You follow the game, so you already know about Ohio State DE Nick Bosa’s decision to scrap the season and move forward in preparing for the ’19 NFL Draft. The true junior, who has missed the season so far as he’s struggled with a core injury, is expected to be a top-five pick, as was his brother, Joey, in 2016 (1/3, Chargers).

I was curious to know what people in scouting thought about Bosa’s decision, not so much as it specifically affects Bosa, but as it impacts the evaluation process in general. So I reached out to several friends in the business, and asked them this.

Do you think it’s a good thing for scouting (don’t have to wonder if he was healthy this season, gives you a chance to evaluate his backups/more players)? Do you think it’s bad (fewer games to evaluate for Bosa, plus it could ignite a larger trend)? Or does it have very little impact on scouting and player evaluation? 

We talked to 13 active scouts to get their feedback. Though you might expect alarmist responses from a generally traditionalist audience, some applauded Bosa’s decision, or at least expressed understanding of why he did it. Here’s what they said:

• “I don’t think it will signal a larger trend, but I could see a few top players in a similar situation possibly doing the same thing in the future. I don’t see players en masse sitting out.”
• “Little impact on scouting. Only thing really is that it may give insight to what he’s going to be like when it comes to contracts down the line.”
• “It’s all a moot point. Apparently he wasn’t going to be healthy enough to play anyway.”
• “Same category as players who decide not to play in bowl games. There will be some chatter as to how this will change the ways scouts view this player: does he compete every (day)? Is he a team player? In the end, it won’t make a difference.”
• “I don’t think it will be a trend any more than how things play out now. It’s all about the advice kids get. I mean, you have (Stanford OH Christian) McCaffery (perceived great kid and team guy) not play in his bowl game vs. the Texas kids who got blown up for leaving their teammates a year ago. I always like to see guys play as much ball in college as possible, but you also have to consider each circumstance on its own.  Rodney Anderson at OU is another one this year.”
• “Great question. In reality, it doesn’t really matter if it’s good for scouting. What is important is whether it is good for the player and good for the university. Scouts shouldn’t take it personally. If they want to hold it against him or project out how he’ll handle the business of the game, that’s their prerogative. If they simply note the new situation and carry on, that’s probably a healthy way of handling it, too.”

On the other hand, other NFL evaluators saw negatives associated with Bosa’s decision, and not just because of a perceived disloyalty toward his fellow Buckeyes. We’ve got several takes (seven in all) from other scouts that were a bit less bullish on Bosa’s choice. Check them out in this week’s Friday Wrap. You can register to receive it — just as thousands of NFL insiders from across the business spectrum do each week — right here.

Were you a little late to register? No sweat. You can access our Friday Wrap for Oct. 19 here.

This week, an established agent from a top-10 firm who’s been a longtime friend had some time to kill while waiting on a plane, so he texted me with a couple observations from early recruiting. It turned into a lengthy text exchange on the present and future of the game.

It was pretty illuminative for me, and sparked a lot of thinking about what’s happening in the business, so I thought I’d break down the main points of our conversation here. Today’s post is a little long, so bear with me. There’s a lot to cover.

• NFL teams are still furiously trying to pick the analytics lock: I think there has been a perception that the failure of former GM Sashi Brown in Cleveland ended the analytics push in pro football. Not so by a long shot. Teams are still looking for the Rosetta Stone when it comes to sifting out talent from pure numbers, and most seem determined the answer is in there somewhere.
• This creates incredible volatility: Already, these picks from 2017 have been cut: Seahawks DT Malik McDowell (2/35), Raiders FS Obi Melifonwu (2/56), Jets WO Ardarius Stewart (3/79), Broncos WO Carlos Henderson (3/82), Patriots OT Antonio Garcia (3/85), Giants QB Davis Webb (3/87), Broncos DC Brendan Langley (3/101), Seahawks WO Amara Darboh (3/106), Packers OB Vince Biegel (4/108), 49ers OH Joe Williams (4/121), Bucs OH Jeremy McNichols (5/162), Cardinals OG Dorian Johnson (4/115), Colts OT Zach Banner (4/137), Bengals PK Jake Elliott (5/153), and Packers WO DeAngelo Yancey (5/175). And while this is far from an exhaustive list, that’s eight players drafted in the second or third round! Maybe 2017 was just a bad draft class. On the other hand, it seems like teams are less willing to live with and develop their picks than ever. There’s a disposable nature to the draft that we haven’t seen before.
• Agents — even veteran agents — are scratching their heads: Do modern NFL teams want good football players from traditional powers? Most of the players listed above check those boxes. Or do they want former rugby players with lights-out measurables like Eagles OT Jordan Maliata (7/233, 2018)? Or ex-basketball players who look great on pro day, like Cowboys TE Rico Gathers (6/217, 2016)? Or players from other countries like Bengals TE Moritz Bohringer (6/180, 2016, drafted by the Vikings)? Or giants without any real position that they can mold, like Army-captain-turned-Steelers-starting-OT Alejandro Villanueva? Nobody knows.
• Solid middle-class agencies are seeking shelter: These questions are pushing the middle class of agencies out of the business, or at least to look to other sports like baseball that have fewer risks. The friend I texted with said he thinks that within a couple years we could see 95 percent of all NFL players represented by about five percent of agents. He was exaggerating, of course, but he’s not far off. There are hundreds of good agents — rank-and-file guys that love their clients, work hard for them, and care about them, as well as the game — that are either trying to find a buyer/merger partner, or worried about how they’re going to stick around long enough to pay their loans and/or investors.
• Uncertainty across the board: As teams become schizophrenic in their preferences, the trickle-down is starting to affect training facilities. As recently as 3-4 years ago, the perception by agents was that a $10,000-$15,000 training cost was baked into every player signed. There’s been a market correction, however, and fewer contract advisors are willing to go that route. That’s forcing some trainers  to limit their work with draft prospects.
• Players haven’t caught up to this yet: Unfortunately, for lots of reasons, the draft prospects themselves aren’t aware of this cycle. The number of players leaving early is trending up, and the number of lesser prospects that expect to get the same training deals their buddies got remains constant. This is why we’re starting to see parents whose sons have NFL dreams rationalize that part of the money saved by a college scholarship can be spent on combine prep.
• The new leagues are a wildcard: As we discuss in today’s Friday Wrap (register here), there are a lot of ways the new leagues, the Alliance of American Football (AAF) and the XFL, could move to take advantage of this volatility. With a work stoppage expected in two years, there are plenty of variables to weigh and opportunities that could be exploited, if the leagues so choose.

Obviously, the winners, both on and off the field, will be the ones who figure out how to exploit these opportunities and think in new ways. I think we’re going to see scouting and evaluation change drastically in the next 10 years, along with player representation, in ways as drastic as we’re seeing the on-field game change.

At the end of the day, these new trends will benefit the innovators and cripple those unwilling to adapt. I guess that means it’s a great time to be young and interested in working in the game, and not as great for those writing checks and hoping.

I’m always approached by young people who hope to be NFL scouts, and they often ask, what’s the best way to be hired? It’s a tough question to ask because no two teams look exactly alike when it comes to scouting.

With that in mind, we decided to look at the 12 teams who qualified for the NFL playoffs last year in hopes of identifying the template for good scouting and evaluation. What is the common thread between the Patriots, Steelers, Jaguars, Chiefs, Titans and Bills in the AFC, plus the Eagles, Vikings, Rams, Saints, Panthers and Falcons in the NFC?

First off, we have to reduce the teams under the microscope to 11 as the Panthers neither publish their scouts and their assignments on their website or publish a media guide with that information. So we’ll take a look at the other teams.

GM stability: This is a really hard factor to measure. There were teams in the playoffs like the Patriots and Saints that, technically, have had the same GM in place for the last two decades. While New England’s Bill Belichick is in a class by himself and not your typical GM, New Orleans’ Mickey Loomis is not your traditional, in-charge-on-draft-day kind of GM, and the team’s fortunes didn’t really turn around until Assistant GM Jeff Ireland was hired. In fact, if there’s a trend, it’s away from the centralized decision-making as several of the GMs in the playoffs last year have either had their personnel power stripped or haven’t been around long enough to really be judged (Buffalo’s Brandon Beane and Kansas City’s Brett Veach have been on the job two years or less).

Director-level scouts and executives: How many of these teams are loaded with chiefs and less-needful of Indians? There’s no real consensus, but it seems that less is more. The Patriots, a team that’s got most of its power in a tight circle around Belichick, has just three director-level members of its scouting staff. So do the Titans, led by former Patriots executive Jon Robinson. The Bills, Vikings, Saints and Steelers each have four. On the other end of the spectrum are the Jaguars and Eagles with seven each.

Total scouts: Again, no team defines every evaluator the same way. However, when counting actual ‘scouts’ in the 11 front offices — not people who are managing and making decisions, but those who are doing base-level evaluation of players — the magic number seems to be 10. The Steelers, Rams, Titans, Jaguars and Bills all have 10 members of their staff who seem to be primarily scouts, while the Vikings have 11. On the other end of the spectrum, the NFC champion Eagles have six and the Chiefs have eight.

To get a fuller picture of how teams build their scouting departments, looking at the average and the median number of scouting interns, national scouts, regional scouts, pro scouts, area scouts and more, check out the numbers on our website, and better yet, check out our analysis of each of the NFL’s scouting departments in today’s Friday Wrap. It will be out later this evening, and it’s easy to register.

You’ll be reading the same info thousands of members of the pro and college football community read each week. Register here.

We’re about six weeks from the 2018 NFLPA Contract Advisor exam, which means everyone headed to D.C. in July is (or should be) studying like a busy bee and doing everything possible to learn the CBA. And they should be. Many of them are already using the ITL practice agent exam to get ready; by the way, in about 10 days, we’ll have a second exam for aspiring agents to use.

Anyway, once we get past the test, there are a few things to know. For example, scouts are a big part of the game and always play a role in an agent’s success.

With that in mind, we reached out to several active NFL scouts (18, to be exact) and asked them this question: With a new agent class getting ready to take the exam next month, what’s one thing about new agents that makes your job harder? Is it a belief that their client is entitled to a workout/place on an NFL team? Is it the bombarding emails? Is it continually having to explain basic aspects of the draft process? Is it handling their intrusions at pro days? Is it their general lack of understanding of your job?

We got 15 responses, an incredibly high return on such a question. Obviously, we touched a nerve, though not all scouts had a negative reaction. Here are a few of their responses:

• “The toughest aspects are (that) guys not adjusting to the fact we have access to much more information, much earlier than in times past (so, yes, emails with fabricated or exaggerated 40 times, shuttles, etc. are annoying); integrity (and) doing what you say you’re going to in all areas (this ties in with their lack of ability to educate and manage their clients’ careers); and transparency (this likely can be an issue on the personnel side as well). Just being upfront about one, what the client wants or needs, and two, divulging information on the front end before things get out of hand, (is important).”
• “Surprisingly, the new agents are easier to work with than the old agents. The old agents think they know everything and they tend to push boundaries. The new agents generally are nervous and tend to ask more questions about the process and are willing to listen when they ask about one of their clients. They tend to be a little more passive at first so they can build relationships. . . that has been my experience with them.”
• “It would be the emails and the inability to understand that sometimes their guy just isn’t good and there’s no place on the roster for him. Sometimes they pound the table for the same guys for months and they’ll lose the scout.”
• “I deal with agents on the pro side. The guys I like dealing with the most are the ones who don’t bombard you with emails (I actually got an email from an agent the other day with a follow-up email stating he used the wrong template on the previous email and sent the wrong info on the wrong player). Accessibility and quick responses to phone calls are always appreciated, but don’t blow me up with texts and emails. I know they are working on behalf of their guys but I think there is a fine line between providing info and going too far and becoming annoying.  I respect what they do but I don’t need to be on an auto email list that sends me your available clients every day!”

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Besides their general unhappiness with the volume of emails new (really, most) agents send, there are other good points scouts made about what to do and not do to in dealing with teams, especially if you’re a new agent. Some even had positive things to say about new contract advisors, which I found refreshing.

You can check it out in our Friday Wrap, which comes out in about three hours. It’s totally free, and you can register for it here. If you’re getting ready for this summer’s big exam, it’s must reading. But really, if you are in any part of the football business, we recommend you register for our weekly newsletter. We don’t think you’ll be sorry.

Welcome to June, and the unofficial end of NFL scout and executive hiring (and firing) season. Though it started a little slow, it was an exciting month of May, filled with intrigue and projection, much like the month of April.

As of the latest move we reported today, we’ve tracked 112 moves (promotions, reassignments, hirings and firings). About a hundred is the over/under for most springs.

Now that the National Football Scouting and BLESTO meetings are over, we can take a fuller look at the teams that reconfigured their scouting departments and make a few observations (most of them prompted by recent GM hires). Hopefully you joined Orlando Alzugaray and myself on SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Radio last weekend as we ran everything down. But if you didn’t, here’s a quick overview.

A few things to add:

• The biggest story-that-turned-out-to-be-a-non-story was in Oakland, where we heard since before the draft that the arrival of Jon Gruden meant a lot of rancor and unrest in the front office. A month later, however, everyone is still in place. It’s possible this is because all scouts are still under contract and owner Mark Davis didn’t want to write a bunch of checks. We’ll continue to monitor things there.
• Also, as ESPN’s Jordan Raanan pointed out on Twitter Thursday, the Giants have a few assignment shifts and moves they’ll be announcing soon, maybe today. New GM Dave Gettleman mostly went status quo in Year 1 back in New York, though several scouts were given one-year, prove-it deals, and may not be back to see the 2020 draft.
• There are still a few teams making lesser moves, mainly replacing combine scouts and scouting assistants. They include the Chargers and 49ers, though there may be a couple more (here’s one of the Chargers moves, announced today). However, we don’t anticipate any true headline-grabbing hires.

To check out the most comprehensive listing of who went where on the Internet, including moves (sometimes) still to be reported, check out the 2018 ITL Scouting Changes Grid. To check out the movement every year since 2014, the first year we started tracking things comprehensively, click here.

Also, for a look at how quickly some teams turned things around after a GM change or a major front office hire, take a look at today’s report on ITL. We’ll also analyze this year’s moves further and put them in the context of recent turnover in today’s Friday Wrap. It will be out this evening, and you can register for it here.