the most patient owners in the league, and it shows up on the staff with 11 of 13 staff members having been there five years or more. They don’t get much credit for it, but the staff in place built a team that just three years ago went to the AFC Championship Game with former draftees including Ramsey, Ngakoue and Jack (while the pro side fortified things with Bouye, Campbell and Posluszny). What does it all mean?: This staff probably needs tweaking rather than overhauling.

Houston: We won’t waste space describing the draft capital Bill O’Brien spent desperately trying to get to a Super Bowl the last few years except to say that the team doesn’t have a lot of picks in 2021. But that’s OK, because the team in place (fashioned by former GM Brian Gaine) is a good one. It’s not too heavy at the top and has several highly regarded future GMs already on staff, with a good mix of old and new. It also contains scouts from diverse backgrounds; it’s heavily flavored with evaluators from playoff-bound teams this year (Steelers, Cardinals, Bucs, Seahawks, Colts, Saints). What does it all mean?: It would be a surprise to see wholesale changes.

We’ll discuss all of this in greater depth in today’s Friday Wrap, which comes out at 7:30 p.m. EDT. I hope you can join us. 

These days, it’s not hard to find a mock draft from your favorite writer, and more and more, we’re seeing two- and three-round mocks, even in November and December. What’s less common is a look at the players at the fringes of the draft who might wind up earlier in Day 3, or who may get snubbed in all seven rounds but wind up as a solid pro.

My friend, former Titans college scouting director Blake Beddingfield, did just that this week when he presented 50 sleepers in the ’21 draft class in a 90-minute Zoom session. Participants were treated to a quick summation of each player listed, as well as stories, comps and insights on the ’21 draft class and how the game is changing. It was a blast, and I got lots of positive feedback from members of the audience.

Here’s a look at five of the 50 players and why he likes them.

• Jaelon Darden, WO, North Texas: Undersized receiver with very good speed and agility. Slot-type on the next level with ability to return punts. Solid run vision. Good stop-and-go quickness with ability to get up to top speed in a flash. Solid hands; catches the deep ball well, tracks and secures. Not a starting slot in the NFL, but can be a solid backup and return punts. I like his ability to stick and make a team with upside to produce in a number of ways.  Versatility is a plus. Fifth or sixth round.
• Devin Hafford, DC, Tarleton State: Solid size and frame. Good on-the-ball skills. Productive. Has some hip and back stiffness when turning and running, but has the frame to move to safety and play in sub packages. Straight-line speed is solid but lateral movement is adequate. Has good instincts.  Only played one game in 2019 due to injury, but has upside. How he comes back from injury is key. PFA for now, but could be a late-rounder with production and good pro day. 
• Deon Jackson, OH, Duke: Good size and frame. Powerful runner. Experienced with marginal production as a runner, but he has been an all-around back with production as a receiver. Has good hands. Also a kick returner. Has enough quickness and speed to be effective. Not a frontline-type player, but versatile with good size. 7th/PFA. 
• Tyarise Stevenson, DT, Tulsa: Massive guy who’s a classic two-gap nose tackle. However, he’s a run-down player only, and not a pass rusher. Limited-range player who takes up space and blockers. Dirty work-type, not a playmaker. Not a fit for every team. PFA.
• Joe Schulthorpe, OG, NC State: Best at right guard, but has also played center, and that versatility is valuable. Solid size for both positions, and has shown effectiveness at both spots. Has backup traits on the interior offensive line and a. role as a three-position backup in the NFL. Fifth or sixth round.

If you’d like to hear the rest of Blake’s 50 sleepers as well as a breakdown of each of them, plus a list with notes on each of them, click here. You’ll be charged $35 and we’ll  ship out the link and the list immediately. For what it’s worth, several active NFL scouts have already purchased it.

We’ll talk more about Blake’s Zoom session this week in our Friday Wrap, which comes out every Friday at 7:30 p.m. EDT. If you haven’t already, register for it here.

This month, we wrapped up our Fourth Quarter series with four former scouts and executives. If you’ve been reading our blog, or even took part in the Zoom sessions, you’ve heard and read their “origin stories.”

Our goal, as always, is to help aspiring scouts become actual ones. However, in a season and offseason unlike any we’ve seen before, how likely is that to happen in the coming weeks and months?

We spent the last month-and-a-half reviewing scouting departments across the league for our Know Your Scouts series. It’s something we’ve done for nine years, and it gives us a good sense of how NFL teams are building their evaluation staffs.

Based on what we saw, we’ve made a few observations. There’s good news and bad news.

• Good news: Only six scouting assistants were hired this offseason. That’s down slightly from 2019 (nine) and considerably from 2018 (12). Maybe that means more hires after this season.
• More good news: Only two GMs were hired this offseason, but there are already two vacancies and there are expected to be several more this offseason. That means plenty of turnover.
• On the other hand, seven scouts and executives took jobs with the XFL in the 2019 offseason, with 12 taking Alliance of American Football jobs in the 2018 offseason. Obviously, those jobs won’t be available after this season.
• Also, a greater piece of teams’ scouting budgets are going toward analytics and fewer to pure scouting positions. We counted 14 of the 119 hires and promotions in NFL scouting departments as analytics-, data- or software-related.
• Worst news: Scouts aren’t on the road this season, which means fewer chances to make an impression. For an NFL liaison, hosting a Zoom call is far less personal than conducting a meeting with multiple scouts in an office setting, or even a brief conversation with a scout in the hallway.
• There’s also a great chance there will be more competition for jobs this year than ever before. With FBS and FCS schools having to rectify budgets battered by the loss of gate revenue, there could be more good college personnel specialists finding themselves out of jobs next spring. 

If you’re interested in learning more about trends in hiring and firing in the NFL scouting community, make sure you check out today’s Friday Wrap. We’ll take a longer look at where the scouting community is headed over the next six months. You can register for it here.

 

 

 

	49ers	Colts	Eagles	Ravens	Saints	NFL avg.
Scouting Assts	3	1	1	4	1	1.78
Combine Scout		1	1			0.43
Scouting Coordinator	1	1	1	1	1	1
Area Scouts	5	5	3	8	4	5.75
Reg/Nat/Exec/Cross/Sr	2	1	2	1	5	2.03
Directors/Asst Directors	2	2	5			1.72
VP/DPP/AGM	3	1	2	3	1	1.56
Pro Scouting Dept	5	4	3	1	4	3.06
Analytics Dept.	2	2	6	3	3	2.91
Total	21	18	24	20	19	20.3

Last week, in the Friday Wrap, we looked at how today’s NFL scouting departments are built. How many scouts usually make up the scouting department? How big is a typical analytics team? Is middle management a big part of most teams’ evaluation department? We presented all our numbers on our website.

That’s a pay link, so rather than snub all those people who aren’t our clients, we’ve presented five teams’ results above. We feel these are five of the better-drafting teams in the league; in fact, three of them (the Saints in ’17, the Colts in ’18 and the 49ers in ’19) won the Best Draft Award as voted on by NFL scouts.

We’ll be talking about commonalities and differences among the these five teams (and the nuances that don’t show up in a grid) Friday on SiriusXM NFL Radio channel 88 with Alex Marvez and Mark Dominik. I hope you can join us.

In the meantime, a few notes:

• Following modern trends, the 49ers have three at the VP level. The team is also mostly on trend for number of ‘reinforcements,’ i.e., scouting assistants, though the team’s pro personnel analysts are most likely on deck to plug in as area scouts, as well.

• The Colts have four members of their information systems department; we guessed that they were not in analytics, but more traditional infromation tech people instead. The team is also light on scouting assistants, though the team does have a football operations assistant (which we counted as a scouting assistant). Finally, though the team is light on analytics personnel, it’s believed to have a greater reliance on analytics (and successfully) than most teams.

• The Eagles are one of the teams that draw a bright line between football operations and scouting, but who include their analytics professionals in football operations (at least per their job titles). They have a significant analytics presence. The team also is light on area scouts, and clearly uses its directors and assistant directors to get out on the road, as well.

• The Ravens are another team that has two DPPs, plus a player personnel coordinator and a senior player personnel executive. This is why it’s fair to say the Ravens are one of the most committed teams when it comes to buildin through the draft, and they usually get results. We also termed the team’s three player personnnel assistants and one player personnel analyst as scouting assistants.

• The Saints have a pretty streamlined operation, despite having three national scouts (which is pretty unusual). They achieve this by placing the scouting department in the hands of AGM Jeff Ireland, who also fills the college director role, and assigning much of the work many area scouts would do to their national scouts. Also, though the team has three staffers in analytics, Ireland and Co. tend to rely more on their own eyes than what the math tells them.

To check out our analysis of all 32 teams, click here.

We try to use this blog to educate people. These days, we’re digging into the NCAA recruiting and personnel communities, trying to learn as much as we can about what people in this community do and what they need. That’s why launched a new weekly series, the ITL CFB Recruiting and Personnel Newsletter. Here’s this week’s edition.

At the same time, we hope to help them learn more about their own industry, as well. To do that, this week, we asked a handful of our friends in scouting this question: If there was one thing you’d like to tell NFL liaisons, that would make your job easier, what would it be? 

Here are their responses.

• “It would be nice if across the board they were all open and honest. Remove restrictions and make sure we all got everything we need on their guys. I always say, often times, scouts and schools hurt each other and the players because of ego. We are a guest and should act as a guest at these schools. Coaches should look at us as a chance to help further careers of their players and make friendly connections in the NFL. By being open and treating the other side with kindness and being wide open just helps everyone. They don’t need to withhold info or be cynical. We (also) need to be honest and open with them. So not really one thing, because everything is needed. Honest info, details, open policy, make sure we have film access, etc. Give medical details and all that.”
• “I think the No. 1 thing is honesty. We want to know the person that we are buying.  If you lie about the guys, you really are hurting the guys that do work hard.” 
• “I would say the handful of schools that restrict practice access (and which days they can visit), Michigan and Michigan State being the worst. It’s a really bad look and it truly hurts their players. Imagine Cass Tech (High School) in Detroit telling those two (teams), “you can’t come watch practice, but you can swing by and watch them work out one day a week”?! That’s what Michigan does in-season. Michigan State lets you stay for like 5-10 minutes.”
• “They do a good job. . . taking the direction and cue from the head coach. So they have (much) to consider in their jobs. My experiences have been good over the years. I feel I would be knit picking (if I was critical).” 

We’re asking questions like this every week in our newsletter series. If you work in college football recruiting and personnel — or even if you don’t, or would like to — and you’d like to be added to the list for this series, just let us know at nstratton at insidetheleague dot com. Another way to learn more: register for our Friday Wrap, which comes out this evening. You can do that here.

If you work in the college and/or pro football space, or you would like to someday, you probably heard about the NCAA’s decision to allow players to profit off their names, images and likenesses. There’s still a lot to be decided about how it will work, and we’re a year-and-change away from it actually happening in college football, but it’s coming, and it’s a bombshell.

While many in the media and elsewhere have applauded the NCAA’s decision, we wanted to talk to people who work where the rubber meets the road. We asked several  recruiting directors at NCAA schools, big and small, this question:

The NCAA has voted to allow players to profit off their names, images and likenesses. How do you see this affecting recruiting? Will the rich get richer as big schools with major followings dominate the skill positions? Will schools in less populous or rural settings (Illinois, Boise State, Texas Tech) struggle to attract major talent? Will it have a negligible effect on competitive balance as the best schools attract the best players and others make do with the rest? Or will have some other effect?

Here are some of their responses.

• “This could be a benefit for schools located in major cities. You can now sell the idea that a player’s product is being presented to a bigger market than other schools in less populated areas. More people = more money. QBs and skills players will most likely benefit from this rule. Looking at the NFLPA top 50 jersey sales, you see that majority of players are QBs, RBs and WRs. Not one OL is listed. It’ll be interesting to see how schools will create a plan to promote player brands for the players in the trenches to the skilled positions.”
• “A top WR in Texas that would once not think about leaving the state because they had Tech or Baylor dominating the passing game may now waiver because a school in Los Angeles has presented the possibility of commercial or billboard opportunities for them throughout their college career.”
• “This is really opening Pandora’s box. (Nike founder and Oregon mega-donor) Phil Knight and (business magnate and Oklahoma State mega-donor) T. Boone (Pickens) were the first two donors I thought of when this news came out. . . .”
• “I think it will make the gap (between big schools and small schools) bigger. It benefits the bigger schools who generate huge revenue like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, (Texas) A&M, ‘Bama, etc. . . . I’m not sure people know the implications of what this will mean. It certainly changes things, and I’m sure there will be a lot that’s discussed in coming years about how to govern this. But certain schools will use this as a big selling tool in recruiting. . . I heard (former Ohio State head coach) Urban Meyer say on (the Big Ten Network) a few weeks ago say, what would he do if (ex-Buckeye running back) Zeke Elliot was making $600,000 his (sophomore) year at Ohio State? How’s he supposed to say, you gotta go to class? What kind of message would that send to his teammates?”
• “I question if your recruiting staff is now going to essentially need to have an agent on staff to set up promotional appearance and endorsements. . . I’m not sure how the rural vs. big city will affect recruiting and likeness as a whole though. I think it all depends on if there’s a cap on how much a kid can make and where they get the money from. The more interesting thing to me is, will you see the money from boosters that went to facilities, gear, travel, graphics, etc., now be redirected to the players? Will you lose out on staffing because the operating budget shrinks? I think this is going to be a major issue with group of five schools. the elite programs will not be affected as much.”
• “(One) interesting question will be how the pay will differ from starters and backups and walk-ons. I do ultimately think it will affect the landscape of recruiting if the higher-tier Power 5 schools are able to offer a lot larger monetary package to recruits compared to the more remote and lower-tiered schools. . . If the money that players receive is similar to the scholarships they already receive, and if you only see just extremely popular college athletes getting the endorsement deals, then I don’t think it will have an enormous impact on recruiting.”

Of course, the football business world is a big one, and there are other groups whom the new rule will affect. One of those groups is NFL agents. We spoke to several of them today to get their opinion on what happens next, and whether or not they see this as a net positive or net negative. You can read their responses in today’s Friday Wrap. You can register for it here.

This weekend, LSU hosts No. 9 Auburn. Two weeks later, the No. 2 team in the nation travels to Tuscaloosa to face No. 1 Alabama. It’s possible those two games could determine the No. 1 pick in the 2020 NFL Draft.

Think that’s a stretch? Consider the last two drafts. In 2018, Oklahoma’s Baker Mayfield entered the season as a late-rounder on most boards. After tearing up the college football world, he won not only the Heisman but the honor of being taken No. 1 by the Browns. A season later, Kyler Murray was just a baseball player (taken No. 9 overall in the 2018 MLB Draft by Oakland) who wanted to spend his last season as Oklahoma’s starter. He went on to replace Mayfield not only as the Sooners’ starter, but also as Heisman winner and No. 1 overall to Arizona.

This year’s Mayfield/Murray could be LSU QB Joe Burrow. The Athletic’s Michael Lombardi has been banging that drum for weeks now, and while NFL scouts are still on the fence (“I’m grading him next week, so I can’t give an answer,” said one; “I heard his arm strength is average,” said another), Burrow has passed every test so far.  But that’s not what interests us most. The bigger question is, why are these passers moving ahead of others with more significant bodies of work?

Here’s the questions we asked several of our friends in scouting: For the third straight year, there could be a No. 1 overall (Burrow?) who entered the season on almost no one’s first round board. Why is this? Is it college offenses that more closely mirror NFL offenses, so hot players have less of a learning curve? Is it a “now” culture that favors a hot season over a body of work? Is it the rise of analytics, which make forecasting the most NFL-ready players much harder? Or is it something else?

We’ll survey their responses in today’s Friday Wrap (register for it here). You can weigh in on the question in our Twitter poll here. Here are a few of the responses we got from scouts via text:

• “A lot of people favor a hot season. Me, I like the body of work. I want a guy who has been good for more than 12 games. I’m not a fan of analytics for anything but helping with strategy.”
• “Simple answer is that scouting is not an exact science. Every player has some sort of momentum heading into the draft, good or bad, but seldom is there a true “stock up, stock down” scenario. The process includes career trajectory, but the whole picture is much more than that.”
• “I think the inexperienced GMs and the young scouts they hire around the league get excited about a one-year wonder. I also think today’s scouts look at social media and are afraid to dismiss what internet scouts say, when in reality they should trust their eyes when they evaluate and look at the track record of the player.

Make sure you check out our poll (and vote in it) and read all the scouts’ responses in today’s Friday Wrap (register here).