http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
WOW check this out, we got contoversy
ESPN "DECISION MAKERS" PIECE CREATES A BUZZ
Though it's not our business to pimp the work product of other web sites, we're not going to ignore an item that has prompted plenty of attention and chatter in league circles.
We're told that the annual ESPN.com/Scouts, Inc. analysis of each NFL team's decision makers is raising plenty of eyebrows and causing quite a commotion -- but perhaps not for the reasons that the Boys in Bristol had intended.
Part of the problem, as some league sources see it, is that the item run without a byline. Thus, there's no way to assess the credibility of the piece, since there's no way to know who wrote it. Moreover, the absence of an identified author creates the possible impression that the information represents the "official" position of Scouts, Inc. and/or ESPN.com.
Why is any of this this relevant? Because two of the current Scouts, Inc. employees -- Jeremy Green and Keith Kidd -- are former NFL scouts with possible axes to grind and/or asses to kiss among the ranks of the very personnel departments that are being evaluated.
And there are league insiders who believe that Green and Kidd had key roles in the compilation of the 2006 version of the review of who has the juice in each front office.
Both Green and Kidd worked for the Browns. Kidd left when Dwight Clark departed in 2002, and Green was let go in early 2005. Kidd also worked for the Patriots, "resigning" in February 2005. (We hear that maybe it really wasn't a voluntary exit.)
And with both men now not working for NFL teams for more than a year, both arguably are hoping to re-enter the game at some point. Possibly as soon as the shuffling that will occur after the 2006 draft.
Against this background, then, some of the opinions expressed by the unidentified author(s) of the analysis could make sense.
Starting with the AFC version of the report, Pats V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli is described as a "'yes man,'" who "grabs the majority of the headlines." (Yeah, that Pioli is always mugging for the camera.) The report also claims that football research director Ernie Adams "will have as much input as Pioli on draft day," which makes us wonder whether Kidd will call Adams for a job if/when Adams gets a gig with hiring authority.
Next to get pitched under the bus without an identifiable driver is former Patriots defensive coordinator Eric Mangini. Writes the unnamed writer: "Mangini was a solid defensive coordinator in New England, but those close to the organization will tell you that player evaluations were not his strong suit."
Next up -- the Browns and director of player personnel Bill Rees, who might have had a little input into the decision to dump director of pro personnel Jeremy Green: "In the past Savage has relied heavily on his director of player personnel, Bill Rees. However, Rees has terrible people skills and has basically alienated himself from everyone in the organization, including the college scouts. Rees will have a reduced role on draft day and his job status will come under scrutiny once the draft has ended."
On the NFC side of the equation, Cardinals coach Dennis Green and former Browns exec Lal Heneghan draw praise.
As to Green, the father of Jeremy: "Dennis Green is the top guy in Arizona and more involved with personnel decisions than most head coaches around the league. Green is very aggressive with his roster moves, which is in direct contrast to chairman and president William Bidwell's past philosophy. Green knows exactly what he wants and does everything possible to get his guys."
Regarding Heneghan, who recently joined the 49ers: "Scott McCloughan is second to Nolan, but he doesn't have the power that his title would indicate. McCloughan seemed to be in over his head in terms of running and managing his department, but that's where the hiring of Heneghan should help."
Huh? McCloughan is a personnel guy, and Heneghan is a contracts guy. And Heneghan wasn't hired to help McCloughan, but to beef up a lackluster administrative operation featuring 20-something Paraag Marathe and soon-to-be-scuttled (we hear) Terry Tumey.
Look, we're not going to tell ESPN how to do its business. (Okay, maybe we will.) At a minimum, an editorial item masquerading as hard news at least should identify the author, and the author shouldn't be a guy who has held, or who could be looking for, a front-office job with any of the NFL teams. Instead, the import of this piece requires, in our view, the direct involvement of one of the ESPN journalists with no history in a front office, and no desire to join one. Otherwise, the breakdown of NFL decision makers can carry no credibility, because the reader has no way of assessing the potential biases and prejudices of those who compiled it.
With that said, we've got no problem with Kidd or Green serving as the sources for an item drafted by someone like Chris Mortensen or John Clayton, since both of those guys are trained to ferret through the inherent likes and dislikes of the folks who give them info, in the hopes of ensuring that the end result is accurate, fair, and balanced.
Though the decision makers report is intriguing, we simply don't know how much stock, if any, to put in the information, since we've got no idea who actually put the thing together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW check this out, we got contoversy
ESPN "DECISION MAKERS" PIECE CREATES A BUZZ
Though it's not our business to pimp the work product of other web sites, we're not going to ignore an item that has prompted plenty of attention and chatter in league circles.
We're told that the annual ESPN.com/Scouts, Inc. analysis of each NFL team's decision makers is raising plenty of eyebrows and causing quite a commotion -- but perhaps not for the reasons that the Boys in Bristol had intended.
Part of the problem, as some league sources see it, is that the item run without a byline. Thus, there's no way to assess the credibility of the piece, since there's no way to know who wrote it. Moreover, the absence of an identified author creates the possible impression that the information represents the "official" position of Scouts, Inc. and/or ESPN.com.
Why is any of this this relevant? Because two of the current Scouts, Inc. employees -- Jeremy Green and Keith Kidd -- are former NFL scouts with possible axes to grind and/or asses to kiss among the ranks of the very personnel departments that are being evaluated.
And there are league insiders who believe that Green and Kidd had key roles in the compilation of the 2006 version of the review of who has the juice in each front office.
Both Green and Kidd worked for the Browns. Kidd left when Dwight Clark departed in 2002, and Green was let go in early 2005. Kidd also worked for the Patriots, "resigning" in February 2005. (We hear that maybe it really wasn't a voluntary exit.)
And with both men now not working for NFL teams for more than a year, both arguably are hoping to re-enter the game at some point. Possibly as soon as the shuffling that will occur after the 2006 draft.
Against this background, then, some of the opinions expressed by the unidentified author(s) of the analysis could make sense.
Starting with the AFC version of the report, Pats V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli is described as a "'yes man,'" who "grabs the majority of the headlines." (Yeah, that Pioli is always mugging for the camera.) The report also claims that football research director Ernie Adams "will have as much input as Pioli on draft day," which makes us wonder whether Kidd will call Adams for a job if/when Adams gets a gig with hiring authority.
Next to get pitched under the bus without an identifiable driver is former Patriots defensive coordinator Eric Mangini. Writes the unnamed writer: "Mangini was a solid defensive coordinator in New England, but those close to the organization will tell you that player evaluations were not his strong suit."
Next up -- the Browns and director of player personnel Bill Rees, who might have had a little input into the decision to dump director of pro personnel Jeremy Green: "In the past Savage has relied heavily on his director of player personnel, Bill Rees. However, Rees has terrible people skills and has basically alienated himself from everyone in the organization, including the college scouts. Rees will have a reduced role on draft day and his job status will come under scrutiny once the draft has ended."
On the NFC side of the equation, Cardinals coach Dennis Green and former Browns exec Lal Heneghan draw praise.
As to Green, the father of Jeremy: "Dennis Green is the top guy in Arizona and more involved with personnel decisions than most head coaches around the league. Green is very aggressive with his roster moves, which is in direct contrast to chairman and president William Bidwell's past philosophy. Green knows exactly what he wants and does everything possible to get his guys."
Regarding Heneghan, who recently joined the 49ers: "Scott McCloughan is second to Nolan, but he doesn't have the power that his title would indicate. McCloughan seemed to be in over his head in terms of running and managing his department, but that's where the hiring of Heneghan should help."
Huh? McCloughan is a personnel guy, and Heneghan is a contracts guy. And Heneghan wasn't hired to help McCloughan, but to beef up a lackluster administrative operation featuring 20-something Paraag Marathe and soon-to-be-scuttled (we hear) Terry Tumey.
Look, we're not going to tell ESPN how to do its business. (Okay, maybe we will.) At a minimum, an editorial item masquerading as hard news at least should identify the author, and the author shouldn't be a guy who has held, or who could be looking for, a front-office job with any of the NFL teams. Instead, the import of this piece requires, in our view, the direct involvement of one of the ESPN journalists with no history in a front office, and no desire to join one. Otherwise, the breakdown of NFL decision makers can carry no credibility, because the reader has no way of assessing the potential biases and prejudices of those who compiled it.
With that said, we've got no problem with Kidd or Green serving as the sources for an item drafted by someone like Chris Mortensen or John Clayton, since both of those guys are trained to ferret through the inherent likes and dislikes of the folks who give them info, in the hopes of ensuring that the end result is accurate, fair, and balanced.
Though the decision makers report is intriguing, we simply don't know how much stock, if any, to put in the information, since we've got no idea who actually put the thing together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
