I imagine the home of Skip Bayless isn't really a home. I imagine it has approximately 500 mirrors and mostly serves as a shrine to Skip's favorite person, himself. Every article he writes at ESPN.com is really just about Skip's opinion and the opinion of others regarding Skip's opinion. There's no substance to any of Skip's writing, instead it is mostly "Here is my opinion and what others thought about my opinion and do you mind if we talk about me a little bit more?" So under the guise of figuring out why quarterbacks taken in the first round of the NFL Draft miss the mark in the NFL, Skip reviews the quarterbacks who he believed would succeed and discusses how sometimes he's right and sometimes he is wrong, but mostly it's just another shrine to Skip Bayless and his opinions. The use of the words "I," "I'm," and "I've" in this article is so prevalent only the most noble and bored of adventurers would take on the expedition of counting how many times Skip uses these words.
I'll admit it's getting a little eerie. Six times before NFL drafts,
I've taken a stand for quarterbacks doubted by many. For a while,
they've all made me look like a genius.
It's eerie that Skip really doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. Weird, isn't it?
Then ...
Things have gone wrong.
They have gone wrong for a variety of reasons, but mostly because Skip was never right and NFL defensive coordinators found a way to game plan around stopping the strengths of these quarterbacks. It's much in the same way that Skip would build a bridge and claim "for a while" it was a work of genius until one day the entire bridge fell and killed dozens of people and hundreds of innocent water creatures. Skip will still insist "for a while" that bridge worked really well, while ignoring that isn't the mark of success at all.
In each case I wound up publicly pilloried as a madman, a football fool,
a quarterback hack who is daft when it comes to the draft. I still
believe I deserve credit for always being so initially right. You
decide.
It's all about Skip and the reaction of the public to the idiotic words he speaks because ESPN inexplicably gives him a forum to speak these words. And no, there is no credit being given for being initially right, because being initially right where a quarterback plays well for a season or two isn't correctly predicting that quarterback will succeed in the NFL. Success isn't determined over a short span of time. There's really no debate that can be had on this. Skip isn't right because Tim Tebow fooled defensive coordinators for almost an entire season, at least until they caught on to how to game plan around him.
But as we go case by case, you'll see a common cause of eventual failure -- one I can't account for pre-draft.
Skip tries to blame outside forces for the reason each quarterback didn't succeed in the NFL, in order to cover up for the fact "He isn't a good quarterback" could not have been accounted for prior to the draft. Skip can try and talk around it all he wants, and I will admit it's a guessing game whether some of these quarterbacks will succeed in the NFL, but the bottom line is that Skip went hard all-in on some of these quarterbacks and has ended up being wrong. He can talk around it, but that's the bottom line.
Most of these quarterbacks wound up with franchises whose executives and
coaches were dangerously split on them. I was all-in. The team that
drafted them was not.
Of course, it is the franchise's fault for not being all-in on these quarterbacks. Naturally. It's not that those executives and coaches who argued against the drafting of these quarterbacks were right, it's just they were only right because they argued against drafting these quarterbacks based on legitimate reasons that ended up being correct. But the reasons wouldn't have been correct if they had just been all-in on the quarterback. It all makes sense if you turn your brain off.
You'll also see a common flaw: Several of "my guys" failed to handle
their success and/or failure in unstable and uneasy situations.
And really, who could have seen that coming? Johnny Manziel partied a lot in college and was drafted by an organization that seems somewhat dysfunctional? Who could have seen that he wouldn't succeed?
You can argue I've been much more long-term accurate on which
quarterbacks are being dangerously overrated. I said on air JaMarcus
Russell and Sam Bradford were very bad ideas for No.1 overall picks, that Alex Smith would never live up to being taken No. 1 and that Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder were not first-round picks.
You could argue that, but it wouldn't mean Skip wasn't wrong about these other six quarterbacks.
Those weren't popular stances.
Skip is a rebel and takes unpopular stances, based on the fact Stephen A. Smith disagrees with him. As is well known, Stephen A. Smith speaks for the majority opinion of the sports-loving world.
Neither were these ...
2006: I said on air the Houston Texans should take Vince Young No. 1 overall, in part because he grew up in Houston and had just led the University of Texas to the national championship with the greatest individual performance in title-game history.
Does Skip remember how popular Vince Young was coming out of Texas? It was not popular to say he would be successful in the NFL? I do disagree. Also, you can see from the start this isn't a column about WHY NFL quarterbacks taken early in the draft fail, as promised in the column title, but is about Skip Bayless and what he has said on the air. One other thing, to indicate the Texans should have taken Young simply because he grew up in Houston and led the University of Texas to a national championship is very bad reasoning for taking Young #1 overall.
Houston shockingly opted for defensive end Mario Williams, leaving Reggie Bush for the New Orleans Saints and Young for the Tennessee Titans general manager Floyd Reese and Titans owner Bud Adams,
It was shocking in that Mario Williams really worked out well for the Texans and Bush never really was the running back he promised himself to be in college. So it's almost like the Texans knew what they were doing.
One big problem: coach Jeff Fisher was against drafting Young.
Jeff Fisher is never wrong and you take it back right now.
Still, Young often made me look pretty good. He was offensive rookie of
the year. He made two Pro Bowls. He went 30-17 as Tennessee's starter.
And that's really what this is all about isn't it? Which quarterbacks made Skip look good and which quarterbacks didn't make Skip look good. Vince Young did have success for a while, but this doesn't mean Skip was right about him. I think Mario Williams was the right pick for the Texans.
But predictably, he often clashed with Fisher. It appeared Fisher helped
turn some in the local and national media against Young. His skin grew
thin.
IT WASN'T YOUNG'S FAULT HE FAILED IN THE NFL! IF HE HAD JUST GOTTEN ANOTHER SHOT WITH ANOTHER NFL TEAM HE WOULD HAVE SUCCEE---
Incredibly, after a season in Philadelphia and a camp with the Buffalo Bills and another with the Green Bay Packers, the league rejected Young at age 30.
This is shocking that Skip blames Young's failures on the environment in Tennessee and Young goes to another NFL team and continues to not be a good quarterbacks. It's almost like, and I almost dare not say it, Vince Young wasn't really a great quarterback and Skip was wrong about Young. But no, I'm sure the issues Jeff Fisher had with Young followed him to Philadelphia, Buffalo and to Green Bay. That makes more sense than Skip just outright being wrong.
What if Fisher had wanted to draft Young, had publicly invested his
pride in him, had supported him through the growing pains? Young was too
good for it to go so wrong.
What if Vince Young had success early in his career and this pretty much rejects the idea the biggest issue with Young's progress in the NFL is that he wasn't supported enough, because it doesn't make sense for him to play well at the beginning of his career and suddenly need more nurturing as he played more NFL games? I'm sure the Titans could have done something to help Young more, but three other teams took a look at Young and rejected him.
Another quarterback taken in that 2006 draft made the Pro Bowl in his second full season of starting. When Jay Cutler was a junior at Vanderbilt (my
alma mater) I began raving about him on air, predicting he'd be a
"franchise quarterback." Of course, that proclamation was met with
chuckles. A Vandy quarterback?
As always, it is about Skip Bayless. Sense a trend that permeates Skip's entire writing style?
"Here's a quarterback. Here's what I thought about that quarterback. Here's what others thought about my thoughts about this quarterback. Here's an excuse for why I was wrong, but this doesn't mean I was wrong and others were right."
Cutler was the "lucky" one of the six debatable quarterbacks I loved
before their drafts. (He's also the most prototypical pocket passer who
least relied on his legs.) Shanahan really wanted him. So did the Bears.
I certainly wasn't wrong about Cutler's ability. He's no bust. But he
is what he was at Vandy: a little more interested in pulling off the
occasional "wow" throw than winning.
Skip wasn't wrong about Cutler's ability? Is Cutler a franchise quarterback? No? Skip said Cutler was a franchise quarterback and he isn't, so that leads me to the conclusion Skip was wrong.
2009: I said on air that Mark Sanchez was being overrated. He went fifth to the Jets. I also raved about Josh Freeman and said the Tampa Bay Bucs stole him at No. 17.
Ah yes, the inconsistencies of Skip come to the forefront. He uses "games won" to make a case for why Vince Young could have been a great quarterback if it weren't for that meddling Jeff Fisher. All of a sudden he skips over that Mark Sanchez went to two AFC Championship Games as the starter for the Jets. Sure, I wouldn't give Sanchez credit for that, but in his eagerness to show how right he was about Sanchez, Skip changes the metric he uses for quarterback success. All of a sudden "games won" doesn't hold as much meaning to Skip when he's talking about a quarterback he thought wouldn't succeed in the NFL. Weird how that works.
I'd watched Kansas State's 6-6, 240-pound Freeman play big in his biggest games against Texas and Oklahoma.
No one else saw this. Only Skip saw Freeman play big in his biggest games against Texas and Oklahoma. (By the way, notice how Skip's love for the University of Texas seems to play a part in his evaluations?)
In his first full season as Tampa Bay's starter, he made me look
pretty great by throwing 25 touchdown passes to only six interceptions
and leading the Bucs to a 10-6 record. He was a Pro Bowl alternate.
Then
... it all fell apart in 2011. Rumors swirled. Maybe Freeman let
success go to his head (or stomach). Maybe Raheem Morris lost control of
the team as it went from 3-1 to 4-12. Morris was fired.
Freeman played pretty well in coach Greg Schiano's first season -- 27
touchdown passes, 17 interceptions -- but the team went 7-9.
Welp, it seems using team performance to evaluate a quarterback means something important again.
After three starts in 2013, the Bucs tried to trade Freeman, couldn't
and released him. After one horrendous Monday night start for the Minnesota Vikings, a 23-7 loss at the New York Giants, Freeman was out of football at age 25.
You still hear speculation Freeman will get another shot. But how could he go from 2010 to this? Again: so right, so wrong.
Probably the same reason a rookie baseball player can have a fantastic rookie year and then fail to improve on or reach those heights for the rest of his career. Opponents adjust to the rookie's tendencies, and when the player's true talent comes to light after opponents have adjusted, it turns out he isn't the star people thought he could end up being.
2010: I said on air I would take Tim Tebow late in the first round. "If you let him run the read option he ran at Florida," I said, "he'll win games in the NFL. He'll never make a Pro Bowl, but he can win games as a starting quarterback."
He'll "win games," which is exactly the type of thing you want your first round pick quarterback to do. Just don't suck and win a few games.
Under John Fox, the Broncos began the next season 1-4, and a new
Broncos regime (led by John Elway) that clearly didn't believe in Tebow
threw him into the fire, at Miami, out of desperation. I was asked on
air what I thought Tebow's record would be the rest of the season. I
said 7-4. Chuckles.
Tebow went 7-4, led Denver to the AFC West
title, led the NFL in QBR in the last five minutes of games and turned
the Broncos into the NFL's No. 1 rushing attack.
And let's be clear that the Broncos HAD to become the NFL's No. 1 rushing attack with Tebow as the quarterback, because he wasn't going to win games by throwing the football. Regardless of whether the Elway regime believed in Tebow or not, it doesn't mean they stunted his growth. Tebow failed in New York, where Rex Ryan took Mark Sanchez (the same Sanchez that Skip didn't like as an NFL QB) to two AFC Championship Games and he flamed out in New England. I would think if Belichick could have used Tebow in any productive way then he would have.
That offseason the Broncos replaced Tebow with ... Peyton Manning! No shame there. Tebow was traded to the Jets, with whom he was never even given a shot at starting.
That's funny. Tebow was in New York the season that Mark Sanchez was horrible and the Jets needed someone, anyone, to come in and play well at the quarterback position. Even going up against the quarterback that Skip thinks sucks, Mark Sanchez, Tebow couldn't win the starting job on a team desperate for a starting quarterback. So yeah, he was never given a shot. That's the lie that Skip will go with.
Tebow began to doubt himself and drifted from one throwing guru to another.
Maybe he started doubting himself because he's really not that good at throwing the football?
It's still possible the Philadelphia Eagles' Chip Kelly will sign Tebow, but again, I was so sensationally right ... and ultimately condemned as so dead wrong.
No, not at all. You were so sensationally wrong. Tim Tebow is now a co-worker of Skip's at ESPN. Tebow is not in the NFL anymore, so Skip was right for a brief period of time, but in the longer span of time he was absolutely wrong about Tebow. Again, simply because a bridge holds up for a brief span of time before it collapses does not mean it was a safe bridge to cross for that brief span of time.
I do really like how Skip talks about how he was right about Tebow winning games as an NFL quarterback, while also ignoring that Tebow couldn't beat out the quarterback Skip proudly beats his chest in this article for correctly stating wouldn't be successful (Mark Sanchez). Ignore that which makes Skip look dumb. That's A LOT of ignoring.
2012: On air long before the draft, I said Robert Griffin III would prove to be an even better pro than Andrew Luck. The Washington Redskins traded three first-rounders and a second to move up from No. 6 to No. 2 to take RG III. Way too much? Not to me.
It's hard for Skip to talk his way out of this one. He'll try to do so by ignoring the issue he himself brought up when arguing for Griffin. The issue Skip presented was that Griffin will be a better quarterback than Andrew Luck. He's not and he won't ever be. Skip was wrong.
Still, In RG III's rookie season, at age 22, he went superstar on the
NFL. Offensive rookie of the year, 20 touchdown passes to just five
interceptions, led the league in yards per pass attempt and per rush,
led his team to the NFC East crown, had a better QBR than Luck -- 71.4
to 65.2.
FOR ONE YEAR! ONE SOLITARY SEASON!
RG III sprained his knee late in the season, then tweaked it just before his team jumped out 14-0 on the Seattle Seahawks in
a home playoff game, then wrecked it late in that eventual loss. And he
has spent the past two seasons looking like a sad shell of a guy who no
longer trusts his legs or eyes or arm.
I like how Skip always blames outside forces for the failure of these quarterbacks. It's never, "Griffin got injured and his lack of mobility revealed him as a one-read quarterback who just couldn't grasp the passing concepts required to be an NFL quarterback." Skip reasons that Griffin no longer trusted his leg or arm after his injury. Of course, because Skip could never be wrong with his evaluation of Griffin's abilities.
He clashed with Shanahan and failed to click with new coach Jay Gruden.
Now ESPN's John Clayton is reporting new GM Scot McCloughan will take
Mariota if he's there at No. 5.
Now it feels like RG III's best bet is to start over with another team in another town.
Where when/if Griffin fails there, then Skip will conveniently ignore that Griffin was away from the Redskins' toxic environment and he still couldn't succeed.
2014: I said on air the Texans would forever regret not taking Texas native Johnny Manziel, the Heisman winner from Texas A&M, with the No. 1 overall pick.
And so far, the Texans have been correct twice when Skip has claimed they would regret not taking a quarterback that Skip suggests they draft.
I was told the Texans were considering Manziel until they asked him to
lay low and behave himself in the month leading up to the draft. Manziel
attended the Masters, had too much to drink and -- the Texans were told
-- made a spectacle of himself. They were out.
Again and again I said before the draft: If alcohol proves to be an ongoing issue for Manziel, I'm out.
Skip is blaming alcohol for Manziel's poor rookie season, while acknowledging that he thought alcohol could be an issue for Manziel prior to his being drafted. This sort of contradicts what Skip said earlier in this column:
But as we go case by case, you'll see a common cause of eventual failure -- one I can't account for pre-draft.
Oh, except Skip did account for Manziel's alcohol use pre-draft. I wouldn't expect Skip to stay consistent.
Loggains showed the text to owner Jimmy Haslam, who encouraged GM Ray
Farmer, coach Mike Pettine and coordinator Kyle Shanahan to trade up to
take Manziel. The Browns did, from 26 to 22.
But the GM, coach and coordinator were not sold on Manziel. I said on
air the next morning this was the wrong place for a quarterback whose
coaches and execs must be united in their belief in him and his
crazy-competitive playmaking genius. This, I said, will not work.
Me, me, me, me. Skip said this or that "on air." I wonder if Skip could write a column without once referencing his own opinion or in any way trying to bring the subject of the column back around to himself? Most definitely not. Remember, Kyle Shanahan was the offensive coordinator for Robert Griffin when he had his great rookie season. I'm not entirely sure what this means, so forget I brought it up.
The Browns lost last year's starter, Brian Hoyer, a Pettine favorite, to free agency but have signed Josh McCown and Thad Lewis and
recently (according to an ESPN report) tried to trade for Bradford.
Manziel no longer appears to be in the Browns' plans -- and shouldn't
have been in the first place.
Manziel needs a second chance with a GM and coach who completely buy in.
Maybe he'll prove to be nothing but a bust. The other five did not.
The other five quarterbacks that Skip caped up for weren't busts, but neither were quarterbacks that Skip proudly tells his readers he never liked and look at how right he was about that. Mark Sanchez wasn't a bust if Tim Tebow wasn't a bust, Sam Bradford hasn't been a bust, and Alex Smith is a lot of things, but he's also been a better quarterback than the six Skip has listed here as QB's he was temporarily right about.
I can't predict injury or addiction or sorry situations. But I must
admit, if I were a hotly debated draftee, I wouldn't want me pushing for
me.
It's not like Skip is a well-known personnel genius or anything like that. He's just a guy with a hot take who likes to take guesses and then make excuses if he is wrong. But yes, I wouldn't want you speaking about me at all if I were a draftee. I would prefer you just disappear or try to write a column that isn't simply about you.
Showing posts with label busts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label busts. Show all posts
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Saturday, July 26, 2014
7 comments Bleacher Report Has Your List of the 10 Most Disappointing Rookies Right Here
I have to give it to Bleacher Report. They have really gained some credibility by hiring pretty good writers for the site. There is better content on the site these days. Still, you can put lipstick on a pig and it doesn't make it a woman, so there is still not-so-good content on the site, as well as each slideshow having the same annoying habit of the last slide being the first page of the next slideshow. A lot of this not-so-good content is designed for pageviews and to churn out columns. Today, we have the list of the 10 most disappointing rookies for the 2014 NFL season. What rookie is disappointing and what rookie is not disappointing is all a matter of perspective. Johnny Manziel isn't on the list, while Blake Bortles is on the list. Manziel could start this year and the Jaguars have already announced Bortles will not be starting. So the expectation Bortles won't play is there, yet he will disappoint in the author's opinion. I'm not sure how that's possible. So bookmark it and keep it handy, here is the official list of rookies who will disappoint during the 2014 NFL season. Just be sure to understand that a player can also disappoint if there are outsized expectations for him in the first place.
As the number of first-year players making instant impacts in the league seemingly rises each year, so too do the expectations that rookies—especially those drafted in the first or second round—face from day one.
Expectations are being raised, which naturally means more rookies will disappoint. Therein lies the rub in saying a rookie disappoints in his first season in the NFL. It's based on an individual's expectations for that rookie. Plus, whether a rookie does well in his first year or not isn't an indication he won't be a good player in the long-term.
Because of the lofty, often unrealistic projections that early-round draft choices are expected to match, a player can emerge as a solid contributor for his team in his first year and still be labeled as a disappointment.
So now the author is taking these lofty, often realistic projections and turning them into an entire column/slideshow while labeling these players as potential disappointments. See the issue here? The author is smart enough to know there are unrealistic projections placed on these players and then they are unfairly labeled as a disappointment. The author's response to this knowledge is to participate in the exercise himself, though he knows it's a fool's errand and is generally unfair. Anything to churn a few columns out.
Each of these players have star potential and were selected in the first two rounds of the draft as a result. But they face expectations that will surpass what their current skill sets and surroundings will make them capable of accomplishing in 2014.
THEN THE PROBLEM IS THE EXPECTATION LEVEL, NOT THE ROOKIE'S PERFORMANCE!
This is infuriating. The author admits to having outsized expectations that he knows these players can't achieve, yet he still claims they could potentially be disappointments. If the expectations are too high, then that is the problem. How is this hard to see?
Let's start the slideshow!
Blake Bortles, QB, Jacksonville Jaguars
The Jaguars have already stated that Bortles will be sitting his first season in the NFL. Other than actively helping opposing teams to beat the Jaguars by telling them the plays the Jaguars offense will be running, I'm not sure how he can be considered a disappointment for the upcoming season when he isn't given a chance to play.
The last four quarterbacks selected with top-three NFL draft picks—Washington’s Robert Griffin III, Indianapolis’ Andrew Luck, Carolina’s Cam Newton and St. Louis’ Sam Bradford—each started all 16 games of their rookie seasons and accounted for an average of 3,784 passing yards, 20.5 touchdown passes, 459.75 rushing yards, 6.75 rushing touchdown and 8.25 wins.
Bortles will face expectations for a top-three quarterback that have been significantly raised by the standouts selected at the top of recent drafts. Realistically, Bortles projects to be an average-at-best quarterback if he starts as a rookie, which in itself remains uncertain.
Uncertain meaning "the plan is to definitely have him sit" his rookie season, as reported here, here, here, here, here, and here. But hey, maybe it's just one big practical joke being played on the rest of the world by the Jaguars.
Should the team make the change to Bortles at any point this season, expect the rookie signal-caller to have growing pains. Throughout his three-year career at UCF, Bortles had accuracy issues along with sloppy footwork and mechanics, all of which still need to progress significantly for him to have sustained success as an NFL passer.
So if Bortles does play to due impatience/injury and he comes out and struggles, and I expected him to struggle as this author is telling me to do, then how in the ever-living fuck has he been a disappointment? He hypothetically struggled as I expected him to do. He met my expectations for him.
Bortles has the skill set to be Jacksonville’s future at quarterback, but don’t expect him to be the immediate savior of the team’s offense in 2014.
Mostly because he's not projected to be the Jaguars quarterback in 2014. But sure, if Bortles does play and doesn't play well then I will consider him a disappointment since I expected him to struggle.
Sammy Watkins, WR, Buffalo Bills
Sammy Watkins should immediately become a starting wideout for the Buffalo Bills offense and could contend for a 1,000-plus yard season and Offensive Rookie of the Year honors in his rookie season
Which would obviously be disappointing because a 1000 yard rookie season would put Watkins in some fairly elite company. Not as elite as the company used to be, but still pretty good company. Still, it's very disappointing that Watkins can't lead off his NFL career with a 2000 yard season and 85 touchdowns.
While Watkins was the No. 4 overall selection, he holds the weight of a No. 1 overall pick because of the price—first- and fourth-round picks in the 2015 draft—that the Bills paid the Cleveland Browns to move up to select him.
And of course if Watkins doesn't play well during his rookie season then his entire career is over and at no point during the rest of his career could he play well enough to justify the picks spent on him by the Bills. Makes sense.
Furthermore, Watkins plays a position that is not only one of the most high-profile spots on the field, but also where his production will be directly affected by the success or failure of Buffalo’s still-shaky second-year starting quarterback, EJ Manuel.
Watkins should be judged a disappointment because his starting quarterback is shaky.
he’ll have to compete for touches on a weapon-laden offense that also includes Mike Williams, Robert Woods, C.J. Spiller and Scott Chandler among others.
Great, so let's temper expectations for him then. Good, it's done. How will he disappoint again?
It shouldn’t come as a huge surprise if Watkins is outperformed by some of the rookie class’ other top wideouts, but anything less than excellence will be a disappointment given the steep investment Buffalo made to trade up and draft him.
If only there were NFL seasons after this year where Watkins could produce and perform to the expectations the steep investment made in him require. Too bad Watkins won't ever play again after the 2014 year though.
Dee Ford, OLB, Kansas City Chiefs
The case could legitimately be made that Dee Ford was the best player available when the Kansas City Chiefs drafted him with the No. 23 overall pick in this year’s draft,
So a case could legitimately not be made or would a case not legitimately be made? I just like the use of the word "legitimately" since it seems completely unnecessary in this sentence.
Drafted to play outside linebacker in Kansas City’s 3-4 defense after lining up as a 4-3 defensive end at Auburn, Ford faces a transition that often takes NFL players at least one year with which to become comfortable.
Okay, so knowing that.........................does this mean he will be a disappointment because he will take at least one year to adjust to the 3-4 defense? If so, that's silly since the expectation is that it takes a 4-3 college end a year in the NFL to adjust to playing OLB in a 3-4.
Even if the position switch comes naturally to Ford, he’ll still have a tough time getting on the field as a rookie. With an exceptional pair of starting outside linebackers in Justin Houston and Tamba Hali, both of whom were ranked by Pro Football Focus (subscription required) among the top six 3-4 OLBs in the NFL this past season,
Again, this is an issue of expectations and not an issue of Ford's performance. If it's expected that it will take a year to adjust to a 3-4 defense and he is stuck behind two really good outside linebackers then maybe he shouldn't be expected to have a huge impact this upcoming season.
That won’t give Ford, being that he is a top-25 pick who was a pass-rushing standout in the SEC, a free pass from high expectations.
And really, why should it? A "Rookies Who Will Disappoint" column HAS to be written, so there needs to be enough names on this slideshow to justify it being written. Therefore, Dee Ford will be a victim of high expectations placed on him by the author so the author can correctly claim he told us that Dee Ford would disappoint, when Ford really met any realistic expectation for his performance.
At the very least, Ford will need to notch some sacks and show he can bring pressure as a situational pass-rusher to avoid being labeled a disappointment after his rookie season.
At the very most, Ford should lead the NFL in sacks and be voted into the very next Pro Football Hall of Fame class. After all, he was drafted #23 overall.
Kelvin Benjamin, WR, Carolina Panthers
Saddled with the pressure of headlining a Carolina Panthers receiving corps that is essentially brand new,
Whatever "headlining" means, Benjamin isn't headlining the Panthers receiving corps unless he has proven he can do so. If Benjamin has proven he can "headline" the receiving group then he won't be a disappointment as a rookie. Also, the group is new to the Panthers but Jason Avant, Jerricho Cotchery, and Tiquan Underwood are pretty veteran NFL players. So "essentially" the receiving group is shockingly mediocre but not new to the NFL.
Size isn’t everything, of course, and while it can help him win on throws where he can’t separate from defensive backs, he’s still going to have to be able to get open on a more consistent basis to emerge as a No. 1 receiver in Carolina.
And as learned previously in this slideshow, if Benjamin doesn't become a No. 1 receiver in his rookie year then he will NEVER be a No. 1 wide receiver. Therefore, he is a disappointment in his rookie season because he didn't step on the field as a No. 1 receiver.
Benjamin’s potential to create mismatches is promising, especially in the red zone, but the two-year collegiate player isn’t likely to reach the top of his game until at least his second season in the league.
So again, if this is the expectation for Benjamin then how will he not meet expectations? The answer is Benjamin will not meet expectations if there is an expectation that he will reach the top of his game in his rookie season.
And also, how many NFL players reach the top of their game in their rookie season? That's a ridiculous thing to expect from a rookie no matter the position.
That’s typically fine and expected for a wideout drafted late in the first round, but for a Panthers offense that touts Jerricho Cotchery and Jason Avant as its top veteran receivers, the team likely holds expectations for Benjamin that he might not be prepared to meet in year one.
Yes, the team "likely" holds expectations for Benjamin he is not prepared to meet. It's good to know this author for Bleacher Report knows the expectations for Kelvin Benjamin within the Panthers locker room and among management. It just so happens those expectations are really, really super-high, which conveniently allows the author to add another slide to his "Rookies Who Could Disappoint" slideshow.
Demarcus Lawrence, DE, Dallas Cowboys
As the No. 34 overall pick, Demarcus Lawrence technically went two spots outside of the draft’s first round, but the Dallas Cowboys made it clear they valued him like a top-32 pick when they traded a second-and third-round pick from this year's draft to move to the top of Round 2 to select the Boise State product.
Yes, "technically" Lawrence went two spots outside of the first round because he was drafted two spots outside of the first round, but he was legitimately a first round pick that wasn't a first round pick. Regardless of where the Cowboys valued him, he was a second round pick. Teams value players outside of the round they are drafted in all of the time. This doesn't mean this player should be expected to perform at a higher level because of this.
Placing first-round expectations on Lawrence leaves him in a position to be a rookie disappointment.
Well, then don't place first round expectations on Lawrence because he was a second round pick. Of course Lawrence will be a disappointment if unfair expectations are placed on him.
"If you place the expectations that he will be the best quarterback in NFL history then Johnny Manziel looks like he will be a major disappointment!"
As Rick Gosselin of The Dallas Morning News suggested in May, Lawrence “probably won’t start as he gets his strength up,” and instead will start out his career as only a designated pass-rusher.
"And since we will place expectations that Lawrence will be an All-Pro next season then he will be a major disappointment for a guy who technically drafted in the second round, but will have first round expectations for the sake of a slideshow."
The rookie defensive end will have to emerge quickly as a sack artist or make rapid progress as a point-of-attack run defender to get on the field as an every-down player. Only then will the Cowboys’ trade up for him be justified and meet the expectations that come with that level of investment.
I'm enjoying the author's completely misguided idea that a rookie has to play well in his rookie year to justify his team trading up to draft him. It's as if no matter what the rookie does after his first year in the NFL it's not enough to every justify a team trading up to draft that player. That rookie year determines whether the trade up was worth it or not. It's a very short-sighted way of evaluating a trade and a player.
Cody Latimer, WR, Denver Broncos
Despite having the No. 1-ranked offense in the NFL this past season, the Denver Broncos traded up to the No. 56 overall pick in the second round of this year’s draft to add another playmaker: Indiana wide receiver Cody Latimer.
Basically this author thinks any player a team had to trade up in order to draft is going to be a disappointment.
With Demaryius Thomas, Wes Welker and offseason free-agent addition Emmanuel Sanders sitting as the top three on Denver’s receiving depth chart, Latimer will have to beat out Andre Caldwell just to be the Broncos’ fourth wideout in the rotation.
So for the 900th time, then Latimer should not have great expectations placed upon him if he is expected to not see a lot of the field. If he performs as a fourth wide receiver would perform then he's met expectations, right?
As Latimer develops, he should come closer to taking full advantage of his physical capabilities and could emerge as a major weapon for the Broncos offense in time. As a rookie, however, Latimer might not have enough ability to force his way onto the field and make an impact on such a talent-laden offense.
So it's not that Latimer will disappoint, it's that he may not have an opportunity to show what kind of player he can be due to the talent in front of him?
You know what is really disappointing? That the author places expectations he knows are unrealistic on these players in the name of writing a slideshow.
Stanley Jean-Baptiste, CB, New Orleans Saints
Consider that Stanley Jean-Baptiste is a 6’3”, 218-pound player who converted to cornerback from wide receiver midway through his collegiate career, and it’s clear the New Orleans Saints will be hoping that their second-round pick (No. 58 overall) emerges as the NFL’s next Richard Sherman.
But don't worry, it gets better. Not only do the Saints expect Jean-Baptiste to be the next Richard Sherman, the author calls Jean-Baptiste a disappointment because he's not one of the NFL's best cornerbacks during his rookie year.
That said, any immediate expectations for Jean-Baptiste to play at the level of Sherman, who established himself as one of the NFL’s elite cornerbacks while helping lead the Seattle Seahawks to a Super Bowl title this past season, are likely to go unfulfilled, at least during his rookie season in 2014.
SO YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT STANLEY JEAN-BAPTISTE WON'T BE THE NFL'S BEST CORNERBACK AS A ROOKIE? NO FUCKING WAY!
The author of this slideshow is calling Stanley Jean-Baptiste a potential disappointment as a rookie because he's not going to play at the same level as one of the NFL's best cornerbacks. This isn't reality. It can't be. No one can be this ridiculous.
It’s true that Jean-Baptiste’s size and ball skills give him star potential, but it’s apparent from his game film that he’s still learning the nuances of playing cornerback.
Oh, so Jean-Baptiste is going to have work hard to become the NFL's best cornerback, as opposed to just walking on the field and being the best corner in the NFL during his rookie year? What a disappointment.
Regardless of whether or not Jean-Baptiste earns a starting spot, he should see solid playing time as a rookie because the Saints will want to use his size where it can give them an advantage. How much playing time he receives should be contingent upon his development, however, as he remains a raw talent who is likely to get exposed at times throughout his first year in the league.
You mean Jean-Baptiste will be exposed at times as a rookie cornerback like 90% of other rookie cornerbacks are exposed at times? And this is a disappointment, why again? Because the author was told write a slideshow about disappointing rookies and this is the result? Or because he doesn't understand the concept that a player can only be a disappointment based on the expectations being heaped on that rookie, followed by the author heaping unrealistic expectations on nearly every rookie in this slideshow.
This slideshow was legitimately not good.
As the number of first-year players making instant impacts in the league seemingly rises each year, so too do the expectations that rookies—especially those drafted in the first or second round—face from day one.
Expectations are being raised, which naturally means more rookies will disappoint. Therein lies the rub in saying a rookie disappoints in his first season in the NFL. It's based on an individual's expectations for that rookie. Plus, whether a rookie does well in his first year or not isn't an indication he won't be a good player in the long-term.
Because of the lofty, often unrealistic projections that early-round draft choices are expected to match, a player can emerge as a solid contributor for his team in his first year and still be labeled as a disappointment.
So now the author is taking these lofty, often realistic projections and turning them into an entire column/slideshow while labeling these players as potential disappointments. See the issue here? The author is smart enough to know there are unrealistic projections placed on these players and then they are unfairly labeled as a disappointment. The author's response to this knowledge is to participate in the exercise himself, though he knows it's a fool's errand and is generally unfair. Anything to churn a few columns out.
Each of these players have star potential and were selected in the first two rounds of the draft as a result. But they face expectations that will surpass what their current skill sets and surroundings will make them capable of accomplishing in 2014.
THEN THE PROBLEM IS THE EXPECTATION LEVEL, NOT THE ROOKIE'S PERFORMANCE!
This is infuriating. The author admits to having outsized expectations that he knows these players can't achieve, yet he still claims they could potentially be disappointments. If the expectations are too high, then that is the problem. How is this hard to see?
Let's start the slideshow!
Blake Bortles, QB, Jacksonville Jaguars
The Jaguars have already stated that Bortles will be sitting his first season in the NFL. Other than actively helping opposing teams to beat the Jaguars by telling them the plays the Jaguars offense will be running, I'm not sure how he can be considered a disappointment for the upcoming season when he isn't given a chance to play.
The last four quarterbacks selected with top-three NFL draft picks—Washington’s Robert Griffin III, Indianapolis’ Andrew Luck, Carolina’s Cam Newton and St. Louis’ Sam Bradford—each started all 16 games of their rookie seasons and accounted for an average of 3,784 passing yards, 20.5 touchdown passes, 459.75 rushing yards, 6.75 rushing touchdown and 8.25 wins.
Bortles will face expectations for a top-three quarterback that have been significantly raised by the standouts selected at the top of recent drafts. Realistically, Bortles projects to be an average-at-best quarterback if he starts as a rookie, which in itself remains uncertain.
Uncertain meaning "the plan is to definitely have him sit" his rookie season, as reported here, here, here, here, here, and here. But hey, maybe it's just one big practical joke being played on the rest of the world by the Jaguars.
Should the team make the change to Bortles at any point this season, expect the rookie signal-caller to have growing pains. Throughout his three-year career at UCF, Bortles had accuracy issues along with sloppy footwork and mechanics, all of which still need to progress significantly for him to have sustained success as an NFL passer.
So if Bortles does play to due impatience/injury and he comes out and struggles, and I expected him to struggle as this author is telling me to do, then how in the ever-living fuck has he been a disappointment? He hypothetically struggled as I expected him to do. He met my expectations for him.
Bortles has the skill set to be Jacksonville’s future at quarterback, but don’t expect him to be the immediate savior of the team’s offense in 2014.
Mostly because he's not projected to be the Jaguars quarterback in 2014. But sure, if Bortles does play and doesn't play well then I will consider him a disappointment since I expected him to struggle.
Sammy Watkins, WR, Buffalo Bills
Sammy Watkins should immediately become a starting wideout for the Buffalo Bills offense and could contend for a 1,000-plus yard season and Offensive Rookie of the Year honors in his rookie season
Which would obviously be disappointing because a 1000 yard rookie season would put Watkins in some fairly elite company. Not as elite as the company used to be, but still pretty good company. Still, it's very disappointing that Watkins can't lead off his NFL career with a 2000 yard season and 85 touchdowns.
While Watkins was the No. 4 overall selection, he holds the weight of a No. 1 overall pick because of the price—first- and fourth-round picks in the 2015 draft—that the Bills paid the Cleveland Browns to move up to select him.
And of course if Watkins doesn't play well during his rookie season then his entire career is over and at no point during the rest of his career could he play well enough to justify the picks spent on him by the Bills. Makes sense.
Furthermore, Watkins plays a position that is not only one of the most high-profile spots on the field, but also where his production will be directly affected by the success or failure of Buffalo’s still-shaky second-year starting quarterback, EJ Manuel.
Watkins should be judged a disappointment because his starting quarterback is shaky.
he’ll have to compete for touches on a weapon-laden offense that also includes Mike Williams, Robert Woods, C.J. Spiller and Scott Chandler among others.
Great, so let's temper expectations for him then. Good, it's done. How will he disappoint again?
It shouldn’t come as a huge surprise if Watkins is outperformed by some of the rookie class’ other top wideouts, but anything less than excellence will be a disappointment given the steep investment Buffalo made to trade up and draft him.
If only there were NFL seasons after this year where Watkins could produce and perform to the expectations the steep investment made in him require. Too bad Watkins won't ever play again after the 2014 year though.
Dee Ford, OLB, Kansas City Chiefs
The case could legitimately be made that Dee Ford was the best player available when the Kansas City Chiefs drafted him with the No. 23 overall pick in this year’s draft,
So a case could legitimately not be made or would a case not legitimately be made? I just like the use of the word "legitimately" since it seems completely unnecessary in this sentence.
Drafted to play outside linebacker in Kansas City’s 3-4 defense after lining up as a 4-3 defensive end at Auburn, Ford faces a transition that often takes NFL players at least one year with which to become comfortable.
Okay, so knowing that.........................does this mean he will be a disappointment because he will take at least one year to adjust to the 3-4 defense? If so, that's silly since the expectation is that it takes a 4-3 college end a year in the NFL to adjust to playing OLB in a 3-4.
Even if the position switch comes naturally to Ford, he’ll still have a tough time getting on the field as a rookie. With an exceptional pair of starting outside linebackers in Justin Houston and Tamba Hali, both of whom were ranked by Pro Football Focus (subscription required) among the top six 3-4 OLBs in the NFL this past season,
Again, this is an issue of expectations and not an issue of Ford's performance. If it's expected that it will take a year to adjust to a 3-4 defense and he is stuck behind two really good outside linebackers then maybe he shouldn't be expected to have a huge impact this upcoming season.
That won’t give Ford, being that he is a top-25 pick who was a pass-rushing standout in the SEC, a free pass from high expectations.
And really, why should it? A "Rookies Who Will Disappoint" column HAS to be written, so there needs to be enough names on this slideshow to justify it being written. Therefore, Dee Ford will be a victim of high expectations placed on him by the author so the author can correctly claim he told us that Dee Ford would disappoint, when Ford really met any realistic expectation for his performance.
At the very least, Ford will need to notch some sacks and show he can bring pressure as a situational pass-rusher to avoid being labeled a disappointment after his rookie season.
At the very most, Ford should lead the NFL in sacks and be voted into the very next Pro Football Hall of Fame class. After all, he was drafted #23 overall.
Kelvin Benjamin, WR, Carolina Panthers
Saddled with the pressure of headlining a Carolina Panthers receiving corps that is essentially brand new,
Whatever "headlining" means, Benjamin isn't headlining the Panthers receiving corps unless he has proven he can do so. If Benjamin has proven he can "headline" the receiving group then he won't be a disappointment as a rookie. Also, the group is new to the Panthers but Jason Avant, Jerricho Cotchery, and Tiquan Underwood are pretty veteran NFL players. So "essentially" the receiving group is shockingly mediocre but not new to the NFL.
Size isn’t everything, of course, and while it can help him win on throws where he can’t separate from defensive backs, he’s still going to have to be able to get open on a more consistent basis to emerge as a No. 1 receiver in Carolina.
And as learned previously in this slideshow, if Benjamin doesn't become a No. 1 receiver in his rookie year then he will NEVER be a No. 1 wide receiver. Therefore, he is a disappointment in his rookie season because he didn't step on the field as a No. 1 receiver.
Benjamin’s potential to create mismatches is promising, especially in the red zone, but the two-year collegiate player isn’t likely to reach the top of his game until at least his second season in the league.
So again, if this is the expectation for Benjamin then how will he not meet expectations? The answer is Benjamin will not meet expectations if there is an expectation that he will reach the top of his game in his rookie season.
And also, how many NFL players reach the top of their game in their rookie season? That's a ridiculous thing to expect from a rookie no matter the position.
That’s typically fine and expected for a wideout drafted late in the first round, but for a Panthers offense that touts Jerricho Cotchery and Jason Avant as its top veteran receivers, the team likely holds expectations for Benjamin that he might not be prepared to meet in year one.
Yes, the team "likely" holds expectations for Benjamin he is not prepared to meet. It's good to know this author for Bleacher Report knows the expectations for Kelvin Benjamin within the Panthers locker room and among management. It just so happens those expectations are really, really super-high, which conveniently allows the author to add another slide to his "Rookies Who Could Disappoint" slideshow.
Demarcus Lawrence, DE, Dallas Cowboys
As the No. 34 overall pick, Demarcus Lawrence technically went two spots outside of the draft’s first round, but the Dallas Cowboys made it clear they valued him like a top-32 pick when they traded a second-and third-round pick from this year's draft to move to the top of Round 2 to select the Boise State product.
Yes, "technically" Lawrence went two spots outside of the first round because he was drafted two spots outside of the first round, but he was legitimately a first round pick that wasn't a first round pick. Regardless of where the Cowboys valued him, he was a second round pick. Teams value players outside of the round they are drafted in all of the time. This doesn't mean this player should be expected to perform at a higher level because of this.
Placing first-round expectations on Lawrence leaves him in a position to be a rookie disappointment.
Well, then don't place first round expectations on Lawrence because he was a second round pick. Of course Lawrence will be a disappointment if unfair expectations are placed on him.
"If you place the expectations that he will be the best quarterback in NFL history then Johnny Manziel looks like he will be a major disappointment!"
As Rick Gosselin of The Dallas Morning News suggested in May, Lawrence “probably won’t start as he gets his strength up,” and instead will start out his career as only a designated pass-rusher.
"And since we will place expectations that Lawrence will be an All-Pro next season then he will be a major disappointment for a guy who technically drafted in the second round, but will have first round expectations for the sake of a slideshow."
The rookie defensive end will have to emerge quickly as a sack artist or make rapid progress as a point-of-attack run defender to get on the field as an every-down player. Only then will the Cowboys’ trade up for him be justified and meet the expectations that come with that level of investment.
I'm enjoying the author's completely misguided idea that a rookie has to play well in his rookie year to justify his team trading up to draft him. It's as if no matter what the rookie does after his first year in the NFL it's not enough to every justify a team trading up to draft that player. That rookie year determines whether the trade up was worth it or not. It's a very short-sighted way of evaluating a trade and a player.
Cody Latimer, WR, Denver Broncos
Despite having the No. 1-ranked offense in the NFL this past season, the Denver Broncos traded up to the No. 56 overall pick in the second round of this year’s draft to add another playmaker: Indiana wide receiver Cody Latimer.
Basically this author thinks any player a team had to trade up in order to draft is going to be a disappointment.
With Demaryius Thomas, Wes Welker and offseason free-agent addition Emmanuel Sanders sitting as the top three on Denver’s receiving depth chart, Latimer will have to beat out Andre Caldwell just to be the Broncos’ fourth wideout in the rotation.
So for the 900th time, then Latimer should not have great expectations placed upon him if he is expected to not see a lot of the field. If he performs as a fourth wide receiver would perform then he's met expectations, right?
As Latimer develops, he should come closer to taking full advantage of his physical capabilities and could emerge as a major weapon for the Broncos offense in time. As a rookie, however, Latimer might not have enough ability to force his way onto the field and make an impact on such a talent-laden offense.
So it's not that Latimer will disappoint, it's that he may not have an opportunity to show what kind of player he can be due to the talent in front of him?
You know what is really disappointing? That the author places expectations he knows are unrealistic on these players in the name of writing a slideshow.
Stanley Jean-Baptiste, CB, New Orleans Saints
Consider that Stanley Jean-Baptiste is a 6’3”, 218-pound player who converted to cornerback from wide receiver midway through his collegiate career, and it’s clear the New Orleans Saints will be hoping that their second-round pick (No. 58 overall) emerges as the NFL’s next Richard Sherman.
But don't worry, it gets better. Not only do the Saints expect Jean-Baptiste to be the next Richard Sherman, the author calls Jean-Baptiste a disappointment because he's not one of the NFL's best cornerbacks during his rookie year.
That said, any immediate expectations for Jean-Baptiste to play at the level of Sherman, who established himself as one of the NFL’s elite cornerbacks while helping lead the Seattle Seahawks to a Super Bowl title this past season, are likely to go unfulfilled, at least during his rookie season in 2014.
SO YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT STANLEY JEAN-BAPTISTE WON'T BE THE NFL'S BEST CORNERBACK AS A ROOKIE? NO FUCKING WAY!
The author of this slideshow is calling Stanley Jean-Baptiste a potential disappointment as a rookie because he's not going to play at the same level as one of the NFL's best cornerbacks. This isn't reality. It can't be. No one can be this ridiculous.
It’s true that Jean-Baptiste’s size and ball skills give him star potential, but it’s apparent from his game film that he’s still learning the nuances of playing cornerback.
Oh, so Jean-Baptiste is going to have work hard to become the NFL's best cornerback, as opposed to just walking on the field and being the best corner in the NFL during his rookie year? What a disappointment.
Regardless of whether or not Jean-Baptiste earns a starting spot, he should see solid playing time as a rookie because the Saints will want to use his size where it can give them an advantage. How much playing time he receives should be contingent upon his development, however, as he remains a raw talent who is likely to get exposed at times throughout his first year in the league.
You mean Jean-Baptiste will be exposed at times as a rookie cornerback like 90% of other rookie cornerbacks are exposed at times? And this is a disappointment, why again? Because the author was told write a slideshow about disappointing rookies and this is the result? Or because he doesn't understand the concept that a player can only be a disappointment based on the expectations being heaped on that rookie, followed by the author heaping unrealistic expectations on nearly every rookie in this slideshow.
This slideshow was legitimately not good.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
6 comments MMQB Review: If a Bar Closes and Peter Doesn't Leave, Does the Bar Really Close? Edition
Last week Bill Polian presented a "What-if" scenario to Peter King about how the Colts season would have turned out differently if the trade deadline had been moved back to Week 8 during the 2011 season. The Colts would have given up a third round draft, would have won 2-3 more games, Bill Polian could have possibly kept his job, and the Colts still would have missed the playoffs. Most importantly, if the Colts had won a few more games, Bill Polian would have possibly kept his job, even if it was the expense of the long-term health of the Colts franchise in giving up a 3rd round pick for a one-year rental quarterback. I've always been a bit on the fence about whether Bill Polian is the genius General Manager he's been made out to be and his willingness to give up a 3rd round pick for Kyle Orton to quarterback a team that has no shot of making the playoffs seems like an interesting decision to me. This week Peter reviews the offseason changes the Texans has made and apparently isn't very good at taking non-verbal cues.
Before I get to the state of the Texans, and the running back driving fantasy football players crazy
Any running back who shares carries with another running back?
Six years shouldn't be forever in the NFL,
The average player's time in the NFL amounts to 3-4 years if I am not wrong. So six years is a long time in the NFL.
The top 10 players in the 2006 NFL draft have been employed by 19 teams through six seasons -- the smart teams don't stay married to guys when either the marriage isn't working or the priorities have changed.
How the mighty have moved since 2006:
1. JaMarcus Russell- Oakland (out of the league)
2. Calvin Johnson-Detroit
3. Joe Thomas- Cleveland
4. Gaines Adams- Tampa Bay, Chicago
5. Levi Brown- Arizona
6. LaRon Landry- Washington, New York Jets
7. Adrian Peterson- Minnesota
8. Jamaal Anderson- Atlanta, Indianapolis, Cincinnati
9. Ted Ginn Jr- Miami, San Francisco
10. Amobi Okoye- Houston, Chicago, Tampa
That's 17 teams over 5 years.
Look at the 2008 draft:
1. Jake Long- Miami
2. Chris Long- St. Louis
3. Matt Ryan- Atlanta
4. Darren McFadden- Oakland
5. Glenn Dorsey- Kansas City
6. Vernon Gholston- New York Jets, Chicago
7. Sedrick Ellis- New Orleans
8. Derrick Harvey- Jacksonville, Denver, Cincinnati
9. Keith Rivers- Cincinnati, New York Giants
10. Jerod Mayo- New England
That's 14 teams for these 10 players. That's from 2008, which was four years ago. These high draft picks either stick with their team or have moved around because they are perceived to have talent. In the NFL, four years is a fairly long time. That's my point.
The 2007 draft has something in common with 2006: Four of the 10 top picks in each remain starters for the teams that drafted them. And there isn't a quarterback among the top 10 in those two drafts (Young, Leinart and JaMarcus Russell in 2007) still with the team that drafted him.
It's almost like the draft is a crapshoot in some ways.
But I bring you this list to make a point about the Houston Texans. They had a chance to re-sign the first pick in the 2006 draft, the man they hoped would be their defensive centerpiece and lead them to multiple division titles, Mario Williams. They let him walk.
A larger point that would also need to be made is the Texans have done a good job of drafting defensive players over the last few years. So they could afford to let Mario Williams walk, even though he's talented, because he has also had injury issues and they can come close replicating his production with other players on the roster. So he could have been the centerpiece of the defense, but his value slipped slightly to them once they drafted Cushing, Barwin and Reed.
For a team that finally won a division and a playoff game in its 10th season, the Texans certainly made a lot of changes. Two-fifths of a stalwart offensive line (right guard Mike Brisiel and right tackle Eric Winston) were allowed to walk. The right side of the linebacker group, Ryans and Williams, are gone too.
I personally believe the loss of two members of the offensive line is a bigger issue for the Texans than not re-signing an injury prone defensive end-turned-linebacker or a linebacker who doesn't fit the 3-4 defense. I think offensive line continuity is important, so I'm surprised Peter threw the fact the Texans lost the right side of their offensive line into this sentence so matter-of-factly.
Smith said he's studied NFL history at length, and he's studied business models of different business leaders. One that he's adopted is former GE boss Jack Welch's 20-70-10 philosophy: the top 20 percent of your employees are standouts and must be nurtured. The majority, the 70 percent, are the working class -- needed but still able to move if the right situation arises. The lowest 10 percent have to be churned and replaced, because a company always is looking for ways to get better by importing new blood.
This is an excellent business philosophy by the way. Jack Welch was always pretty good with business philosophies and as brutal as the 20-70-10 philosophy seems, it is a philosophy that translates well to sports.
As Brooks Reed and Barwin developed, Mario Williams suddenly became a part of the 70% to the Texans, but to the Bills he was part of the 20%. Since I don't harp on this enough, this is why Drew Brees signed the 6 year $60 million deal with the Saints in 2006 and the Chargers didn't make a bigger effort to give him a large contract. Because the Chargers had Phillip Rivers as the quarterback of the future, Brees had moved to the 70%. I think most of the NFL understands this, but I think it makes more sense if you think about it in business terms like this.
Smith didn't want to lose Williams, but it was a matter of economics; he had young guys who could get to the quarterback, maybe not as well as Williams. But all three combined wouldn't make what Williams was going to demand in free agency this year (he got a six-year, $100 million deal, with $50 million guaranteed).
This isn't a completely different concept from some of the Sabermetric principles some baseball teams use. If this were baseball, upon hearing this philosophy veteran baseball writers would grumble something under their breath about statistics taking over the game and then accusing Rick Smith of living in his mom's basement. Because there is a hard salary cap in football, using three players to replace one makes more sense to veteran writers. In baseball, where apparently money is limitless due to no hard salary cap, the allocation of players in this manner by using WAR causes veteran writers like Murray Chass to lose their shit.
History lesson with Norv Turner: He likes his backs to run a lot, and he doesn't care if the rest of the league is going to this consistent two-back business.
History lesson about Norv Turner: He is a great offensive coordinator. He is currently employed as a head coach, but he is a great offensive coordinator.
I'm going to have a little bit of a hard time thinking Norv Turner is a running back genius when over the past few years the Chargers have alienated LaDainian Tomlinson, let Michael Turner go in free agency, and let Darren Sproles go in free agency. I realize not all of these losses were preventable, but my larger point is they are all running backs who either weren't happy with the Chargers or had a great amount of success with another team, while the Chargers were looking for a consistent running threat.
Look at Turner's track record.
I sort of just did.
When he took over as Jimmy Johnson's offensive coordinator in 1991, Emmitt Smith's carries rose from 241 in 1990 to 365 in Turner's first year. In 2002 in Miami, the Dolphins had just acquired Ricky Williams and had just signed Turner as coordinator. Williams had his two biggest seasons for carries (383, 392) with Turner in Miami. And Frank Gore hit his career rushing high for attempts (312 carries) in Turner's only 49er season.
Not to pick nits, but these running back numbers were all accumulated when Norv Turner was an offensive coordinator and not a head coach. It probably doesn't matter, but I felt the need to add it.
"I really think this year's my time,'' Mathews said. "I see myself as one of the top backs in the league. Now I've got to go out and do it.''
I see myself as this nation's greatest writer, a humanitarian and the current leader for the 2016 Presidential race. Now I, much like Ryan Mathews, just have to match my own overly-optimistic belief about myself with reality. I'm guessing this won't be an issue.
The Chargers intend to feed Mathews as much as any back in the league. It'll be up to him to handle it.
Seeing as Mathews has had fumbling and injury issues in the past, I can't fathom what could go wrong with giving Mathews 400 touches in a season.
Now, more solid evidence that players were paid off the books in New Orleans
(Some New Orleans residents stick their fingers in their ears and scream) "Lalala, there's no proof."
As Williams handed some of the envelopes out, some players would chant: "Give it back! Give it back! Give it back!" Some would, to increase the pot and make the stakes bigger as the season went on. I also wrote that the NFL had evidence that one Saints player, late in the NFC title game in January 2010, when Brett Favre had been helped off the field, was heard on the sidelines to say: "Pay me my money!"
(Let's look at some of this evidence presented and see what excuse I would bet New Orleans residents or Saints fans could come up with to explain this so-called "evidence." I'm sure they would argue all of this is very innocent.)
See that last sentence is just street slang, not an attempt to collect on a bounty. "My money" means "my superior" or "my boss," much like money is what rules the world...hence the player refers to his boss as "my money" because the money rules him, much like a boss rules a person. This player was simply asking for a contract extension in the offseason. That's all. It's a money issue spoken about in street-slang.
Documentarian Sean Pamphilon, who was in the room during Williams' infamous speech to the team before last season's playoff game in San Francisco, had previously said Williams passed out money "for forced turnovers and big plays.'' He also said Williams rubbed his thumb and first two fingers together referring to putting a big hit on quarterback Alex Smith and saying, "I got the first one."
Not at all what Gregg Williams meant. Williams was rubbing his fingers together signifying Alex Smith was the #1 overall pick in the 2005 draft and got a huge contract as the #1 overall pick. Smith was also a free agent after the season. Williams was talking about ROSTER turnover and was telling the defense to not hit Smith too hard because he is going to come out of his own pocket to help pay for Smith's contract this offseason to secure Smith as Brees backup. Hence, "I got the first one," meaning I will help pay for the 2005 #1 overall pick to join the team as a backup next year. It's just a misunderstanding and concerned free agency.
Pamphilon, in a rambling blog entry the other day,
Really? Peter is criticizing someone else for rambling?
described Williams passing out envelopes for bonuses. Those payments are illegal by NFL rules, whether they were for performance-based accomplishments like turnovers or for bounty-related hits.
These envelopes weren't for bounty-related hits. These envelopes included a letter that was full of compliments to the players about how they played in the last game. Williams wrote a complimentary letter to each player and put it in an envelope with a piece of chocolate. These envelopes were about chocolate and team-building through politeness.
Pamphilon also confirmed how, while the envelopes were passed out, players chanted, "Give it back! Give it back!''
Easily explainable. The Saints players were chanting "Give it back!" because they wanted the players receiving the envelopes to compliment Gregg Williams on how well he coached the previous game. Really, this is just an issue of cordiality.
On Friday, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported the league has evidence that the Saints kept a ledger for each player, including tracking each player's number of cart-offs ($1,000 per debilitating hit) and "whacks" (hard hits), with money subtracted for mental errors.
It wasn't real money being used and this was not money for real games, but for cart-offs and "whacks" on the John Madden Football '92. We all know NFL players love playing video games and it gets pretty competitive. So Saints players were merely playing Madden '92 and paying each other in Monopoly money. I don't know why the NFL is punishing the Saints. Can players not participate in video games and use fake money from a popular board game in an attempt to incentivize victories on said video game?
Don't buy your dad, or your favorite father, anything for Father's Day (June 17) until you read the column next week.
Of course. Waiting until Monday to order something for Father's Day on Sunday is easily the most prudent course of action. After all, why figure out now what you want to purchase for your father when you can pay extra for 3-4 day shipping by waiting to see what Peter King thinks you should buy for your father?
In order to get the books you want, you'll have plenty of time to order via Amazon (I do it a lot, and the books, even via regular mail, take three days at the most)
And if your book happens to take longer, just blame Peter King. I'm sure your father will understand.
or by going to your hometown bookstore (my preferred mode of book shopping).
You mean all of those stores with books in them that are closing because everyone buys books online now?
"There was no bounty program in place. I never paid anybody, intended to pay anybody. That's the truth. Never sought out to injure people. That's the truth. That's really about it. I can't really go into detail."
Speaking of lying...here's Jim Harbaugh doing some lying:
"One other thing. There's the perception out there, and it's an erroneous perception, that we were flirting with Peyton Manning. I keep hearing that over and over and over again. It's silly and it's untrue. It's phony. Even the perception that we were pursuing him. We were evaluating him.
They were evaluating him with absolutely no intention of signing him of course. Head coaches and offensive coordinators often travel across the country to evaluate a quarterback they have absolutely no interest in signing.
Alex Smith is our quarterback, was our quarterback, and we had every intention of always bringing him back. There would be no circumstance that we would have let Alex Smith go.
Under no circumstance would the 49ers have let Smith go, other than if signing Peyton Manning, which is what the 49ers were actively attempting to do.
"Now, were we out there seeing, evaluating if we could have them both? Heck yeah.
Right, because quarterback is a position where you can have more than one starter. So by "having every intention of bring him (Smith) back" Harbaugh means "we were going to sign Peyton Manning and then have every intention of offering Smith a contract amount below what he wanted to receive as a starter in order to be the backup to Peyton Manning." If it came down to Manning or Smith, we know who would have been the starter. The answer is Peyton Manning.
And further evidence, we would not have given any player that was out there in free agency a sixth of our salary cap, and let six, or seven of our own guys go here.
So the 49ers weren't going to overpay for Peyton Manning? So I am to believe if Manning had chosen the 49ers they were going to say, "Thanks, but you are asking too much money?" Come on, they got in the Manning sweepstakes knowing he would be expensive. If Manning had chosen to play in San Francisco, the money would have worked itself out.
So, hopefully that sets the record straight and you don't have to keep reporting the silliness and phoniness."
Peter King then calls out Harbaugh for basically lying, except Peter doesn't call it lying. Of course the 49ers wanted to keep Smith and get Manning. That's natural, but Harbaugh knows if the 49ers had signed Peyton Manning they would never keep Alex Smith. Signing Manning to a large contract and then giving Alex Smith a chance to be the backup isn't wanting to keep Smith around. It's wanting to sign Peyton Manning and then hoping Alex Smith will stick around as the backup quarterback.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Otherwise known as "Peter King doesn't how to understand non-verbal cues."
Red-eying home from Los Angeles last Tuesday night. Flight leaves at 11:45 p.m. I get to the airport at 10:30 and go to the fish place/bar near the gate. I sit at a table for four and get my computer out. I have already eaten, so I order the most interesting of a group of drab beers on tap, Stella Artois.
A Stella Artois? BUT WHAT DID YOUR HUSBAND HAVE TO DRINK PETER?
At 10:50, a busboy comes around and starts putting chairs up on the tables. You know, the way chairs are put up at the end of a school day,
Or perhaps when a restaurant/bar is about to close?
The guy puts all three chairs up at my table, as if to say, Drink up, schmoe. We're closing soon. Except no one says anything.
Most likely because there wasn't anything to be said. As an experienced bar-closer, I know this is the universal way of saying, "We are closing. Drink fast because you will be leaving very soon."
Nothing needs to be said. This is the polite, non-verbal way of saying, "Get the hell out of here."
I give the guy a look and say, "Closing soon?'' He evidently doesn't speak English. He just shrugs.
That shrug, which apparently was another non-verbal cue, says the bar is indeed closing, as seen by freaking chairs being placed on the tables upside down, and he wishes someone had told you this before you got your computer out. Either way, the chairs being lifted upside down on the tables is a clear indicator the bar is closing.
Then, about five minutes later, the TVs go off.
This means, "please leave...now."
A minute later, about half the lights.
This means "Holy shit asshole, the only reason you aren't leaving right now is because you are just being a dick. Get the hell out of here."
A waitress goes to the front door and pulls down a metal gate to the place, then positions herself at a side door, which she loudly opens, and then just stands there.
At this point, Peter is just staying in the bar purely to piss the employees off. He knows this place is closing, but he just wants to be difficult and stay until they grab him by his head, look him in the eye and say, "Sir, we are closing." These are all non-verbal cues and Peter was confused by them at first and now he's just being an asshole about it all by not leaving.
I get the message. I pack up, walk out. Wouldn't it have been a little more civil to say, at 10:45, "Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be closing at 11. So everyone, please finish up. Thanks."
Perhaps the bar did that and Peter missed it because he was too busy typing away on his computer? Nah, this could never be Peter's fault he missed the announcement or can't seem to understand non-verbal cues.
"browns fun fact, Brandon Weeden will turn 29 this year, same age as Bernie Kosar when he was cut by Belichick in 1993 #Browns''
2. I think that sound you heard Sunday morning around 11 Jacksonville time was the sound of the entire Jaguars ownership/front office/coaching group doing a collective "What the $#%&*@?''
Blackmon's breathalyzer test measured at .24, and according to the Tulsa World, he had a previous DUI arrest in 2010. Driving under the influence of three times the legal limit, and with a prior incident, will certainly put Blackmon in the NFL's substance abuse program, and rightfully so. Talk about questioning the intelligence of a player in which you've placed so much hope for your franchise.
The annoying part for Jaguars fans is that this is Blackmon's second DUI in the past two years. You have to wonder if an athlete is stupid before he becomes a millionaire, is money really going to make him any smarter? Blackmon should at least go through training camp with Blaine Gabbert passing him the ball before he starts drinking while attempting to forget the passes that will be one-hopped to him all season.
4. I think the first thing every NFL player should know is that most teams -- and perhaps all by now -- have programs that allow players access to rides 24 hours a day if they feel they're too impaired to drive.
Regular people have access to a similar program when you feel too drunk to drive. It is called "a cab" or choosing a designated driver. That's your social message for today.
a. Almost a very big day for Rex Ryan in Los Angeles today. It's the red carpet premiere of That's My Boy, the Adam Sandler movie in which Ryan makes his big-screen debut. I wrote about it last fall. Anyway, Sandler put two more scenes of Ryan's work in the final product than he'd originally planned, which may mean Rex should quit his day job.
I wish Adam Sandler would quit his day/night/weekend job of making movies. His last good movie was probably a little under a decade ago. Still people go to see his films and the quality seems to be declining very rapidly. At this point, I think Adam Sandler is seeing how bad of a film he can make that some people will still go see.
e. Daniel Bard Sunday in Toronto: 13 batters, six walks, two hit batsmen. Hope he's not getting Steve Blass disease.
Or he could just be a really shitty starting pitcher and works better coming out of the bullpen.
f. One of the best nights I've spent in a long time happened last Wednesday, when my wife and I saw the Broadway play Clybourne Park. Plays that make you think are good things. Great things, actually.
l. Coffeenerdness: If I had one selfish wish for New York City, it'd be that Peet's Coffee proliferated here. Being in L.A. reminded me how lucky you on the West Coast are, to be able to get Peet's in so many locales.
The best part about Peet's Coffee, and this is something everyone I know seems to universally agree upon, is how when you open the coffee bag up the grounds smell exactly like a pile of horseshit. After being brewed, the coffee is pretty good, but the grounds smell like someone left a pile of turds in the corner of a male locker room.
m. The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is under attack because he wants to eliminate the ability of fast food places to sell super-sized sugary drinks. Under attack is putting it nicely. The papers are killing him. I think Bloomberg's doing the right thing. You can't fight the obesity epidemic in this country by suggesting mild solutions. You've got to fight it. And Bloomberg's trying. Good for him. And if people don't like it, then tax soda. Tax the daylights out of it, the way we tax cigarettes.
I'm fine with taxing the soda. I drink two sodas a day and am completely and utterly addicted to them. I would possibly switch to one soda a day if the price was jacked up. I don't particularly agree with trying to fight the obesity epidemic by preventing McDonald's from selling the super-sized sugary drinks. Mostly because if someone is eating at McDonald's it isn't necessarily the sugary drink that will hurt them, it is the food they are eating as well. I don't think you can stop people from becoming obese. If it isn't super-sized sugary drinks it will be something else that make people obese. For some reason, Americans love to over-eat or eat food that is terrible for them. I don't know how to stop this without creating a food police state.
n. Buddy of mine told me the other day, "Remember when we used to have the classic eight-ounce bottle of Coke that people used to drink? It was kind of a special thing. All Bloomberg's trying to do is to ban people from drinking more than twice that in the same sitting. What's wrong with that?''
Other than you are banning them from being able to choose what they get to eat and drink...nothing is wrong with this. If sugary drinks are legislated, people will find another way to get fat.
o. I'm not the biggest basketball fan, as you know. But I'd pay to see Rajon Rondo play, and I might pay quite a bit.
Well gosh, as a basketball fan this means nothing to me.
Before I get to the state of the Texans, and the running back driving fantasy football players crazy
Any running back who shares carries with another running back?
Six years shouldn't be forever in the NFL,
The average player's time in the NFL amounts to 3-4 years if I am not wrong. So six years is a long time in the NFL.
The top 10 players in the 2006 NFL draft have been employed by 19 teams through six seasons -- the smart teams don't stay married to guys when either the marriage isn't working or the priorities have changed.
How the mighty have moved since 2006:
Player, Position: Teams (current one in bold)
1. Mario Williams, DE: Houston, Buffalo
2. Reggie Bush, RB: New Orleans, Miami
3. Vince Young, QB: Tennessee, Philadelphia, Buffalo
4. D'Brickashaw Ferguson, T: New York Jets
5. A.J. Hawk, LB: Green Bay
6. Vernon Davis, TE: San Francisco
7. Michael Huff, S: Oakland
8. Donte Whitner, S: Buffalo, San Francisco
9. Ernie Sims, LB: Detroit, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Free agent
10.Matt Leinart, QB: Arizona, Houston, Oakland
1. JaMarcus Russell- Oakland (out of the league)
2. Calvin Johnson-Detroit
3. Joe Thomas- Cleveland
4. Gaines Adams- Tampa Bay, Chicago
5. Levi Brown- Arizona
6. LaRon Landry- Washington, New York Jets
7. Adrian Peterson- Minnesota
8. Jamaal Anderson- Atlanta, Indianapolis, Cincinnati
9. Ted Ginn Jr- Miami, San Francisco
10. Amobi Okoye- Houston, Chicago, Tampa
That's 17 teams over 5 years.
Look at the 2008 draft:
1. Jake Long- Miami
2. Chris Long- St. Louis
3. Matt Ryan- Atlanta
4. Darren McFadden- Oakland
5. Glenn Dorsey- Kansas City
6. Vernon Gholston- New York Jets, Chicago
7. Sedrick Ellis- New Orleans
8. Derrick Harvey- Jacksonville, Denver, Cincinnati
9. Keith Rivers- Cincinnati, New York Giants
10. Jerod Mayo- New England
That's 14 teams for these 10 players. That's from 2008, which was four years ago. These high draft picks either stick with their team or have moved around because they are perceived to have talent. In the NFL, four years is a fairly long time. That's my point.
The 2007 draft has something in common with 2006: Four of the 10 top picks in each remain starters for the teams that drafted them. And there isn't a quarterback among the top 10 in those two drafts (Young, Leinart and JaMarcus Russell in 2007) still with the team that drafted him.
It's almost like the draft is a crapshoot in some ways.
But I bring you this list to make a point about the Houston Texans. They had a chance to re-sign the first pick in the 2006 draft, the man they hoped would be their defensive centerpiece and lead them to multiple division titles, Mario Williams. They let him walk.
A larger point that would also need to be made is the Texans have done a good job of drafting defensive players over the last few years. So they could afford to let Mario Williams walk, even though he's talented, because he has also had injury issues and they can come close replicating his production with other players on the roster. So he could have been the centerpiece of the defense, but his value slipped slightly to them once they drafted Cushing, Barwin and Reed.
For a team that finally won a division and a playoff game in its 10th season, the Texans certainly made a lot of changes. Two-fifths of a stalwart offensive line (right guard Mike Brisiel and right tackle Eric Winston) were allowed to walk. The right side of the linebacker group, Ryans and Williams, are gone too.
I personally believe the loss of two members of the offensive line is a bigger issue for the Texans than not re-signing an injury prone defensive end-turned-linebacker or a linebacker who doesn't fit the 3-4 defense. I think offensive line continuity is important, so I'm surprised Peter threw the fact the Texans lost the right side of their offensive line into this sentence so matter-of-factly.
Smith said he's studied NFL history at length, and he's studied business models of different business leaders. One that he's adopted is former GE boss Jack Welch's 20-70-10 philosophy: the top 20 percent of your employees are standouts and must be nurtured. The majority, the 70 percent, are the working class -- needed but still able to move if the right situation arises. The lowest 10 percent have to be churned and replaced, because a company always is looking for ways to get better by importing new blood.
This is an excellent business philosophy by the way. Jack Welch was always pretty good with business philosophies and as brutal as the 20-70-10 philosophy seems, it is a philosophy that translates well to sports.
As Brooks Reed and Barwin developed, Mario Williams suddenly became a part of the 70% to the Texans, but to the Bills he was part of the 20%. Since I don't harp on this enough, this is why Drew Brees signed the 6 year $60 million deal with the Saints in 2006 and the Chargers didn't make a bigger effort to give him a large contract. Because the Chargers had Phillip Rivers as the quarterback of the future, Brees had moved to the 70%. I think most of the NFL understands this, but I think it makes more sense if you think about it in business terms like this.
Smith didn't want to lose Williams, but it was a matter of economics; he had young guys who could get to the quarterback, maybe not as well as Williams. But all three combined wouldn't make what Williams was going to demand in free agency this year (he got a six-year, $100 million deal, with $50 million guaranteed).
This isn't a completely different concept from some of the Sabermetric principles some baseball teams use. If this were baseball, upon hearing this philosophy veteran baseball writers would grumble something under their breath about statistics taking over the game and then accusing Rick Smith of living in his mom's basement. Because there is a hard salary cap in football, using three players to replace one makes more sense to veteran writers. In baseball, where apparently money is limitless due to no hard salary cap, the allocation of players in this manner by using WAR causes veteran writers like Murray Chass to lose their shit.
History lesson with Norv Turner: He likes his backs to run a lot, and he doesn't care if the rest of the league is going to this consistent two-back business.
History lesson about Norv Turner: He is a great offensive coordinator. He is currently employed as a head coach, but he is a great offensive coordinator.
I'm going to have a little bit of a hard time thinking Norv Turner is a running back genius when over the past few years the Chargers have alienated LaDainian Tomlinson, let Michael Turner go in free agency, and let Darren Sproles go in free agency. I realize not all of these losses were preventable, but my larger point is they are all running backs who either weren't happy with the Chargers or had a great amount of success with another team, while the Chargers were looking for a consistent running threat.
Look at Turner's track record.
I sort of just did.
When he took over as Jimmy Johnson's offensive coordinator in 1991, Emmitt Smith's carries rose from 241 in 1990 to 365 in Turner's first year. In 2002 in Miami, the Dolphins had just acquired Ricky Williams and had just signed Turner as coordinator. Williams had his two biggest seasons for carries (383, 392) with Turner in Miami. And Frank Gore hit his career rushing high for attempts (312 carries) in Turner's only 49er season.
Not to pick nits, but these running back numbers were all accumulated when Norv Turner was an offensive coordinator and not a head coach. It probably doesn't matter, but I felt the need to add it.
"I really think this year's my time,'' Mathews said. "I see myself as one of the top backs in the league. Now I've got to go out and do it.''
I see myself as this nation's greatest writer, a humanitarian and the current leader for the 2016 Presidential race. Now I, much like Ryan Mathews, just have to match my own overly-optimistic belief about myself with reality. I'm guessing this won't be an issue.
The Chargers intend to feed Mathews as much as any back in the league. It'll be up to him to handle it.
Seeing as Mathews has had fumbling and injury issues in the past, I can't fathom what could go wrong with giving Mathews 400 touches in a season.
Now, more solid evidence that players were paid off the books in New Orleans
(Some New Orleans residents stick their fingers in their ears and scream) "Lalala, there's no proof."
As Williams handed some of the envelopes out, some players would chant: "Give it back! Give it back! Give it back!" Some would, to increase the pot and make the stakes bigger as the season went on. I also wrote that the NFL had evidence that one Saints player, late in the NFC title game in January 2010, when Brett Favre had been helped off the field, was heard on the sidelines to say: "Pay me my money!"
(Let's look at some of this evidence presented and see what excuse I would bet New Orleans residents or Saints fans could come up with to explain this so-called "evidence." I'm sure they would argue all of this is very innocent.)
See that last sentence is just street slang, not an attempt to collect on a bounty. "My money" means "my superior" or "my boss," much like money is what rules the world...hence the player refers to his boss as "my money" because the money rules him, much like a boss rules a person. This player was simply asking for a contract extension in the offseason. That's all. It's a money issue spoken about in street-slang.
Documentarian Sean Pamphilon, who was in the room during Williams' infamous speech to the team before last season's playoff game in San Francisco, had previously said Williams passed out money "for forced turnovers and big plays.'' He also said Williams rubbed his thumb and first two fingers together referring to putting a big hit on quarterback Alex Smith and saying, "I got the first one."
Not at all what Gregg Williams meant. Williams was rubbing his fingers together signifying Alex Smith was the #1 overall pick in the 2005 draft and got a huge contract as the #1 overall pick. Smith was also a free agent after the season. Williams was talking about ROSTER turnover and was telling the defense to not hit Smith too hard because he is going to come out of his own pocket to help pay for Smith's contract this offseason to secure Smith as Brees backup. Hence, "I got the first one," meaning I will help pay for the 2005 #1 overall pick to join the team as a backup next year. It's just a misunderstanding and concerned free agency.
Pamphilon, in a rambling blog entry the other day,
Really? Peter is criticizing someone else for rambling?
described Williams passing out envelopes for bonuses. Those payments are illegal by NFL rules, whether they were for performance-based accomplishments like turnovers or for bounty-related hits.
These envelopes weren't for bounty-related hits. These envelopes included a letter that was full of compliments to the players about how they played in the last game. Williams wrote a complimentary letter to each player and put it in an envelope with a piece of chocolate. These envelopes were about chocolate and team-building through politeness.
Pamphilon also confirmed how, while the envelopes were passed out, players chanted, "Give it back! Give it back!''
Easily explainable. The Saints players were chanting "Give it back!" because they wanted the players receiving the envelopes to compliment Gregg Williams on how well he coached the previous game. Really, this is just an issue of cordiality.
On Friday, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported the league has evidence that the Saints kept a ledger for each player, including tracking each player's number of cart-offs ($1,000 per debilitating hit) and "whacks" (hard hits), with money subtracted for mental errors.
It wasn't real money being used and this was not money for real games, but for cart-offs and "whacks" on the John Madden Football '92. We all know NFL players love playing video games and it gets pretty competitive. So Saints players were merely playing Madden '92 and paying each other in Monopoly money. I don't know why the NFL is punishing the Saints. Can players not participate in video games and use fake money from a popular board game in an attempt to incentivize victories on said video game?
Don't buy your dad, or your favorite father, anything for Father's Day (June 17) until you read the column next week.
Of course. Waiting until Monday to order something for Father's Day on Sunday is easily the most prudent course of action. After all, why figure out now what you want to purchase for your father when you can pay extra for 3-4 day shipping by waiting to see what Peter King thinks you should buy for your father?
In order to get the books you want, you'll have plenty of time to order via Amazon (I do it a lot, and the books, even via regular mail, take three days at the most)
And if your book happens to take longer, just blame Peter King. I'm sure your father will understand.
or by going to your hometown bookstore (my preferred mode of book shopping).
You mean all of those stores with books in them that are closing because everyone buys books online now?
"There was no bounty program in place. I never paid anybody, intended to pay anybody. That's the truth. Never sought out to injure people. That's the truth. That's really about it. I can't really go into detail."
-- New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma in an impromptu interview with NFL.com's Ian Rapoport at the New Orleans airport last week. Good hustle by Rapoport.
Jonathan Vilma can't go into more detail because if he did go into more detail then he would really, really be lying instead of just sort-of lying.Speaking of lying...here's Jim Harbaugh doing some lying:
"One other thing. There's the perception out there, and it's an erroneous perception, that we were flirting with Peyton Manning. I keep hearing that over and over and over again. It's silly and it's untrue. It's phony. Even the perception that we were pursuing him. We were evaluating him.
They were evaluating him with absolutely no intention of signing him of course. Head coaches and offensive coordinators often travel across the country to evaluate a quarterback they have absolutely no interest in signing.
Alex Smith is our quarterback, was our quarterback, and we had every intention of always bringing him back. There would be no circumstance that we would have let Alex Smith go.
Under no circumstance would the 49ers have let Smith go, other than if signing Peyton Manning, which is what the 49ers were actively attempting to do.
"Now, were we out there seeing, evaluating if we could have them both? Heck yeah.
Right, because quarterback is a position where you can have more than one starter. So by "having every intention of bring him (Smith) back" Harbaugh means "we were going to sign Peyton Manning and then have every intention of offering Smith a contract amount below what he wanted to receive as a starter in order to be the backup to Peyton Manning." If it came down to Manning or Smith, we know who would have been the starter. The answer is Peyton Manning.
And further evidence, we would not have given any player that was out there in free agency a sixth of our salary cap, and let six, or seven of our own guys go here.
So the 49ers weren't going to overpay for Peyton Manning? So I am to believe if Manning had chosen the 49ers they were going to say, "Thanks, but you are asking too much money?" Come on, they got in the Manning sweepstakes knowing he would be expensive. If Manning had chosen to play in San Francisco, the money would have worked itself out.
So, hopefully that sets the record straight and you don't have to keep reporting the silliness and phoniness."
-- San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh.
As long as Harbaugh stops talking about Manning v. Smith, then no more silliness or phoniness will be reported.Peter King then calls out Harbaugh for basically lying, except Peter doesn't call it lying. Of course the 49ers wanted to keep Smith and get Manning. That's natural, but Harbaugh knows if the 49ers had signed Peyton Manning they would never keep Alex Smith. Signing Manning to a large contract and then giving Alex Smith a chance to be the backup isn't wanting to keep Smith around. It's wanting to sign Peyton Manning and then hoping Alex Smith will stick around as the backup quarterback.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Otherwise known as "Peter King doesn't how to understand non-verbal cues."
Red-eying home from Los Angeles last Tuesday night. Flight leaves at 11:45 p.m. I get to the airport at 10:30 and go to the fish place/bar near the gate. I sit at a table for four and get my computer out. I have already eaten, so I order the most interesting of a group of drab beers on tap, Stella Artois.
A Stella Artois? BUT WHAT DID YOUR HUSBAND HAVE TO DRINK PETER?
At 10:50, a busboy comes around and starts putting chairs up on the tables. You know, the way chairs are put up at the end of a school day,
Or perhaps when a restaurant/bar is about to close?
The guy puts all three chairs up at my table, as if to say, Drink up, schmoe. We're closing soon. Except no one says anything.
Most likely because there wasn't anything to be said. As an experienced bar-closer, I know this is the universal way of saying, "We are closing. Drink fast because you will be leaving very soon."
Nothing needs to be said. This is the polite, non-verbal way of saying, "Get the hell out of here."
I give the guy a look and say, "Closing soon?'' He evidently doesn't speak English. He just shrugs.
That shrug, which apparently was another non-verbal cue, says the bar is indeed closing, as seen by freaking chairs being placed on the tables upside down, and he wishes someone had told you this before you got your computer out. Either way, the chairs being lifted upside down on the tables is a clear indicator the bar is closing.
Then, about five minutes later, the TVs go off.
This means, "please leave...now."
A minute later, about half the lights.
This means "Holy shit asshole, the only reason you aren't leaving right now is because you are just being a dick. Get the hell out of here."
A waitress goes to the front door and pulls down a metal gate to the place, then positions herself at a side door, which she loudly opens, and then just stands there.
At this point, Peter is just staying in the bar purely to piss the employees off. He knows this place is closing, but he just wants to be difficult and stay until they grab him by his head, look him in the eye and say, "Sir, we are closing." These are all non-verbal cues and Peter was confused by them at first and now he's just being an asshole about it all by not leaving.
I get the message. I pack up, walk out. Wouldn't it have been a little more civil to say, at 10:45, "Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be closing at 11. So everyone, please finish up. Thanks."
Perhaps the bar did that and Peter missed it because he was too busy typing away on his computer? Nah, this could never be Peter's fault he missed the announcement or can't seem to understand non-verbal cues.
"browns fun fact, Brandon Weeden will turn 29 this year, same age as Bernie Kosar when he was cut by Belichick in 1993 #Browns''
-- @phyland341, Patrick Hyland of Cleveland, with a good observation on a quiet Saturday.
I'm not sure this is a fun fact for Browns fans. Nothing like drafting a 28 year old quarterback in the first round. By the way, Aaron Rodgers also turns 29 this year. Like I've said before, this is good news for Colt McCoy. He is younger than Brandon Weeden and could still theoretically be the quarterback of the future.2. I think that sound you heard Sunday morning around 11 Jacksonville time was the sound of the entire Jaguars ownership/front office/coaching group doing a collective "What the $#%&*@?''
Blackmon's breathalyzer test measured at .24, and according to the Tulsa World, he had a previous DUI arrest in 2010. Driving under the influence of three times the legal limit, and with a prior incident, will certainly put Blackmon in the NFL's substance abuse program, and rightfully so. Talk about questioning the intelligence of a player in which you've placed so much hope for your franchise.
The annoying part for Jaguars fans is that this is Blackmon's second DUI in the past two years. You have to wonder if an athlete is stupid before he becomes a millionaire, is money really going to make him any smarter? Blackmon should at least go through training camp with Blaine Gabbert passing him the ball before he starts drinking while attempting to forget the passes that will be one-hopped to him all season.
4. I think the first thing every NFL player should know is that most teams -- and perhaps all by now -- have programs that allow players access to rides 24 hours a day if they feel they're too impaired to drive.
Regular people have access to a similar program when you feel too drunk to drive. It is called "a cab" or choosing a designated driver. That's your social message for today.
a. Almost a very big day for Rex Ryan in Los Angeles today. It's the red carpet premiere of That's My Boy, the Adam Sandler movie in which Ryan makes his big-screen debut. I wrote about it last fall. Anyway, Sandler put two more scenes of Ryan's work in the final product than he'd originally planned, which may mean Rex should quit his day job.
I wish Adam Sandler would quit his day/night/weekend job of making movies. His last good movie was probably a little under a decade ago. Still people go to see his films and the quality seems to be declining very rapidly. At this point, I think Adam Sandler is seeing how bad of a film he can make that some people will still go see.
e. Daniel Bard Sunday in Toronto: 13 batters, six walks, two hit batsmen. Hope he's not getting Steve Blass disease.
Or he could just be a really shitty starting pitcher and works better coming out of the bullpen.
f. One of the best nights I've spent in a long time happened last Wednesday, when my wife and I saw the Broadway play Clybourne Park. Plays that make you think are good things. Great things, actually.
This one opens in a Chicago neighborhood in 1959, with the first black family buying a home there, and the second act is exactly 50 years later,
So the first black family EVER bought a home in 1959? There were no black families before 1959? You learn so much reading MMQB.
with a white yuppie family buying the beat-up home so they can, in effect, begin the gentrification of the neighborhood. A fabulous look at who we are and how we think about race relations. In my best theater-going voice, I'd say: Run, don't walk, to Clybourne Park.
Buying tickets for a flight to New York on short notice probably isn't very expensive at all. Let me go book one right now.l. Coffeenerdness: If I had one selfish wish for New York City, it'd be that Peet's Coffee proliferated here. Being in L.A. reminded me how lucky you on the West Coast are, to be able to get Peet's in so many locales.
The best part about Peet's Coffee, and this is something everyone I know seems to universally agree upon, is how when you open the coffee bag up the grounds smell exactly like a pile of horseshit. After being brewed, the coffee is pretty good, but the grounds smell like someone left a pile of turds in the corner of a male locker room.
m. The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is under attack because he wants to eliminate the ability of fast food places to sell super-sized sugary drinks. Under attack is putting it nicely. The papers are killing him. I think Bloomberg's doing the right thing. You can't fight the obesity epidemic in this country by suggesting mild solutions. You've got to fight it. And Bloomberg's trying. Good for him. And if people don't like it, then tax soda. Tax the daylights out of it, the way we tax cigarettes.
I'm fine with taxing the soda. I drink two sodas a day and am completely and utterly addicted to them. I would possibly switch to one soda a day if the price was jacked up. I don't particularly agree with trying to fight the obesity epidemic by preventing McDonald's from selling the super-sized sugary drinks. Mostly because if someone is eating at McDonald's it isn't necessarily the sugary drink that will hurt them, it is the food they are eating as well. I don't think you can stop people from becoming obese. If it isn't super-sized sugary drinks it will be something else that make people obese. For some reason, Americans love to over-eat or eat food that is terrible for them. I don't know how to stop this without creating a food police state.
n. Buddy of mine told me the other day, "Remember when we used to have the classic eight-ounce bottle of Coke that people used to drink? It was kind of a special thing. All Bloomberg's trying to do is to ban people from drinking more than twice that in the same sitting. What's wrong with that?''
Other than you are banning them from being able to choose what they get to eat and drink...nothing is wrong with this. If sugary drinks are legislated, people will find another way to get fat.
o. I'm not the biggest basketball fan, as you know. But I'd pay to see Rajon Rondo play, and I might pay quite a bit.
Well gosh, as a basketball fan this means nothing to me.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
6 comments Yes, But How Does a Team Know They Are Reaching?
Ashley Fox has written an article titled "Reaching in the draft is always a mistake." This is absolutely true. The problem that arrives in my mind is how a team knows they are reaching? I'm not sure that question gets answered sufficiently for my taste. It's almost like telling a starting pitcher to "just start throwing strikes" or a basketball player to "just hit your free throws." I'm sure they would if they could. A team wouldn't reach, but first they have to know they are reaching. I'm don't know if team realize they are reaching, instead they fall in love with a quarterback and make the decision to draft him because they need a quarterback. I also think Ashley Fox is confusing poor drafting with "reaching." She is telling the Browns and Dolphins not to reach for a quarterback in the draft, but I'm not sure Ryan Tannehill is a reach at #8 because other NFL teams are interested in drafting him in a spot close to that pick as well.
Teams reach. It happens every April. Whether motivated by desperation or fear or ego, some general manager or team president or coach is willing to draft a player too high to fill a pressing need.
Very true. Some team is going to reach for a quarterback this year in the NFL Draft. The problem is if a team like Jacksonville wants Blaine Gabbert, they are going to have to draft him before any other team can draft him. So if Gabbert was projected to go mid-first round, the Jags have to trade up to get Gabbert at the #10 spot. That's how it works. So Gabbert probably wasn't a reach last year at the #10 spot because other teams were interested in him at that spot as well. Mostly, a team reaches for a player because other teams like that same player and that team wants to make sure they are able to draft him. This happened to my favorite team when they traded up to get Armanti Edwards. I'm not sure they reached for him in the 3rd round of the 2010 draft, but other teams wanted him and Carolina wanted him, so they had to make a move to get him.
Whoever holds the power of making the ultimate personnel decisions for a team hopes a player can pan out rather than knowing that he will, because the need is so great.
It's human nature though. A team has a glaring need and the team wants to fill that need. To use a Bill Simmons-like metaphor, it's like being at an swiftly emptying bar at 1:30am. If you want accompaniment home from a male or female, you start seeing things you want to see in that person. It's either that or drunkenly watch "Anchorman" until 4am alone like you usually do. So General Managers see a quarterback like Ryan Tannehill, see he only has 19 starts under his belt (so he has the ability to improve!), see how good his arm is, how much he looks like a quarterback and all of a sudden if Miami wants him they have to take him at the #8 spot.
If the Dolphins were the only team interested in Tannehill at #8, then they would be reaching by drafting him there. But they aren't, so based on the overall opinion of NFL teams on Tannehill, I don't know if he is a reach at #8. That doesn't mean picking him is a smart pick though. If the Browns trade up to draft Brandon Weeden in the first round, then they could very well be reaching for him since I'm not sure he's projected to go that high.
Reaching is never a good idea.
But how do you stop it? A team needs a quarterback, likes a certain quarterback and draft him before another team can get him.
In this year's draft, the clear consensus is that there are two players who are legitimate NFL starting quarterbacks. Indianapolis is going to take Andrew Luck with the No. 1 overall pick. Washington is going to take Robert Griffin III with the No. 2 overall pick.
Is this clear though? What if Robert Griffin becomes just a good quarterback, someone like Kyle Orton, David Garrard or Matt Cassell? Were the amount of picks the Redskins gave up for him worth this type of player? There are no sure things in the NFL Draft. Yes, Andrew Luck appears to be a Matt Ryan-type of player at worst, but you never know. Robert Griffin could bust or just be average and then the Redskins gave up way too much for him. I don't think we can say he is a legitimate NFL quarterback.
Texas A&M's Ryan Tannehill might develop into a starter, with time and teaching. Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden might use his age to his advantage and become a starter, too.
There is no reason for Cleveland, holding the No. 4 overall pick, or Miami, holding the No. 8, to pick either one where they currently sit. None.
I do agree with Ashley Fox in principle on this. I don't like Tannehill, so I wouldn't draft him in these spots. If I am Miami and Cleveland and I feel the way I personally feel right now about Tannehill/Weeden, then I don't draft these two quarterbacks in the 1st round. I'm not Cleveland or Miami though. If they really truly like Tannehill and want to draft him, then they should make this pick. Otherwise, they'll miss on getting him.
It is the smart, prudent way to go, because the last thing either team needs is to pick Cade McNown or Joey Harrington or, gulp, Tim Couch in the first round.
This is revisionist history. Joey Harrington did rise after a good Combine, but he was projected to go in the Top 5. So Detroit wanted a quarterback and had to draft him at #3 in 2002. Take a look at several mock drafts that had Harrington going in the Top 5, even not going to Detroit. So it wasn't just Detroit that liked him.
Unless you are the Colts or Redskins, it is a bad time to need a bona fide starting quarterback.
So even if a front office likes Ryan Tannehill, don't bother drafting him. You are wrong. Ashley Fox says so. Apparently it's a fact.
Like I said, I agree with her on Tannehill. But we have to remember teams really genuinely like Tannehill. No matter if the Dolphins are talking themselves into drafting Tannehill or they are using Mike Sherman's (he is on the Dolphins staff now and was Tannehill's coach at Texas A&M) knowledge of Tannehill to their advantage, they may like him and want to draft him. That doesn't mean they are reaching for him.
It's not like the Browns didn't try to move up. They did. Washington offered more.
Teams reach. It happens every April. Whether motivated by desperation or fear or ego, some general manager or team president or coach is willing to draft a player too high to fill a pressing need.
Very true. Some team is going to reach for a quarterback this year in the NFL Draft. The problem is if a team like Jacksonville wants Blaine Gabbert, they are going to have to draft him before any other team can draft him. So if Gabbert was projected to go mid-first round, the Jags have to trade up to get Gabbert at the #10 spot. That's how it works. So Gabbert probably wasn't a reach last year at the #10 spot because other teams were interested in him at that spot as well. Mostly, a team reaches for a player because other teams like that same player and that team wants to make sure they are able to draft him. This happened to my favorite team when they traded up to get Armanti Edwards. I'm not sure they reached for him in the 3rd round of the 2010 draft, but other teams wanted him and Carolina wanted him, so they had to make a move to get him.
Whoever holds the power of making the ultimate personnel decisions for a team hopes a player can pan out rather than knowing that he will, because the need is so great.
It's human nature though. A team has a glaring need and the team wants to fill that need. To use a Bill Simmons-like metaphor, it's like being at an swiftly emptying bar at 1:30am. If you want accompaniment home from a male or female, you start seeing things you want to see in that person. It's either that or drunkenly watch "Anchorman" until 4am alone like you usually do. So General Managers see a quarterback like Ryan Tannehill, see he only has 19 starts under his belt (so he has the ability to improve!), see how good his arm is, how much he looks like a quarterback and all of a sudden if Miami wants him they have to take him at the #8 spot.
If the Dolphins were the only team interested in Tannehill at #8, then they would be reaching by drafting him there. But they aren't, so based on the overall opinion of NFL teams on Tannehill, I don't know if he is a reach at #8. That doesn't mean picking him is a smart pick though. If the Browns trade up to draft Brandon Weeden in the first round, then they could very well be reaching for him since I'm not sure he's projected to go that high.
Reaching is never a good idea.
But how do you stop it? A team needs a quarterback, likes a certain quarterback and draft him before another team can get him.
In this year's draft, the clear consensus is that there are two players who are legitimate NFL starting quarterbacks. Indianapolis is going to take Andrew Luck with the No. 1 overall pick. Washington is going to take Robert Griffin III with the No. 2 overall pick.
Is this clear though? What if Robert Griffin becomes just a good quarterback, someone like Kyle Orton, David Garrard or Matt Cassell? Were the amount of picks the Redskins gave up for him worth this type of player? There are no sure things in the NFL Draft. Yes, Andrew Luck appears to be a Matt Ryan-type of player at worst, but you never know. Robert Griffin could bust or just be average and then the Redskins gave up way too much for him. I don't think we can say he is a legitimate NFL quarterback.
Texas A&M's Ryan Tannehill might develop into a starter, with time and teaching. Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden might use his age to his advantage and become a starter, too.
Might.
Yes, but let's pretend I am the GM of Miami Dolphins. I want/need a quarterback, but I don't want to spend a 1st round pick on one. Will I be happy with Kirk Cousins, if I don't like Brandon Weeden? If not, and I like Tannehill, then I am going to need to make a move to get Tannehill. If I don't move to get Tannehill, I won't get a quarterback in the draft I like. Is it worse to draft a quarterback in the 2nd round you don't really like much, rather then take a chance on a quarterback you really like in the 1st round? So yes, "might" is the key word. But if Cleveland wants to get Tannehill with the 12th pick in the first round and they have the picks to make this move (which they very well could), then Miami has to "reach" for Tannehill to get him. That's how teams reach. Miami can't decide they want Tannehill in the 2nd round and that's the only place they'll draft him. He'll be gone by then.There is no reason for Cleveland, holding the No. 4 overall pick, or Miami, holding the No. 8, to pick either one where they currently sit. None.
I do agree with Ashley Fox in principle on this. I don't like Tannehill, so I wouldn't draft him in these spots. If I am Miami and Cleveland and I feel the way I personally feel right now about Tannehill/Weeden, then I don't draft these two quarterbacks in the 1st round. I'm not Cleveland or Miami though. If they really truly like Tannehill and want to draft him, then they should make this pick. Otherwise, they'll miss on getting him.
It is the smart, prudent way to go, because the last thing either team needs is to pick Cade McNown or Joey Harrington or, gulp, Tim Couch in the first round.
This is revisionist history. Joey Harrington did rise after a good Combine, but he was projected to go in the Top 5. So Detroit wanted a quarterback and had to draft him at #3 in 2002. Take a look at several mock drafts that had Harrington going in the Top 5, even not going to Detroit. So it wasn't just Detroit that liked him.
Unless you are the Colts or Redskins, it is a bad time to need a bona fide starting quarterback.
So even if a front office likes Ryan Tannehill, don't bother drafting him. You are wrong. Ashley Fox says so. Apparently it's a fact.
Like I said, I agree with her on Tannehill. But we have to remember teams really genuinely like Tannehill. No matter if the Dolphins are talking themselves into drafting Tannehill or they are using Mike Sherman's (he is on the Dolphins staff now and was Tannehill's coach at Texas A&M) knowledge of Tannehill to their advantage, they may like him and want to draft him. That doesn't mean they are reaching for him.
It's not like the Browns didn't try to move up. They did. Washington offered more.
It's not like the Dolphins didn't try to land Manning. They did. He chose to go elsewhere.
But just because Cleveland couldn't move up doesn't mean it should try to overcompensate by drafting a quarterback now. It won't work. It will be a wasted pick.
The premise of these statements are based on Ashley Fox's opinion. That's my issue. She tells teams not to reach, but how is she to know these will be wasted picks? The Bengals last year could have thrown in the towel if they didn't get Locker, Newton, Ponder or Gabbert last year, but they took a 2nd round chance on Andy Dalton. It has paid off so far. So yes, I am against reaching, but there is a difference in reaching for a quarterback in an earlier round then that quarterback's talent deserves and drafting a player who doesn't pan out.
If you read the tea leaves, it seems pretty clear that Browns president Mike Holmgren and general manager Tom Heckert, two smart football men who know how to evaluate talent, aren't convinced Colt McCoy is the answer. He would be a solid backup, yes, but he is not a starter with whom you can win.
I also believe this to be true. So what are the Browns to do? Not draft a QB this year? That may be the best course of action, but this means they will go another season without a quarterback.
McCoy another weapon and bide time until next year, when the draft and free agency will provide a few more options.
It's not like the Browns don't have other needs. They don't have a running back. The Browns, which led the league in drops last season, have no clear No. 1 receiver. They need a right tackle.
I think Ashley Fox is getting "reaching" and "making a bad pick" confused. The Browns would not be reaching to get Ryan Tannehill if they drafted him in the early 1st round because that's where he is projected to go. They very well could be making a bad pick though...but they aren't reaching.
Back in December, after he completed his collegiate career with just one full season as a starter, Tannehill was considered a second-round pick. He is still viewed as a raw talent who will benefit from at least a year on the sideline, but he has vaulted into the top 10 of just about every mock draft out there because Miami needs a quarterback.
No, he hasn't vaulted up that high because Miami needs a quarterback. He has vaulted that high because Seattle, Miami, and Kansas City (maybe) need a quarterback. If Miami was the only team that needed a quarterback then Tannehill probably wouldn't rise in any mock drafts because it often takes more than one team wanting a player to cause that player's stock to rise. If Miami is the only team in the 1st round who wanted Tannehill they could trade back back and get him, so his stock wouldn't be really rising.
If Tannehill is available at No. 8, will Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland take him, even if he knows it would be a reach?
But it wouldn't be a reach because another team (like Cleveland) would probably consider taking him there. I hope I am making this point clear enough. Tannehill isn't a reach at #8 because there are more than one team that would consider trading up for him. My dark horse for Tannehill is Arizona.
In the last 13 drafts, 37 quarterbacks have been picked in the first round. Not counting last year's rookie class, it is fair to say that half of them have had, or are having, so-so-to-unimpressive careers.
Let's take a peek at this. I will list the draft year, the quarterbacks that came out of the draft and whether they were worth the pick (by writing "yes") or not (by writing "no").
1999: Cade McNown (no), Donovan McNabb (yes), Daunte Culpepper (yes), Akili Smith (no), Tim Couch (no)
2000: Chad Pennington (yes)
2001: Mike Vick (yes)
2002: David Carr (no), Patrick Ramsey (no), Joey Harrington (no)
2003: Kyle Boller (no), Rex Grossman (ugh...no), Byron Leftwich (yes), Carson Palmer (yes)
2004: Eli Manning (yes), Ben Roethlisberger (yes), Philip Rivers (yes), J.P. Losman (no)
2005: Alex Smith (yes), Aaron Rodgers (no...just wanted to see if you were paying attention...yes), Jason Campbell (yes)
2006: Vince Young (yes), Matt Leinart (no), Jay Cutler (yes)
2007: JaMarcus Russell (no), Brady Quinn (no)
2008: Matt Ryan (yes), Joe Flacco (yes)
2009: Matthew Stafford (yes), Josh Freeman (yes), Mark Sanchez (yes)
2010: Sam Bradford (so far), Tim Tebow (so far)
2011: Cam Newton (so far), Blaine Gabbert (not yet), Christian Ponder (so far), Jake Locker (too soon to tell)
So lately teams have had pretty good luck drafting quarterbacks high in the draft. I have 21 of out 33 quarterbacks who had a serviceable or very good NFL career (I'm not counting quarterbacks drafted in 2011. It's too early to tell). Granted some of these quarterbacks may not have lived up to their draft status, but that doesn't mean teams reached to draft these guys. Again, I think if other teams were interested in these quarterbacks at the spot where they were drafted, then the team that did draft the quarterback didn't reach. Did that team draft poorly? Possibly, but there is a difference in reaching and drafting poorly.
There is Joe Flacco, but there is also Kyle Boller.
Here is the issue I have though. Flacco rose quickly to the first round of the 2008 NFL Draft. He wasn't a guy who was considered a first-round lock back in February prior to the draft...much like Boller was. So there is a thin line between a player rising because he is talented and a player rising because teams are quarterback desperate. It turns out Flacco was talented, while Boller was probably drafted because the Ravens needed a quarterback and he seemed to have a great skill set. We don't know this until after the draft though. If NFL teams could tell that difference in them being desperate for a quarterback and a college quarterback who actually has a great skill set, then they would never draft a quarterback who fails in the NFL.
The process is hard enough. Reaching with a pick and hoping you are right only compounds the problem.
Again, how does a team know they are reaching? I am not privy to an NFL team's draft strategy, but I would doubt a team takes a quarterback in the first round they don't believe can succeed in the NFL. Yes, teams can talk themselves into a quarterback based on desperation, but I don't think a team is reaching for a quarterback if other teams are interested in that player around the spot where that quarterback ends up being drafted. You can't say any quarterback who was an NFL bust was a "reach." So basically Ashley Fox is telling NFL teams to draft successful quarterbacks. I'm pretty sure are trying to do that anyway.
Monday, January 2, 2012
10 comments TMQ: Gregg Easterbrook's Unwanted Column
This week is my least favorite TMQ of the year. I do not like the unwanted players All-Star list that Gregg compiles every year towards the end of the year. Gregg consistently puts players on the list who were unwanted 5-7 years ago, were unwanted for a reason (they were a bust at one point) and he has a very broad definition of the word "unwanted." For example, Jason Babin is on the list. Being a first round pick and a highly drafted glory boy we all know Gregg Easterbrook would generally consider Babin to be a bust highly paid glory boy, but now when Babin plays well he was "unwanted" and his previous teams should have kept him around. Funny how that works.
As always, Gregg Easterbrook wants it both ways. He wants to criticize a team for drafting an overpaid, highly drafted glory boy like Jason Babin, but then after Babin flourishes with another team, Gregg also wants to criticize Babin's previous teams for not holding on to him. Gregg is an expert at telling NFL teams what they should do after the fact. Gregg has no long term memory and he does absolutely no investigation into WHY a player was unwanted or undrafted. Also, I will do a (shortened) version of my Drew Brees-Miami Dolphins rant everyone is already tired of. Don't act like you aren't excited. Let's get to it.
Tuesday night the NFL announces its Pro Bowl rosters: Megabucks glory-boy types will hear their names called.
Because they tend to outperform undrafted free agents and lower drafted players. This is a fact that Gregg struggles to come to terms with on a weekly basis. Hence we get this unwanted All-Stars column where a second-team offensive tackle (Byron Bell) can be an All-Star simply because he has started a lot of games this year. Who cares if his performance has been average or below average? He was undrafted and unwanted!
But the players who catch TMQ's eye are the unwanted: performers, those who were undrafted, or waived, or both.
I would like to add that in the salary cap era of the NFL, a player being waived doesn't mean a team believes that player isn't very good anymore nor does it mean the player may not potentially be valuable to the team anymore either. It simply means sometimes players make too much money or want too much money as a free agent to be affordable to a team. This is vitally important to understand when evaluating in the salary cap era why a team keeps certain players over other players. Gregg, not surprisingly, fails to grasp this idea. In the salary cap era, a team may want to keep a player, but simply can't due to salary cap restrictions. Gregg pretends he pays heed to the idea of the salary cap, yet fails consistently to do so.
In most of life, hard work and determination are more important than social status or talent.
More evidence, if more was needed, that Gregg Easterbrook sometimes lives in a different America from the rest of us. My college roommate had a saying, "It's who you know and who you blow." Perhaps that's a negative way to look at the world, but in part of life it is true. In the NFL, talent tends to get drafted over players who are perceived as having less talent and eventually hard work can pay off in the real world as well. You just better hope you aren't competing for the same position at a company against current employees or the relative of an influential employee of that company.
That's why Tuesday Morning Quarterback lauds hard work and determination on the part of football players who were not born into success, but reached success through constant effort.
Let's be clear here. Nearly every single NFL player was a superstar at some level, even if it wasn't in college. So these players weren't born into success, but at some point in their career most NFL players were big fishes in little ponds at the very least.
First, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Unwanted Players of the Year.
I promise. I will edit this down as much as possible since Gregg and my opinion of what "unwanted" differs so drastically. I also find it ironic that Gregg talks about "Christmas Creep" for most of the NFL season and his readers write in with other stories of events "creeping," yet Gregg gives out his All-Unwanted awards and THE NFL YEAR ISN'T EVEN OVER YET! Is this "Unwanted All-Star Creep?"
Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."
Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.
At the point Jackson broke his leg, he was second in the NFL in rushing and second in total yards from scrimmage, outperforming an array of No. 1-drafted megabucks players.
I don't even know why teams keep first round draft choices on the roster. They should only sign undrafted free agents.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Unwanted Player of the Year: Doug Baldwin, Seattle. Two rookie wide receivers named Baldwin entered the NFL this season. Jonathan Baldwin, a No. 1 draft selection, has been nearly invisible with his team, the Kansas City Chiefs. Doug Baldwin, undrafted, became the leading receiver for the Seattle Seahawks and also is a special-teams ace, with a punt block that caused a Seattle touchdown on "Monday Night Football."
Doug Baldwin played better for one year than a highly drafted receiver who also had the last name Baldwin. That appears to be Gregg's point.
In other football news, the fans cheered wildly at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis when the hapless 1-13 Colts scored with 19 seconds remaining to upset the heavily favored Texans. This victory may deprive Indianapolis of first choice in the 2012 draft.
Why do the Colts even want the first choice in the 2012 draft? Shouldn't the Colts win as many games as possible and trade all of their players for 7th round draft picks? After all, why would the Colts want highly drafted, highly paid glory boys when they can get hard working lowly drafted, unwanted players?
If the Colts end up choosing second or third next spring, and Andrew Luck ends up as the only consensus franchise quarterback in the draft -- that could change, of course -- Indianapolis faithful may rue the day they cheered for the upset of the Texans.
I love how Gregg moves notes the worth of highly drafted players when it is convenient for him, but otherwise tries to convince his audience highly drafted players are lazy and don't work as hard as undrafted players.
Then again, perhaps the Indianapolis plan is to stick with Dan Orlovsky long-term. After all, he took over an 0-11 team and has now won two straight.
Of all the options the Colts have, this would by far be the worst option. Sure Gregg, let's ignore Orlovsky's entire body of work to focus on the last two games.
Stats of the Week No. 5: The AFC West has been outscored by 252 points.
And yet, Denver gets to host a home playoff game against 12-4 Pittsburgh. If I could change one thing about the NFL playoffs, this may be it. I just think a team like Pittsburgh, who didn't win their division granted, that went 12-4 in a division with three playoff teams should be rewarded with a home playoff game over an 8-8 team from a weak division. This is a nitpick of course, but if the NFL could change one thing about the playoffs, I think this would be it for me.
Baltimore now leading 17-0, the Browns faced goal-to-go on the Ravens' 3 with 11 seconds remaining until intermission, out of timeouts. Coach Pat Shurmur called a run to Hillis, stuffed; the half expired without Cleveland having time to send out its field goal unit. The CBS announcers mocked Shurmur for not getting a kick launched. But Cleveland trailed by 17 points! The Browns needed a touchdown, and Shurmur thought a rush would surprise a defense that was expecting a fade to the end zone,
The defense was expecting a fade to the end zone...which is why the Ravens stuffed the run to Hillis. I agree with the idea of going for a touchdown, but how can Gregg say the defense was expecting a fade when the Ravens easily stuffed the Browns running play? Doesn't it make sense to believe the Ravens were looking for a running play? Why does Gregg just make up what he believes the defense was looking for?
Jersey/B leading 7-3, Jersey/A faced third-and-10 from its 1-yard line. Eli Manning retreated into his end zone and threw a 10-yard curl to undrafted Victor Cruz, who legged it all 99 yards for a touchdown -- very sweet.
The play lasted 12 seconds, a long time in sports terms, yet no one from Jersey/B caught Cruz. Safety Brodney Pool, who had an angle, quit on the play and began jogging when Cruz was 30 yards from the house.
Pool had "an angle" in that he wasn't going to catch Cruz and would have had to make up 5 yards of distance between him and Cruz in those 30 yards. But yeah Gregg, sure Pool would have caught him. What a lazy bum.
Jersey/B surrendered a safety as defensive tackle Chris Canty bull-rushed past guard Matt Slauson to sack Mark Sanchez: a fitting conclusion to a sour effort all around by the Jets.
Don't you mean highly drafted glory boy Chris Canty bull-rushed lowly drafted, hard working Matt Slauson?
Two Cheers for Ndamukong: Ndamukong Suh soared in your columnist's estimation with the news that last year he gave away $2.6 million, more than any other pro athlete. Donating to charity, education or the arts is among the strongest signs of admirable character.
This is an absolutely admirable act. Don't get me wrong. Gregg is leaving an important part out of this story though. Suh gave $2 million to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Suh's alma mater, for a scholarship fund. So this is very admirable, but Suh did give the money back to his alma mater and not an actual "charity," though the funds will be used for scholarships. Suh is a great guy for this still, of course.
Scoring to pull within 27-24 with 1:51 remaining, Miami kicked away rather than onside kick. Yes, the Dolphins held three timeouts. But they were on the road, kicking away to one of the league's most proficient offenses; all New England needed was one first down to drill the clock. Needless to say, that's what happened. Miami had a better (though still long-shot) chance of victory had it onside kicked.
Assuming the Dolphins didn't recover the onside kick, the Dolphins would still have had to stop the Patriots. Statistically, the Dolphins probably weren't likely to recover the onside kick so the Dolphins were trying to ensure they got good field position if they stopped the Patriots. I think the decision to kick the ball away was at least defensible.
But seeking victory is not always first in a coach's mind. Interim head coach Todd Bowles would have known that if he ordered a deep kick, the Dolphins would all but surely lose -- but they would lose only 27-24. The league grapevine would say, "Hey, the Dolphins went into New England in December and only lost by three," improving the odds that Bowles will convert his Miami interim status into the plum job at Miami or elsewhere.
I personally would have kicked an onside kick here, but I can see why Bowles did not. Also, I always love it when Gregg displays his special ability to read a coach's mind as to why he made this or that decision. Gregg is omnipotent and can decipher intent from a single act. Come to think of it, Gregg should have been a criminal attorney since he knows how to decipher intent so well. He could be using his amazing ability to decipher the exact intent of a person for the good of society, but instead he is selfishly using his gift to decipher the intent of NFL and college head coaches.
A Tale of Two Turnovers: On the first Tim Tebow pick-six at Buffalo, the Bills led 26-14; Denver had abandoned its high school-inspired triple-option attack for straight dropback passing. Obviously Tebow isn't ready for this.
He's not ready to throw the football like an NFL quarterback should throw the football? So is the hope just that the Broncos always have the lead so the Broncos can run the type of offense Tebow is ready for? I'm just wondering about this. Tebow has been in the NFL for full two years. If he isn't ready to run a pro-style offense yet, does this bode well for his future?
John Fox continues to make ultra-conservative game management decisions, which hardly helps Tebow.
You mean "John Fox continues coaching like he has coached his entire NFL head coaching career." Remember, a punt is not a bad play.
The pass interference came on an eight-man mega-blitz that backfired badly. The mega-blitz was radioed in by backup defensive coordinator Reggie Herring. Starting defensive coordinator Wade Phillips, still in the hospital, never would have made such a boneheaded call.
Gregg's omnipotence helps him prove yet another point he wants to prove. It's amazing how Gregg can create evidence out of thin air that Wade Phillips NEVER would have made such a boneheaded call and just happens to prove how a terrible "mega-blitz" singlehandedly lost the game for the Texans with this evidence. It's amazing how this works.
Of course "Terra Nova" is just an absurd television show. But since Fox promoted it as the most expensive program ever made, "Nova" merits an absurd level of scrutiny.
FOX didn't market the show as the most expensive program ever made. YOU marketed it in TMQ as the most expensive program ever made. If it weren't for Gregg Easterbrook I would have had no idea how much the show cost. Maybe I'm the only one.
It's the mid-22nd century, yet idioms have not changed. Characters say "I'm done," "a world of hurt," "ginormous," "I'm running late," "back at you" and "clicks" to mean kilometers. Think how different typical speech was in 1873, which was as far backward as "Terra Nova" goes forward. Yet the 22nd century people of "Terra Nova" talk exactly like Southern California mall customers of the present day.
So the smartest thing for the writers to do is to write the dialogue with new words and lingo the audience can't understand or follow? Why the hell didn't the "Terra Nova" writers think of this earlier? You write a show using dialogue the audience can't understand or follow and success should immediately follow, right?
The use of today's lingo not only represented a failure of imagination but a missed marketing opportunity. "Terra Nova" should have contained future slang -- made-up words the characters would use without explanation, that viewers would figure out from context.
Gregg, let's start doing this now. Gregg, you are a fago dindroit. See if you can figure out what I mean.
Made-up vocabulary is a factor in the ratings success of "Game of Thrones."
Well, that and good writing, a built-in audience, and great support from HBO. But yeah, I'm sure it is the made-up words that causes the audience to tune in. I'd love for Gregg to explain why made-up vocabulary and slang used by the characters didn't help "The Wire" out at all in garnering a ton of viewers. Indeed.
Made-up future slang might have entered social-network culture as memes, which would have gotten young people talking about "Terra Nova" and watching so they could be first to hear and use the next bit of future slang.
Or it could have confused the viewing audience who much prefers to have things spelled out to them and don't want to constantly play catch-up on what's being said.
Here are the qualifications for the All-Unwanted All-Pros: A player must have been undrafted, or been waived, or been let go in free agency when his original club made no bona-fide attempt to retain him.
Gregg's criteria fails in that it doesn't tell WHY a player's original club made no bona-fide attempt to retain him. I know this doesn't matter to Gregg, but to consider a player unwanted, wouldn't it make sense to know why his previous team didn't keep to determine if he was unwanted or not? I guess not.
Players who left their teams via trade are not eligible, because the team received something of value in return. Free agents whom their original teams wanted to retain, but could not for salary-cap reasons, are not eligible.
Then a guy like Drew Brees is not unwanted. The Chargers would have loved to kept him, and made him an offer, but they had Philip Rivers. So for salary cap reasons it didn't make sense to pay two quarterbacks like they were going to be the starting quarterback. Yet, Brees shows up on this list year after year.
For example, Wes Welker qualifies as unwanted for going undrafted, then being waived by San Diego. But his trade from Miami to New England does not count, since the Dolphins got draft choices in return.
So in that case he is no longer unwanted and shouldn't be on the list since the Dolphins got value for him. Yet, he is on the list year after year.
In past seasons the undrafted James Harrison has made the All-Unwanted All-Pros. This season Harrison seems so determined to convince people that he is not much of a human being that he has been disqualified from consideration.
So there is a morality clause now?
(If anyone sees a player on the unwanted team we should have a major issue with, please alert me in the comments. I tried to do the players I have a major problem with being unwanted)
Richie Incognito,* Miami (waived by two NFL teams).
Incognito was waived by the Rams after committing two 15 yard personal foul penalties in a game and then having a confrontation with his head coach. Shouldn't the new morality clause take him out of the running for being unwanted? Of course not. Gregg had no idea Incognito got waived for this reason. That would require doing research and having a consistent set of guidelines for Gregg's all-unwanted list.
Fullback: Vonta Leach,* Baltimore (undrafted, waived by three NFL teams. Everywhere Leach goes, two things happen: The team has a great year rushing, and afterward Leach is waived).
Leach has only been waived by two teams and he wasn't waived by the Texans last year. He signed with the Ravens as a free agent after playing for the Texans since 2006. His 3 year $11 million contract wasn't matched by the Texans. Most likely for salary cap reasons. Therefore he probably shouldn't be on this list.
Leach's teams have waived him after a great rushing year exactly zero times. The Saints were 18th in rushing yards in 2005 when they waived Leach.
Quarterback: Drew Brees, New Orleans (let go by San Diego, unwanted when he offered to sign with Miami, later Super Bowl MVP).
Most people know this is a pet peeve of mine. Brees was not signed by the Chargers for salary cap reasons. They offered him a contract. He declined the contract and then the Dolphins didn't offer Brees enough guaranteed money, so Brees went with the team offering the most guaranteed money. That's right. Brees went with the highest offer. The Dolphins wish now they had upped their offer, but Brees was coming off serious shoulder surgery and they didn't feel like they could increase their offer. It was a mistake on their part, but Brees never "offered" to sign with the Dolphins any more than he "offered" to sign with any team that would be willing to give him the most guaranteed money in free agency.
Defensive line: Andre Carter,* New England (had his best year at age 32 after being let go twice);
ONCE. Andre Carter was let go once, by the Washington Redskins in 2011, who were playing him outside of his best position at linebacker. Andre Carter was signed by the Redskins as an unrestricted free agent and chose not to re-sign with the 49ers. So the 49ers didn't let Carter go, he let on his own accord.
Ahmad Brooks, San Francisco (viewed as a bust in Cincinnati);
So Gregg is going to call Brooks "unwanted" when he was a bust in Cincinnati? Doesn't he realize the ridiculousness of calling a player "unwanted" when that player underperformed with his previous team? Sure, the 49ers did well by signing Brooks, but calling Brooks "unwanted" seems to indicate the Bengals did something wrong by getting rid of a player who wasn't performing at a high level.
Charles Woodson, Green Bay (let go by Oakland as "too old," now wears Super Bowl ring and is likely Hall of Fame entrant);
I'd love to see Gregg try to find the quote by the Raiders that called Woodson "too old." He won't find it because Gregg made this quote up. He's essentially lying by putting the words "too old" in quotes since it didn't come from any cited article. He just made this criticism up. In reality, the Raiders didn't franchise Woodson again in 2006 because he didn't want to play in Oakland and was suffering injuries that caused him to not be worth to the Raiders what they had been paying him. Woodson left as an unrestricted free agent, he wasn't let go. Gregg writes great fiction.
Robert Gallery, Seattle (often described as a draft bust because he was the No. 2 choice in 2004 and initially played poorly, needed time to adjust to the NFL);
Hahahaha! Look at Gregg now making excuses for a highly drafted, glory boy when it fits Gregg's need to call that player unwanted. Hilarious. We all know an offensive lineman who played college football for four years and is drafted #2 overall just needs 4-5 years to adjust to the NFL. That's reasonable to Gregg. Gallery is EXACTLY the kind of player Gregg calls a highly paid glory boy on a weekly basis and suggests is too lazy to make it at the NFL level. So Gregg should never criticize a highly drafted player because it may take that player just take a few years to adjust to the NFL. This makes sense, right, since Gregg is making this excuse for Gallery? Of course, Gregg will continue to criticize highly drafted players for not playing well after 1-2 years. This is his rule and his favorite thing to do. It is just when it fits Gregg's need to be right Gregg will change his position. So when Robert Gallery performs well after leaving the team that drafted him, he just needed more time, as well as a switch of positions along the offensive line, to play well in the NFL. Gallery isn't a bad offensive lineman, but it is incredibly ironic to hear Gregg Easterbrook want to give a highly drafted pick "time" to adjust to the NFL because it fits Gregg's agenda.
Brian Waters,* New England (undrafted, released by Kansas City as "too old," realistic shot at the Hall of Fame).
Again, I would love for Gregg to provide the specific quote that he just quoted calling Waters "too old." I don't see how ESPN allows a writer to directly quote something that doesn't fucking exist.
Running backs: Cedric Benson, Cincinnati (practically propelled out of cannon, Chicago was so anxious to waive him);
Because he wasn't a good running back and had two alcohol-related arrests in a five week span. Those types of things are good reasons for a player to be waived.
Adam Carriker, Washington (let go after being a high-number choice at St. Louis)
He was essentially a bust in St. Louis because he didn't meet the Rams expectations of him. In fact, here is what Gregg "The Omnipotent" Easterbrook had to say about Carriker in 2010:
Other players from the 2007 first round -- Ted Ginn, Marshawn Lynch, Adam Carriker, Justin Harrell, Jarvis Moss -- have been busts; all were praised by NFL insiders who supposedly had access to scientific yardsticks.
Gregg outright calls Carriker a bust. So how can he be considered "unwanted?" The hypocritical Gregg Easterbrook, the same guy who wants to criticize a player for being a bust and criticize a team for giving up on a bust too early, said this as well about Carriker:
Shortly before the draft, Les Mouflons traded Adam Carriker, the 13th selection of the 2007 draft, to the Redskins for very little, officially making the St. Louis 2007 draft a fiasco. It was just three years ago and no one from that draft remains on the St. Louis roster. In payment for Carriker, the Rams received an exchange of fifth-round draft selections: Moving up in the fifth round was all that a recent Rams first-round pick was worth. But wait -- as part of the deal, the two clubs also exchanged seventh-round selections, Washington getting the 208th choice of the draft from St. Louis, and giving back the 211th choice. A three-slots difference in the last round is so incredibly minor, it's as if St. Louis tipped the Redskins on the trade: "Here you are my good man, here's your 2007 first-round draft bust, and I've thrown in a little something extra for your troubles."
So Gregg not only criticized Carriker for being a bust, then criticized the Rams for trading 7th round draft picks in the Carriker trade since he was a bust, and now criticizes the Rams for ever getting rid of Carriker in the first place. The moral to this story is Adam Carriker is a bust and major part of the reason the Rams are so bad, unless Carriker starts playing well for another team, in which case the Rams never should have gotten rid of Carriker.
Bart Scott,* Jersey/B (undrafted out of Division I-AA Southern Illinois).
Bart Scott also signed a 6 year $48 million deal as an unrestricted free agent. He is a part of that overly-cocky defense that Gregg seems to despise so much. It doesn't matter much that Scott is highly paid and part of a defense Gregg doesn't like when he is trying to show that Scott is "unwanted."
Carlos Rogers, San Francisco (shown the door in Washington to free up money for megabucks corner DeAngelo Hall, whom Rogers has outplayed);
Carlos Rogers was also highly drafted in the first round. Of course, Gregg won't acknowledge this since it goes against his contention that highly drafted players are lazy and think everything should be handed to them. Another small detail is that Hall was already on the Redskins team when Rogers was on the team. They played together for three seasons, including two years when Hall had a huge contract. So Rogers was not "let go" in order to free up money for Hall. Hall already had the money and Rogers wasn't re-signed for salary cap reasons that may or may have something to do with Hall's contract. Which means he shouldn't be on the list. Gregg hopes no one does research like I am doing which shows he is somewhat full of shit.
Sean Payton wants to be the coach of a quarterback who holds a major record. If it's the second half next Sunday, and Payton knows San Francisco is pounding St. Louis (meaning New Orleans cannot improve its seeding) while New England is in a close game with feast-or-famine Buffalo (meaning Brady stays in), the New Orleans coach may be sorely tempted to keep Brees on the field and throwing to make sure he finishes the season ahead of Brady.
Which is exactly what happened. I didn't have as much of a problem with the Saints doing this against Carolina. I did have a bit of a problem with the Saints throwing late in the fourth quarter against the Falcons in order for Brees to break the record. I just thought it wasn't sportsman-like simply because Brees could have broken the record at home the very next week. It doesn't really matter I guess, but if I were the Falcons I probably would have been a bit irritated with the Saints.
Why is New Orleans so effective on offense? It's not funky tactics.
A great offensive line and they have Drew Brees as their quarterback. It's nearly that simple.
Rookie Julio Jones is playing well, but the king's ransom of draft choices Atlanta gave for him has already resulted in decline of the Falcons' power game.
Here we go again. The inability of the Falcons' offensive line to block well for Michael Turner is pretty much Julio Jones' fault. Jones has ruined everything for the Falcons.
In the first half, when the game was close, Atlanta coaches radioed in only nine rushing plays.
Does Gregg think Julio Jones is the offensive coordinator for the Falcons? I don't know if having more options at wide receiver, which lacking these options has hurt the Falcons in the past, is why the Falcons don't run the ball well. Perhaps more blame should go to the Falcons offensive line. Of course, Gregg won't do this because the Falcons offensive line has one of Gregg's unwanted All-Stars on it (Tyson Clabo) and doesn't have many underachieving high draft picks. So Gregg lays the blame with a glory boy wide receiver who has hurt the Falcons running game apparently by merely being on the active roster.
Next Week: Should Tuesday Morning Quarterback have a disclaimer?
Yes. The disclaimer should say, "Tuesday Morning Quarterback's statements are merely hypothetical and contain very little research or factual information. Statements made by TMQ may not in fact be true and we encourage readers to do their own investigation into the claims and statements by TMQ. This column is purely for entertainment purposes and ESPN only gives a crap about pageviews and doesn't endorse, proofread or edit any of what is written therein. If you repeat as fact anything TMQ may state or claim then you perhaps deserve the ignorance you have acquired by not doing any research."
As always, Gregg Easterbrook wants it both ways. He wants to criticize a team for drafting an overpaid, highly drafted glory boy like Jason Babin, but then after Babin flourishes with another team, Gregg also wants to criticize Babin's previous teams for not holding on to him. Gregg is an expert at telling NFL teams what they should do after the fact. Gregg has no long term memory and he does absolutely no investigation into WHY a player was unwanted or undrafted. Also, I will do a (shortened) version of my Drew Brees-Miami Dolphins rant everyone is already tired of. Don't act like you aren't excited. Let's get to it.
Tuesday night the NFL announces its Pro Bowl rosters: Megabucks glory-boy types will hear their names called.
Because they tend to outperform undrafted free agents and lower drafted players. This is a fact that Gregg struggles to come to terms with on a weekly basis. Hence we get this unwanted All-Stars column where a second-team offensive tackle (Byron Bell) can be an All-Star simply because he has started a lot of games this year. Who cares if his performance has been average or below average? He was undrafted and unwanted!
But the players who catch TMQ's eye are the unwanted: performers, those who were undrafted, or waived, or both.
I would like to add that in the salary cap era of the NFL, a player being waived doesn't mean a team believes that player isn't very good anymore nor does it mean the player may not potentially be valuable to the team anymore either. It simply means sometimes players make too much money or want too much money as a free agent to be affordable to a team. This is vitally important to understand when evaluating in the salary cap era why a team keeps certain players over other players. Gregg, not surprisingly, fails to grasp this idea. In the salary cap era, a team may want to keep a player, but simply can't due to salary cap restrictions. Gregg pretends he pays heed to the idea of the salary cap, yet fails consistently to do so.
In most of life, hard work and determination are more important than social status or talent.
More evidence, if more was needed, that Gregg Easterbrook sometimes lives in a different America from the rest of us. My college roommate had a saying, "It's who you know and who you blow." Perhaps that's a negative way to look at the world, but in part of life it is true. In the NFL, talent tends to get drafted over players who are perceived as having less talent and eventually hard work can pay off in the real world as well. You just better hope you aren't competing for the same position at a company against current employees or the relative of an influential employee of that company.
That's why Tuesday Morning Quarterback lauds hard work and determination on the part of football players who were not born into success, but reached success through constant effort.
Let's be clear here. Nearly every single NFL player was a superstar at some level, even if it wasn't in college. So these players weren't born into success, but at some point in their career most NFL players were big fishes in little ponds at the very least.
First, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Unwanted Players of the Year.
I promise. I will edit this down as much as possible since Gregg and my opinion of what "unwanted" differs so drastically. I also find it ironic that Gregg talks about "Christmas Creep" for most of the NFL season and his readers write in with other stories of events "creeping," yet Gregg gives out his All-Unwanted awards and THE NFL YEAR ISN'T EVEN OVER YET! Is this "Unwanted All-Star Creep?"
Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."
Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.
At the point Jackson broke his leg, he was second in the NFL in rushing and second in total yards from scrimmage, outperforming an array of No. 1-drafted megabucks players.
I don't even know why teams keep first round draft choices on the roster. They should only sign undrafted free agents.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Unwanted Player of the Year: Doug Baldwin, Seattle. Two rookie wide receivers named Baldwin entered the NFL this season. Jonathan Baldwin, a No. 1 draft selection, has been nearly invisible with his team, the Kansas City Chiefs. Doug Baldwin, undrafted, became the leading receiver for the Seattle Seahawks and also is a special-teams ace, with a punt block that caused a Seattle touchdown on "Monday Night Football."
Doug Baldwin played better for one year than a highly drafted receiver who also had the last name Baldwin. That appears to be Gregg's point.
In other football news, the fans cheered wildly at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis when the hapless 1-13 Colts scored with 19 seconds remaining to upset the heavily favored Texans. This victory may deprive Indianapolis of first choice in the 2012 draft.
Why do the Colts even want the first choice in the 2012 draft? Shouldn't the Colts win as many games as possible and trade all of their players for 7th round draft picks? After all, why would the Colts want highly drafted, highly paid glory boys when they can get hard working lowly drafted, unwanted players?
If the Colts end up choosing second or third next spring, and Andrew Luck ends up as the only consensus franchise quarterback in the draft -- that could change, of course -- Indianapolis faithful may rue the day they cheered for the upset of the Texans.
I love how Gregg moves notes the worth of highly drafted players when it is convenient for him, but otherwise tries to convince his audience highly drafted players are lazy and don't work as hard as undrafted players.
Then again, perhaps the Indianapolis plan is to stick with Dan Orlovsky long-term. After all, he took over an 0-11 team and has now won two straight.
Of all the options the Colts have, this would by far be the worst option. Sure Gregg, let's ignore Orlovsky's entire body of work to focus on the last two games.
Stats of the Week No. 5: The AFC West has been outscored by 252 points.
And yet, Denver gets to host a home playoff game against 12-4 Pittsburgh. If I could change one thing about the NFL playoffs, this may be it. I just think a team like Pittsburgh, who didn't win their division granted, that went 12-4 in a division with three playoff teams should be rewarded with a home playoff game over an 8-8 team from a weak division. This is a nitpick of course, but if the NFL could change one thing about the playoffs, I think this would be it for me.
Baltimore now leading 17-0, the Browns faced goal-to-go on the Ravens' 3 with 11 seconds remaining until intermission, out of timeouts. Coach Pat Shurmur called a run to Hillis, stuffed; the half expired without Cleveland having time to send out its field goal unit. The CBS announcers mocked Shurmur for not getting a kick launched. But Cleveland trailed by 17 points! The Browns needed a touchdown, and Shurmur thought a rush would surprise a defense that was expecting a fade to the end zone,
The defense was expecting a fade to the end zone...which is why the Ravens stuffed the run to Hillis. I agree with the idea of going for a touchdown, but how can Gregg say the defense was expecting a fade when the Ravens easily stuffed the Browns running play? Doesn't it make sense to believe the Ravens were looking for a running play? Why does Gregg just make up what he believes the defense was looking for?
Jersey/B leading 7-3, Jersey/A faced third-and-10 from its 1-yard line. Eli Manning retreated into his end zone and threw a 10-yard curl to undrafted Victor Cruz, who legged it all 99 yards for a touchdown -- very sweet.
The play lasted 12 seconds, a long time in sports terms, yet no one from Jersey/B caught Cruz. Safety Brodney Pool, who had an angle, quit on the play and began jogging when Cruz was 30 yards from the house.
Pool had "an angle" in that he wasn't going to catch Cruz and would have had to make up 5 yards of distance between him and Cruz in those 30 yards. But yeah Gregg, sure Pool would have caught him. What a lazy bum.
Jersey/B surrendered a safety as defensive tackle Chris Canty bull-rushed past guard Matt Slauson to sack Mark Sanchez: a fitting conclusion to a sour effort all around by the Jets.
Don't you mean highly drafted glory boy Chris Canty bull-rushed lowly drafted, hard working Matt Slauson?
Two Cheers for Ndamukong: Ndamukong Suh soared in your columnist's estimation with the news that last year he gave away $2.6 million, more than any other pro athlete. Donating to charity, education or the arts is among the strongest signs of admirable character.
This is an absolutely admirable act. Don't get me wrong. Gregg is leaving an important part out of this story though. Suh gave $2 million to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Suh's alma mater, for a scholarship fund. So this is very admirable, but Suh did give the money back to his alma mater and not an actual "charity," though the funds will be used for scholarships. Suh is a great guy for this still, of course.
Scoring to pull within 27-24 with 1:51 remaining, Miami kicked away rather than onside kick. Yes, the Dolphins held three timeouts. But they were on the road, kicking away to one of the league's most proficient offenses; all New England needed was one first down to drill the clock. Needless to say, that's what happened. Miami had a better (though still long-shot) chance of victory had it onside kicked.
Assuming the Dolphins didn't recover the onside kick, the Dolphins would still have had to stop the Patriots. Statistically, the Dolphins probably weren't likely to recover the onside kick so the Dolphins were trying to ensure they got good field position if they stopped the Patriots. I think the decision to kick the ball away was at least defensible.
But seeking victory is not always first in a coach's mind. Interim head coach Todd Bowles would have known that if he ordered a deep kick, the Dolphins would all but surely lose -- but they would lose only 27-24. The league grapevine would say, "Hey, the Dolphins went into New England in December and only lost by three," improving the odds that Bowles will convert his Miami interim status into the plum job at Miami or elsewhere.
I personally would have kicked an onside kick here, but I can see why Bowles did not. Also, I always love it when Gregg displays his special ability to read a coach's mind as to why he made this or that decision. Gregg is omnipotent and can decipher intent from a single act. Come to think of it, Gregg should have been a criminal attorney since he knows how to decipher intent so well. He could be using his amazing ability to decipher the exact intent of a person for the good of society, but instead he is selfishly using his gift to decipher the intent of NFL and college head coaches.
A Tale of Two Turnovers: On the first Tim Tebow pick-six at Buffalo, the Bills led 26-14; Denver had abandoned its high school-inspired triple-option attack for straight dropback passing. Obviously Tebow isn't ready for this.
He's not ready to throw the football like an NFL quarterback should throw the football? So is the hope just that the Broncos always have the lead so the Broncos can run the type of offense Tebow is ready for? I'm just wondering about this. Tebow has been in the NFL for full two years. If he isn't ready to run a pro-style offense yet, does this bode well for his future?
John Fox continues to make ultra-conservative game management decisions, which hardly helps Tebow.
You mean "John Fox continues coaching like he has coached his entire NFL head coaching career." Remember, a punt is not a bad play.
The pass interference came on an eight-man mega-blitz that backfired badly. The mega-blitz was radioed in by backup defensive coordinator Reggie Herring. Starting defensive coordinator Wade Phillips, still in the hospital, never would have made such a boneheaded call.
Gregg's omnipotence helps him prove yet another point he wants to prove. It's amazing how Gregg can create evidence out of thin air that Wade Phillips NEVER would have made such a boneheaded call and just happens to prove how a terrible "mega-blitz" singlehandedly lost the game for the Texans with this evidence. It's amazing how this works.
Of course "Terra Nova" is just an absurd television show. But since Fox promoted it as the most expensive program ever made, "Nova" merits an absurd level of scrutiny.
FOX didn't market the show as the most expensive program ever made. YOU marketed it in TMQ as the most expensive program ever made. If it weren't for Gregg Easterbrook I would have had no idea how much the show cost. Maybe I'm the only one.
It's the mid-22nd century, yet idioms have not changed. Characters say "I'm done," "a world of hurt," "ginormous," "I'm running late," "back at you" and "clicks" to mean kilometers. Think how different typical speech was in 1873, which was as far backward as "Terra Nova" goes forward. Yet the 22nd century people of "Terra Nova" talk exactly like Southern California mall customers of the present day.
So the smartest thing for the writers to do is to write the dialogue with new words and lingo the audience can't understand or follow? Why the hell didn't the "Terra Nova" writers think of this earlier? You write a show using dialogue the audience can't understand or follow and success should immediately follow, right?
The use of today's lingo not only represented a failure of imagination but a missed marketing opportunity. "Terra Nova" should have contained future slang -- made-up words the characters would use without explanation, that viewers would figure out from context.
Gregg, let's start doing this now. Gregg, you are a fago dindroit. See if you can figure out what I mean.
Made-up vocabulary is a factor in the ratings success of "Game of Thrones."
Well, that and good writing, a built-in audience, and great support from HBO. But yeah, I'm sure it is the made-up words that causes the audience to tune in. I'd love for Gregg to explain why made-up vocabulary and slang used by the characters didn't help "The Wire" out at all in garnering a ton of viewers. Indeed.
Made-up future slang might have entered social-network culture as memes, which would have gotten young people talking about "Terra Nova" and watching so they could be first to hear and use the next bit of future slang.
Or it could have confused the viewing audience who much prefers to have things spelled out to them and don't want to constantly play catch-up on what's being said.
Here are the qualifications for the All-Unwanted All-Pros: A player must have been undrafted, or been waived, or been let go in free agency when his original club made no bona-fide attempt to retain him.
Gregg's criteria fails in that it doesn't tell WHY a player's original club made no bona-fide attempt to retain him. I know this doesn't matter to Gregg, but to consider a player unwanted, wouldn't it make sense to know why his previous team didn't keep to determine if he was unwanted or not? I guess not.
Players who left their teams via trade are not eligible, because the team received something of value in return. Free agents whom their original teams wanted to retain, but could not for salary-cap reasons, are not eligible.
Then a guy like Drew Brees is not unwanted. The Chargers would have loved to kept him, and made him an offer, but they had Philip Rivers. So for salary cap reasons it didn't make sense to pay two quarterbacks like they were going to be the starting quarterback. Yet, Brees shows up on this list year after year.
For example, Wes Welker qualifies as unwanted for going undrafted, then being waived by San Diego. But his trade from Miami to New England does not count, since the Dolphins got draft choices in return.
So in that case he is no longer unwanted and shouldn't be on the list since the Dolphins got value for him. Yet, he is on the list year after year.
In past seasons the undrafted James Harrison has made the All-Unwanted All-Pros. This season Harrison seems so determined to convince people that he is not much of a human being that he has been disqualified from consideration.
So there is a morality clause now?
(If anyone sees a player on the unwanted team we should have a major issue with, please alert me in the comments. I tried to do the players I have a major problem with being unwanted)
Richie Incognito,* Miami (waived by two NFL teams).
Incognito was waived by the Rams after committing two 15 yard personal foul penalties in a game and then having a confrontation with his head coach. Shouldn't the new morality clause take him out of the running for being unwanted? Of course not. Gregg had no idea Incognito got waived for this reason. That would require doing research and having a consistent set of guidelines for Gregg's all-unwanted list.
Fullback: Vonta Leach,* Baltimore (undrafted, waived by three NFL teams. Everywhere Leach goes, two things happen: The team has a great year rushing, and afterward Leach is waived).
Leach has only been waived by two teams and he wasn't waived by the Texans last year. He signed with the Ravens as a free agent after playing for the Texans since 2006. His 3 year $11 million contract wasn't matched by the Texans. Most likely for salary cap reasons. Therefore he probably shouldn't be on this list.
Leach's teams have waived him after a great rushing year exactly zero times. The Saints were 18th in rushing yards in 2005 when they waived Leach.
Quarterback: Drew Brees, New Orleans (let go by San Diego, unwanted when he offered to sign with Miami, later Super Bowl MVP).
Most people know this is a pet peeve of mine. Brees was not signed by the Chargers for salary cap reasons. They offered him a contract. He declined the contract and then the Dolphins didn't offer Brees enough guaranteed money, so Brees went with the team offering the most guaranteed money. That's right. Brees went with the highest offer. The Dolphins wish now they had upped their offer, but Brees was coming off serious shoulder surgery and they didn't feel like they could increase their offer. It was a mistake on their part, but Brees never "offered" to sign with the Dolphins any more than he "offered" to sign with any team that would be willing to give him the most guaranteed money in free agency.
Defensive line: Andre Carter,* New England (had his best year at age 32 after being let go twice);
ONCE. Andre Carter was let go once, by the Washington Redskins in 2011, who were playing him outside of his best position at linebacker. Andre Carter was signed by the Redskins as an unrestricted free agent and chose not to re-sign with the 49ers. So the 49ers didn't let Carter go, he let on his own accord.
Ahmad Brooks, San Francisco (viewed as a bust in Cincinnati);
So Gregg is going to call Brooks "unwanted" when he was a bust in Cincinnati? Doesn't he realize the ridiculousness of calling a player "unwanted" when that player underperformed with his previous team? Sure, the 49ers did well by signing Brooks, but calling Brooks "unwanted" seems to indicate the Bengals did something wrong by getting rid of a player who wasn't performing at a high level.
Charles Woodson, Green Bay (let go by Oakland as "too old," now wears Super Bowl ring and is likely Hall of Fame entrant);
I'd love to see Gregg try to find the quote by the Raiders that called Woodson "too old." He won't find it because Gregg made this quote up. He's essentially lying by putting the words "too old" in quotes since it didn't come from any cited article. He just made this criticism up. In reality, the Raiders didn't franchise Woodson again in 2006 because he didn't want to play in Oakland and was suffering injuries that caused him to not be worth to the Raiders what they had been paying him. Woodson left as an unrestricted free agent, he wasn't let go. Gregg writes great fiction.
Robert Gallery, Seattle (often described as a draft bust because he was the No. 2 choice in 2004 and initially played poorly, needed time to adjust to the NFL);
Hahahaha! Look at Gregg now making excuses for a highly drafted, glory boy when it fits Gregg's need to call that player unwanted. Hilarious. We all know an offensive lineman who played college football for four years and is drafted #2 overall just needs 4-5 years to adjust to the NFL. That's reasonable to Gregg. Gallery is EXACTLY the kind of player Gregg calls a highly paid glory boy on a weekly basis and suggests is too lazy to make it at the NFL level. So Gregg should never criticize a highly drafted player because it may take that player just take a few years to adjust to the NFL. This makes sense, right, since Gregg is making this excuse for Gallery? Of course, Gregg will continue to criticize highly drafted players for not playing well after 1-2 years. This is his rule and his favorite thing to do. It is just when it fits Gregg's need to be right Gregg will change his position. So when Robert Gallery performs well after leaving the team that drafted him, he just needed more time, as well as a switch of positions along the offensive line, to play well in the NFL. Gallery isn't a bad offensive lineman, but it is incredibly ironic to hear Gregg Easterbrook want to give a highly drafted pick "time" to adjust to the NFL because it fits Gregg's agenda.
Brian Waters,* New England (undrafted, released by Kansas City as "too old," realistic shot at the Hall of Fame).
Again, I would love for Gregg to provide the specific quote that he just quoted calling Waters "too old." I don't see how ESPN allows a writer to directly quote something that doesn't fucking exist.
Running backs: Cedric Benson, Cincinnati (practically propelled out of cannon, Chicago was so anxious to waive him);
Because he wasn't a good running back and had two alcohol-related arrests in a five week span. Those types of things are good reasons for a player to be waived.
Adam Carriker, Washington (let go after being a high-number choice at St. Louis)
He was essentially a bust in St. Louis because he didn't meet the Rams expectations of him. In fact, here is what Gregg "The Omnipotent" Easterbrook had to say about Carriker in 2010:
Other players from the 2007 first round -- Ted Ginn, Marshawn Lynch, Adam Carriker, Justin Harrell, Jarvis Moss -- have been busts; all were praised by NFL insiders who supposedly had access to scientific yardsticks.
Gregg outright calls Carriker a bust. So how can he be considered "unwanted?" The hypocritical Gregg Easterbrook, the same guy who wants to criticize a player for being a bust and criticize a team for giving up on a bust too early, said this as well about Carriker:
Shortly before the draft, Les Mouflons traded Adam Carriker, the 13th selection of the 2007 draft, to the Redskins for very little, officially making the St. Louis 2007 draft a fiasco. It was just three years ago and no one from that draft remains on the St. Louis roster. In payment for Carriker, the Rams received an exchange of fifth-round draft selections: Moving up in the fifth round was all that a recent Rams first-round pick was worth. But wait -- as part of the deal, the two clubs also exchanged seventh-round selections, Washington getting the 208th choice of the draft from St. Louis, and giving back the 211th choice. A three-slots difference in the last round is so incredibly minor, it's as if St. Louis tipped the Redskins on the trade: "Here you are my good man, here's your 2007 first-round draft bust, and I've thrown in a little something extra for your troubles."
So Gregg not only criticized Carriker for being a bust, then criticized the Rams for trading 7th round draft picks in the Carriker trade since he was a bust, and now criticizes the Rams for ever getting rid of Carriker in the first place. The moral to this story is Adam Carriker is a bust and major part of the reason the Rams are so bad, unless Carriker starts playing well for another team, in which case the Rams never should have gotten rid of Carriker.
Bart Scott,* Jersey/B (undrafted out of Division I-AA Southern Illinois).
Bart Scott also signed a 6 year $48 million deal as an unrestricted free agent. He is a part of that overly-cocky defense that Gregg seems to despise so much. It doesn't matter much that Scott is highly paid and part of a defense Gregg doesn't like when he is trying to show that Scott is "unwanted."
Carlos Rogers, San Francisco (shown the door in Washington to free up money for megabucks corner DeAngelo Hall, whom Rogers has outplayed);
Carlos Rogers was also highly drafted in the first round. Of course, Gregg won't acknowledge this since it goes against his contention that highly drafted players are lazy and think everything should be handed to them. Another small detail is that Hall was already on the Redskins team when Rogers was on the team. They played together for three seasons, including two years when Hall had a huge contract. So Rogers was not "let go" in order to free up money for Hall. Hall already had the money and Rogers wasn't re-signed for salary cap reasons that may or may have something to do with Hall's contract. Which means he shouldn't be on the list. Gregg hopes no one does research like I am doing which shows he is somewhat full of shit.
Sean Payton wants to be the coach of a quarterback who holds a major record. If it's the second half next Sunday, and Payton knows San Francisco is pounding St. Louis (meaning New Orleans cannot improve its seeding) while New England is in a close game with feast-or-famine Buffalo (meaning Brady stays in), the New Orleans coach may be sorely tempted to keep Brees on the field and throwing to make sure he finishes the season ahead of Brady.
Which is exactly what happened. I didn't have as much of a problem with the Saints doing this against Carolina. I did have a bit of a problem with the Saints throwing late in the fourth quarter against the Falcons in order for Brees to break the record. I just thought it wasn't sportsman-like simply because Brees could have broken the record at home the very next week. It doesn't really matter I guess, but if I were the Falcons I probably would have been a bit irritated with the Saints.
Why is New Orleans so effective on offense? It's not funky tactics.
A great offensive line and they have Drew Brees as their quarterback. It's nearly that simple.
Rookie Julio Jones is playing well, but the king's ransom of draft choices Atlanta gave for him has already resulted in decline of the Falcons' power game.
Here we go again. The inability of the Falcons' offensive line to block well for Michael Turner is pretty much Julio Jones' fault. Jones has ruined everything for the Falcons.
In the first half, when the game was close, Atlanta coaches radioed in only nine rushing plays.
Does Gregg think Julio Jones is the offensive coordinator for the Falcons? I don't know if having more options at wide receiver, which lacking these options has hurt the Falcons in the past, is why the Falcons don't run the ball well. Perhaps more blame should go to the Falcons offensive line. Of course, Gregg won't do this because the Falcons offensive line has one of Gregg's unwanted All-Stars on it (Tyson Clabo) and doesn't have many underachieving high draft picks. So Gregg lays the blame with a glory boy wide receiver who has hurt the Falcons running game apparently by merely being on the active roster.
Next Week: Should Tuesday Morning Quarterback have a disclaimer?
Yes. The disclaimer should say, "Tuesday Morning Quarterback's statements are merely hypothetical and contain very little research or factual information. Statements made by TMQ may not in fact be true and we encourage readers to do their own investigation into the claims and statements by TMQ. This column is purely for entertainment purposes and ESPN only gives a crap about pageviews and doesn't endorse, proofread or edit any of what is written therein. If you repeat as fact anything TMQ may state or claim then you perhaps deserve the ignorance you have acquired by not doing any research."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)