Talent vs. Character Concerns

[Mox]

A. Immaturity can be fixed in young men. A lot harder to turn a limited athlete into a good one.

[ET80]

Depends on my team. If I have a team with an established HC and good guys in the locker room, I'll consider player A - might even take him, depending on the off field issues (if he's saying bad things on SM and doing general miscreant things such as public intoxication and/or failing a drug test, I'll think about it - any sort of assault, or a federal crime of any sorts? No chance).

This is also dependant on what sort of resources I'm using to bring them in - Player A is under zero consideration for any pick in the top 64, maybe even top 96. Anything that is beyond that, yeah - Player A is very much in consideration, simply because the impact of a quick cut is minimized.

In this "pick 97 onwards" scenario, the phone call to the prospect on draft day is very much straightforward: We like you as a player and think you can be a special talent, but under no circumstances will your issues be tolerated. One mistake and you're gone, and we'll present our experience to the other 31 teams in the NFL to make sure you're not getting another chance.

[jonnguy2015]

Depends on the position, draft pick, the exact talent and character strengths and concerns of each prospect, and what type of coaching/locker room environment my team has.

[scar988]

19 hours ago, biggie. said:

Let's say you have two prospects in the draft.

Player A is an athletic freak of nature and was thoroughly dominant in college, even against elite programs. However, he has barely passing grades and consistently gets into off the field trouble. Runs his mouth off too much on social media.

Player B is a model citizen. Played for all four years in college as a team captain and got stellar grades en route to his degree. However, he is physically limited and isn't the biggest playmaker.

With these in mind, who would you rather draft? Take the risk and go for the troublemaker with immense upside or the safer pick with a low ceiling?

Depends, honestly. I'd go position by position:

QB, OL, TE, DL, LB, CB, S - B

WR, RB, EDGE - A

[Trojan]

Johnny Manziel v. Derek Carr. Carr.
Jalen Ramsey v. James Bradberry. Ramsey.
Aldon Smith? Probably going with Kerrigan. 
Bruce Irvin? Pete Carroll had a much more in depth relationship with the individual to roll those dice.
Derrick Brown was a Lott IMPACT award winner and that meant a lot to me. La'el Collins before the investigation came across as a guy who goes out of his way to help his community and was an Eagle Scout, who he was gave me trust he wasn't a suspect when his ex was murdered. Tyrann Mathieu had issues with marijuana, but owned up to his mistakes and apologized sincerely.  On the other hand it's character coaching season and you see guys like Isaiah Wilson come across well in his combine interview at least the public one, or maybe he just legitimately changed with the massive lifestyle change.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Trojan

[notthatbluestuff]

What position are we talking? If it's a WR, RB, G, CB or something I'll take the risk with A and try to keep him under control. Maybe he'll benefit from a good coaching staff and positive locker room culture. If it doesn't work out, it's not like it'll kill my roster. Cut him and look elsewhere for talent. 

If it's a QB, however, totally different. The risk is too high for that position. If it doesn't work out, my franchise is potentially set back years. I want my QB to set the tone and lead by example, I don't want him attracting negative attention. I'd rather play it safe and grab someone who's very likely to be a stable, positive influence for my team even if he's average at best. Not to mention, bad students aren't likely to buckle down and study film for hours every day. Not what I want from my QB, especially if he's possibly going to get into trouble all the time - that's the face of my franchise. 

[GW21]

I really don't think this is black and white tbh. Depends on what the issues are, who the person is, etc. and how limited is player B. I know people had concerns about Randy Moss, but if you went back and did that all over again, I'm sure all but maybe two teams picking ahead of him would have made a different decision knowing how it all played out. Dez Bryant had a productive career that was pretty trouble free for the most part. But, for every Randy Moss there is a Lawrence Phillips. I think this has definitely got to be a case by case basis. I will say this though, there are players I wouldn't touch regardless of their talent, like Tyreek Hill. 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by GW21

[jebrick]

To me, it depends on the round drafted.  A 6th round choice of a player with issues is much better than 1st rounder with the same issues.  I would push a draft pick down just for character issues but other would not care.  Sometimes you can make it work and other times you get Burfict.

[Mazrimiv]

23 hours ago, biggie. said:

Player A is an athletic freak of nature and was thoroughly dominant in college, even against elite programs. However, he has barely passing grades and consistently gets into off the field trouble. Runs his mouth off too much on social media.

This player is a RD1 pick every year.  Not sure why you would even mention the grades.

23 hours ago, biggie. said:

Player B is a model citizen. Played for all four years in college as a team captain and got stellar grades en route to his degree. However, he is physically limited and isn't the biggest playmaker.

This player is a day three pick every year.

[DutchFalcon]

17 hours ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

You’re playing a game where people run into each other at 20 mph. Some of these people are going to be a little off.

 

A fight implies it’s mutual. So it wouldn’t be as bad as hitting a woman who didn’t hit you first. There’s actually some states with mutual combat laws. Recently in Chicago charges were dropped in a deadly gangland shootout because of those laws. 

Well the team signs their paychecks. I feel like it might be easier for some people to respect the authority of the person putting food on their table. And the firearm thing I’ll get yelled at if I talk about it, even though I don’t consider the 2nd amendment a political issue. Although in several states you don’t have to register it. If you’re from Florida you might not know you need to do that in California.

Sure, but a lot of players, if not a majority, are able to leave their agression on the field.

I'd still say getting into a fight generally reflects badly on someone, unless it's in self defence. I've never heard of those mutual combat laws and I'm not sure what to imagine that coupled with a gangland shootout. Wouldn't it be self defence at that point? (Not familiar with Illinois laws or if they have stand your ground like principles)

I'm aware about the "Shall not" point of view on the 2nd amendment aswell as that there are vast differences between states when it comes to the possession of firearms and CCW licences. But the fact that I know that as a foreigner should be in indictment that as a US citizen you really should be aware that Commiefornia isn't Texas. No matter how hard your gun boner is for the 2nd amendment as a professional athlete you really should know better then to violate those rules, atleast that is what I'd expect as a GM of a NFL franchise.

Edited November 10, 2021 by DutchFalcon

[VigilantZombie]

I think most teams throughout the NFL value talent over character sadly. Having said that, that wasn't the question. I personally would weigh the character concerns vs. the talent. It's not a simple this or that for me. What exactly are the character concerns for example, are they rectifiable or is there fear of habitual behavior? If it's the latter, character over talent every time for me.

[MSURacerDT55]

I'm taking player A, the game is about the Jimmys and the Joes, not player B types. Good worker bee type guys only get you so far, they wont get you big plays in the clutch. The key is to go to a team with a stable environment where you have active leadership with guys who started off as player A guys and have evolved into player B guys. 

 

[Mazrimiv]

31 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

I'm taking player A, the game is about the Jimmys and the Joes, not player B types. Good worker bee type guys only get you so far, they wont get you big plays in the clutch. The key is to go to a team with a stable environment where you have active leadership with guys who started off as player A guys and have evolved into player B guys. 

Yep.  Of everything in the OP, this is the part that would far and away matter the most to NFL GM's

Quote

Player A is an athletic freak of nature and was thoroughly dominant in college, even against elite programs. 

 

[MSURacerDT55]

32 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Yep.  Of everything in the OP, this is the part that would far and away matter the most to NFL GM's

 

I mean, NFL coaches and position coaches ARE paid handsomely to cultivate these guys. (Not saying its an easy job)

Edited November 10, 2021 by MSURacerDT55

[MWil23]

It depends upon the round, the position, what concerns matter (work ethic and skipping the weightroom laziness, not learning the playbook laziness, or not caring about class laziness), whether it's illegal/peer based concerns about his entourage (for lack of a better word), etc.