PromoTheRobot Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Geez. Don't you people get it? No one, particularly scouts, give a flying !@#$ if any team was "prepared to play" or who wins a dumb-ass exhibition game. They wanted to get a good look at the kids coming out in the next draft all together and feel Gailey wasted this opportunity while the other coach did not. That is what they were bitching about. They are scouting the kids, not the coaches. Get it? Move on. So Chan is supposed to run a dog & pony show to make some hack writers happy? If anyone needs to unwad his panties its Mike Lombardo. PTR
Doc Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Geez. Don't you people get it? No one, particularly scouts, give a flying !@#$ if any team was "prepared to play" or who wins a dumb-ass exhibition game. They wanted to get a good look at the kids coming out in the next draft all together and feel Gailey wasted this opportunity while the other coach did not. That is what they were bitching about. They are scouting the kids, not the coaches. Get it? Move on. Yeah, because how they do in practice means more than how they do in an actual game.
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Yeah, because how they do in practice means more than how they do in an actual game. Jauron football: It worked well on Friday.
xsoldier54 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Geez. Don't you people get it? No one, particularly scouts, give a flying !@#$ if any team was "prepared to play" or who wins a dumb-ass exhibition game. They wanted to get a good look at the kids coming out in the next draft all together and feel Gailey wasted this opportunity while the other coach did not. That is what they were bitching about. They are scouting the kids, not the coaches. Get it? Move on. It is you who don't get it my friend. A coaching staff's job is to get their team prepared to play in games. It is not to showcase them for scouts and reporters. This staff did their job. And they did it quite well. By getting them prepared, they allowed them to showcase their skills under game conditions, not on a practice field.
BiggieScooby Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Whatever... That's not what the Post was about...I don't disagree with you're point, but these idiots ripped Gailey and the Bills Staff for the way they were Coaching these Kids and today it looked pretty clear which side was better prepared to play... I'm not willing to give anyone in this Bills Organization a pass when the real bullets fly either...But I don't see a reason for pessimism in this case at all...They were clearly criticized and in the end it seems like they did a pretty good Job in helping these Kids get better... fair enough...I don't agree with bashing somebody and made they had an axe to grind, but Gailey was accused of not conducting scout worthy practices, that's fair game imo...let's just see what improvement Gailey can do in year 2. Remember the bottom teams send their coaching staffs to the senior bowl...if he wins he won't have to go back to mobile. i'd much rather have gailey getting our guys ready for super bowl 46 next year.
Fixxxer Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Geez. Don't you people get it? No one, particularly scouts, give a flying !@#$ if any team was "prepared to play" or who wins a dumb-ass exhibition game. They wanted to get a good look at the kids coming out in the next draft all together and feel Gailey wasted this opportunity while the other coach did not. That is what they were bitching about. They are scouting the kids, not the coaches. Get it? Move on. I fail to see the logic where a coaching staff is teaching the players certain techniques to help them be better and be prepared for what is coming in their futures as something a scout or coach from another team would see it in a negative light. Whatever Gailey and his staff did, teaching wise and movement wise (Carpenter to LT - Acho as a DE and OLB, for example) is has to be seen as valuable, not only for the players themselves, but for the Bills and the rest of the teams.
CodeMonkey Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 It is you who don't get it my friend. A coaching staff's job is to get their team prepared to play in games. It is not to showcase them for scouts and reporters. This staff did their job. And they did it quite well. By getting them prepared, they allowed them to showcase their skills under game conditions, not on a practice field. Man you guys still don't get this do you. Coaching staffs job to get players prepared to play in a game? Couldn't be more true in a game that means something. Couldn't be more off the mark for a silly little exhibition game like this. What does it matter which team wins? Did you watch (assuming you did) to see hard hitting football or to see the next draft class? It is the same with the scouts, but they also get value watching practice as well as the pretty little no-one-gets-hurt-above-all-else exhibition game. These scouts were pissed because they missed out on what they thought was a good opportunity to see the next draft class work out rather than watching walk throughs. Is this really hard to comprehend? Gailey can do whatever he likes and he did, I really don't give a ****. I was (and am still) explaining why the scouts - you know, the people whose job it is to evaluate players entering the draft - didn't like it and were bitching about it.
Hplarrm Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Geez. Don't you people get it? No one, particularly scouts, give a flying !@#$ if any team was "prepared to play" or who wins a dumb-ass exhibition game. They wanted to get a good look at the kids coming out in the next draft all together and feel Gailey wasted this opportunity while the other coach did not. That is what they were bitching about. They are scouting the kids, not the coaches. Get it? Move on. I think folks may not want to move on because this comment makes little sense. I agrees that scouts want to see how players perform at the aspects of the game which will determine whether they are going to contribute as NFL players or not. Does this or other posters think that what is going to determine whether the overwhelming vast majority of drafted players are going to contribute to a team or not is how they perform on ST. Only a little over half of players who even merit 1st round choices are going to be starters for the teams which chose them after a full year of play (at least that is my observation from an examination of depth charts in a couple of seasons comparing who was drafter the previous spring and who is listed as #1 on team's depth charts after the season). A real miss in the conventional wisdom is the declaration that a player drafted in the first MUST be a starter his first year or the pick is a bust. While an example like perennial Pro Bowler Eric Moulds is the exception rather than the rule (a legit Pro Bowl talent eventually who simply produced next to nothing his first two years) it certainly seems to me that there are a ton of players who while they never ascend to be judged Pro Bowl worthy (yes a popularity contest but to some extent players become popular by producing on the field. The Scouts post seems to fall victim to the problem which is present in many casual fans that they focus too much on how an athlete plays a particular position when the truth is that starters take up 22 positions and a few specialty guys but half the roster is made up of guys who if they do not play ST well they are not gonna be on the roster. The real scouts are likely pleased as punch to get players who they get to judge how they perform in an ST oriented practice they are watching. Further, the players themselves if they are smart are quote pleased to get walked through an NFL ST drill several times so they can make a great first impression whatever team they go to. Folks at Scouts Inc are likely pissed that seeing mostly ST stuff forces them to do some real work in assessing players. However, given the game score and the pro oriented practice the folks who actually make their living scouting rather than punditizing are likely quite pleased for what is described as the Gailey style rather than the off=point and it appears less game effective Lewis style.
Malazan Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Man you guys still don't get this do you. Coaching staffs job to get players prepared to play in a game? Couldn't be more true in a game that means something. Couldn't be more off the mark for a silly little exhibition game like this. What does it matter which team wins? Did you watch (assuming you did) to see hard hitting football or to see the next draft class? It is the same with the scouts, but they also get value watching practice as well as the pretty little no-one-gets-hurt-above-all-else exhibition game. These scouts were pissed because they missed out on what they thought was a good opportunity to see the next draft class work out rather than watching walk throughs. Is this really hard to comprehend? Gailey can do whatever he likes and he did, I really don't give a ****. I was (and am still) explaining why the scouts - you know, the people whose job it is to evaluate players entering the draft - didn't like it and were bitching about it. This is a sarcastic joke post? Maybe they should have just run timed sprints and lifted weights? Edited January 31, 2011 by jeremy2020
JPicc2114 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I heard Trent Edwards was awesome in practice... He should be an all pro then right? The scouts are bitches, they have the entire actual game to scout
LynchMob23 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 One thing to note: the "scouts" in this case are internet journalists from scout and other draft related websites. The team and National Scouts (National, BLESTO) have seen these kids, at their schools mind you, practice and play games. So the real people that were offended were the guys who don't do that work during the year outside of going to the odd game.
Doc Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I doubt Chan cared how the kids looked in practice to real scouts, much less internet bloggers. And how many of the players who looked good in "better" North practices actually looked good in the game? On which would you place more credence?
K-9 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 One thing to note: the "scouts" in this case are internet journalists from scout and other draft related websites. The team and National Scouts (National, BLESTO) have seen these kids, at their schools mind you, practice and play games. So the real people that were offended were the guys who don't do that work during the year outside of going to the odd game. Excellent point. The scouts have seen these kids over the course of their college careers. The Senior Bowl is a chance for coaches and GMs from around the league to see them up close. And, contrary to some opinion, the "game" isn't meaningless to them, let alone the players. You show well in this game, meaningless as it is, and your draft stock can rise. Often times dramatically. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Geez. Don't you people get it? No one, particularly scouts, give a flying !@#$ if any team was "prepared to play" or who wins a dumb-ass exhibition game. They wanted to get a good look at the kids coming out in the next draft all together and feel Gailey wasted this opportunity while the other coach did not. That is what they were bitching about. They are scouting the kids, not the coaches. Get it? Move on. This couldn't be better for us. Hands on experience, still being able to scout the north, and not giving as much of the south squads secrets to other teams in attendance. Not great relationship building around the league, but good for the draft certainly.
Recommended Posts