So how do teams know this stuff?

[Dr LBC]

4 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said:

Is the justification stronger if a GM says "I know player X wouldn't be there at pick #n" than if they said "we didn't think player X would be available at pick #n"?  If pressed on the latter a GM could always just point to the unpredictable nature of the draft .  It feels like you should only use "know" if you have some specific intel.

The expression "there's no honor among thieves" seems apropos.  Just because one GM doesn't tell another that they're targeting a player at a particular pick doesn't mean that he doesn't hear it from another GM that's already talked to said team.  Does it present the case of a giant game of telephone, and thus should be taken with some grain of salt?  Absolutely, but it gives reason for suspicion at least.

Not to mention that one of the known scenarios that gets played out in draft preparation at just about every team is sitting down with the staff and scouts and going through pick-by-pick, especially in the first 3 rounds and simulating scenarios of how they predict the draft could/will play out.  It's not like there's not a good amount of self- and peer-scouting going on as well.  Any reasonable modern GM is going to have someone on his staff whose job it is to scout the competition and keep data/notes/files on how other organizations around the league have operated in the past, who they've shown particular interest in during the process (and how relevant that is given the patterns they seen those staff operate from).  Some may project their own rankings of players on other organizations, some may actually keep detailed enough files that they feel they can adequately predict the behavior of their peers.  Don't think for a second that all GM's are talking about on the phone when calls are made from war rooms is "how much do you want for this pick/I'm only willing to pay this much," they're fishing and feeling for whatever kind of information they can get that might get them what they feel is a competitive advantage.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

These guys aren't strangers to each other.  They talk.  "Hey other GM, throw me a bone, are you taking Player X at this spot?"

I would assume it's usually a post-selection discussion they're having.  And you can usually see if there's some sort of trickle down affect.  Right after the Packers moved up to select Savage, the Ravens moved back with the Eagles.  And according to Demovsky, the Colts were interested in him as well.

[VegasDan]

On 4/28/2019 at 6:19 PM, CWood21 said:

I would assume it's usually a post-selection discussion they're having.  And you can usually see if there's some sort of trickle down affect.  Right after the Packers moved up to select Savage, the Ravens moved back with the Eagles.  And according to Demovsky, the Colts were interested in him as well.

All trades are made when the pick comes up. I'm not sure that is evidence that Packers got their guy. Ravens target could have been taken a few picks earlier and Skins were waiting to ppull the trade trigger if their guy was still there at 22.

 

But you are correct on the GM conversations. Charley Casserly was asked this question and he stated that trade targets arent discussed because you dont want your intentions known by anyone. If you call up one guy and tell him your interested in player X, that GM may call your competition and drive up the price.

I seem to recall a Packer coach talking after drafting James Jones that a GM called the Packers and congratulated them. So I think there probably some back and forth, "dang it, you got our guy! Great pick!" communication going on. Especially with scouts. I sat next to a table of scouts the night before a Badger game once. 8 guys from at least 3 teams (probably more) and they all seemed to be good friends.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

On 4/28/2019 at 5:25 PM, incognito_man said:

Or scout tells other scout after pick "nice pick, he was top of our board 3 picks later" or something, too

Yea i feel like thats the safest and therefore most logical way of looking at it

[Zithers2]

GMs know a lot more than we do.

Gettleman said in his first presser as Panthers GM after the 2013 draft that he knew Star Lotulelei would be available for us at 13 (or 14?) if one team skipped him (probably the Eagles), which they did. He said that despite the Jets picking in front of us, who were in desperate need for interior DL help at the time, and he added Sheldon Richardson was an incredible fit for what they do on defense. And this was back when everybody thought Sharrif Floyd would be the first DT off the board!

There's just all sorts of schematic stuff we don't understand.

[Danger]

Information is a valuable commodity.

I think some GMs have it, and some are feigning it. 

Howie clearly knew that the Texans were going to take Dillard and hence leapfrogged them.

[jebrick]

My guess is Scouts talk shop to each other.  They may know that team A  really likes this player and that might get rolled into their mocks.

[ET80]

56 minutes ago, Danger said:

Information is a valuable commodity.

I think some GMs have it, and some are feigning it. 

Howie clearly knew that the Texans were going to take Dillard and hence leapfrogged them.

I don't think that was some great secret - there's some kid in Europe who never watched an NFL game who knew the Texans needed Andre Dillard. Going into this draft, if you needed a LT, you were aiming at 22.

[IDOG_det]

Gettleman doesn't know a damn thing, he's lying to put up a front to make people think he knows what he's doing. 

[Forge]

Quote

Hey Jay, Dave Gettleman claims “for a fact” that two teams would have taken Daniel Jones  between the Giants’ two picks, six and 17. Do you have any idea if this is true and/or who those teams are? – Tiernan O.

It was reported that the Giants believe those teams are the Broncos and the Redskins, but if the Giants believed that, they were incorrect. I can’t tell you where Gettleman got his information, but I don’t believe that information to be accurate.

 

[SBLIII]

Just now, Forge said:

 

Yep I think Broncos were Lock or bust and Redskins the same with Haskins. I think Gettleman panicked.

[Forge]

Just now, SBLIII said:

Yep I think Broncos were Lock or bust and Redskins the same with Haskins. I think Gettleman panicked.

Agreed. But hey, who couldn't have fallen in love after watching three series in the senior bowl? 

[PossibleCabbage]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

Agreed. But hey, who couldn't have fallen in love after watching three series in the senior bowl? 

3 series in the senior bowl is a market inefficiency in scouting though, since all the NFL scouts are just there for practice and leave before the game.  So you can get an edge on other teams by watching those 3 series.

[Gmen]

On 5/1/2019 at 10:45 AM, IDOG_det said:

Gettleman doesn't know a damn thing, he's lying to put up a front to make people think he knows what he's doing. 

Yea he’s clueless. It’s not like he’s been a part of 7 Super Bowl appearances or anything.

Both Denver and Washington drafted quarterbacks. Why on earth would they come out and admit they settled? 

There is a surprising amount of leaks and that’s how this information gets out. It seemed like everyone knew the Giants like Jones, for the same exact reason. My guess is some scouts don’t know how to keep a secret. 

[Tetsujin]

They don't.