Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How is it "ominous"?  Some of you either do not get how these things work or are into being dramatic.

    This is hernandez on trial not his parents, his high school, the gators or the pats.

    Just get over it.

    [/QUOTE]


    RUSS

    Ominous? It is unusual for the defense to openly request in court reports of their clients history of transgressions knowing that these transgressions are damaging to their client's reputation. If anything, they quietly go about researching that without others knowledge so they can defend against it at trial.

    Why would the defense want to bring out AH's history of assaults at U Florida along with the alleged shooting that the Pounceys were also allegedly  involved in? Why do they want to bring out reports that he is mentally unstable, paranoid and aggressive?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, this is a formality.  Do not fall for the rkrap agenda bait.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're sliding into "Mankins has no leverage" territory agan. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I never said that.  I said BB should call his bluff and deal him to Oakland or something. BB didn't. BB's leverage was trading Mankins.  He didn't.   Here we are years later being proven right by saying Mankins never performs in the playoffs and a Guard is not worth 9 mil per year.  How does that taste, big mouth yuppie? lol

    And, how I am "sliding" into some territory, when myself and others agree what this is as plain as day?  A legal formality is a legal formality.

    Your very stupid boyfriend RKrap, and his Harvard MBA (LMAO) completely misses the crux as to why the defense team is asking for the highly regarded NE Pats organization's analysis as to why they resigned Hernandez as support to the great character of Aaron HErnandez. Gee!  Could it be simply and only that? Oh, I think it is, Prolatey!  Oh goody gum drops!

    How difficult to understand, huh?  lmao

    Are you just jealous I know what it is and you don't, while you and RKrap look for something that just isn't there in your anti-BB paranoia? Hmm?

    Hint: Stop being a fan of this team if you think there is something so sinister about what BB is doing as the leader of this team as GM.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    you never said anything you said apparently

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to rkarp's comment:


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Have you figured out a way to blame the AH murders on Brady yet? 





    Have you figured out a way to find a new hole in your Brady doll yet?


    Also, how is your new BB voodoo doll? Enjoying it are we?  You have mental illness, do you realize this?  You hate BB, but he is the best GM and coach in this league and you stand there 8 games a year at Gillette, completely miserable, JEALOUS of BB.


    Good luck in getting that help you need.


    lol


    [/QUOTE]

    C'mon. I am out on narragansett bay enjoying the day and relaxing. Please don't make me bring out the bludgeoning stick and beat you with it.


    you do not like AH threads. You feel no one is interested in them. So get off this thread and go talk about bobo Brazil or someone that no one cares about


    [/QUOTE]

    that's the way rkarp...don't let Rusty the Dark Cloud ruin a beautiful Summer day

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At a hearing Wednesday to determine whether the New England Patriots could be compelled to hand over Aaron Hernandez's medical records, Judge Raymond Veary said that scouting/combine reports on the former tight end are relevant, but whether the defense gets them won't be determined until another hearing on July 22.

     

    Hernandez's attorney argued that the Patriots withheld Hernandez's psychological assessment as well as medical and scouting records, adding that his "state of mind" is critical to his defense.

     

    "Everyone in this world knows your client's state of mind is an issue in this case," Judge Veary said.

     

    The Patriots say they'll turn over hundreds of pages of medical and other records to lawyers for Hernandez but object to producing scouting reports and a psychological profile.

     

    Patriots attorney Andrew Phelan said Wednesday the team has agreed to produce 317 pages of materials sought by Hernandez's defense attorneys. But Phelan says scouting reports are proprietary and irrelevant. He says the team has offered lawyers the option of reviewing the psychological assessment at its office.

     

    Hernandez has pleaded not guilty to murder in the 2013 shooting death of Odin Lloyd, a semi-professional football player who was dating the sister of Hernandez's fiancée. Two of his associates have also been charged with murder. Hernandez has also pleaded not guilty in a second case in which he is charged with killing two men in Boston in 2012. He's being held without bail.

     

    After Wednesday's hearing, Hernandez was transferred from the Bristol County House of Corrections to the Suffolk County Jail in Boston so that he could be closer to his lawyers.

     

    Hernandez likely will be moved back to Bristol County when he goes on trial on the first of the three murder charges, for the killing of Lloyd.

     

    ESPN's Michele Steele and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [/QUOTE]


    The Pats org, has moved on from AH. And I believe it's time for us as fans to do likewise-enough already!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronk1. Show ronk1's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    Wow, a fan posting that others should move on and not post. Thats interesting

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from yuanfang8. Show yuanfang8's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?



    2014World Cup USA Jerseys USA Soccer Jerseyhttp://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com/2014+world+cup+usa+national+soccer+matt+besler+jersey+c+24.html World Cup Soccer USA Jerseys http://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from yuanfang8. Show yuanfang8's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

     

    2014World Cup USA Jerseys USA Soccer Jerseyhttp://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com/2014+world+cup+usa+national+soccer+matt+besler+jersey+c+24.html World Cup Soccer USA Jerseys http://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from yuanfang8. Show yuanfang8's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

     

    2014World Cup USA Jerseys USA Soccer Jerseyhttp://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com/2014+world+cup+usa+national+soccer+matt+besler+jersey+c+24.html World Cup Soccer USA Jerseys http://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to yuanfang8's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2014World Cup USA Jerseys USA Soccer Jerseyhttp://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com/2014+world+cup+usa+national+soccer+matt+besler+jersey+c+24.html World Cup Soccer USA Jerseys http://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.2014usaworldcupjerseys.com

    [/QUOTE]

    buh-bye 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I heard Polian wrote in indelible marker; "take this guy off our draft board. He has significant psychosis due to chronic drug issues, and initial testing shows he is paranoid, prone to acting out in a very physical manner, and his temper indicates he is capable of dangerous traits"

    [/QUOTE]


    link

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I heard Polian wrote in indelible marker; "take this guy off our draft board. He has significant psychosis due to chronic drug issues, and initial testing shows he is paranoid, prone to acting out in a very physical manner, and his temper indicates he is capable of dangerous traits"

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Yes. The same Bill Polian who drafted Rae Carruth( you know, the guy who tried to kill his 8 month pregnant wife and unborn child but only killed the mom which left another baby without parents) took a player with a checkered past off his board. I wonder why?

    And I never read Polian say anything like this. Perhaps Karp could post the link? Looks like Polian says what we all thought that he said, he wasn't interested, like he wasn't interested in Jimmy Graham or Dennis Pita.

     

     

    Those character red flags Hernandez had coming into the 2010 NFL Draft? Yeah, Polian knew all along, and he would like to point that out.

     

     TWEET (32) SHARE (74)  SHARE 6 COMMENTS

     

    If only every NFL front office man had the foresight of formerIndianapolis Colts president Bill Polian. He joined the recent wave of coaches and personnel men saying "I told you so" about formerPatriots tight end Aaron Hernandez in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday:

     

    "There were questions there, which is why a guy of that talent lasted until the fourth round.

     

    "We were not in the Hernandez business."

     

    Polian might have been naturally wary. As the Carolina Panthers GM in 1997 he drafted Rae Carruth.

     

    It's bold of guys like Polian and Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown (really, the Bengals) to come out now and tell everyone that they just knew Hernandez was bad news. Last week, columnists lined up to take their shot at the Patriots for ignoring the obvious signs. Now current and past team guys get to fill their niche by offering expert opinions.

     

    And what have we learned from this whole thing? Teams should never draft a college kid who's been in trouble off the field. Nope, never. Because it's just going to lead to unimaginable tragedy.

     

    Polian acknowledged that the Colts were actually looking for a tight end in the draft that year. They didn't find one suitable to their liking. Instead, he wisely heeded his infamous scouting reports, finding mid-round standouts like defensive back Kevin Thomas in the third round and guard Jacques McClendon in the fourth.

     

    Besides Hernandez, Polian's Colts elected not to draft Miami tight endJimmy Graham, picked immediately after Thomas, and BYU's Dennis Pitta, who went right after Hernandez in the fourth round.

     

    So what have we learned from Bill Polian's hindsight? Don't take risks when you can ride pretty far on one Super Bowl championship and a single playoff win over the Patriots.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

     

    Hernandez fell in the draft for a reason and it's because a lot of teams were worried about his character.  Let's not pretend that the character issues were unknown.  If they were unknown, there's no way Hernandez would still have been available in the fourth round. I'm not saying that people knew he would become a mass murderer--more likely they were concerned he would get in lesser trouble (drug use) that might keep him off the field or he wouldn't be a good locker room guy or that his work ethic might be impacted by some of his habits.   

     

    The real question is whether or not the known risk was a good one to take in the fourth round. Honestly, I think it was a good risk to take.  He was a talented player, the fourth round is not full of stars, and the character risks may or may not have been realized.  If they did, cutting a fourth rounder is no big deal.  Most of them get cut.  So the Pats did nothing wrong taking him. However, the risks were real and when you take risky players you sometimes get burned.  Contingency plans are required. 

     

    I'd also add that re-signing Hernandez wasn't a bad move either because at the time he was re-signed, to the Pats' knowledge, the character issues weren't severe.  Unfortunately, the Pats had incomplete knowledge.  Maybe the Pats should have done more to assess Hernandez.  Maybe they were ignoring some warning signs, I don't know.  But it's quite likely that they saw nothing that would concern them and that all the real bad things Hernandez was doing were hidden.  This happens all the time.  People lead secret lives and no one around them suspects they are really psychos.  

     

    Still the fact that the Pats took a calculated risk doesn't mean that they had no way of knowing that there was a risk.  It appears that every team in the league was aware there were risks.  The Pats, I'm sure, drafted Hernandez knowing they were taking a risk.  Whether the risk would materialize was of course unknown, but the risk should have been known.  The cost, though, was low enough for the risk to be a sensible one to accept.  When the Pats re-signed Hernandez, the cost was of course too high for the real risk, but at this point, I think the Pats did think the risk was much lower than it really was.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Hernandez fell in the draft for a reason and it's because a lot of teams were worried about his character.  Let's not pretend that the character issues were unknown.  If they were unknown, there's no way Hernandez would still have been available in the fourth round. I'm not saying that people knew he would become a mass murderer--more likely they were concerned he would get in lesser trouble (drug use) that might keep him off the field or he wouldn't be a good locker room guy or that his work ethic might be impacted by some of his habits.   

     

    The real question is whether or not the known risk was a good one to take in the fourth round. Honestly, I think it was a good risk to take.  He was a talented player, the fourth round is not full of stars, and the character risks may or may not have been realized.  If they did, cutting a fourth rounder is no big deal.  Most of them get cut.  So the Pats did nothing wrong taking him. However, the risks were real and when you take risky players you sometimes get burned.  Contingency plans are required. 

     

    I'd also add that re-signing Hernandez wasn't a bad move either because at the time he was re-signed, to the Pats' knowledge, the character issues weren't severe.  Unfortunately, the Pats had incomplete knowledge.  Maybe the Pats should have done more to assess Hernandez.  Maybe they were ignoring some warning signs, I don't know.  But it's quite likely that they saw nothing that would concern them and that all the real bad things Hernandez was doing were hidden.  This happens all the time.  People lead secret lives and no one around them suspects they are really psychos.  

     

    Still the fact that the Pats took a calculated risk doesn't mean that they had no way of knowing that there was a risk.  It appears that every team in the league was aware there were risks.  The Pats, I'm sure, drafted Hernandez knowing they were taking a risk.  Whether the risk would materialize was of course unknown, but the risk should have been known.  The cost, though, was low enough for the risk to be a sensible one to accept.  When the Pats re-signed Hernandez, the cost was of course too high for the real risk, but at this point, I think the Pats did think the risk was much lower than it really was.

     [/QUOTE]

    No one could have foreseen him as a murderer, but due diligence would have seen plenty of smoke.  And, "Where there's smoke, there's fire".

    In modern multi-billion dollar organizations I find it astounding that more resources aren't focused on scouting and background checks.  It's even more perplexing when the organization is headed by a man like Kraft. 

    We often have debates on the board about the construct of the roster.   There are limitations placed on the number of elite players you can have on the team.  It's called the salary cap.   But, there are no limitations on what you pay to others within your organization, or the size of your non-player payroll. 

    So, a contract like AH's hurts the Pats in two ways:  (1) In pure dollar terms;  (2) In damage to "The Brand".

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'd also add that re-signing Hernandez wasn't a bad move either because at the time he was re-signed, to the Pats' knowledge, the character issues weren't severe.  Unfortunately, the Pats had incomplete knowledge.  Maybe the Pats should have done more to assess Hernandez.  Maybe they were ignoring some warning signs, I don't know.  But it's quite likely that they saw nothing that would concern them and that all the real bad things Hernandez was doing were hidden.  This happens all the time.  People lead secret lives and no one around them suspects they are really psychos.  

     

    Still the fact that the Pats took a calculated risk doesn't mean that they had no way of knowing that there was a risk.  It appears that every team in the league was aware there were risks.  The Pats, I'm sure, drafted Hernandez knowing they were taking a risk.  Whether the risk would materialize was of course unknown, but the risk should have been known.  The cost, though, was low enough for the risk to be a sensible one to accept.  When the Pats re-signed Hernandez, the cost was of course too high for the real risk, but at this point, I think the Pats did think the risk was much lower than it really was.

     [/QUOTE]

    No one could have foreseen him as a murderer, but due diligence would have seen plenty of smoke.  And, "Where there's smoke, there's fire".

    In modern multi-billion dollar organizations I find it astounding that more resources aren't focused on scouting and background checks.  It's even more perplexing when the organization is headed by a man like Kraft. 

    We often have debates on the board about the construct of the roster.   There are limitations placed on the number of elite players you can have on the team.  It's called the salary cap.   But, there are no limitations on what you pay to others within your organization, or the size of your non-player payroll. 

    So, a contract like AH's hurts the Pats in two ways:  (1) In pure dollar terms;  (2) In damage to "The Brand".

    [/QUOTE]



    Yes, which gets at my next sentence wgich I've highlighted in pink.

    If I were managing the Pats I'd be asking three questions:

    1. Was there a failure in our assessment processs which led us to not get information we should have gotten? 

    2. Did we have all the information we should have had, but did not evaluate it correctly?

    3. Did we have the information and evaluate it correctly, but chose to take on more risk than we should have taken on?

     

    A yes to any of those questions would suggest a need to revise business practices.  Of course, it's possible the answer is "no" to all three questions, i.e., we had all the info, we assessed the risk accurately, and we still think it was a good risk to take.  In this particular situation the risk materialized and it cost us, but our belief is that taking the same risk again would be okay because we still believe the odds are that the risk won't materialize in most similar situations. A comparison would be to investing in stocks of companies in third world countries.  You will definitely lose sometimes, but that doesn't mean you stop making the investments if you believe you win enough to still come out ahead in the aggregate.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    Pro

    It is clear you have a lot of experience in management and/or management consulting. I like your thinking process and the questions you are asking. So, in your humble opinion, how would answer the questions you are asking? Did they not get the information, evaluate it incorrectly or got it but still went ahead hoping the risks would not materialize?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

     


    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I heard Polian wrote in indelible marker; "take this guy off our draft board. He has significant psychosis due to chronic drug issues, and initial testing shows he is paranoid, prone to acting out in a very physical manner, and his temper indicates he is capable of dangerous traits"





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    Yes. The same Bill Polian who drafted Rae Carruth( you know, the guy who tried to kill his 8 month pregnant wife and unborn child but only killed the mom which left another baby without parents) took a player with a checkered past off his board. I wonder why?


    And I never read Polian say anything like this. Perhaps Karp could post the link? Looks like Polian says what we all thought that he said, he wasn't interested, like he wasn't interested in Jimmy Graham or Dennis Pita.


     


     


    Those character red flags Hernandez had coming into the 2010 NFL Draft? Yeah, Polian knew all along, and he would like to point that out.


     


     TWEET (32) SHARE (74)  SHARE 6 COMMENTS


     


    If only every NFL front office man had the foresight of formerIndianapolis Colts president Bill Polian. He joined the recent wave of coaches and personnel men saying "I told you so" about formerPatriots tight end Aaron Hernandez in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday:


     


    "There were questions there, which is why a guy of that talent lasted until the fourth round.


     


    "We were not in the Hernandez business."


     


    Polian might have been naturally wary. As the Carolina Panthers GM in 1997 he drafted Rae Carruth.


     


    It's bold of guys like Polian and Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown (really, the Bengals) to come out now and tell everyone that they just knew Hernandez was bad news. Last week, columnists lined up to take their shot at the Patriots for ignoring the obvious signs. Now current and past team guys get to fill their niche by offering expert opinions.


     


    And what have we learned from this whole thing? Teams should never draft a college kid who's been in trouble off the field. Nope, never. Because it's just going to lead to unimaginable tragedy.


     


    Polian acknowledged that the Colts were actually looking for a tight end in the draft that year. They didn't find one suitable to their liking. Instead, he wisely heeded his infamous scouting reports, finding mid-round standouts like defensive back Kevin Thomas in the third round and guard Jacques McClendon in the fourth.


     


    Besides Hernandez, Polian's Colts elected not to draft Miami tight endJimmy Graham, picked immediately after Thomas, and BYU's Dennis Pitta, who went right after Hernandez in the fourth round.


     


    So what have we learned from Bill Polian's hindsight? Don't take risks when you can ride pretty far on one Super Bowl championship and a single playoff win over the Patriots.


     


    [/QUOTE]



     I think Polian's comments at this point are just self serving and serve little constructive use. He is patting himself on the back for not drafting Hernandez. The reality is this situation could likely have happened to any team. All teams take risks on players. The NFL likely has a number of players who are" paranoid, exhibit a tendency to act out physically". The point is to learn from the situation and ask: what can we take away from it? How can we evaluate players better, assess risk and make sure troubled players get the help they need.


    Maybe, there should have been a behavioral contract written into AH's NFL contracts (and other players that fit a sociopathic profile) that specified 2x week counseling and / or ongoing intensive treatment for anger management and sociopathic issues relating to paranoia, entitlement and aggression, with the proviso that as long as the player is employed by the team he will participate weekly along with performing regular daily homework assignments, journaling etc.


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pro

    It is clear you have a lot of experience in management and/or management consulting. I like your thinking process and the questions you are asking. So, in your humble opinion, how would answer the questions you are asking? Did they not get the information, evaluate it incorrectly or got it but still went ahead hoping the risks would not materialize?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ha!  I've been a management consultant long enough to know when the right answer requires more research and analysis-- and to offer to provide a fee estimate if the organization would like us to proceed with that work! 

    Seriously, though, I don't know and really couldn't know without gathering all the facts and then doing the analysis.  The answers are not necessarily obvious either. Let's just hypothesize that there was some process the Pats could have followed that would have actually predicted that Hernandez would become a murderer (I know such a process doesn't exist, but let's pretend it did).  Would I recommend that they adopt that process going forward? the answer depends on what it costs. If it cost a few hundred thousand dollars per player it just might not be worth applying given that they need to evaluate thousands of college players each year and the risk that one will end up a killer is pretty tiny.  

    To go ahead and guess, though, I'll say this for each question:

     

    1.  Info gathering-- i have no idea what they did, but I have a feeling they are pretty thorough.  Maybe, though, they might have an opportunity to beef up their psychological testing, at least for top candidates where there are warning signs.  But maybe they already do that?  I just don't know. My guess, though, is they are pretty good. . . and will only get better after this.

    2. Evaluation of risk--do they focus too much on football skills, and undervalue character and health in their assessments? Possibly.  Though, I bet they are decent at that too.  I have a feeling they are pretty analytical and make judgments using data not hunches. I'm going to guess they measure risk as accurately as possible, though of I'm also certain that there's a great deal of uncertainty in any of these risk measurements.

    3. Do they accept too much risk?-- this one I've questioned a lot.  They do draft a lot of players with high upside potential but fairly significant risks.  Of course, they also get those player's cheap, so the cost is dicounted to account for the risk.  Here, though, I might question their portfolio strategy.  While individually, the cost might be discounted sufficiently, do they end up with a portfolio of players that is too risky with too many potential failures and not enough sure bets?  Should they be buying fewr junk bonds and more blue chip stocks?  That's the question I ask a lot? I'm not sure.  It's not an easy question to answer without lots of data I don't have.  But it is a question that I come back to a lot when I see a whole host of terrible cornerbacks on the field for multiple seasons.  Maybe more Revis's and fewer Ras-I's is smarter business? 

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DougIrwin. Show DougIrwin's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'd also add that re-signing Hernandez wasn't a bad move either because at the time he was re-signed, to the Pats' knowledge, the character issues weren't severe.  Unfortunately, the Pats had incomplete knowledge.  Maybe the Pats should have done more to assess Hernandez.  Maybe they were ignoring some warning signs, I don't know.  But it's quite likely that they saw nothing that would concern them and that all the real bad things Hernandez was doing were hidden.  This happens all the time.  People lead secret lives and no one around them suspects they are really psychos.  

     

    Still the fact that the Pats took a calculated risk doesn't mean that they had no way of knowing that there was a risk.  It appears that every team in the league was aware there were risks.  The Pats, I'm sure, drafted Hernandez knowing they were taking a risk.  Whether the risk would materialize was of course unknown, but the risk should have been known.  The cost, though, was low enough for the risk to be a sensible one to accept.  When the Pats re-signed Hernandez, the cost was of course too high for the real risk, but at this point, I think the Pats did think the risk was much lower than it really was.

     [/QUOTE]

    No one could have foreseen him as a murderer, but due diligence would have seen plenty of smoke.  And, "Where there's smoke, there's fire".

    In modern multi-billion dollar organizations I find it astounding that more resources aren't focused on scouting and background checks.  It's even more perplexing when the organization is headed by a man like Kraft. 

    We often have debates on the board about the construct of the roster.   There are limitations placed on the number of elite players you can have on the team.  It's called the salary cap.   But, there are no limitations on what you pay to others within your organization, or the size of your non-player payroll. 

    So, a contract like AH's hurts the Pats in two ways:  (1) In pure dollar terms;  (2) In damage to "The Brand".

    [/QUOTE]



    Yes, which gets at my next sentence wgich I've highlighted in pink.

    If I were managing the Pats I'd be asking three questions:

    1. Was there a failure in our assessment processs which led us to not get information we should have gotten? 

    2. Did we have all the information we should have had, but did not evaluate it correctly?

    3. Did we have the information and evaluate it correctly, but chose to take on more risk than we should have taken on?

     

    A yes to any of those questions would suggest a need to revise business practices.  Of course, it's possible the answer is "no" to all three questions, i.e., we had all the info, we assessed the risk accurately, and we still think it was a good risk to take.  In this particular situation the risk materialized and it cost us, but our belief is that taking the same risk again would be okay because we still believe the odds are that the risk won't materialize in most similar situations. A comparison would be to investing in stocks of companies in third world countries.  You will definitely lose sometimes, but that doesn't mean you stop making the investments if you believe you win enough to still come out ahead in the aggregate.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Christ, you're such a blowhard.

    NEWSFLASH!

    THe NBA and NFL are littered with KIDS, ENTITLED MILLENNIALS, who come from broken homes and awful uprningings, which plays into things like what Hernandez is accused of here.

    This is absolutely nothing new, unfortunately. FACT: There will be more Hernandez types in the future.

    Teams take risks on these prospects EVERY YEAR in the draft. Every year.

    We don't need a black belt in here to understand this. Get off your high horse already.

    Between RKrap even starting this thread and now exposed and you harping on such stupid commentary of your own, it's just pathetic.

    Hernandez is clearly very immature and had some mental instability that was deeper rooted than understood.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    Pro

    Thanks for the detailed reply. I understand you would need to do an organizational analysis to properly examine their policies regarding information gathering, player evaluation and risk analysis etc. I wonder what behavioral group has the contract to do this for teams and the NFL? What scientifically based evaluation procedures they use? How they predict success or failure? And how this information can be properly used to guide players psychological development once they are drafted? My sense is that having all this info is useless unless it is applied systematically by teams to guide players. If AH had been mandated into an ongoing structured treatment program for his sociopathic tendencies, would he be in jail today?

    Furthermore, I share the same concern about the choice of high risk/high reward players. I chide myself knowing that BB may not be the best GM, he is the best coach and believe that it is essential to keep both duties in his hands

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pro

    Thanks for the detailed reply. I understand you would need to do an organizational analysis to properly examine their policies regarding information gathering, player evaluation and risk analysis etc. I wonder what behavioral group has the contract to do this for teams and the NFL? What scientifically based evaluation procedures they use? How they predict success or failure? And how this information can be properly used to guide players psychological development once they are drafted? My sense is that having all this info is useless unless it is applied systematically by teams to guide players. If AH had been mandated into an ongoing structured treatment program for his sociopathic tendencies, would he be in jail today?

    Furthermore, I share the same concern about the choice of high risk/high reward players. I chide myself knowing that BB may not be the best GM, he is the best coach and believe that it is essential to keep both duties in his hands

    [/QUOTE]


    Good observations NYC.  And you are right that ideally the assessments should be used not just for evaluating a candidate's likelihood of success but also to guide development activities once he's onboard.  Companies are doing that a lot with more senior hires nowadays, but the testing tools they use (like Hogan) are more focused on leadership skills, and wouldn't be much good at identifying a potential murderer!  I have no idea what the NFL teams are doing . . . and I imagine the Pats aren't sharing!  They keep all their methods as secret as possible, I think . . . hence the reluctance to share their scouting reports with Hernandez's lawyers a few weeks ago. 

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DougIrwin. Show DougIrwin's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pro

    Thanks for the detailed reply. I understand you would need to do an organizational analysis to properly examine their policies regarding information gathering, player evaluation and risk analysis etc. I wonder what behavioral group has the contract to do this for teams and the NFL? What scientifically based evaluation procedures they use? How they predict success or failure? And how this information can be properly used to guide players psychological development once they are drafted? My sense is that having all this info is useless unless it is applied systematically by teams to guide players. If AH had been mandated into an ongoing structured treatment program for his sociopathic tendencies, would he be in jail today?

    Furthermore, I share the same concern about the choice of high risk/high reward players. I chide myself knowing that BB may not be the best GM, he is the best coach and believe that it is essential to keep both duties in his hands

    [/QUOTE]


    Good observations NYC.  And you are right that ideally the assessments should be used not just for evaluating a candidate's likelihood of success but also to guide development activities once he's onboard.  Companies are doing that a lot with more senior hires nowadays, but the testing tools they use (like Hogan) are more focused on leadership skills, and wouldn't be much good at identifying a potential murderer!  I have no idea what the NFL teams are doing . . . and I imagine the Pats aren't sharing!  They keep all their methods as secret as possible, I think . . . hence the reluctance to share their scouting reports with Hernandez's lawyers a few weeks ago. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Nothing is a secret, you drama queen.

    Everything they requested has been shared. 

    http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/11247368/lawyer-aaron-hernandez-says-dispute-new-england-patriots-records-resolved

    There is no way you were a PAts fan pre Kraft. No way.

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheKruger. Show TheKruger's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    Good questions Prolate. The Pats may have slipped in evaluations of Hernandez or they need to touch up their evaluation process a bit more. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    I really don't get what you think the Pats might have done wrong RKarp.  Do you think they colluded with AH or something?  Do you think they knew he was knocking people off or something?  Do you think they believed he had a propensity to commit homicide?  If you don't believe any of that then this is just a whole lot of nothing.  The NFL is chock full of players with troubled pasts and probably equally full of players with questionable judgment and thought patterns that reflect the troubled environment they grew up in.  They don't all pull an AH and knock people off though.  If you took every single concern any other club might have had you'd probably find someone in the HoF who came into the NFL with those same concerns.

    In a nutshell, I don't care if there is anything in those reports that indicates he had "issues".  I assume that he was just one of a gazillion past and current players with "issues".  Let's not let hindsight trick us into thinking that the Pats should have known those issues would lead to murder.  If that's the case then the NFL should ban 1/4 of the players.

    I assume the Pats are doing two things here:

    1. CYA against lawsuits.  Hindsight is 20/20 and always used by those who want to litigate.

    2. Keeping trade secrets.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    It's all about intellectual property and anybody who thinks different is not a Pats fan or wants BB's demise in a bad way.  This is a reach at best.  The front office is cooperating.  It's just being particular on what's made public as far as their intellectual property goes.  I have to question anybody who thinks that the Pats drafted a known killer.  Stupid.  The whole premise of this post is a reach at best.  Terrible.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    I agree with gary and dj. This whole premise is dumb.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Something in that psychological report Pats don't want public?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pro

    Thanks for the detailed reply. I understand you would need to do an organizational analysis to properly examine their policies regarding information gathering, player evaluation and risk analysis etc. I wonder what behavioral group has the contract to do this for teams and the NFL? What scientifically based evaluation procedures they use? How they predict success or failure? And how this information can be properly used to guide players psychological development once they are drafted? My sense is that having all this info is useless unless it is applied systematically by teams to guide players. If AH had been mandated into an ongoing structured treatment program for his sociopathic tendencies, would he be in jail today?

    Furthermore, I share the same concern about the choice of high risk/high reward players. I chide myself knowing that BB may not be the best GM, he is the best coach and believe that it is essential to keep both duties in his hands

    [/QUOTE]


    Good observations NYC.  And you are right that ideally the assessments should be used not just for evaluating a candidate's likelihood of success but also to guide development activities once he's onboard.  Companies are doing that a lot with more senior hires nowadays, but the testing tools they use (like Hogan) are more focused on leadership skills, and wouldn't be much good at identifying a potential murderer!  I have no idea what the NFL teams are doing . . . and I imagine the Pats aren't sharing!  They keep all their methods as secret as possible, I think . . . hence the reluctance to share their scouting reports with Hernandez's lawyers a few weeks ago. 

    [/QUOTE]
    PROLATE

    I think if I were beginning my career(s) over again I might consider the application of behavioral science principles to professional and college sports. I can readily see some areas that are not getting the coverage they need. Dealing with the Sociopath in your Organization would be one topic I would focus on. I am sure this area would have a lot interest and I also believe that sociopaths are not lost causes. That with proper structured ongoing guidance they can make a change to a productive life in society.

     

Share