Tuesday, 4 May 2010

My thoughts on Okung, Thomas, etc.

By Kip Earlywine
... are on the way. In the meantime, John Morgan at Fieldgulls has been posting his observations on Okung, Thomas, and Tate from time to time. They are definitely worth a read if you are looking for information on our newest Seahawks.

To this point, I've covered players (all but 1 drafted by other teams) in the POTD series, but none of those involved actual scouting. Really, the POTD series was pretty much a research paper with pictures and video, and a few quick observations of my own. I wanted to wait until we officially knew who would be a Seahawks before I got tape and broke it down. It might take a week or two, but I'll have reports up for Okung, Thomas, and Tate. Eventually, I'll have reports up for every player Seattle drafted. Of course, this is all just some schmo's opinion and I won't be using coach's tape obviously. But I hope its fun to read and sheds a little bit of light on how the prospects Seattle has added might fit into Carroll's new scheme here in Seattle.

Right now, I'm hoping to have my first report out by the weekend.


JohnnyB said...

Morgan belongs in the most foolish category of fools (He who does not know what he does not know).

Instead of giving analysis confined to what he knows, he pontificates wildly, disguising it as solid facts. The sad part is, he thinks they really are facts rather than wild speculation. Like a pigeon strutting on a Wimbledon tennis court, he then wonders why no GMs and coaches in the NFL are as smart as him. He's like a guy thinking he's a doctor who doesn't even know there are such things as MRI's, CAT-scans, EKGs, and blood tests.

Reading his opinions are more likely to lead the reader astray than anything else unless you see it for what it is, whimsical buffoonery.

ScottB said...

I love reading John Morgan at Field Gulls.

I may disagree with him at times, but I would never post a condescending diatribe long on insult and short on (absent of) details, just to listen to the sweet dulcet tones of my voice - or typing.

Pigeons strutting? Guy who thinks he's a doctor?

Whimsical buffoonery? Physician, heal thyself.

Ben said...


JohnnyB is pretty much right on the money. At Fieldgulls, you're not allowed to cite any authority in football, except for John Morgan. Morgan, himself, assumes that most fans are drooling idiots (he once wrote that the average fan's interest is repulsive) and assumes that NFL coaches/FOs are too blinded by groupthink to really understand football as much as he does. He dismisses most statistics as not worth a damn (unless he decides to cite them in support of his argument) and has a very low opinion of most sports journalists/commentators. This is a guy that thinks everybody else is an idiot and his subjective "scouting" is the only source that is beyond reproach (he's often hostile to the most respectful disagreements). He fosters a community of "yes men" where independent thinkers are often shouted down or banned outright.

John Morgan isn't an idiot or evil, but JohnnyB did describe him accurately.

Anonymous said...

You have him dead to rights, Ben. I still read from time to time just because he has a good work ethic and uncovers a lot of worthwhile info, but I try to stay away from the comments whenever possible.

JohnnyB said...

Scott B.

Ben has done an excellent job of providing some of the specifics regarding Moron Morgan. I too have provided some in this forum previously. Here's another example, since you asked.

He regularly writes about his "scouting" of players. He'll list off a series plays and how that player did, then give an overall opinion of that player. So are we to understand then that a player can be judged based upon one series of plays in one game (As he did, say, with Whitehurst)? Any idea of whether the player was fully healthy during that series? What were the player's responsibilities in those plays? How well were the players around him performing? Where they all doing what they were supposed to do?

When judging a player, professional scouts usually watch all a player's career of play with overhead tape, in slo mo when necessary, over and over. Has Morgan done this? If not, how is he able to arrive at better judgments than them without even knowing the play? Does he have some special qualifications he hasn't mentioned? If he realizes all his shortcomings and handicaps compared to scouts and coaches, why does he act like he knows more than them? There can only be one answer. He doesn't realize, just like I said above.

Ben said...


I don't think its a problem that Morgan uses TV or youtube clips to watch a player. The problem is when he uses a single series or single game to try to evaluate a player or when he insists that his evaluations are better than (and not just a valid alternative to) the opinions of more qualified professionals with access to real game "tape". The dude talks a lot of crap about "draftniks" or even "amateur draftniks" and then "scouts" a player based on 8 or 10 snaps and often seems to chose a series that supports some pre-conceived notion about the player (that Whitehurst or Mays are irredeemably horrible while Berry or Okung are elite). He claims that he doesn't read many other sources for Seahawks or NFL coverage (which is reflected in his complete confusion at Thomas getting picked with the #14) and generally doesn't seem to be interested in what anyone else has to say about players and doesn't even like statistics (except when he uses one to push an opinion).

The fact that Morgan is all of these things isn't the problem. The problem is that Morgan is the singular voice on Fiedgulls and opposing viewpoints are often shouted down or banned.

JohnnyB said...

"The problem is that Morgan is the singular voice on Fiedgulls and opposing viewpoints are often shouted down or banned."

You're right, that is the biggest problem. He has to do that to maintain the illusion that he is some expert. If people were allowed to argue, he'd be shown the fool that he is.