A different take on the Roseman promotion
Late last week the news broke that the Eagles completed a shake up in their front office. VP of Player personnel Jason Licht was let go and Howie Roseman was promoted to replace him.

I was puzzled by the Roseman move and somewhat critical of it. Roseman is a lawyer who joined the Eagles years ago as a capologist and general counsel. The question I asked was "what qualifies Howie Roseman to not only scout players but run an NFL scouting department?" After all, he's just some geek right? What does he know about playing football? The reaction on many of the Eagles' message boards out there was pretty much the same.
"Roseman has never played football, how can he know ANYTHING!?" You know, all the typical macho stuff that goes along with watching/following football...
That said, I thought a bit about it over the weekend and came to a realization about many fans' thinking and even my own.
If a so called "geek"(Riccardi, Epstein, Cashman, Beene ect) were named GM of the Phillies, we'd probably all do cartwheels. These guys that analyze numbers and pour over comparisons and charts are revered in the baseball world.
In football, we have much more of a "macho" attitude. Since Howie Roseman is nothing more than a lawyer who never played football, how can he possibly know anything about the game? Well, how do these baseball guys know anything? None of those guys are jocks, they're numbers guys, analytical guys... yet they're worshiped in baseball circles and run some of the most successful franchises in the sport.
I really don't know if this comparison even applies to Roseman or football in general. Baseball is certainly more of a numbers game than football, or at least we've always thought it was. I still remain kinda puzzled by the move... but I think this is a perspective that's at least worth thinking about and exploring. What do you guys think?
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Coupla things
I think if someone’s good at something, they are just good at it. For example, I could tell from preseason game 4 that Trent Cole was going to make it in the NFL, and that Brent Celek could help us down the stretch. So far, I’m right about Cole, and I stand by my Celek prediction. If I could tell those two things, no doubt Roseman could do it too.
The moral of the story is that if you’re good at something, you’re just good at it, regardless of background.
Secondly, football is just as much about numbers as baseball… It’s just that the numbers are far more esoteric and not nearly as individual as baseball numbers. Football is a lot more of a team game than baseball, which is more about sum-of-the-parts. Still, sometimes some numbers do stand out—the more games a QB starts during college, for example, the higher probability based on NFL history that the player will succeed at an NFL level. Who did the Eagles take last year? The most experienced college QB in the class. McNabb was no different. Could be that the Kolb selection was Roseman talking.
I believe that QB metric(that’s supposed to be predict pro success) is games started along with completion percentage. By that metric, Kolb was the highest rated QB in his class.
Yeh you're right
Still, my point is the same. I don’t think the Roseman signing could hurt us, and outside-the-box thinking is certainly what got the Patriots to where they are. I suppose we’ll see
it worked for the patriots
ever hear of a guy named ernie adams?
by wake forest matt on Jun 3, 2008 10:27 AM EDT reply actions
furthermore
what team in the nfl is notorious for their “from the gut”/macho scouting….none other than matt millen’s detroit lions
by wake forest matt on Jun 3, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Roseman's Background
Stats may or may not be a useful metric when making football decisions as compared with baseball decisions. But, for me the more important issue is Roseman’s background – but not in terms of whether he has any time on the “field” to justify his promotion. He is a lawyer. As soon as he graduated law school, he entered the Eagles’s GC office. And, though I don’t know his background at Florida when he was in college, he is pretty far removed from that time even if he did major in a field that is based around numbers. So, really, what does it mean that Roseman was a “capologist?” Was his role based more around his knowledge of the collective bargaining agreement and working within that construct to achieve a desired result (i.e., staying below or at the cap without jeopardizing future flexibility)? It just seems odd to me that a lawyer would have a role within a football organization crunching numbers if his “skills” as a lawyer weren’t being utilized. And, even if he is a wiz at manipulating cap numbers, it doesn’t mean he has the requisite knowledge or background to create and to run the sophisticated statistical analyses that baseball’s sabremetrics do.
And obviously I would have no way of knowing whether he could or not. I suppose we’ll eventually find out…
I’m simply wondering out loud whether that type of skill could be what the Eagles were looking for rather than a “football guy.” Like Matt said, the Pats have one of these analytical whiz guys working for them.
Roseman may not be that at all… But I figured it would be worth thinking about.
Well, I agree that if that was the Eagles’s hypothetical reasoning in elevating Roseman, I would be interested in seeing what the results would be. However, I am skeptical of the move, as you also seem to be, and my only (limited) comfort comes from the knowledge that it appears to be Reid’s and Heckert’s show when it comes to making personnel decisions. In any event, Adams’s role in New England appears to be more complicated than a straight analytical wiz, and his background in football seems more extensive than Roseman’s, though admittedly he was never a player.
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see on Roseman. But, I would think to b a talent evaluator at the NFL level you should have spent time working with talent. Be it at an assistant coach or as a scout.
by Baron Dainer Von Tresvant on Jun 3, 2008 10:22 PM EDT reply actions

by 

















