By the time of the draft, everybody knows about prospects’ problems
They gather loads of information and try to discover more. So NFL teams befriend the Internet, even if that help is debatable. They’ll create fake Facebook pages, designed to lure potential draft picks and, perhaps, expose something about their character. They’ll examine Twitter accounts and comb through blogs.
All in the pursuit of one thing: an extra nugget of information. And that nugget could prevent a $10-million mistake.
It’s a new age. More information is available — it seems. Except that it’s not much different from the old age.
“Teams had [the information] anyway,” said former Redskins general manager Charley Casserly, now an analyst with the NFL Network. “It just became more public. When I started [in 1977] you had players that might be out and have too many drinks and no one [outside of the teams] ever knew about it. Now with instant media everyone knows.
“It really gets down to philosophically, some teams don’t value character as much as others, no matter how much information is out there.”
By the time the first pick is made Thursday night, NFL fans — if they’ve paid attention for more than a few seconds — will know the dreaded red flags attached to each player. They know that Ryan Mallett missed a meeting — blew it off? — with Carolina because he was sick. The rumor? He was out on the town. Just check one NFL draft blog and you’ll know that much. They know which players are risky (Cam Newton, Nick Fairley, Mallett). They know which ones have serious injury issues (Da’Quan Bowers).
“The media has helped us,” said one general manager. “It’s brought more things to light in some ways. But your research is always your research. What the media has done is put things out that we know and that’s making it more difficult to take certain guys because of the perception that is created. I don’t like that part of it. The [media] might come up with something, but we usually know everything well in advance.”
Results of drug tests are leaked. The Wonderlic scores, measuring intelligence, which are supposed to remain private, are posted all over the Internet. Websites like Deadspin and Pro Football Talk make stories or pictures go viral. Teams already knew these things, but there’s a different pressure placed on teams when the public knows it too.
“We’re in the perception business,” the general manager said.
If a team’s power brokers aren’t secure, it’s tough for them to select a player with what the public perceives as too many red flags.
“If you’re a GM or a coach, do you want all that negative publicity?” said Dave Razzano, who spent 23 years in the NFL as a scout.
For example, he said, his team was interested in offensive lineman Phil Loadholt in the 2009 draft. The GM said there were three issues with Loadholt, including a DUI charge in which his blood alcohol level was 0.15.
“We were looking at the kid in the first round,” the GM said. “But how can you take him in the first and go to the podium and that’s the first three things your media will say. That’s what makes it tougher. A lot of teams do care about [perception].”
Especially if there are damning photos to accompany a perception. Sometimes those issues sidetrack the core issue for a team, which is this: Can the guy play?
“There’s too much emphasis on information and not enough on ability,” Razzano said. “That’s why these early picks bust.”
There’s a reason for that. Much as teams rely on information, this is not a computerized process. So when the Redskins pick 10th on Thursday, nobody really knows how the player eventually will perform.
“It’s humans picking humans so both sides have a risk in it,” Casserly said. “You’re still dealing with a prediction that’s unpredictable.”
