Reorganizing The Scouting Department

[Scrappy]

Whaley just got the reigns & hasn't even drafted yet, so how did we get better ?? Modrak sucked but there is nothing to say that Whaley is better, so if it's addition by subtraction then we did get better. How much better is TBD.

[Coach Tuesday]

Sorry my tone pisses you off. Two dimensional text can often come across that way. I'm not crapping on anything here. Just asking for more information. But given YOUR tone is often negative and craps on most things Bills related, it's no surprise you're defensive.

 

1.) Why would you just assume the Bills aren't spending more than the league average? History suggests the Bills are ahead of the curve when it comes to dedicating facilities to better their players. The Bills were one of the first teams to construct a fieldhouse that allowed for full scale practices in all weather. It was a state of the art facility. This doesn't jive with your theory that the Bills are just "too cheap."

 

2.) I think it stands to reason that since RW has paid top dollar in the past for HCs and those HCs were free to hire whatever assistants they wished, that perhaps they too, were on the higher end of the pay scale. But, for at least ONE example, I offer Ted Marchibroda, one of the highest paid assistants in the league when he was with the Bills. I think it's disingenuous to shift the discussion to assistant coaches all of a sudden though.

 

3.) Yeah, that's basically all I have to say to the notion of scheme choice being driven by economics. Allow me to oversimplify this time: If EVERY team in the league ran a 34, LBs would STILL be the easiest position, athlete wise, to fill. DLmen would still be at a premium because they are harder to find and develop. On a side note, I would add that's it's FAR less about scheme than it is about players. Ask any coach.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Nice, a personal attack to boot. Awesome.

 

1) I'm suggesting they spend at the top of the league in areas such as S&C where you can get more bang for your buck. If they're already doing it for S&C, great (but I doubt it) - and they should look for other similar areas.

 

2) I didn't shift the discussion. My post wasn't just about head coaches.

 

3) I disagree with you there. Not that scheme should be completely dictated by economics, but it should definitely play a roll with small market teams. You've got to be able to exploit market inefficiencies. Not saying you don't need great players - of course you do. But it's about where you invest limited dollars.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

That Andrew Luck guy can't play. He plays out West. :wallbash:

 

Andrew Luck isn't getting any more hype now than Jake Locker did last year - - and although Locker was drafted in the first round lots of people think there are some holes in his game. The expectations for Locker now are no higher than the expectations were for Ryan Leaf when he was drafted. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we all know how Ryan Leaf turned out. But the Colts were at least somewhat criticized at the time for drafting Peyton Manning ahead of him. Ryan Leaf played his college ball in the state of Washington - - Peyton played at the University of Tennessee (if I recall correctly). Which one's going to the Hall of Fame?

 

Andrew Luck didn't play high school football in California - - he played in Houston, which is in South Texas.

 

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/luck_andrew00.html

 

I've read some of your posts in other threads, and bless your heart, you can be pretty persuasive. Maybe you could convince me to send a few scouts to South Texas high schools, and if we identify somebody as exceptionally talented there, keep an eye on 'em in college. But then again, you could probably sell socks to a rooster.

 

How are we gonna be better train robbers if we don't go where the best talent is, and identify it early?

[K-9]

Nice, a personal attack to boot. Awesome.

 

1) I'm suggesting they spend at the top of the league in areas such as S&C where you can get more bang for your buck. If they're already doing it for S&C, great (but I doubt it) - and they should look for other similar areas.

 

2) I didn't shift the discussion. My post wasn't just about head coaches.

 

3) I disagree with you there. Not that scheme should be completely dictated by economics, but it should definitely play a roll with small market teams. You've got to be able to exploit market inefficiencies. Not saying you don't need great players - of course you do. But it's about where you invest limited dollars.

 

Personal attack? Do you disagree that the majority of your posts are negative when it comes to the Bills? My saying you tend to crap on them is a personal attack? I'd hate to see your reaction if I really did offer a personal attack (wait, was THAT a personal attack in and of itself?).

 

1.) Feel free to doubt it all you want. I suggest, given their history to the contrary, that your doubt is based on your already negative view of the Bills organization and not on the actual amount of dollars they devote to this area.

 

2.) Your OP did not mention anything at all about assistant coaches. It was a safe assumption that you were talking about HCs. Either way, there are tangible examples of the Bills having paid well for both HCs and ACs. Again, I think your view is simply tainted by the negative view you have of the organization as a whole.

 

3.) The first order of business for the Bills and any other team that hasn't been to the playoffs in a while, whether with limited resources or otherwise, is to construct a team that can compete to win it's division. In our case, it's what do we have to do to beat NE? This is the exact dilemma Polian and company had in the mid 80s when they had to beat Miami. It's no wonder Buddy and Co. sought to transition to the 34 as a result. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough good players for ANY scheme so it's no surprise the defense sucked last season and that is where the bulk of their resources have gone so far this offseason.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited May 11, 2011 by K-9

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

You keep naming these 3 as though they are the only 3 players to ever play in the NFL from the West, or that they are somehow indicative of the talent level of players from the West. Also, it's not like players from the South are infallible.

I may be a couple bushels short of a full silo, but I never claimed players from the South are infallible. The empirical evidence, however, seems to show that, with occasional exceptions, Buddy Nix likes to select players from the South in the draft. If we're gonna draft from there anyway, why not focus our scouting resources there?

 

For all I know you could be Rob Johnson, so I'll tread lightly here. It's not surprising that the "Ghost of Rob Johnson" would have a favorable opinion of players out West. The real Rob Johnson went to high school in Orange County, CA and played his college ball at USC.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-11-20/sports/sp-593_1_rob-johnson

 

Let's just say he's not going to the Hall of Fame any time soon.

[FightinIrishBills]

With the exception of Aaron Wiliams out of Texas (which is more West), all of the Bills 2011 draft picks came from the South.

[Scraps]

Andrew Luck isn't getting any more hype now than Jake Locker did last year - - and although Locker was drafted in the first round lots of people think there are some holes in his game. The expectations for Locker now are no higher than the expectations were for Ryan Leaf when he was drafted. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we all know how Ryan Leaf turned out. But the Colts were at least somewhat criticized at the time for drafting Peyton Manning ahead of him. Ryan Leaf played his college ball in the state of Washington - - Peyton played at the University of Tennessee (if I recall correctly). Which one's going to the Hall of Fame?

 

Andrew Luck didn't play high school football in California - - he played in Houston, which is in South Texas.

 

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/luck_andrew00.html

 

I've read some of your posts in other threads, and bless your heart, you can be pretty persuasive. Maybe you could convince me to send a few scouts to South Texas high schools, and if we identify somebody as exceptionally talented there, keep an eye on 'em in college. But then again, you could probably sell socks to a rooster.

 

How are we gonna be better train robbers if we don't go where the best talent is, and identify it early?

 

I would say that the expectations for Locker are far lower than for Leaf. If you can set aside the regional issue, I'd say that Luck is more similar to Manning that to Leaf. He could have cashed in but stayed in college to get an education and further develop as a player.

 

I'm not sure what you consider to be the South East. Where are the dividing lines? South of the Mason Dixon line and east of the Mississippi? If so, Houston is in the west. Here are some people that you would not consider based on your regional approach.

 

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Sam Bradford

Ndamukong Suh

Brian Orakpo

Clay Mathews

Darrelle Revis

Haloti Ngata

Nick Mangold

Ben Roethlisberger

Larry Fiztgerald

Dwight Freeney

Pat Williams

Tony Boselli

Orlando Pace

Thurman Thomas

Andre Reed

Barry Sanders

Steve Young

Dan Marino

John Elway

Joe Montana

OJ Simpson

 

Sounds like a good plan?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Scraps

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I would say that the expectations for Locker are far lower than for Leaf. If you can set aside the regional issue, I'd say that Luck is more similar to Manning that to Leaf. He could have cashed in but stayed in college to get an education and further develop as a player.

 

I'm not sure what you consider to be the South East. Where are the dividing lines? South of the Mason Dixon line and east of the Mississippi? If so, Houston is in the west. Here are some people that you would not consider based on your regional approach.

 

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Sam Bradford

Ndamukong Suh

Brian Orakpo

Clay Mathews

Darrelle Revis

Haloti Ngata

Nick Mangold

Ben Roethlisberger

Larry Fiztgerald

Dwight Freeney

Pat Williams

Tony Boselli

Orlando Pace

Thurman Thomas

Andre Reed

Barry Sanders

Dan Marino

John Elway

OJ Simpson

 

Sounds like a good plan?

When I first saw your list I had to ask myself - - am I just as confused as a cow lookin' at a new gate? But then I thought about it some.

 

1. What makes you think these player's would have had a fart's chance in a whirlwind of bein' drafted by Buddy Nix, given his empirical record of drafting players mainly from the South? Not solely from the South, but mainly from the South?

 

2. Do you know where those players went to high school? Also, I never said we should scout ONLY in the South. I'm advocating reallocating some of the resources we now use to scout and evaluate players from colleges out west, and focus more (not exclusively just more) on high schools in what I will generally call the South or South East (regardless of exact geographic boundaries). If you go back and read my OP, I never suggested reducing our scouting efforts anywhere but in the west. So I think our historical efforts to scout college players in the Big 10, etc. would not be affected at all by what I proposed. I don't know the biographical data on where all of the players in your list played college ball, but I know some. The first two players on your list are Tom Brady and Drew Brees - - both played in the Big 10. Not affected one bit my original suggestion.

[yungmack]

About a year ago, Buddy said he was going to greatly expand the scouting department. I believe that's underway. And in recent days, Modrak has been sent packing and Doug Whaley has moved into his old job. So it appears the Bills understand that the more good scouting you do, the less money you waste on poor draftees and free agent signings. A good team also draws better, can charge higher prices, etc. I don't know what the scouting department costs (a million? 3?). But it's a whole lot cheaper than what they're wasting on just Maybin (to name one much-maligned signing). To cut back on scouting would be "pennywise and pound foolish."

[Coach Tuesday]

Personal attack? Do you disagree that the majority of your posts are negative when it comes to the Bills? My saying you tend to crap on them is a personal attack? I'd hate to see your reaction if I really did offer a personal attack (wait, was THAT a personal attack in and of itself?).

 

1.) Feel free to doubt it all you want. I suggest, given their history to the contrary, that your doubt is based on your already negative view of the Bills organization and not on the actual amount of dollars they devote to this area.

 

2.) Your OP did not mention anything at all about assistant coaches. It was a safe assumption that you were talking about HCs. Either way, there are tangible examples of the Bills having paid well for both HCs and ACs. Again, I think your view is simply tainted by the negative view you have of the organization as a whole.

 

3.) The first order of business for the Bills and any other team that hasn't been to the playoffs in a while, whether with limited resources or otherwise, is to construct a team that can compete to win it's division. In our case, it's what do we have to do to beat NE? This is the exact dilemma Polian and company had in the mid 80s when they had to beat Miami. It's no wonder Buddy and Co. sought to transition to the 34 as a result. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough good players for ANY scheme so it's no surprise the defense sucked last season and that is where the bulk of their resources have gone so far this offseason.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Two comments:

 

1) It's interesting to me the way certain posters get the "negative" label while others don't. If you actually were to go back and look at my posts (not that I'd wish that on anyone), you'll find almost no posts where I actually criticize a player on the Bills. I'm damn hard on the organization, to be sure, but never the players (or the coaches, for that matter). Whereas other posters here routinely string up and whip Whitner, Maybin, Kelsay, whomever, on a repeated and consistent basis - and they're often considered some of the most "positive" posters at TSW. It's just an anomoly to me - I don't get why fans who are critical of the way the business at OBD is run are "negative," whilst fans who routinely bash the players and coaches aren't painted in the same light.

 

2) Just something I've been wondering about, has anyone here ever actually been persuaded by someone else's arguments on this Board? If so, I've never seen it. Really, I'd revere the day where a poster actually writes, after a few rounds of argument, "You know, I've considered your points and actually I've come around to your position." I won't hold my breath there.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Coach Tuesday

[Scraps]

When I first saw your list I had to ask myself - - am I just as confused as a cow lookin' at a new gate? But then I thought about it some.

 

1. What makes you think these player's would have had a fart's chance in a whirlwind of bein' drafted by Buddy Nix, given his empirical record of drafting players mainly from the South? Not solely from the South, but mainly from the South?

 

2. Do you know where those players went to high school? Also, I never said we should scout ONLY in the South. I'm advocating reallocating some of the resources we now use to scout and evaluate players from colleges out west, and focus more (not exclusively just more) on high schools in what I will generally call the South or South East (regardless of exact geographic boundaries). If you go back and read my OP, I never suggested reducing our scouting efforts anywhere but in the west. So I think our historical efforts to scout college players in the Big 10, etc. would not be affected at all by what I proposed. I don't know the biographical data on where all of the players in your list played college ball, but I know some. The first two players on your list are Tom Brady and Drew Brees - - both played in the Big 10. Not affected one bit my original suggestion.

 

 

Anyone who wouldn't draft any of those players has no business running an NFL team.

 

Most of those players went to high school in the same state as the college they attended.

[K-9]

When I first saw your list I had to ask myself - - am I just as confused as a cow lookin' at a new gate? But then I thought about it some.

 

1. What makes you think these player's would have had a fart's chance in a whirlwind of bein' drafted by Buddy Nix, given his empirical record of drafting players mainly from the South? Not solely from the South, but mainly from the South?

 

2. Do you know where those players went to high school? Also, I never said we should scout ONLY in the South. I'm advocating reallocating some of the resources we now use to scout and evaluate players from colleges out west, and focus more (not exclusively just more) on high schools in what I will generally call the South or South East (regardless of exact geographic boundaries). If you go back and read my OP, I never suggested reducing our scouting efforts anywhere but in the west. So I think our historical efforts to scout college players in the Big 10, etc. would not be affected at all by what I proposed. I don't know the biographical data on where all of the players in your list played college ball, but I know some. The first two players on your list are Tom Brady and Drew Brees - - both played in the Big 10. Not affected one bit my original suggestion.

 

Screw scouting the high schools. I think the Bills should be scouting Pop Warner leagues to really get a jump on the competition. Of course they should concentrate only on those Pop Warner leagues in the south.

 

It's time the Bills were the heifer that wears the cowbell!

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

About a year ago, Buddy said he was going to greatly expand the scouting department. I believe that's underway. And in recent days, Modrak has been sent packing and Doug Whaley has moved into his old job. So it appears the Bills understand that the more good scouting you do, the less money you waste on poor draftees and free agent signings. A good team also draws better, can charge higher prices, etc. I don't know what the scouting department costs (a million? 3?). But it's a whole lot cheaper than what they're wasting on just Maybin (to name one much-maligned signing). To cut back on scouting would be "pennywise and pound foolish."

My OP assumed that the scouting budget stayed the same. If Ralph decides to spend more money on scouting than he has in the past, then I'm as happy as a possum in a parsimmon patch. Let's just allocate some of the extra money to scouting high schools in the geographic areas from which Buddy is most likely to draft his future players anyway.

 

Screw scouting the high schools. I think the Bills should be scouting Pop Warner leagues to really get a jump on the competition. Of course they should concentrate only on those Pop Warner leagues in the south.

 

It's time the Bills were the heifer that wears the cowbell!

 

GO BILLS!!!

That's the spirit - - but let's not get carried away. We're a small market team that doesn't have unlimited funds. Seriously, though, I think the Pop Warner suggestion is a blue heron. I hope you realize I wouldn't advocate making changes that radical.

[K-9]

That's the spirit - - but let's not get carried away. We're a small market team that doesn't have unlimited funds. Seriously, though, I think the Pop Warner suggestion is a blue heron. I hope you realize I wouldn't advocate making changes that radical.

 

Heck no, I'm as serious as a window fan in a sh*tstorm with my suggestion about scouting Pop Warner teams. Look, when the Bills blaze the trail into heavy high school scouting, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the league goes there, too. I'm sayin' we need to get a jump on those jumpers. We do that and we're all poopin' in tall cotton.

 

Just so you can rest as easy as Andy Griffith on the porch swing with a bowl of Aunt Bee's homemade ice cream, let me just say that, after reading your posts in this thread, I know there is no way you'd ever advocate the Bills making any radical changes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

Two comments:

 

1) It's interesting to me the way certain posters get the "negative" label while others don't. If you actually were to go back and look at my posts (not that I'd wish that on anyone), you'll find almost no posts where I actually criticize a player on the Bills. I'm damn hard on the organization, to be sure, but never the players (or the coaches, for that matter). Whereas other posters here routinely string up and whip Whitner, Maybin, Kelsay, whomever, on a repeated and consistent basis - and they're often considered some of the most "positive" posters at TSW. It's just an anomoly to me - I don't get why fans who are critical of the way the business at OBD is run are "negative," whilst fans who routinely bash the players and coaches aren't painted in the same light.

 

2) Just something I've been wondering about, has anyone here ever actually been persuaded by someone else's arguments on this Board? If so, I've never seen it. Really, I'd revere the day where a poster actually writes, after a few rounds of argument, "You know, I've considered your points and actually I've come around to your position." I won't hold my breath there.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I've been persuaded by many arguments as far back as when we all used the old Rochester D&C Bills forum back in the mid 90s.

 

I don't know of any posters who routinely attack players or coaches who are considered positive posters. If a poster routinely posts negative items about players or the front office, you can pretty much rest assured they'll be labeled as negative. In a forum for Bills fans, it's not surprising that many posters would get tired of the constant negativity. I get a kick out of negative posters who insist on labeling positive posters as "kool-aid drinkers." Optimism or pessimism is a choice. Why choose pessimism? I fully expect the Bills to go 19-0 every year. And I guarantee you I am LESS disappointed than the pessimists who had them pegged at 1-15 going into the season when they wind up sucking again. Why is that?

 

Just for the record, I don't really care whether anyone is positive or negative. It's when arguments are made in a vacuum that I feel a need to respond. One of my particular pet peeves since way back when is the "RW is cheap" mantra that is usually made without any regard for the record to the contrary. That argument tends to serve and support a preexisting bias which is usually formed because fans hate losing so much. Understandable yes. But it does cloud a person's judgement from time to time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Coach Tuesday]

I can't speak for anyone else but I've been persuaded by many arguments as far back as when we all used the old Rochester D&C Bills forum back in the mid 90s.

 

I don't know of any posters who routinely attack players or coaches who are considered positive posters. If a poster routinely posts negative items about players or the front office, you can pretty much rest assured they'll be labeled as negative. In a forum for Bills fans, it's not surprising that many posters would get tired of the constant negativity. I get a kick out of negative posters who insist on labeling positive posters as "kool-aid drinkers." Optimism or pessimism is a choice. Why choose pessimism? I fully expect the Bills to go 19-0 every year. And I guarantee you I am LESS disappointed than the pessimists who had them pegged at 1-15 going into the season when they wind up sucking again. Why is that?

 

Just for the record, I don't really care whether anyone is positive or negative. It's when arguments are made in a vacuum that I feel a need to respond. One of my particular pet peeves since way back when is the "RW is cheap" mantra that is usually made without any regard for the record to the contrary. That argument tends to serve and support a preexisting bias which is usually formed because fans hate losing so much. Understandable yes. But it does cloud a person's judgement from time to time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Much of what you say is true. However, I think there are nuances to the "Ralph is cheap" theory/complaint. My personal view is that Ralph is mercurial. He will spend lavish amounts on certain things (like a splash free agent), and then inexplicably pull back the reigns over less expensive, seemingly insignificant items. I've heard that time and again from ex-insiders, who would become infuriated that Ralph would choose to pinch pennies over seemingly trivial items while letting large expenditures wallow away. In my personal experience, that kind of cheapness happens from time to time - ever know someone who, despite making lots of money and sparing themselves no expense, will nickel and dime a plumber or a cab driver? There are variations, is my point. Ralph is very difficult to pin down, but he's definitely cheap - just not cheap in the traditional sense.

 

Circling back to my original point, I have never understood why Ralph doesn't realize that spending an extra few dollars in certain key, inexpensive areas, would probably give him much more bang for the buck in the large-asset allocations he seems more willing to lay out for. Spend more on scouting and conditioning, you better protect your investment in player acquisition.

[K-9]

Much of what you say is true. However, I think there are nuances to the "Ralph is cheap" theory/complaint. My personal view is that Ralph is mercurial. He will spend lavish amounts on certain things (like a splash free agent), and then inexplicably pull back the reigns over less expensive, seemingly insignificant items. I've heard that time and again from ex-insiders, who would become infuriated that Ralph would choose to pinch pennies over seemingly trivial items while letting large expenditures wallow away. In my personal experience, that kind of cheapness happens from time to time - ever know someone who, despite making lots of money and sparing themselves no expense, will nickel and dime a plumber or a cab driver? There are variations, is my point. Ralph is very difficult to pin down, but he's definitely cheap - just not cheap in the traditional sense.

 

Circling back to my original point, I have never understood why Ralph doesn't realize that spending an extra few dollars in certain key, inexpensive areas, would probably give him much more bang for the buck in the large-asset allocations he seems more willing to lay out for. Spend more on scouting and conditioning, you better protect your investment in player acquisition.

 

I could be persuaded by your argument if you could provide examples of where RW has pinched on those certain items. Why do you assume that RW thinks that training facilities and S&C are areas to skimp on? Why do you think RW spends less on scouting than other teams, especially those teams that are members in the same scouting cooperative?

I'm not going to demand "link, link, link" because, like you say, it's hard to pin down. But please understand why I need more than just your supposition to convince me that RW under spends compared to the rest of the league in those areas you suggest.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[clancynut]

Looks like the Bills have been poaching other scouting staffs. Just got the text from the Bills about Tom Gibbons being named Director of Pro Personnel and Chuck Cook is the new director of college scouting. Gibbons is listed in the Chargers website as a regional scout for the Northeast. Cook was the Southeast Scout for the Dolphins.

[Coach Tuesday]

I could be persuaded by your argument if you could provide examples of where RW has pinched on those certain items. Why do you assume that RW thinks that training facilities and S&C are areas to skimp on? Why do you think RW spends less on scouting than other teams, especially those teams that are members in the same scouting cooperative?

I'm not going to demand "link, link, link" because, like you say, it's hard to pin down. But please understand why I need more than just your supposition to convince me that RW under spends compared to the rest of the league in those areas you suggest.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Then you misunderstood me. I'm not saying he spends less on those items (other than coaching). I was throwing them out as examples of areas where the Bills could spend MORE than other teams in order to save money on personnel. As I said in my initial post, there likely are numerous other areas/examples.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Heck no, I'm as serious as a window fan in a sh*tstorm with my suggestion about scouting Pop Warner teams. Look, when the Bills blaze the trail into heavy high school scouting, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the league goes there, too. I'm sayin' we need to get a jump on those jumpers. We do that and we're all poopin' in tall cotton.

 

Just so you can rest as easy as Andy Griffith on the porch swing with a bowl of Aunt Bee's homemade ice cream, let me just say that, after reading your posts in this thread, I know there is no way you'd ever advocate the Bills making any radical changes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Southerners are an easy target, but don't make fun of Pop Warner - - his hometown was Springville, N.Y. and he coached football at the University of Georgia (among others). Have a little respect for the history of the game.

 

From http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/9.18.97/Pop_Warner.html :

 

"During halftime of Cornell's home football game Saturday, Sept. 20, with Princeton University at Schoellkopf Field, there will be a ceremony honoring a Cornell and American football coaching legend ­ Glenn Scobey "Pop" Warner.

 

This past July ­ 43 years after his death ­ the U.S. Postal Service issued a Pop Warner commemorative stamp, along with stamps honoring fellow coaching legends Paul "Bear" Bryant, Vince Lombardi and George Halas.

 

On the field at halftime of the Princeton-Cornell game, Ithaca Postmaster Edward Gatch will present to Cornell an enlarged, framed print of the Pop Warner stamp. Receiving the print on behalf of the university will be Alan V. Manchester, a 1960 Cornell alumnus from Warner's hometown of Springville, N.Y., who was instrumental in gaining this recognition for Warner. A story describing Warner's remarkable career will appear in the game program.

 

Warner, born in 1871, became known as "Pop" to his younger classmates during his law school and football playing days at Cornell from 1892 to 1894."

 

You might also be interested to know that the NFLPA estimates that 60-70% of all NFL players played Pop Warner football. And if you go to the national Pop Warner football organization website here:

 

http://www.popwarner.com/

 

you can scroll down to the bottom left corner of the home page and click "play" for the video entitled "I Play Pop Warner" - - I couldn't figure out how to post a more direct link to that video here. One of the first players on the video is none other than CJ Spiller, last year's first round Bills' draft choice, who Buddy Nix drafted out of, wait for it - - - Clemson University in the Southeast.

 

Don't put words in my mouth and claim that I said we should scout Pop Warner - I don't think we should. But scouting the feeder high schools that send the most players to southern college football leagues makes sense.

 

Looks like the Bills have been poaching other scouting staffs. Just got the text from the Bills about Tom Gibbons being named Director of Pro Personnel and Chuck Cook is the new director of college scouting. Gibbons is listed in the Chargers website as a regional scout for the Northeast. Cook was the Southeast Scout for the Dolphins.

Let's hope they task the new Southeast guy to spend a little time in high schools in the Southeast. Seems like they could at least go to some Friday night games if the rest of their scouting schedule is mainly Saturday college games.