This is good for a laugh: 2000 draft revisted

[Mike the Brit]

3. this actually wasn't one of the assumptions made -- it was more about his lack of mobility and weight. the deep ball was a strength in college...he made it look easy, just as he does today -- Gil Brandt, the great scout for the Cowboys, was very impressed with his deep ball. IMO, he'll go down as throwing one of the prettiest and most accurate long balls in history.

My bad. I guess I was thinking back to the "Brady can't pass it deep" stuff that was going around in 2002 (along with "To glove or not to glove ...")

I'd add a 5th point: scouts assumed that because Henson was in the mix at UM it meant there was something wrong with Tom.

Good point.

In general, I'm just raising speculative ideas about why scouts made the mistake they obviously did -- I have no brief for them.

I'd add another thought, perhaps. Quarterback is a very strange position when it comes to the draft.

On the one hand, it's agreed to be the most important (and highest paid) position on any team. On the other hand, it's all or nothing. You only need one quarterback to play and, once a team has its franchise quarterback, it can, with luck, expect him to last for a very long time. It's not like linebacker, where even your fourth-best player will start (and fifth and sixth will probably be valuable on special teams).

What's more, even a talented quarterback just out of college will be at a disadvantage against a less talented player who already has NFL experience, at least when it comes to being a back-up. To bring a quarterback into the league takes a lot of effort for a team. So a lot of very good players who are, for one reason or another, not thought to be first rounders (players who are very likely to succeed in the NFL) may well have difficulty getting drafted (i.e. the tenth-best quarterback may go below the tenth-best linebacker).

 

[Tunescribe]

"On the subject of college evaluation, the lack of judgment is appalling. This is the most important position in football. How can the NFL spend millions of dollars to evaluate players and be so consistently wrong?†– Steve Sabol (2002)

we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand that the college and pro games are different and that what a guy accomplishes or does in college does not just project neatly into the NFL. I understand there have been major flops in the first round, this also does not make the scouts look any better. I also understand that tom "worked hard" and continues to work hard to make himself better.

We agree on all of that.

He was not however a 6th round prospect, as any honest, thorough and well educated evaluation would've indicated.

Again, we're not talking about a guy who didn't IMPROVE, we're talking about a guy who was already proven at a major program who had enormous POTENTIAL and was so good that, after riding the pine as a rookie, he stepped in on an emergency basis in his first season as a starter and took a team to a championship. That team had 70-1 preseason odds (this was before the highest paid QB in the league went down). No other QB in history has come close to winning a championship on what was widely perceived as a "bad team." He was also the youngest QB to ever win a championship. And yet he was passed over 5-6 times by each team in the league

Three kickers were slected in front of him as well as a slew of other QBs WHO HAVE, AS YOU POINT OUT, FLOPPED.

so yeah, in my book that represents the definition of the word clueless.

How does that happen?...you tell me -- seriously, I'd like to know.

Like the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. I think what you're doing here is extrapolating backward, using the fact of how wonderfully Brady turned out as evidence that the scouts were clueless. But I don't think they were. I believe their evaluations are based primarily on how capable a college player is of playing the pro game at the time he's drafted. Brady didn't have the tools at the time he was drafted to step in and make an impact. Consequently, he was a "raw" project who needed a lot of work in the NFL style of play both physically and technique wise. Whether or not a player in that state can improve enough to contribute is a highly speculative proposition, hence his being picked in a late round. Tom defied the odds through hard work and determination and proved himself an exception to the rule. So yeah, with what No. 12 has shown it's easy to sit there and say the scouts "missed badly," but at the time there were plenty of good reasons why he slipped to 199.

 

[onegameatatime]

I would agree that to a great extent, the Pats were "lucky" on draft day. Weren't they more interested in Rattay? And if they thought TB had such great potential, why risk losing him by waiting until round 6?

BUT AFTER DRAFT DAY? ... The fact that they carried 4 QBs in TB's first year, then moved him up past Damon Huard, a serviceable veteran back-up, and then (I believe) would have used a dip by Bledsoe as an excuse to move TB in, is not luck. It shows BB quickly appreciated what they had in TB, and when he did first play, CW and BB used him as best they could with little experience and relatively little offensive skill position talent.

Even today, though, TB still does not get thought of as a dominant QB, although you hear comments like the Denver DB (I believe it was Trevor Price) who said that TB looks better and better the more film you watch.

 

[Pats67]

I would agree that to a great extent, the Pats were "lucky" on draft day. Weren't they more interested in Rattay?

A myth (often perpetrated by Ron Borges) that has been disproven in any number of quarters, most notably Patriot Reign. They were scouting two quarterbacks, and after that was complete, they agreed they preferred Brady. The two main decision makers appeared to be Rehbein and Belichick.

If they actually preferred (or were more interested in) Rattay, you'd think they would have taken him, since he was on the board at the time of pick 199.

 

[primetime]

The Peter King article is pretty funny for the 2000 draft. The only team who gets an A-minus or higher grade are the Raiders, who if you remember selected a kicker in the first round. Who hasn't even been all that great. I love it.

"Cosey Coleman's an eight-year starter after Randall McDaniel retires." Who?

" Pick 89 overall, Corey Moore, will be one of those classic Bills picks (they always get a very good player after the first round, every year), the kind of player GMs will regret passing on." Who?

"Here's one of my post-fourth-round exceptions: Love the pick of Tee Martin late in the fifth." That worked out.

"J.R. Redmond will be the every-down back by Oct. 1. Not bad for the 76th overall pick." Yeah, ookay.

"Courtney Brown is a draft." Poor Browns.

"R. Jay Soward and Tom Coughlin. Now that's a match made in heaven. Why do I give this a chance? Because scouts love Soward -- assuming he'd have someone to lean on him 25 hours a day." Did Soward ever even play a down?

"Shaun Alexander (who went 19th) will be a better pro than Jamal Lewis (fifth), by the way." Arguable. Jamal was better pre-prison sentence.

"The Thomas Jones draft. He'd better be the long-term back there, because they've spent too many picks trying to get this right." Oops.

"I like Sylvester Morris." Who?

"But I can't figure for the life of me why Carl Peterson, who is a smart man, didn't go out and spend a couple of picks to save his running game for years by dealing for Corey Dillon. Dumb, dumb, dumb." Worked out for another team a few years later, didn't it?

"I have no idea why you take a Marshall Faulk (Trung Canidate) when you have a Marshall Faulk (Marshall Faulk)." Well, he was right on there. Except calling Canidate Marshall Faulk.

 

[gomezcat]

And if they thought TB had such great potential, why risk losing him by waiting until round 6?

That is a very good point and it is one that Pioli himself has made. No coaching system is perfect, although some are clearly better than others. Hindsight is very much 20/20. One can't legislate for a player's capacity to grow physically and mentally, his ability to adapt to a new system, the standard of coaching he receives, the support he gets and so on. We should always treat "can't misses" with scepticism. For every Anthony Munoz, there is a Tony Mandarich. For every Ki-Jana Carter, there is a Barry Sanders. If it were that simple, we'd all be scouts, not internet posters.

 

[the taildragger]

Like the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. I think what you're doing here is extrapolating backward, using the fact of how wonderfully Brady turned out as evidence that the scouts were clueless. But I don't think they were. I believe their evaluations are based primarily on how capable a college player is of playing the pro game at the time he's drafted. Brady didn't have the tools at the time he was drafted to step in and make an impact. Consequently, he was a "raw" project who needed a lot of work in the NFL style of play both physically and technique wise. Whether or not a player in that state can improve enough to contribute is a highly speculative proposition, hence his being picked in a late round. Tom defied the odds through hard work and determination and proved himself an exception to the rule. So yeah, with what No. 12 has shown it's easy to sit there and say the scouts "missed badly," but at the time there were plenty of good reasons why he slipped to 199.

There are "explanations" and "reasons" why he was overlooked -- yes, some of these reasons "seemed" logical at the time. When we took him where we did, the experts all patted themselves on the back and said, 'see, we told you so.' The reality was quite different and many in the industry did not realize that until years later. I'm still not sure how this vindicates the process? Either the process works or it doesn't. With guys like Ryan Leaf or Brady it clearly doesn't.

Leinart's scouting report is nearly identical to Tom's...one will be a top pick and one was 199...please confer this discrepancy.

Tom put on some weight between '00-'01 -- he learned the playbook, which all rookies must do -- and he learned it much faster than most. He was already "better" than the highest paid QB in the NFL in just his second year, so again, how can #199 be defended? Was it just as you say, hard work? If so then why can't lousy unprepared QBs merely work hard and get to that level? There obviously must be a skill component that is already in place.

This myth that there was a dramatic improvement in his game between '00-01 is merely an attempt to rationalize why he went at 199 on the part of scouts who want to keep their jobs.

Brady's success has caused a massive paradigm shift in the way the industry works...to a man, every single guy in the industry had to admit they blew it.

Why is it not fair to look back and question the fact that just 10 of the 70 or so QBs selected in the first round of the draft have ever made it to the playoffs?

If a guy scores an F on a test, is it not fair to extrapolate backwards that he screwed up even though he felt -- at the time -- he aced it?

Maybe the better question is why are such reasonable and rational scouts so consistently and spectacularly wrong?

I have argued that the major reason Tom fell wasn't even in the scouting reports at all...and had less to do with mobility or the fact that he was "knocked down too easy" -- The real problem was that nobody could understand what was going on between he and Drew Henson at Michigan...for the most part, NFL teams didn't waste their time watching the tapes because they made invalid assumptions about what was going on. This theory has been echoed by Belichick himself.

Look, I follow big ten football, and I was genuinely shocked that Tom went below three kickers -- I had no idea at all that he was going to be one of the greatest of all time -- but nor does it shock/surpise me that he did turn out that way -- and at the time I absolutely felt he was as good as Pennington or Carmazzi or Wynn or Redman...and in 20/20 hindsight as you say, I don't see how ANYONE can't be convinced the process had/has some major flaws (you do accept this, do you not?). Some scouts are definitely better than others, but when the NFL community makes up its mind to ignore a certain guy there's an obvious herd mentality...that's why I call them "clueless" -- perhaps some of them are capable of understanding but, if so, they definitely turned a bilnd eye.

I'm trying to understand how I can help clear things up here, but I'm not really sure what your reference point is on this...perhaps you have some questions you could challenge me with?

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I forgot which article I read it in recently, with people praising Scott Pioli for his "genius" move selecting Brady, he points to a picture he still has on his desk of our first 5th round pick that year, TE Dave Stachelski of Boise State. He never played a down for us, retiring right at the beginning of training camp. I guess Pioli is clueless too. If he was so sure of Brady, why was he his 7th pick?

It's not just the NFL guys. I pointed out earlier in the thread all the 1st round prospects that were 2 or 3-star players coming out of high school. Looking at those 5-star blue chips in those years, a lot of those guys I've never heard of. Guys that were supposed to dominate from the beginning never did anything.

For that matter, name a sport in which the teams always get it right in the draft. Name a college sport in which teams always get it right with high schoolers. Players are going to fall through the cracks. For one reason or another, teams will feel certain players are better. If Brady lasting until the 6th round is the definition of clueless, there isn't a single good scout on the face of the earth because there is always an undrafted free agent or late round pick in EVERY sport that turns into something special.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Wouldn't this be a great subject for a story?

This is the time of the year when there isn't much football-related information to report (except for pre-draft tidbits) but interest is high among fans.

Wouldn't it be great for a journalist to go back over this ground, talk to some of the scouts/GMs involved in decision-making and ask them what they thought of Brady, why they didn't pick him, what lessons they think they've learned?

(Cynical note: this would presuppose that the journalist in question was prepared to do some research in order to write a story, rather than offer his own 2-cents of prejudiced opinion on whatever press release comes across his desk.)

 

[Michigan Dave]

You nail the "explanation" as to why he was overlooked...my point is that each of these can be easily countered:

1. lots of assumptions indeed...at 6' 5", his size was nothing however that a few months in the gym couldn't -- and didn't -- remedy.

2. another widely-held assumption -- but in 98/99, he had 8 4th-quarter comebacks and was 10-2 in games decided by a TD...and everyone on the team said tom carried them...particularly in the 2 high profile bowl games they/he won.

3. this actually wasn't one of the assumptions made -- it was more about his lack of mobility and weight. the deep ball was a strength in college...he made it look easy, just as he does today -- Gil Brandt, the great scout for the Cowboys, was very impressed with his deep ball. IMO, he'll go down as throwing one of the prettiest and most accurate long balls in history.

4. TOTALLY AGREE! excellent point. to this day, he never toots his own horn...uncomfortable talking about himself or seperating himself from the rest of his team. He's plenty ****y on the field (the system bleeps out the word c-ocky, Beavis would have a field day in here). Just compare Tom's self-imposed modesty to Leinart who has already likened himself to Brady .

I'd add a 5th point: scouts assumed that because Henson was in the mix at UM it meant there was something wrong with Tom.

to this day, I'm just not convinced these scouts do enough film watching...there is a lot of copy-cat syndrome to these reports and general laziness...pretty sad given the $$ involved.

but it wasn't just the independent scouts like Kiper, the TEAM scouts were lazy too.

1. It had more to do with his build. Even now, a "bulked up" Tommy looks very, er, "wiry." Still, his pocket presence enough should've countered that. If you watch him with the Pats, he has that sense of where the defender is, and can avoid the crippling hits in the pocket.

2. Not even all of the comebacks. You need to watch 2 games to know what Tom Brady was all about. First, the game at Penn State in 1999. Tommy executed a fantastic trick play where he "limps" off the field, and sets up Henson for the throwback. He brought us back from a double digit 4th quarter deficit, lumbering in for a TD, and throwing an absolutely PERFECT pass to Marcus Knight for the winner. Second, the Orange Bowl. Greatest game I've ever been a part of. You know the cut in 3G2G3 where Tommy's on the sideline pimping the O-Line for killing Indy? That was the Orange Bowl. Twice we fell behind by 14 to a Bama team that was considered to be playing the best ball in the country, and twice he rallied us back. In OT he needed 1 play to win the game. He absolutely would NOT let us lose. Each time we fell behind, he let our entire team know we were not going out that way. What is lost in this classic game is that he really won the game in OT, driving us down to the 1 where Anthony Thomas fumbled, and then executing a flawless final possession which led to a blocked FG as time expired. The greatest exhibition of leadership I've EVER been a part of.

3. While his deep ball was a strength, it was arm strength that was questioned. Kind of silly, but scouts didn't think he could place the deep ball in the NFL. Oops.

4. Tommy is still Tommy. It's unreal. Fame has absolutely not changed him. He easily could've turned his back on his old-school friends like me and rolled with the A-list crowd, but he's the same old guy. Part of this I think is from a fear and realization that it can all go away. While he believes on the field that he's the best, he knows to get there it's through hard work.

5. I've rehashed the Henson-Brady thing before, but in hindsight, everyone knows Henson shouldn't have seen time, but it was a unique time, with 2 amazing QBs.

Bottom line, while sitting through draft day in 99 absolutely killed Tommy's pride, part of it helped mold him to where he is today. I wouldn't have it any other way, since it worked out in the best interests of my favorite football team!

 

[Bella*chick]

I forgot which article I read it in recently, with people praising Scott Pioli for his "genius" move selecting Brady, he points to a picture he still has on his desk of our first 5th round pick that year, TE Dave Stachelski of Boise State. He never played a down for us, retiring right at the beginning of training camp. I guess Pioli is clueless too. If he was so sure of Brady, why was he his 7th pick?

You read it in The Education of a Coach.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Well, I haven't read it so I guess someone was quoting part of the book. Thanks for the source though.

 

[drpatriot]

You also see these type of things in college too. I remember that Derrick Johnson was a 3-star prospect going to Texas.

I just checked Rivals.com to look for any notable players soon to be drafted that weren't blue-chips coming out of high school. It only goes back to the 2002 class so I couldn't check any 5th year seniors.

Just noticed that Alex Smith, last year's #1 overall, was a 2-star.

Just shows the impreciseness of scouting, again.