I am always amused at articles that say, "There is no way Sabermetrics can say whether a team will have
chemistry or not," as if there is a way to measure chemistry and it's only Sabermetrics or advanced statistics that come up
short in an attempt to quantify team chemistry. Chemistry can't be measured all, so there is no telling if a team will have it or not until that team plays together. Bob Nightengale writes an article about how chemistry in baseball still matters. It's still real to him, dammit!
As always, there are the "numbers can't measure chemistry!" quotes from players, as if it's news that something which can't be measured can't actually be measured. Chemistry matters, sure, but anyone claiming they know how to create chemistry between players on a team is lying. But yeah, it's only advanced metrics that fall short in measuring how much chemistry a team has. Teams never know if they will have chemistry until practice or games actually start.
In a sport where the desire to quantify every movement only grows with
each season, it is a sabermetric aficionado’s worst nightmare.
Sunlight and not being able to use a computer. The worst of all worlds.
You can’t measure it. You can’t define it. You can’t put a number on it.
So it's the worst nightmare of pretty much any coach, GM, or owner because there is no way to know what the result will be.
We’re talking about clubhouse chemistry, and the culture that can raise a
major league team to extraordinary heights without having the biggest
payroll or most talent.
How to get it? Nobody fucking knows. What is known is that Sabermetricians can't measure it and that means Sabermetrics are useless. Sure, traditional statistical metrics can't measure it either, but who cares and let's all move on now.
“It’s really undervalued,’’ St. Louis Cardinals veteran starter John Lackey told USA TODAY Sports, “especially in today’s world with all of the numbers guys.”
It's undervalued because there is no way to tangibly get chemistry and it can't be measured by any metric. So there is no way to value chemistry, hence it is undervalued. It's like anyone who enjoys working with the people they work with. It's not undervalued to enjoy the people you work with, but it's something that either happens or doesn't when working with a group of people. You can hire individuals who you think will fit in, but you never know for sure if a new hire will like his/her co-workers. This is as opposed to knowing when you hire someone who has a Masters Degree in Accounting, it's a safe assumption that he/she does actually know something tangible about Accounting that could help the organization.
We can put all kinds of numbers on players’ talent, from RBI to WAR, to
ERA to FIP, but when it comes to the heart and soul of a clubhouse,
there remains no measuring stick.
Because there can't be. Chemistry is intangible. Assigning specific importance to chemistry is fine, but emphasizing how statistics can't measure it is shockingly obvious. Hustle and grit can't be measured either, which pleases many old-school sportswriters and professional athletes when they prepare to write a column about a gritty, white player whose heart is bigger than his talent level.
“The numbers guys can’t quantify that one,’’ Lackey said, “so they don’t want to believe in it.’’
Okay Piggy, nobody said those who used advanced statistics don't want to believe in chemistry. In fact, Alex Anthopoulos is a noted user of advanced statistics and he is quoted in this article many times about the importance of chemistry. So you know, John Lackey should probably focus a little bit more on pitching and a little bit less on trying to believe he understands the position of Sabermetricians regarding team chemistry.
You want to know what chemistry and culture is about, peek inside the San Francisco Giants’ clubhouse. They’ve won three of the last five World Series. Maybe they’ve had the best manager in Bruce Bochy, and GM too in Brian Sabean, but never have they had the best talent.
The team with the most talent doesn't always win the World Series, but attributing the difference in the team with the most perceived talent and teams with lesser perceived talent simply to chemistry is probably an oversimplification.
“Come on, how to do you put a number on a guy like (Chicago Cubs
backup catcher David Ross) and what he brings to the clubhouse? This
guy hit (.184) last year, and he got multiple two-years deals on the
table. Why is that?’’
Because he's a veteran clubhouse presence who has experience working with pitching staffs and he isn't going to be expensive.
Indeed, you step into the Cubs’ clubhouse
these days, and no one is talking about Ross’ .186 batting average and
seven RBI. They’re too busy raving about his powerful influence on a
club featuring four rookies in the everyday lineup.
David Ross does more for team chemistry than the Cubs starting catcher, yet David Ross isn't the starting catcher. Why is that? Oh wait, that's right. This discussion of chemistry is supposed to entirely ignore talent. Ross had less than 400 at-bats over the last three years (as of the time this column was written), since he's so valuable in the clubhouse, then why do you suppose he's not in the starting lineup everyday? Probably because catchers with greater talent are getting the majority of the at-bats.
Chemistry is important. Absolutely. John Lackey should also realize that David Ross doesn't need to be on the field to help his team, while those players who do have skills that can be quantified are the ones getting the majority of the at-bats. So the whole "they can't quantify chemistry" argument has merit as long as those players whose contribution can be quantified aren't having their substantial impact on the team's success ignored.
“He means so much to every single person in here,’’ Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo said.
Go ahead, try to put a number on that.
$2.5 million this year. That's his salary. That's the number on how much his contribution means to the Cubs.
If you go by the numbers, the Royals were supposed to win just 72 games this year, according to Baseball Prospectus’ projection system, PECOTA.
PECOTA is wrong again this year. They had the Royals at 80-82. Though it's important to know the Royals play in the only division in the majors where only one team has a positive run differential (the Royals), so there is a case to be made that the Royals are going to beat the PECOTA projections handily, but they are also in a weak division. It doesn't take anything away from them, but these are "projections" not "certainties based on data and information that is never wrong."
The Cardinals, who have had more injuries to key players than any team,
shouldn’t be leading their division, let alone be on pace to eclipse
100 victories, if you go strictly by sheer talent.
I would completely and utterly disagree. The Cardinals, even prior to the season had one of the strongest and deepest pitching staffs in the majors. It is discussed at length how the Cardinals have great minor league depth (THE CARDINALS WAY!) and when injuries occur they can survive them easier than most MLB teams. If a person is going to be so ridiculous as to look to individual talent on a baseball team rather than the depth of talent on a team's roster, then obviously a team with few players who have a high level of individual talent would be misjudged. Teams should not be judged by sheer talent on the roster though. Teams should be judged by talent at each spot on the roster and the depth of that talent on the roster. The Cardinals have talent at each spot on the roster and they have depth. Going by sheer talent is a dumb way to evaluate a team in the first place.
“People that don’t understand what team chemistry means don’t work in baseball,’’ Toronto Blue Jays ace David Price said.
Right, everyone knows a team needs good chemistry to help them be successful. A team also needs talent. Teams that win titles have both. To indicate advanced statistics are useless because it can't measure a team's chemistry is to make it an "either/or" argument and entirely miss the point. I don't expect much else from baseball players though. They are traditionally stuck in the past and not open to new ideas.
“You look at the Giants, and they’re not more talented than everyone
else every year, but they’re so close, and together. The Cardinals are
the same way. They definitely have talent, but they’re no more talented
than a lot of the teams they’re beating every day.
I would absolutely disagree with this. How come the Giants' team chemistry doesn't allow them to win the World Series during odd-numbered years? Does the team just forget about their chemistry in those years or something?
And as I stated before, it has been discussed at-length in multiple publications how the Cardinals have great organizational depth, so I would argue they are more talented than the teams they are beating every day.
“The Cardinals are unbelievable. They lose their ace (Adam Wainwright). They lose their No. 3 and No. 4 hitters in (Matt) Adams and (Matt Holliday). And they’re still winning. They’re just unreal.
Again, the Cardinals were very deep in the starting rotation prior to the start of the season. There is a reason they could afford to trade Shelby Miller. The media always wants it both ways. They want to talk about how great the Cardinals are at producing players through their minor league system, while also claiming the team has lesser talent than other teams.
The Blue Jays placed more emphasis on a player’s character than any time in GM Alex Anthopoulos’ tenure. He shipped out the guy who didn’t fit in. He chose character over talent. There’s a reason why 42-year-old LaTroy Hawkins is now in the Blue Jays’ bullpen instead of Jonathan Papelbon.
Well yeah, nobody likes Jonathan Papelbon. I do like how Nightengale is using Anthopoulos as the example of a GM who loves chemistry, since he is a GM who has in the past emphasized Sabermetrics. It's almost like a team has to have talent AND chemistry. That couldn't be true though.
“We really, really, emphasized that,’’ Anthopoulos said, “more than we ever have.
Yes, they went against having talent for chemistry by trading for Josh Donaldson, Troy Tulowitzki and David Price. What rebels they are to favor chemistry over talent in these cases. They traded for one of the best players at shortstop, third base and pitcher for the chemistry it gave the team, while blatantly ignoring whether these guys are talented or not.
“Every team goes through ups and downs, and I think with a better
clubhouse and with better character, that allows you to handle the downs
a lot. That’s the separator. So rather than the floor caving in on you,
you stay afloat.
“We’ll find out if it works.’’
Obviously you can't throw a team together that hates each other or won't complement each other. That much is obvious. Winning creates chemistry and so figuring out how a team can win (find some talented players is always a good start) is important too.
Certainly, adding a guy like Price at the trade deadline, and having MVP favorite Josh Donaldson the entire season, may have something to do with the Blue Jays’ success, too.
Nah, I'm sure the fact they are two of the best at their position in terms of skill level has nothing to do with the Blue Jays' success.
Yet, manager John Gibbons can’t stop raving about Donaldson’s leadership skills, and Price is revered throughout the game.
What helps Donaldson be a leader? The fact he's also a really good baseball player. Players who are good at baseball can naturally set a good example for the rest of the team to follow.
“We were looking for a special type of player, even if it meant
passing on some talent,’’ Anthopoulos said, “making sure every player we
acquired fit.
“I think it’s important David Price fit into in the clubhouse, but let’s don’t forget he’s got a (2.40) ERA, too.’’
Irrelevant. Don't try to measure David Price's chemistry by putting it in terms of his ERA.
Sure, you’ve got to have talent to win, but talent alone doesn’t
guarantee a thing. If the standings were based strictly on talent, you
think the Washington Nationals would be trailing the New York Mets by five games?
If the Nationals had the hitting that the Blue Jays have, do you think they would be trailing the Mets by five games? The Blue Jays have scored more than 150 more runs than the Nationals. But I'm sure that's all chemistry-based run scoring.
“If you have good clubhouse chemistry, you going to win,’’ New York Yankees veteran starter CC Sabathia said. “It’s not something you can fake. It’s real.
“You
look at the Giants. Those guys love each other, and they win. They get a
guy like Peavy. You see what (Tim) Hudson has meant for them. It’s the
real thing.’’
I would have to again ask why the Giants can't seem to win the World Series during odd numbered years with a roster that doesn't change dramatically. Is their chemistry just forgotten during certain years?
Sure, numbers are fine for fantasy leagues, but if you want to truly
define a player’s value, or recognize the importance significance of
clubhouse culture, it’s time to wake up and embrace character, too.
I think most people recognize the value of character and embrace this value. The fact statistics are used to evaluate players doesn't mean clubhouse culture is ignored.
“I think we’re losing part of our game because so many of these people
in charge don’t have the scouting background or playing background,’’
Peavy said.
One minute David Price says people who don't understand how chemistry works don't work in baseball and the next minute Jake Peavy says there are some who work in baseball who don't understand chemistry. By the way, the Giants use analytics. I wouldn't be surprised if Jake Peavy didn't know this and just thought the Giants had hired nerds so there would be someone around to give a swirlie to, because giving swirlies to nerds is a well-known way to help a team's chemistry.
“You can have all of the education you want, and break down every number
you want, but unless you get to know what’s inside a player, you really
don’t know the player.’’
Yes, probably. But when scouting high school or college baseball players it is nearly impossible to know how their personality will fit into that MLB team's personality and clubhouse culture 2-6 years from now. What is possible to project is that player's talent. It doesn't mean talent is the end-all, but it does explain why players aren't drafted based on chemistry instead of perceived talent.
The Royals certainly noticed the tepid external expectations. Public relations director Mike Swanson, in his recent pre-game notes, reminded everyone of Baseball Prospectus’ projected 72-90 record.
“Fortunately, games are won on a field and not on paper,’’ Swanson wrote
in the Royals’ notes distributed to the media, “thus a computer ‘time
out’ might be appropriate for some.”
Hilarious. Swanson may be forgetting the Royals were one failed rally away from being knocked out of the idiotic Wild Card game. Yep, talent had something to do with the Royals going to the World Series.
“We had our Moneyball movie, and they didn’t even win,’’ Peavy said of the Oakland Athletics.
“How about let’s make a movie about the good ol’ fashioned baseball
people, and how they judge team chemistry, and put together guys that
fit in.
Great idea. I get the feeling Jake Peavy isn't a threat to appear on "Jeopardy" any time soon. Unless the topic is "Good ol' fashioned baseball people" I'm thinking he's probably better at throwing a ball than he is a-thinkin' with his head.
“How about a movie about a team that actually wins in the end?’’
I believe that movie was made 25 years ago and it is called "Major League." Or maybe it is called "The Natural," "Bad News Bears," "Angels in the Outfield," "Little Big League," "Rookie of the Year," or one of the dozens of baseball movies made about a team that actually wins in the end. Great point, Jake Peavy.
There should be a movie called "Chemistry" where a team of baseball players who don't have the talent to play in the majors are all traded to the same team, then win the World Series because they all get along so well. Jake Peavy would love this.
You can't measure team chemistry, so maybe someone should create a dating website for baseball players so GM's can know which players will have the most in common and therefore enjoy spending time with each other. It can be like Match.com for athletes. Or is that too much like trying to measure chemistry? Maybe other MLB teams should try to create the chemistry the Blue Jays have by trading for three great players and seeing if that helps them win more games. I don't know, getting really talented players could work to help a team win more games.
Showing posts with label chemistry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemistry. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2015
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
6 comments MMQB Review: Peter Hits Chip Kelly with Tough Questions Edition
Peter King reminded us last week in MMQB that Anquan Boldin got traded this summer to the 49ers. He was confused as to why more people weren't talking about this trade. Of course, Peter also thought this past offseason the Ravens may trade Joe Flacco or let him go in free agency and then sign Alex Smith. Peter got angry last week because he is a Zone 1 passenger who is forced to endure being around the Zone 3 passengers who dare to stand in front of him as he tries to board a plane. Peter also warned us to not count out the Eagles from contending this year. I guess he feels there are people counting the Eagles out in late July. This week in MMQB, Peter talks about Riley Cooper, updates us on Darrelle Revis (thank God he isn't still talking about how the Jets shouldn't have traded Revis like he was doing every week all summer), visits NFL training camps (he likes Tavon Austin! Who knew?), and believes he attended an Amish barn raising.
On Sunday afternoon, new coach Chip Kelly ran his 89 players (90 minus the mentally rehabbing Riley Cooper) through another practice. And I mean “ran.” It’s different here, with a fast pace and a soothing robot voice telling players what to do next and music. Lots of loud music. Cooper was away, apparently trying to figure out why he would scream the worst racial epithet a white person can scream.
I think I can guess why he would scream the worst racial epithet a white person can scream, though I do wonder...is that not the worst racial epithet a Hispanic or Asian person could scream as well? I don't think it is socially acceptable for a person of any race to use the word that Riley Cooper used.
“This is the first training camp I’ve ever been to,’’ said a bemused Atlanta Braves pitcher, Brandon Beachy, as the session wound down. Beachy and four mates, in town to play the Phillies Sunday night, stopped by to see Camp Chip across Broad Street from the Eagles’ complex.
Peter doesn't know who you are Brandon. I would spend more time working on not giving up seven runs in 2 1/3 innings and less time hanging out with Peter King.
Nope, though a few (Seattle, most notably) do. I don’t know of any camps that run nearly all of their offensive plays without huddling, or during seven-on-seven drills use three ballboys with three-foot-high “fly-swatters’’ on shoulder pads to imitate very tall pass rushers with their arms up, or have each player wear GPS units and heart-rate monitors that track every step they take and every heart beat they experience.
If only there were a drill or monitor that would allow Mike Vick to not fumble the football or throw the football to the opposing team.
My simplest question to Kelly, back inside the NovaCare Complex after practice: “Why run it this way?’’
Peter with the hard-hitting questions for Chip Kelly.
The Eagles imported Kelly from Oregon in January, and he quickly began to change things all over the facility, and in the locker room.
I can see that Kelly changed things in the locker room. Apparently he decided he wanted a more "racially-tinged" tone to the locker room and Riley Cooper was glad to oblige.
His reign, I believe, will be the most interesting college-to-pro transition since Jimmy Johnson went from the University of Miami to Dallas in 1989.
I believe this isn't true and I also believe it doesn't matter. I believe Steve Spurrier's transition to the NFL was probably considered the most interesting college-to-pro transition back when he signed on to be the Redskins head coach, but Peter chooses not to remember it that way. It's interesting to me how Spurrier's failure in the NFL causes some writers to not remember how eagerly awaited Spurrier's "Fun 'N' Gun" offense was by many.
“I’ve always been a ‘why’ guy,’’ he said. “Like, I want to know why. And a lot of times the why is crazy. I understand it. I just always have been inquisitive. The only thing I won’t accept is because that’s the way we’ve always done it. I ask you: Why did you change from your old Monday Morning Quarterback format to a new one?
Peter hasn't changed the format of MMQB to a new one. He changed websites and prior to that he just kept adding parts to the current MMQB format until it became somewhat bloated.
Well, it wasn’t just for the sake of change. It was because you figured out why it was a better idea, and you thought it made sense.
No really, the only change in MMQB over the last decade has been the change from CNNSI.com to The MMQB and Peter has added more personal thoughts, Tweets, quotes, complaints about how the world treats him while he travels.
I think the one thing we’re very conscious of is we don’t have an ego in our program. So it’s not: We are gonna do it our way no matter what and I don’t care what anyone else thinks. If it makes sense, and the science is behind it, we’ll do it.’’
I said: “So science is more important than tradition to you.’’
That's absolutely not at all what Chip Kelly was saying. Chip Kelly is saying what works best is more important to him than tradition. I don't get how Peter comes back with "So science is important than tradition to you" after this group of sentences where Kelly explains how there is no ego in the Eagles program. Kelly is open to ideas as long as there is proof the idea could work. That's what he is saying. These are the types of follow-up questions Peter asks apparently.
They used to give you salt pills in the old days. They used to tell you that if you took water during practice you were soft. The science aspect of things can help and I think the biggest thing is when you look at the other sports out there’s so many people out there that are more advanced than us from a science standpoint in sports that if you don’t listen to them then …
"Keep an open mind" is all Chip Kelly is saying. He's not making a Science v. Tradition argument. He's making an argument that he has to pay attention to ideas that may work and he recognizes the progress and change in the line of thought used by football coaches over the years. This follow-up question by Peter feels so vapid to me.
“I just think it make practice efficient,’’ he said. “That’s all it is. That doesn’t mean we’re gonna be a no-huddle team for the entire game. I’ve always believed that it’s easier to slow down than it is to speed up. So if we always practice fast, and then when you get into the game it seems to slow down for you, it’s easier for you.’’
"So speed in the no-huddle is more important to you than making sure you call the right plays?"
One more piece of misinformation out there: The Chip Kelly offense is going to be great for the quarterbacks, not so great for the runners.
I don't get this. If anything, wouldn't the perception be that Chip Kelly's offense isn't good for the quarterback, but good for the runners? I'm confused because then Peter gets quotes from Mike Vick that makes it sound like Vick thought the Kelly offense would be great for the runners, but not passers.
“First off, when he came, I was actually worried whether we’d throw it at all,’’ said Michael Vick. “But we just play the numbers. We know why he’s doing what he does. He explains it. We know the ‘why.’ “
We will see what Kelly's offense consists of once the Eagles start playing regular season games. It's stupid to try and guess until that time.
Now came a loud “Sweet Emotion’’ remix by some Aerosmith knockoff band.
Knowing Peter's knowledge of music, this song was probably just "Sweet Emotion" by Aerosmith.
Pass, pass, pass. But what about those numbers—the 63 percent run ratio over the last two years at Oregon? Some of that, surely, comes from the fact that Oregon was beating up on some tomato cans and just wanted to run the clock out. But some, GM Howie Roseman said, was certainly by design. “I think what’s surprised me the most,’’ said Roseman, watching from the sidelines Sunday, “is how much he wants to be a physical offensive team in the image of this city.’’
That surprised Howie Roseman? Did he watch any Oregon football games before hiring Chip Kelly? The Ducks were a pretty physical team, especially considering they were very good at running the ball down their opponent's throats.
Another surprise, in a summer full of them. It’s only Aug. 5. I don’t know what’s coming next, but I can’t wait to see what it is.
So feeling surprised is more important to you than playing the regular season football games?
A word or two about practice: Aqib Talib intercepted Tom Brady. Twice
So does this mean Talib is a better player than he was last year or Tom Brady isn't as good as he was last year?
Take this for what it’s worth: Tim Tebow made three beautiful downfield throws that I saw, completions thrown 25 yards or more hitting receivers in stride. Tebow was also the personal protector on punts (kudos to you, Mike Westhoff, for getting him started on that last summer) and ran down on punts with energy. I bet the Patriots keep three quarterbacks, knowing they’re able to use Tebow as a utility player. Not necessarily a guy they’d have active every week, but a guy they could use in certain matchup situations against some teams.
Peter wrote two sentences about players in Patriots camp who aren't Tim Tebow and four sentences about Tim Tebow. Just remember this next time Peter talks about the insanity that surrounds Tebow and seems confused as to why writers constantly talk about Tebow.
So how about that—E.J. Manuel winning the job (I’d say he’s in the lead, especially with Kevin Kolb’s weekend knee tweak)
Plus it helps E.J. Manuel win the starting quarterback job that Kevin Kolb is Kevin Kolb.
And it could be that Rex Ryan and John Idzik will do the safe thing and give the start opening day to Sanchez, figuring they can go to Smith in relief if Sanchez continues his erratic, buttfumbly type of play. If it’s close, I don’t think that’s a good idea. If Sanchez throws two straight incompletions in the opener Sept. 8, the crowd will shower him with boos. And is that really the way the Jets want to open the season, with that kind of negativity? I think not.
I see the point here, but what if Geno Smith comes out and has two straight incompletions and looks terrible? At that point will the Jets fans be patient with him, will they boo him, and worry that both quarterback options suck? Is it worth having Smith start and not give him a chance to succeed? My point is that if Rex Ryan picks his quarterback on who could get booed less then he deserves what he gets for making a personnel decision based on what the fans want. You don't want to ruin Geno Smith before he has a chance to succeed either.
Friday, Aug. 2, Latrobe, Pa.
The Steelers
Finally, a team that tackles.
Ninth team I’ve seen practice. First team that tackled.
I guess teams are afraid of injuries. I'm not sure how to reconcile Peter saying "Finally, a team that tackles" while also writing last week about the season-ending injuries suffered by Jeremy Maclin and other NFL stars at the beginning of training camp. Not that tackling goes hand-in-hand with injuries of course, but I would think a team that tackles in training camp has a better chance of suffering injuries to the players getting tackled.
I ask Tomlin after the 150-minute practice why the Steelers do it this way when so many teams do not.
"So contact in training camp is more important to you than practicing and preparing your team effectively?"
You’ve got to pit man versus man out here. You’ve got to compete. And that’s what we’re going to do. We’re not going to run away from it. Football is a game that’s continually evolving, and we acknowledge that. But the physicality of the game will never go anywhere.”
Actually, the physicality of football is decreasing in some ways due to the new rules about helmet-to-helmet contact and the greater awareness about the long-term effects of concussions. I get what Tomlin is saying, but he's wrong about the physicality of the game never going anywhere.
The fact that Cooper is white, and plays on a team with some black players who are now inclined to hate him, makes this a very slippery slope for a team in modern sports to handle. The first response—and maybe the second and third—was that the Eagles should cut him. Make a statement that this won’t be tolerated by any employee of their organization.
Buuuut...the Eagles do need quality wide receivers, so..........
and my gut feeling is they’ll bring him back to the team, likely as a member of the 53-man roster when they’re set in four weeks.
Why? Lots of reasons. But one of them could very well be the ghost of LaGarrette Blount.
Wait, LaGarrette Blount is dead and haunting NFL training camps?
Kelly, the first-year head coach of Oregon, suspended Blount for the rest of the season. A month later, convinced Blount truly regretted what he’d done, Kelly changed course, setting in motion a plan for Blount to rejoin the team if he followed a strict set of guidelines on the field and at school. Blount followed the rules, and played the last two games of the season. One of Kelly’s advisers on the Blount case was former Colts coach Tony Dungy.
And if Tony Dungy thinks LaGarrette Blount is a swell guy then how could this be wrong?
So when Blount unexpectedly rushed for a rookie-high 1,007 yards in Tampa Bay, Dungy took a photo of a big banner celebrating Blount’s accomplishments and emailed it to Kelly. Dungy told Kelly, in effect, that without the coach’s forgiveness, Blount probably never would have been in the NFL, never mind rushed for 1,000 yards.
Why is Peter skipping the part where LaGarrette Blount got in a shoving match with a teammate while with the Titans and threw a punch at that teammate? Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the narrative. Blount hasn't been in trouble since he joined the Buccaneers but he was traded to the Patriots for a 7th round pick and Jeff Demps this past offseason. So his fairy tale after punching a Boise State player hasn't quite ended happily yet.
Three years ago, Dungy recalled Sunday night, “Chip could have kicked Blount to the curb. He chose to believe in him. And it worked out. With Riley Cooper, this kid made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. The big issue, too, is the alcohol. That has to be dealt with. But Chip will make the right decision. He doesn’t care what the popular opinion. He cares about what’s right.’’
Not coincidentally, in the case of Blount punching a Boise State player what was popular among some Oregon Ducks fans also happened to be something that would benefit Chip Kelly and the Oregon team, so Blount got reinstated. Crazy how that works isn't it? There is some comparison between Blount and Riley Cooper, but Blount punched a member of the opposing team, while Riley Cooper insulted and angered his own teammates. It's easier to bring Blount back since nobody on the Oregon Ducks team felt personally insulted he punched a Boise State player, while it's not as easy to call Reverend Dungy in for this situation to help rehab Riley Cooper's image and use Cooper's affiliation with Dungy as a reason to forgive him. Cooper pissed off his teammates, not members of an opposing team. It's not as easy to do the right thing and keep the team happy as it was in the Blount situation.
I left the Eagles’ complex Sunday feeling Cooper will have the chance to—as he told the team when the news broke last week—“make it right.” Then it’ll be up to him, and to how forgiving his mates will be.
I'm not entirely sure how Riley Cooper can make it right for it not to disrupt the Eagles season or cause some bad blood in some way on the Eagles team. Say an opposing safety takes a cheap shot at Cooper because he didn't like Cooper's use of a racial slur, is one of Cooper's Eagles teammates going to come to his defense? Obviously that question can't be answered now, but it's going to take some time to make this right.
My feeling? I definitely think the Eagles should keep Cooper, unless the situation becomes powerfully untenable in the locker room.
The issue is that the Eagles want to take care of the problem PRIOR to the locker room becoming powerfully untenable. There's no use in allowing the situation to boil over and then take action. That's the issue I see, because once the Eagles locker room becomes untenable then it may be too late. Obviously things need time to play out, but to say "I think the Eagles should keep Cooper, unless it turns out Cooper turns the entire Eagles locker room into a hostile environment in which case the Eagles should cut Cooper."
Cooper has told friends (believe it or not; and I’m not sure I believe it) that he was shocked when he saw the video of himself using the racial epithet, because he says he doesn’t remember doing it. That’s how drunk he claims to have been that night.
It's very convenient that Cooper doesn't remember saying it. Should that let him off the hook or be a sign that perhaps Cooper has other issues with alcohol that also deserve his attention? I'm saying he's an alcoholic, but I've tried the "I was drunk and didn't mean it" excuse a few times and seem to fail a lot of the time in it being considered a valid excuse.
Two of his best friends on the team over the years have been black. He cried when Cornelius Ingram, a tight end, was cut in 2011. He put a towel over his head and displayed anguish when Jeremy Maclin tore his ACL in training camp a week ago.
He can't be a racist, he has two black friends!
Cooper is a fighter, and a guy who lives hard. But there hasn’t been any sign that he is a racist to anyone on the team, from what I was told by three Eagle sources over the weekend. There’s something disturbing inside the man, and if he’s being honest (we’ll know soon enough), he wants to learn why such a vile thing came out of him that night two months ago.
Cooper may not have meant to say it, but he did and it got caught on-camera. Maybe there would be more signs that Cooper was racist if his teammates got him drunk and took him to a country music concert. Maybe Cooper just said something he didn't mean and will regret that comment didn't show what he truly thinks. Either way, if Peter can forgive the Marriott for not having fresh hot coffee at 6am, surely the Eagles players can forgive Riley Cooper.
I spoke with Revis, Dominik and coach Greg Schiano late in the week and, interestingly, Revis was probably the least optimistic of them all about his September readiness.
Yeah, that's really not good news considering Revis is the one who knows first-hand how good his knee feels. The fact Revis is less optimistic than Dominik and Schiano doesn't strike me as a good thing, especially considering we just experienced a basketball player (Derrick Rose) who missed the entire 12-13 season because he didn't think his knee felt good enough for him to play.
Revis said he has had no swelling in the knee; has been able to test it consistently; and that it has responded well to his testing, torquing and quick-twitch movements.
So I asked Revis: Do you wonder how the knee’s going to react a month from now?
“Not really,’’ he said. “I’m very confident. Very.
Revis is so confident his knee is going to hold up in regular season games he is thinking about holding out and refusing to play any regular season games until he gets a new contract. At this point he may as well, since it's a tradition.
It also sounds like Schiano is okay with Revis going back out to Revis Island—taking the opponent’s best receiver one-on-one. It’s what Revis did to become the best corner in football in 2010 and 2011, and he expects to be able to do it again—with Schiano’s blessing.
“Coach and I have talked about it,’’ Revis said, “and he’s open to it. It’ll be predicated on the gameplan. But I think you’ll see it a lot. I might have to dust the cobwebs off, but it’s the way I play best. I’ve said, ‘Coach, this is the way I play best,’ and I think he agrees.”
Not to be rude, but considering the Buccaneers traded for Revis and paid Revis to be the best corner in the NFL, I don't know what kind of gameplan would predicate Revis doesn't guard the opposing team's best receiver one-on-one. The Bucs paid for Revis to be the best, they may as well try and allow him to be the best.
“I’ve often thought about that day in 1996 when you drafted me instead of Lawrence Phillips. I think that worked out well for everyone.’’
—Former Baltimore tackle Jonathan Ogden, during his Hall of Fame speech, looking at the man who drafted him, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome.
This did sort of work out for everyone since the Rams later drafted Orlando Pace to play left tackle.
What I’ve always thought was a silly theory was out in force again over the weekend: namely, that Bill Parcells was nothing without Bill Belichick. It’s true that Parcells won his two Super Bowls with Belichick as his defensive coordinator, and he made his only other Super Bowl appearance with Belichick on his coaching staff—in 1996, in New England.
I think it’s wrong-headed.
Now there is a shock. Peter King is defending someone he covered who he personally likes? Wouldn't see that coming. Peter then defends why he thinks this is wrong-headed by muddying the waters a little bit.
Did you know:
• Don Shula, in 15 coaching seasons without Bill Arnsparger on his defensive staff, was a 6-7 playoff coach with no world titles?
• Paul Brown never won a playoff game without Otto Graham as his quarterback.
• Bill Belichick’s career record without Tom Brady under center: 51-62 (.451).
• Bill Walsh’s career record without Joe Montana under center: 17-23-1 (.427).
While I don't think there is necessarily anything to the "Bill Parcells is nothing without Bill Belichick" argument, I'm not sure it is a good comparison to use a coach's record without his starting quarterback as a comparison to what head coaches have done without specific coordinators. To me, these are two different things. Maybe they are different versions of the same thing, but I see a difference in a coach's record without a certain quarterback and that coach's record without a certain coordinator.
Of course as I have mentioned before, I don't think Bill Parcells sucks, but I also think he got by on reputation towards the end of his coaching career.
Below this is a video of "Peter King's favorite Bill Parcells memory" where Peter tells a story in honor of Parcells' induction into the Hall of Fame. So, there's that...
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
1. Save the Jamestown Jammers. In the western New York hamlet of Jamestown Wednesday night, The MMQB RV stopped for five innings of tip-top minor-league baseball. Jamestown is the birthplace of Roger Goodell and Lucille Ball,
It must have been an honor for Peter to go to Roger Goodell's hometown. Maybe he and Goodell could take a picture together again while they are out to eat.
So the Jamestown mayor, who was in attendance for the game, saw our little crew and came over to our seats in the grandstand to see how we were enjoying Jamestown … and to make his case to keep the team in this lovely hamlet.
Because, you know, Peter King has full control over whether this team stays in Jamestown or not.
2. And thanks to your groundskeeper, Josh Waid. I did a dumb thing in Jamestown, but it led to a very cool thing.
The cool thing was that Peter tore up the Jamestown Jammers parking area with his big fucking RV. How hilarious!
I directed our staff aide and RV driver, former Colgate safety Andy DeGory, to park on the slightly sloping grassy area outside the park that serves as the parking lot for Diethrick Park. And so, of course, the RV got stuck on the soft ground.
Who would have ever thought a huge massive RV could get stuck in wet mud? Not Peter and ex-Colgate safety Andy DeGory that's who.
In the sixth inning, Waid brought a tractor out to gently coerce the back of the RV out of the little trap. We attracted a local crew of do-gooders, maybe 10 or 12 in all, who helped us push, and Waid used the tractor to do the final bit of work, and we were free.
The lesson here? Don't drive your RV onto a slightly sloping area of grass. Instead try to find a piece of concrete to park your huge RV on and then walk (gasp!) to the ball park so you don't need the groundskeeper to get out a freaking tractor to help you move your RV.
“It’s like an Amish barn-raising,’’ I said to Waid, thanking him profusely.
I would be like an Amish barn-raising if the Amish person built his barn with balsa wood on the side of a mountain and then everyone in the Amish community had to help move the house before it collapsed. So basically it was like an Amish barn-raising if the community had to pitch in simply to prevent the idiot who raised the barn from having it collapse on him.
5. Gotta love Homer, N.Y. A gas-station attendant in Homer provided us our quote of the trip. We’d just filled our 40-foot RV with gas—it was near empty—when the country fellow shook his head and mused, “Boy, that beaver was thirsty.”
Then later in the day the gas-station attendant and some neighbors had to help Peter move the RV because he had parked it in the middle of a lake.
“It amazes me that Riley Cooper is not suspended—that is PATHETIC.”
—@DickieV, announcer Dick Vitale.
Really, who better to give such an insightful perspective on the situation than Dick Vitale? I look forward to his 2013-2014 Diaper Dandy list that gets posted to ESPN.com. It will essentially be the 2013 Scout 100 top 10 or 15 players.
“Fueling up at gas station. Guy is trying to convince wife to let him go to bathroom. She’s yelling at him, telling him no. His life stinks.”
—@granthpaulsen, beat reporter for Washington’s 106.7 The Fan.
This guy should just tell his wife the beaver is really thirsty.
Ten Things I Think I Think
f. Intense practice/scrimmage for the Saints Saturday. Sean Payton means business.
If I was the head coach of a team that had given up the most defensive yards in NFL history I would think the practices and scrimmages would be pretty intense. I wonder if Payton is motivating the players by financially compensating players for hits that injure someone. Not that Sean Payton would ever do this and Drew Brees knows absolutely NOTHING about this either.
i. The Jags had 19,000 at Everbank Field Saturday night, more than doubling last year’s stadium practice attendance. Gus Bradley Fever, evidently.
More like Chad Henne fever to be exact.
l. Biggest applause-receivers at the Friday night Hall of Fame dinner in Canton, in order: Jim Brown, John Madden, Joe Namath, Joe Greene.
So basically you only get applause if your name is Jim, John, or Joe. In fact, I don't know how Bill Parcells got elected into the Hall of Fame alongside Jonathan (Jon Ogden?) Ogden with a name like "Bill."
m. The Cards love Ryan Williams, but he’ll never make the team if his chronic injury history continues.
"Ryan Williams may never be a good NFL player if he isn't able to actually play in NFL games." #analysis
3. I think one of the good developing training camp stories
Is that Anquan Boldin got traded to the 49ers from the Ravens?
I’ve said this since I spent a day with the Cards in June, but Arians is going to try to be imaginative and explosive—and I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t shock the three teams in the division with schemes they’ve never seen from the Cards. He’s got Peterson in about 15 offensive plays, and could use him as a wideout at anytime. On Saturday, Arians said Peterson could be one of the top five wideouts in football if the Cards chose to put him there.
I say that Blaine Gabbert is the best quarterback in the NFL, but that doesn't make it true. We can all make outrageous unprovable claims, but that doesn't mean these claims are true. Of course the guy Arians has running the imaginative and explosive scheme is Carson Palmer, so I guess we will have to see how that's going to work out.
(Peter's phone rings) "Hello?"
(Marvin Demoff) "Hey asshole, it's Marvin Demoff."
(Peter King) "Hello sir, how may I assist you to the best of my ability?"
(Marvin Demoff) "I like the new site kid, but it seems to be missing a lot of the talk about the Rams and just how exciting that team is. Don't you think that merits a mention?"
(Peter King) "Oh, well...sir...I think I took a break off because there were other NFL stories to talk about."
(Marvin Demoff) "You don't take weeks off. Don't do it. Do you think Jeff Fisher cares about the other stories? No. Are your other stories going to help my son keep his job with the Rams? No. Write about the Rams and how exciting they are (hangs up)"
(Peter King starts typing furiously trying to think of something positive to write about the Rams)
8. I think I keep hearing great things about two offensive weapons: St. Louis utility star Tavon Austin
I've never heard of this Tavon Austin fellow. Why hasn't Peter mentioned Austin or what a great offensive weapon he could be before this very MMQB?
and the guy who, to me, is a sort of Tavon Austin Jr., Jacksonville wideout/multipurpose player Ace Sanders.
He's like Austin, but nowhere near as good as Austin is, right? How could he be?
The Rams practiced in the Edward Jones Dome Saturday and gave local fans a whiff of what to expect from Austin, playing him at several spots. “You’re going to have to come out, watch and see what we do with him,’’ said coach Jeff Fisher. “Obviously, there’s things everybody does across the league in camp that they don’t show until the regular season.” During draft prep in St. Louis, the Rams privately knew if they somehow weren’t able to get Austin, they’d have gone after Sanders, who is emerging in camp as the kind of versatile weapon Jacksonville hoped it was drafting last April.
Thanks again for covering who the Rams would have drafted if they had not gotten the chance to draft Tavon Austin. It's not like Peter has covered the Rams 2013 draft in any depth already, so it's good that it is early August he is still telling us about the Rams draft strategy and who they would have taken had they not taken Tavon Austin. Marvin Demoff is smiling somewhere.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Johnny Manziel’s got to have a death wish. I mean, is he trying to get the NFL to hate him?
Make racist comments (Riley Cooper) and the NFL forgives you.
Drive drunk and kill someone (Leonard Little) and the NFL forgives you.
Be involved with a dog fighting ring (Mike Vick) and the NFL forgives you.
Drive drunk and run over someone (Donte Stallworth) and the NFL forgives you.
Be a 20 year old college student (Johnny Manziel) who likes to party and you'll be lucky to get drafted.
c. The mailbag is back, every Tuesday. I won’t have a top on it, but I’ll answer the best eight or 10 questions emailed or communicated to me through one of the aforementioned forums.
I used to cover Peter's mailbag from time-to-time, but it has become so monotonous to read I didn't even know the mailbag had not been running on a weekly basis.
g. Depressing how out of touch I get on the road. Really depressing. Now I see we’re under a terrorism alert. Hope I’m safe driving all over the land the next two weeks.
I think the biggest thing Peter has to worry about in regard to his safety over the next two weeks is making sure he doesn't park in his massive RV in the path of an oncoming train.
i. No, I have not decided my Super Bowl pick yet, though I did tell Charlie Rose my early guess is Denver-San Francisco.
No way! Peter is thinking about picking Peyton Manning to make the Super Bowl? I don't believe it. I wonder if this is a Gregg Easterbrook-type early pick where Peter will make this pick, but then make a real pick in "Sports Illustrated" that is his "real" pick, but he will gladly take credit for the Denver-San Francisco pick if that should end up being the Super Bowl matchup.
k. Pete Abraham covers the Red Sox for the Boston Globe. Red Sox owner John Henry just bought the Boston Globe. I assume at some point John Henry, as new owners/publishers of media outlets do, will walk into the paper’s newsroom and speak to the reporters, editors and photographers about his hopes for the paper. I can’t imagine how strange it would be to have the boss at my job also be the boss of the entity I cover.
Good news, Peter! You don't have to imagine! You can be a shill for Roger Goodell and the NFL teams without actually having them be your boss. It's not like Peter doesn't have some conflicts regarding who he covers and other aspects of his career, like he shares an agent with some NFL head coaches and that agent is the father of an NFL team's COO. You can't tell me Peter's access to Brett Favre didn't cause issues with his job, especially related to Peter's friendship with Favre.
Also, this is sort of what it would be like working for NFL Network, no? Sort of? You work for NFL Network, but the NFL Network is run by the NFL and Roger Goodell.
l. Coffeenerdness: Angel In A Starbucks Dept.: Nice man walks into the Starbucks on Broad Street in Philadelphia Sunday evening. Introduces himself, says he enjoys my work. I thank him. He goes and gets a coffee. I am pounding away at my column. He comes back five minutes later, shakes my hand and hands me a $10 Starbucks card. Thanks me again. I am … without speech. “Th-th-thanks!’’ I said. People are good.
And of course, the same Peter King who gladly earns seven figures per year, accepts a $10 gift card from this very nice man. No Peter, perhaps you should be buying THIS GUY a Starbucks gift card for reading and enjoying your column that helps make you so wealthy. I'm not sure it's the other way around. To be fair, Peter wouldn't think to buy some random guy a Starbucks gift card. Still, seems to be the case of giving a gift to a person who doesn't need the gift. It's like giving celebrities swag at awards shows.
The Adieu Haiku
Six months of football
started Sunday in Canton.
Life is good. Quite good.
This is a haiku that an 8th grader could have thought of. If you are going to put a haiku at the end of your column at least make it seem somewhat meaningful or intelligent-sounding.
On Sunday afternoon, new coach Chip Kelly ran his 89 players (90 minus the mentally rehabbing Riley Cooper) through another practice. And I mean “ran.” It’s different here, with a fast pace and a soothing robot voice telling players what to do next and music. Lots of loud music. Cooper was away, apparently trying to figure out why he would scream the worst racial epithet a white person can scream.
I think I can guess why he would scream the worst racial epithet a white person can scream, though I do wonder...is that not the worst racial epithet a Hispanic or Asian person could scream as well? I don't think it is socially acceptable for a person of any race to use the word that Riley Cooper used.
“This is the first training camp I’ve ever been to,’’ said a bemused Atlanta Braves pitcher, Brandon Beachy, as the session wound down. Beachy and four mates, in town to play the Phillies Sunday night, stopped by to see Camp Chip across Broad Street from the Eagles’ complex.
Peter doesn't know who you are Brandon. I would spend more time working on not giving up seven runs in 2 1/3 innings and less time hanging out with Peter King.
Nope, though a few (Seattle, most notably) do. I don’t know of any camps that run nearly all of their offensive plays without huddling, or during seven-on-seven drills use three ballboys with three-foot-high “fly-swatters’’ on shoulder pads to imitate very tall pass rushers with their arms up, or have each player wear GPS units and heart-rate monitors that track every step they take and every heart beat they experience.
If only there were a drill or monitor that would allow Mike Vick to not fumble the football or throw the football to the opposing team.
My simplest question to Kelly, back inside the NovaCare Complex after practice: “Why run it this way?’’
Peter with the hard-hitting questions for Chip Kelly.
The Eagles imported Kelly from Oregon in January, and he quickly began to change things all over the facility, and in the locker room.
I can see that Kelly changed things in the locker room. Apparently he decided he wanted a more "racially-tinged" tone to the locker room and Riley Cooper was glad to oblige.
His reign, I believe, will be the most interesting college-to-pro transition since Jimmy Johnson went from the University of Miami to Dallas in 1989.
I believe this isn't true and I also believe it doesn't matter. I believe Steve Spurrier's transition to the NFL was probably considered the most interesting college-to-pro transition back when he signed on to be the Redskins head coach, but Peter chooses not to remember it that way. It's interesting to me how Spurrier's failure in the NFL causes some writers to not remember how eagerly awaited Spurrier's "Fun 'N' Gun" offense was by many.
“I’ve always been a ‘why’ guy,’’ he said. “Like, I want to know why. And a lot of times the why is crazy. I understand it. I just always have been inquisitive. The only thing I won’t accept is because that’s the way we’ve always done it. I ask you: Why did you change from your old Monday Morning Quarterback format to a new one?
Peter hasn't changed the format of MMQB to a new one. He changed websites and prior to that he just kept adding parts to the current MMQB format until it became somewhat bloated.
Well, it wasn’t just for the sake of change. It was because you figured out why it was a better idea, and you thought it made sense.
No really, the only change in MMQB over the last decade has been the change from CNNSI.com to The MMQB and Peter has added more personal thoughts, Tweets, quotes, complaints about how the world treats him while he travels.
I think the one thing we’re very conscious of is we don’t have an ego in our program. So it’s not: We are gonna do it our way no matter what and I don’t care what anyone else thinks. If it makes sense, and the science is behind it, we’ll do it.’’
I said: “So science is more important than tradition to you.’’
That's absolutely not at all what Chip Kelly was saying. Chip Kelly is saying what works best is more important to him than tradition. I don't get how Peter comes back with "So science is important than tradition to you" after this group of sentences where Kelly explains how there is no ego in the Eagles program. Kelly is open to ideas as long as there is proof the idea could work. That's what he is saying. These are the types of follow-up questions Peter asks apparently.
They used to give you salt pills in the old days. They used to tell you that if you took water during practice you were soft. The science aspect of things can help and I think the biggest thing is when you look at the other sports out there’s so many people out there that are more advanced than us from a science standpoint in sports that if you don’t listen to them then …
"Keep an open mind" is all Chip Kelly is saying. He's not making a Science v. Tradition argument. He's making an argument that he has to pay attention to ideas that may work and he recognizes the progress and change in the line of thought used by football coaches over the years. This follow-up question by Peter feels so vapid to me.
“I just think it make practice efficient,’’ he said. “That’s all it is. That doesn’t mean we’re gonna be a no-huddle team for the entire game. I’ve always believed that it’s easier to slow down than it is to speed up. So if we always practice fast, and then when you get into the game it seems to slow down for you, it’s easier for you.’’
"So speed in the no-huddle is more important to you than making sure you call the right plays?"
One more piece of misinformation out there: The Chip Kelly offense is going to be great for the quarterbacks, not so great for the runners.
I don't get this. If anything, wouldn't the perception be that Chip Kelly's offense isn't good for the quarterback, but good for the runners? I'm confused because then Peter gets quotes from Mike Vick that makes it sound like Vick thought the Kelly offense would be great for the runners, but not passers.
“First off, when he came, I was actually worried whether we’d throw it at all,’’ said Michael Vick. “But we just play the numbers. We know why he’s doing what he does. He explains it. We know the ‘why.’ “
We will see what Kelly's offense consists of once the Eagles start playing regular season games. It's stupid to try and guess until that time.
Now came a loud “Sweet Emotion’’ remix by some Aerosmith knockoff band.
Knowing Peter's knowledge of music, this song was probably just "Sweet Emotion" by Aerosmith.
Pass, pass, pass. But what about those numbers—the 63 percent run ratio over the last two years at Oregon? Some of that, surely, comes from the fact that Oregon was beating up on some tomato cans and just wanted to run the clock out. But some, GM Howie Roseman said, was certainly by design. “I think what’s surprised me the most,’’ said Roseman, watching from the sidelines Sunday, “is how much he wants to be a physical offensive team in the image of this city.’’
That surprised Howie Roseman? Did he watch any Oregon football games before hiring Chip Kelly? The Ducks were a pretty physical team, especially considering they were very good at running the ball down their opponent's throats.
Another surprise, in a summer full of them. It’s only Aug. 5. I don’t know what’s coming next, but I can’t wait to see what it is.
So feeling surprised is more important to you than playing the regular season football games?
A word or two about practice: Aqib Talib intercepted Tom Brady. Twice
So does this mean Talib is a better player than he was last year or Tom Brady isn't as good as he was last year?
Take this for what it’s worth: Tim Tebow made three beautiful downfield throws that I saw, completions thrown 25 yards or more hitting receivers in stride. Tebow was also the personal protector on punts (kudos to you, Mike Westhoff, for getting him started on that last summer) and ran down on punts with energy. I bet the Patriots keep three quarterbacks, knowing they’re able to use Tebow as a utility player. Not necessarily a guy they’d have active every week, but a guy they could use in certain matchup situations against some teams.
Peter wrote two sentences about players in Patriots camp who aren't Tim Tebow and four sentences about Tim Tebow. Just remember this next time Peter talks about the insanity that surrounds Tebow and seems confused as to why writers constantly talk about Tebow.
So how about that—E.J. Manuel winning the job (I’d say he’s in the lead, especially with Kevin Kolb’s weekend knee tweak)
Plus it helps E.J. Manuel win the starting quarterback job that Kevin Kolb is Kevin Kolb.
And it could be that Rex Ryan and John Idzik will do the safe thing and give the start opening day to Sanchez, figuring they can go to Smith in relief if Sanchez continues his erratic, buttfumbly type of play. If it’s close, I don’t think that’s a good idea. If Sanchez throws two straight incompletions in the opener Sept. 8, the crowd will shower him with boos. And is that really the way the Jets want to open the season, with that kind of negativity? I think not.
I see the point here, but what if Geno Smith comes out and has two straight incompletions and looks terrible? At that point will the Jets fans be patient with him, will they boo him, and worry that both quarterback options suck? Is it worth having Smith start and not give him a chance to succeed? My point is that if Rex Ryan picks his quarterback on who could get booed less then he deserves what he gets for making a personnel decision based on what the fans want. You don't want to ruin Geno Smith before he has a chance to succeed either.
Friday, Aug. 2, Latrobe, Pa.
The Steelers
Finally, a team that tackles.
Ninth team I’ve seen practice. First team that tackled.
I guess teams are afraid of injuries. I'm not sure how to reconcile Peter saying "Finally, a team that tackles" while also writing last week about the season-ending injuries suffered by Jeremy Maclin and other NFL stars at the beginning of training camp. Not that tackling goes hand-in-hand with injuries of course, but I would think a team that tackles in training camp has a better chance of suffering injuries to the players getting tackled.
I ask Tomlin after the 150-minute practice why the Steelers do it this way when so many teams do not.
"So contact in training camp is more important to you than practicing and preparing your team effectively?"
You’ve got to pit man versus man out here. You’ve got to compete. And that’s what we’re going to do. We’re not going to run away from it. Football is a game that’s continually evolving, and we acknowledge that. But the physicality of the game will never go anywhere.”
Actually, the physicality of football is decreasing in some ways due to the new rules about helmet-to-helmet contact and the greater awareness about the long-term effects of concussions. I get what Tomlin is saying, but he's wrong about the physicality of the game never going anywhere.
The fact that Cooper is white, and plays on a team with some black players who are now inclined to hate him, makes this a very slippery slope for a team in modern sports to handle. The first response—and maybe the second and third—was that the Eagles should cut him. Make a statement that this won’t be tolerated by any employee of their organization.
Buuuut...the Eagles do need quality wide receivers, so..........
and my gut feeling is they’ll bring him back to the team, likely as a member of the 53-man roster when they’re set in four weeks.
Why? Lots of reasons. But one of them could very well be the ghost of LaGarrette Blount.
Wait, LaGarrette Blount is dead and haunting NFL training camps?
Kelly, the first-year head coach of Oregon, suspended Blount for the rest of the season. A month later, convinced Blount truly regretted what he’d done, Kelly changed course, setting in motion a plan for Blount to rejoin the team if he followed a strict set of guidelines on the field and at school. Blount followed the rules, and played the last two games of the season. One of Kelly’s advisers on the Blount case was former Colts coach Tony Dungy.
And if Tony Dungy thinks LaGarrette Blount is a swell guy then how could this be wrong?
So when Blount unexpectedly rushed for a rookie-high 1,007 yards in Tampa Bay, Dungy took a photo of a big banner celebrating Blount’s accomplishments and emailed it to Kelly. Dungy told Kelly, in effect, that without the coach’s forgiveness, Blount probably never would have been in the NFL, never mind rushed for 1,000 yards.
Why is Peter skipping the part where LaGarrette Blount got in a shoving match with a teammate while with the Titans and threw a punch at that teammate? Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the narrative. Blount hasn't been in trouble since he joined the Buccaneers but he was traded to the Patriots for a 7th round pick and Jeff Demps this past offseason. So his fairy tale after punching a Boise State player hasn't quite ended happily yet.
Three years ago, Dungy recalled Sunday night, “Chip could have kicked Blount to the curb. He chose to believe in him. And it worked out. With Riley Cooper, this kid made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. The big issue, too, is the alcohol. That has to be dealt with. But Chip will make the right decision. He doesn’t care what the popular opinion. He cares about what’s right.’’
Not coincidentally, in the case of Blount punching a Boise State player what was popular among some Oregon Ducks fans also happened to be something that would benefit Chip Kelly and the Oregon team, so Blount got reinstated. Crazy how that works isn't it? There is some comparison between Blount and Riley Cooper, but Blount punched a member of the opposing team, while Riley Cooper insulted and angered his own teammates. It's easier to bring Blount back since nobody on the Oregon Ducks team felt personally insulted he punched a Boise State player, while it's not as easy to call Reverend Dungy in for this situation to help rehab Riley Cooper's image and use Cooper's affiliation with Dungy as a reason to forgive him. Cooper pissed off his teammates, not members of an opposing team. It's not as easy to do the right thing and keep the team happy as it was in the Blount situation.
I left the Eagles’ complex Sunday feeling Cooper will have the chance to—as he told the team when the news broke last week—“make it right.” Then it’ll be up to him, and to how forgiving his mates will be.
I'm not entirely sure how Riley Cooper can make it right for it not to disrupt the Eagles season or cause some bad blood in some way on the Eagles team. Say an opposing safety takes a cheap shot at Cooper because he didn't like Cooper's use of a racial slur, is one of Cooper's Eagles teammates going to come to his defense? Obviously that question can't be answered now, but it's going to take some time to make this right.
My feeling? I definitely think the Eagles should keep Cooper, unless the situation becomes powerfully untenable in the locker room.
The issue is that the Eagles want to take care of the problem PRIOR to the locker room becoming powerfully untenable. There's no use in allowing the situation to boil over and then take action. That's the issue I see, because once the Eagles locker room becomes untenable then it may be too late. Obviously things need time to play out, but to say "I think the Eagles should keep Cooper, unless it turns out Cooper turns the entire Eagles locker room into a hostile environment in which case the Eagles should cut Cooper."
Cooper has told friends (believe it or not; and I’m not sure I believe it) that he was shocked when he saw the video of himself using the racial epithet, because he says he doesn’t remember doing it. That’s how drunk he claims to have been that night.
It's very convenient that Cooper doesn't remember saying it. Should that let him off the hook or be a sign that perhaps Cooper has other issues with alcohol that also deserve his attention? I'm saying he's an alcoholic, but I've tried the "I was drunk and didn't mean it" excuse a few times and seem to fail a lot of the time in it being considered a valid excuse.
Two of his best friends on the team over the years have been black. He cried when Cornelius Ingram, a tight end, was cut in 2011. He put a towel over his head and displayed anguish when Jeremy Maclin tore his ACL in training camp a week ago.
He can't be a racist, he has two black friends!
Cooper is a fighter, and a guy who lives hard. But there hasn’t been any sign that he is a racist to anyone on the team, from what I was told by three Eagle sources over the weekend. There’s something disturbing inside the man, and if he’s being honest (we’ll know soon enough), he wants to learn why such a vile thing came out of him that night two months ago.
Cooper may not have meant to say it, but he did and it got caught on-camera. Maybe there would be more signs that Cooper was racist if his teammates got him drunk and took him to a country music concert. Maybe Cooper just said something he didn't mean and will regret that comment didn't show what he truly thinks. Either way, if Peter can forgive the Marriott for not having fresh hot coffee at 6am, surely the Eagles players can forgive Riley Cooper.
I spoke with Revis, Dominik and coach Greg Schiano late in the week and, interestingly, Revis was probably the least optimistic of them all about his September readiness.
Yeah, that's really not good news considering Revis is the one who knows first-hand how good his knee feels. The fact Revis is less optimistic than Dominik and Schiano doesn't strike me as a good thing, especially considering we just experienced a basketball player (Derrick Rose) who missed the entire 12-13 season because he didn't think his knee felt good enough for him to play.
Revis said he has had no swelling in the knee; has been able to test it consistently; and that it has responded well to his testing, torquing and quick-twitch movements.
So I asked Revis: Do you wonder how the knee’s going to react a month from now?
“Not really,’’ he said. “I’m very confident. Very.
Revis is so confident his knee is going to hold up in regular season games he is thinking about holding out and refusing to play any regular season games until he gets a new contract. At this point he may as well, since it's a tradition.
It also sounds like Schiano is okay with Revis going back out to Revis Island—taking the opponent’s best receiver one-on-one. It’s what Revis did to become the best corner in football in 2010 and 2011, and he expects to be able to do it again—with Schiano’s blessing.
“Coach and I have talked about it,’’ Revis said, “and he’s open to it. It’ll be predicated on the gameplan. But I think you’ll see it a lot. I might have to dust the cobwebs off, but it’s the way I play best. I’ve said, ‘Coach, this is the way I play best,’ and I think he agrees.”
Not to be rude, but considering the Buccaneers traded for Revis and paid Revis to be the best corner in the NFL, I don't know what kind of gameplan would predicate Revis doesn't guard the opposing team's best receiver one-on-one. The Bucs paid for Revis to be the best, they may as well try and allow him to be the best.
“I’ve often thought about that day in 1996 when you drafted me instead of Lawrence Phillips. I think that worked out well for everyone.’’
—Former Baltimore tackle Jonathan Ogden, during his Hall of Fame speech, looking at the man who drafted him, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome.
This did sort of work out for everyone since the Rams later drafted Orlando Pace to play left tackle.
What I’ve always thought was a silly theory was out in force again over the weekend: namely, that Bill Parcells was nothing without Bill Belichick. It’s true that Parcells won his two Super Bowls with Belichick as his defensive coordinator, and he made his only other Super Bowl appearance with Belichick on his coaching staff—in 1996, in New England.
I think it’s wrong-headed.
Now there is a shock. Peter King is defending someone he covered who he personally likes? Wouldn't see that coming. Peter then defends why he thinks this is wrong-headed by muddying the waters a little bit.
Did you know:
• Don Shula, in 15 coaching seasons without Bill Arnsparger on his defensive staff, was a 6-7 playoff coach with no world titles?
• Paul Brown never won a playoff game without Otto Graham as his quarterback.
• Bill Belichick’s career record without Tom Brady under center: 51-62 (.451).
• Bill Walsh’s career record without Joe Montana under center: 17-23-1 (.427).
While I don't think there is necessarily anything to the "Bill Parcells is nothing without Bill Belichick" argument, I'm not sure it is a good comparison to use a coach's record without his starting quarterback as a comparison to what head coaches have done without specific coordinators. To me, these are two different things. Maybe they are different versions of the same thing, but I see a difference in a coach's record without a certain quarterback and that coach's record without a certain coordinator.
Of course as I have mentioned before, I don't think Bill Parcells sucks, but I also think he got by on reputation towards the end of his coaching career.
Below this is a video of "Peter King's favorite Bill Parcells memory" where Peter tells a story in honor of Parcells' induction into the Hall of Fame. So, there's that...
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
1. Save the Jamestown Jammers. In the western New York hamlet of Jamestown Wednesday night, The MMQB RV stopped for five innings of tip-top minor-league baseball. Jamestown is the birthplace of Roger Goodell and Lucille Ball,
It must have been an honor for Peter to go to Roger Goodell's hometown. Maybe he and Goodell could take a picture together again while they are out to eat.
So the Jamestown mayor, who was in attendance for the game, saw our little crew and came over to our seats in the grandstand to see how we were enjoying Jamestown … and to make his case to keep the team in this lovely hamlet.
Because, you know, Peter King has full control over whether this team stays in Jamestown or not.
2. And thanks to your groundskeeper, Josh Waid. I did a dumb thing in Jamestown, but it led to a very cool thing.
The cool thing was that Peter tore up the Jamestown Jammers parking area with his big fucking RV. How hilarious!
I directed our staff aide and RV driver, former Colgate safety Andy DeGory, to park on the slightly sloping grassy area outside the park that serves as the parking lot for Diethrick Park. And so, of course, the RV got stuck on the soft ground.
Who would have ever thought a huge massive RV could get stuck in wet mud? Not Peter and ex-Colgate safety Andy DeGory that's who.
In the sixth inning, Waid brought a tractor out to gently coerce the back of the RV out of the little trap. We attracted a local crew of do-gooders, maybe 10 or 12 in all, who helped us push, and Waid used the tractor to do the final bit of work, and we were free.
The lesson here? Don't drive your RV onto a slightly sloping area of grass. Instead try to find a piece of concrete to park your huge RV on and then walk (gasp!) to the ball park so you don't need the groundskeeper to get out a freaking tractor to help you move your RV.
“It’s like an Amish barn-raising,’’ I said to Waid, thanking him profusely.
I would be like an Amish barn-raising if the Amish person built his barn with balsa wood on the side of a mountain and then everyone in the Amish community had to help move the house before it collapsed. So basically it was like an Amish barn-raising if the community had to pitch in simply to prevent the idiot who raised the barn from having it collapse on him.
5. Gotta love Homer, N.Y. A gas-station attendant in Homer provided us our quote of the trip. We’d just filled our 40-foot RV with gas—it was near empty—when the country fellow shook his head and mused, “Boy, that beaver was thirsty.”
Then later in the day the gas-station attendant and some neighbors had to help Peter move the RV because he had parked it in the middle of a lake.
“It amazes me that Riley Cooper is not suspended—that is PATHETIC.”
—@DickieV, announcer Dick Vitale.
Really, who better to give such an insightful perspective on the situation than Dick Vitale? I look forward to his 2013-2014 Diaper Dandy list that gets posted to ESPN.com. It will essentially be the 2013 Scout 100 top 10 or 15 players.
“Fueling up at gas station. Guy is trying to convince wife to let him go to bathroom. She’s yelling at him, telling him no. His life stinks.”
—@granthpaulsen, beat reporter for Washington’s 106.7 The Fan.
This guy should just tell his wife the beaver is really thirsty.
Ten Things I Think I Think
f. Intense practice/scrimmage for the Saints Saturday. Sean Payton means business.
If I was the head coach of a team that had given up the most defensive yards in NFL history I would think the practices and scrimmages would be pretty intense. I wonder if Payton is motivating the players by financially compensating players for hits that injure someone. Not that Sean Payton would ever do this and Drew Brees knows absolutely NOTHING about this either.
i. The Jags had 19,000 at Everbank Field Saturday night, more than doubling last year’s stadium practice attendance. Gus Bradley Fever, evidently.
More like Chad Henne fever to be exact.
l. Biggest applause-receivers at the Friday night Hall of Fame dinner in Canton, in order: Jim Brown, John Madden, Joe Namath, Joe Greene.
So basically you only get applause if your name is Jim, John, or Joe. In fact, I don't know how Bill Parcells got elected into the Hall of Fame alongside Jonathan (Jon Ogden?) Ogden with a name like "Bill."
m. The Cards love Ryan Williams, but he’ll never make the team if his chronic injury history continues.
"Ryan Williams may never be a good NFL player if he isn't able to actually play in NFL games." #analysis
3. I think one of the good developing training camp stories
Is that Anquan Boldin got traded to the 49ers from the Ravens?
I’ve said this since I spent a day with the Cards in June, but Arians is going to try to be imaginative and explosive—and I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t shock the three teams in the division with schemes they’ve never seen from the Cards. He’s got Peterson in about 15 offensive plays, and could use him as a wideout at anytime. On Saturday, Arians said Peterson could be one of the top five wideouts in football if the Cards chose to put him there.
I say that Blaine Gabbert is the best quarterback in the NFL, but that doesn't make it true. We can all make outrageous unprovable claims, but that doesn't mean these claims are true. Of course the guy Arians has running the imaginative and explosive scheme is Carson Palmer, so I guess we will have to see how that's going to work out.
(Peter's phone rings) "Hello?"
(Marvin Demoff) "Hey asshole, it's Marvin Demoff."
(Peter King) "Hello sir, how may I assist you to the best of my ability?"
(Marvin Demoff) "I like the new site kid, but it seems to be missing a lot of the talk about the Rams and just how exciting that team is. Don't you think that merits a mention?"
(Peter King) "Oh, well...sir...I think I took a break off because there were other NFL stories to talk about."
(Marvin Demoff) "You don't take weeks off. Don't do it. Do you think Jeff Fisher cares about the other stories? No. Are your other stories going to help my son keep his job with the Rams? No. Write about the Rams and how exciting they are (hangs up)"
(Peter King starts typing furiously trying to think of something positive to write about the Rams)
8. I think I keep hearing great things about two offensive weapons: St. Louis utility star Tavon Austin
I've never heard of this Tavon Austin fellow. Why hasn't Peter mentioned Austin or what a great offensive weapon he could be before this very MMQB?
and the guy who, to me, is a sort of Tavon Austin Jr., Jacksonville wideout/multipurpose player Ace Sanders.
He's like Austin, but nowhere near as good as Austin is, right? How could he be?
The Rams practiced in the Edward Jones Dome Saturday and gave local fans a whiff of what to expect from Austin, playing him at several spots. “You’re going to have to come out, watch and see what we do with him,’’ said coach Jeff Fisher. “Obviously, there’s things everybody does across the league in camp that they don’t show until the regular season.” During draft prep in St. Louis, the Rams privately knew if they somehow weren’t able to get Austin, they’d have gone after Sanders, who is emerging in camp as the kind of versatile weapon Jacksonville hoped it was drafting last April.
Thanks again for covering who the Rams would have drafted if they had not gotten the chance to draft Tavon Austin. It's not like Peter has covered the Rams 2013 draft in any depth already, so it's good that it is early August he is still telling us about the Rams draft strategy and who they would have taken had they not taken Tavon Austin. Marvin Demoff is smiling somewhere.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Johnny Manziel’s got to have a death wish. I mean, is he trying to get the NFL to hate him?
Make racist comments (Riley Cooper) and the NFL forgives you.
Drive drunk and kill someone (Leonard Little) and the NFL forgives you.
Be involved with a dog fighting ring (Mike Vick) and the NFL forgives you.
Drive drunk and run over someone (Donte Stallworth) and the NFL forgives you.
Be a 20 year old college student (Johnny Manziel) who likes to party and you'll be lucky to get drafted.
c. The mailbag is back, every Tuesday. I won’t have a top on it, but I’ll answer the best eight or 10 questions emailed or communicated to me through one of the aforementioned forums.
I used to cover Peter's mailbag from time-to-time, but it has become so monotonous to read I didn't even know the mailbag had not been running on a weekly basis.
g. Depressing how out of touch I get on the road. Really depressing. Now I see we’re under a terrorism alert. Hope I’m safe driving all over the land the next two weeks.
I think the biggest thing Peter has to worry about in regard to his safety over the next two weeks is making sure he doesn't park in his massive RV in the path of an oncoming train.
i. No, I have not decided my Super Bowl pick yet, though I did tell Charlie Rose my early guess is Denver-San Francisco.
No way! Peter is thinking about picking Peyton Manning to make the Super Bowl? I don't believe it. I wonder if this is a Gregg Easterbrook-type early pick where Peter will make this pick, but then make a real pick in "Sports Illustrated" that is his "real" pick, but he will gladly take credit for the Denver-San Francisco pick if that should end up being the Super Bowl matchup.
k. Pete Abraham covers the Red Sox for the Boston Globe. Red Sox owner John Henry just bought the Boston Globe. I assume at some point John Henry, as new owners/publishers of media outlets do, will walk into the paper’s newsroom and speak to the reporters, editors and photographers about his hopes for the paper. I can’t imagine how strange it would be to have the boss at my job also be the boss of the entity I cover.
Good news, Peter! You don't have to imagine! You can be a shill for Roger Goodell and the NFL teams without actually having them be your boss. It's not like Peter doesn't have some conflicts regarding who he covers and other aspects of his career, like he shares an agent with some NFL head coaches and that agent is the father of an NFL team's COO. You can't tell me Peter's access to Brett Favre didn't cause issues with his job, especially related to Peter's friendship with Favre.
Also, this is sort of what it would be like working for NFL Network, no? Sort of? You work for NFL Network, but the NFL Network is run by the NFL and Roger Goodell.
l. Coffeenerdness: Angel In A Starbucks Dept.: Nice man walks into the Starbucks on Broad Street in Philadelphia Sunday evening. Introduces himself, says he enjoys my work. I thank him. He goes and gets a coffee. I am pounding away at my column. He comes back five minutes later, shakes my hand and hands me a $10 Starbucks card. Thanks me again. I am … without speech. “Th-th-thanks!’’ I said. People are good.
And of course, the same Peter King who gladly earns seven figures per year, accepts a $10 gift card from this very nice man. No Peter, perhaps you should be buying THIS GUY a Starbucks gift card for reading and enjoying your column that helps make you so wealthy. I'm not sure it's the other way around. To be fair, Peter wouldn't think to buy some random guy a Starbucks gift card. Still, seems to be the case of giving a gift to a person who doesn't need the gift. It's like giving celebrities swag at awards shows.
The Adieu Haiku
Six months of football
started Sunday in Canton.
Life is good. Quite good.
This is a haiku that an 8th grader could have thought of. If you are going to put a haiku at the end of your column at least make it seem somewhat meaningful or intelligent-sounding.
Monday, April 15, 2013
6 comments Dan Shaughnessy Beats the Negativity Drum a Little Bit More Since It's All He Knows
Dan Shaughnessy thinks team chemistry is overrated. I'm not inclined to believe he is wrong necessarily, but it all depends on how a person rates team chemistry. There are those who believe ubuntu is the key to winning (ahem, Bill Simmons), while there are those who don't believe team chemistry means much at all (apparently Dan Shaughnessy). One thing I do believe is a team has to enjoy playing with each other and there has to be at least a common thread of trust and business-like respect among teammates. Everyone doesn't have to like everyone else, but there has to be more like than dislike. Either way, Dan has nothing obviously negative to write about so he just uses the idea team chemistry is overrated to bash the Red Sox for not spending enough money and signing the right kind of players. Sure, Dan bashes the Red Sox when they do spend money and sign the "right" players and it fails. He's like many sportswriters who are just incredibly outcome driven. Dan never writes in April that the Red Sox will fail and why, but he is one of many sportswriters who are glad to write in October that the Red Sox were doomed for failure and why. It's amazing how that works, isn't it? Writing a column based on upon information gained from hindsight is so much fun.
The Red Sox are selling character this spring. They have cleaned up their toxic clubhouse.
I know this accomplishment is unimpressive to Dan because the Red Sox aren't winning games and nothing impresses Dan except for success. Yet, I would think a guy who wrote an entire book with Terry Francona about the Red Sox and how a poison atmosphere in the clubhouse and in management helped submarine the success of the Red Sox over the last couple of years would at least acknowledge cleaning up a toxic clubhouse is a good first step to putting a winning team together.
No more Josh Beckett snarling and looking for snitches.
The snitches were part of the way Dan Shaughnessy gathered his information for the Terry Francona book and any columns he wrote about the Red Sox poisoned clubhouse. Maybe Dan is just mad the Red Sox have tried to clear the clubhouse of as much drama as possible. It makes it so hard to do his job when there isn't misery around the Red Sox.
No more Carl Crawford complaining about how mean everybody is in Boston. No more aloof Adrian Gonzalez, arms folded, looking down on those who would question his commitment.
Dan is making a list of the Red Sox players who had issues over the last couple of years, but he also wants you to know that team chemistry is overrated and whether these ex-Red Sox players were on the team or not does not affect the team as a whole. So the attitude of these players had nothing to do with the Red Sox struggles over the last couple of years nor did it negatively affect the clubhouse Dan's opinion. It's just that Gonzalez was aloof, which Dan finds worthy enough to mention constantly, but not worthy of any consideration on how this attitude may have affected his teammates.
Kevin Youkilis isn’t here to gossip or complain. Goofy Bobby Valentine is gone and so are the coaches who wouldn’t talk to the manager.
And really, how could a player who gossips and complains or coaches who won't talk to the manager negatively affect the Red Sox team in any fashion? It's not like coaches need to communicate in order to have a functioning, winning team.
It’s all Hakuna Matata in Camp Farrell.
And of course Dan can't stand all of this happiness and immediately has to interject some misery and drama into the mix. Dan is a miserable person and he doesn't believe other people can naturally be happy, so he has to get to the bottom of all this happiness and create suspicion the Red Sox clubhouse is actually miserable. It's all a facade!
Character guys have been brought into the fold. Shane Victorinio is the Flyin’ Hawaiian, the man who lit the room with his smile when the Phillies won the World Series in 2008. Jonny Gomes is quick with a joke or to light up your smoke.
Billy Joel song quotes are always cool to use in a column...as long as it is 1977. Quick digression/psychoanalysis about this specific song quote that is probably way off the mark:
Dan Shaughnessy quotes "Piano Man" by Billy Joel. This is a song about a piano player who goes about his business of playing the piano and making tips in a bar while ruminating on the regulars (who all appear to be miserable) that come in and out of the bar. The narrator (the piano man) helps them forget about their troubles for a while, but in return these mostly miserable patrons give the piano man tips and shower with him with compliments about how he could do so much better than he is doing by playing piano in this specific bar.
So that's the background of the song and I can't help but wonder if Dan sees himself as the humble piano man who sees all of these miserable Red Sox fans and Red Sox players around him and he believes he cheers them up by writing about the issues the team has. Dan probably sees himself as being able to do better than he is doing in his professional career, but he chooses to cover the Red Sox and make Red Sox fans feel better about their team. People come and go, while Dan is still here commenting on what he sees. What Dan probably fails to realize in this scenario I have cooked up is that HE is the source of the Red Sox fan's misery. He isn't making them feel better about the team, but he is wallowing in the misery of the team. Dan isn't the piano man who makes everyone feel better, Dan is a patron of the bar who only comes off to his readers as being completely miserable and enjoying the misery he wallows in. He's the asshole who wistfully wants the Red Sox team to be what they were in the past when they shared his misery through the Curse of the Bambino.
Ryan Dempster is rumored to be a successor to Alex Trebek. Stephen Drew is as polite as his brother,
Plus, Stephen Drew is an unemotional asshole just like his brother. I don't understand the Alex Trebek reference for Dempster, possibly because I am not close enough to the Red Sox team to get it. I'll just call this reference stupid because I feel like it is a safe assumption this reference is stupid.
John Lackey is auditioning for Comeback Player of the Year and Mr. Congeniality.
We all know if John Lackey came back to the Red Sox camp after missing a year due to Tommy John surgery and acted like an asshole, then Dan would be sure to write about what an underachieving, overpaid douchebag Lackey is. Damn Lackey for daring to have a good attitude and not be as cranky as he used to be.
It’s all just swell. These Red Sox are contending for a playoff spot and the Lady Byng Trophy.
How dare the Red Sox try to find players who won't act like conceited assholes and seem to have a positive attitude about them! I have said this before, but the reason Dan is mocking the good attitude and personality of the Red Sox players is because it makes him unhappy to see them happy. If there isn't drama and the team isn't losing he has nothing to write about. He can't write columns saying what a bunch of assholes the Red Sox team has if they are nice guys and he can't write columns saying how terrible the Red Sox team are if they aren't struggling. It's the worst of all worlds for him. So Dan resorts to mocking the Red Sox players for being congenial in an effort to stir up trouble.
Or . . . Sox fans may wake up in the middle of the summer with the horrible realization famously expressed by the townie character (played by Rob Schneider) in “The Waterboy” when he learns that the football team will be without its best player:
“Oh no! We suck again!’’
That’s when it’ll be time to issue the Edvard Munch “Scream” masks on Yawkey Way.
I think reasonable Red Sox fans know the team isn't going to be very good. Also, Dan stated Picasso painted "The Scream" when he originally wrote this column. In his defense, facts aren't as important as important to him as his ability to troll his audience.
I hate to break it to everybody, but chemistry in a baseball clubhouse is way overrated. Winning requires talent, pitching, and three-run homers.
Thanks for the update on what baseball requires, Earl Weaver. So clubhouse chemistry may be overrated, but this doesn't mean issues in the clubhouse can't also affect a team on the field. It's entirely possible a player's attitude or struggles can affect the clubhouse as a whole. I'll remember this statement by Dan that clubhouse chemistry is overrated the next time he compliments (I know, he won't ever compliment anyone, but I'll be on the lookout regardless) a player for working hard and this hard work rubbing off on his teammates.
More than the other team sport, baseball is built on individual skill sets. A batter gets no help from his teammates. It’s the same for the pitcher.
I think Dan should interview some starting pitchers to see if they don't get help from their catcher while on the mound. I have a feeling the answer Dan gets will contradict the idea a pitcher gets no help from his teammates.
That’s that’s why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who hate each other.
That's why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who like each other a lot. It can go both ways.
The 1986 Sox won the American League pennant and came within a strike of winning the World Series in six games against the Mets. That team had miserable John McNamara as manager, lazy Calvin Schiraldi at closer, entitled Roger Clemens as MVP, and an angry Jim Rice who told Sport Magazine that “my teammates aren’t friends, they’re associates.’’
Calling his teammates "associates" instead of friends doesn't mean Jim Rice didn't get along with his teammates. It simply means they weren't good friends. Teams who don't have great chemistry can win, there's no doubt about that, but just because the 2013 Red Sox appear to like each other doesn't mean the team is on the wrong long-term path. It's not like Ben Cherington has made a decision to only sign and draft players who are really nice guys. He's obviously looking for talented players, but a clubhouse that gets along is one less thing for the Red Sox to have to worry about during the season. It's not like the Red Sox are only choosing to sign players who are nice.
McNamara hated all young players and believed reliever Sammy Stewart was one of the worst human beings who ever lived.
Coming from Dan Shaughnessy that is saying something. Dan has something negative to say about everyone and everything.
Oh, and the 2004 team — the iconic team that threw off the Curse of the Bambino? Let’s not forget all the personal stuff they had to overcome. Pedro Martinez was wildly jealous of Curt Schilling. Manny refused to speak to his manager at times and insisted on taking an off day when the Sox were strapped for outfielders.
It got so bad that the fellows decided to pour a little Jack Daniel’s into cups before Game 4.
Through a 162 game season it is going to be very rare for 25 baseball players to get along all of the time. Things will happen and angry words will be said that don't affect the long-term team chemistry. Players won't all get along all of the time. That's very important to know and chalking up a few personality conflicts or arguments as "bad team chemistry" may be overstating the case a bit.
Also, the 2004 Red Sox drank alcohol in the locker room? Haven't we learned from the beer and fried chicken stories from 2011 that drinking alcohol is how a team starts to lose games and lose focus? How can the overblown nature of the fried chicken and beer story being attributed to the Red Sox collapse square with the Red Sox drinking alcohol before a playoff game in 2004? Shouldn't the Red Sox have lost this series with the Yankees because they weren't focused enough on the game at hand?
Think of all the bad stories we’d have read about the 2004 Red Sox if Dave Roberts got thrown out stealing and they lost Game 4.
You know which idiot would have been writing these stories? Dan Shaughnessy.
Jack Daniel’s before the games? What a bunch of losers. If the Sox had lost four straight to the Yankees, news of the Jack would have made “Chicken and Beer” sound like “Remember the Titans.’’
Except the Red Sox didn't lose so no one cared about the Jack Daniel's before games. This is just like if the Red Sox didn't collapse down the stretch of the 2011 season no one would have cared about the fried chicken and beer. What this tells me is that the amount of alcohol or fried chicken a team consumes doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a team wins games or not. It's obvious Dan understands this as well, but he passes up writing real columns for the sake of having a cheap lede where he can bash the Red Sox at any possible opportunity.
But those 2004 Sox were not losers. They won.
It’s all about winning. The winners gets straight A’s in chemistry. The losers are chemistry’s F Troop.
They were also a team who appeared to be (at least from an outsider's perspective) a fairly close-knit team that enjoyed playing with each other. I'm sure there were a few disagreements during the season, but the Red Sox were a loveable team and they won the World Series. World Series can be won with good team chemistry.
Which is why chemistry is overrated.
Some talent would be good.
Chemistry isn't overrated. The Red Sox are trying to get some talent on the team, but they are trying to rebuild their team right now. Dan criticizes the Red Sox when they make stupid free agent signings, yet it seems he wants the Red Sox to keep playing the lottery that is trying to lure in big name free agents who want big money. Dan will complain about the Red Sox no matter what they do. They have held back on spending as much money and traded away their "mistake" players and he talks about how the team has no talent. This is why sportswriters don't and should not have any pull with teams. They tend to be impatient idiots at times, just like the fans are.
Nice guys finish last.
But they don't finish last because they are nice guys. So while team chemistry may be overrated, being nice and having good team chemistry isn't the reason the Red Sox may finish in last place. I realize Dan has no patience with anyone who tries to be positive, but if John Lackey was being a moody asshole then you and I both know Dan Shaughnessy would criticize him for this. That's the good part about being a sportswriter who has no true beliefs other than a commitment to negativity. The Red Sox spend money and Dan criticizes these big free agent signings for not smiling and playing pretty with the media, while if the Red Sox don't spend money, then Dan criticizes the Red Sox for signing guys without talent and says team chemistry doesn't mean anything. Just remember the next time Dan accuses a Red Sox player of being moody that he thinks team chemistry and being a nice guy is overrated.
Further evidence of Dan's trolling ability can be seen in his MLB predictions for the 2013 season.
Dan picks the Blue Jays to win the AL East and states the Yankees are going to win the first Wild Card spot. He's just trolling Red Sox fans by predicting the Yankees will still manage to win the Wild Card. Then Dan has the Los Angeles Dodgers, the same Los Angeles Dodgers team the Red Sox traded those bums Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford to, winning the World Series. This is significant for two reasons:
1. The Dodgers greatly increased their payroll this offseason, so Dan is saying in a way that he thinks the Dodgers will win the World Series because they spent a lot of money to acquire talent. This is, of course, something he wishes the Red Sox would do simply because they didn't do this. Go buy some players guys! If the Red Sox signed expensive free agents Dan would write a column about how these guys better perform and these are the same old free spending Red Sox with expensive, underachieving players.
2. The choice of the Dodgers to win the World Series is also significant because Dan is saying the same assholes who didn't play well in Boston are going to lead the Dodgers to the World Series. Quite a few articles were written by Dan on how Crawford/Gonzalez/Beckett weren't worth the money they were paid, but now he is essentially saying they are worth that money once they have left Boston because they will lead the Dodgers to the World Series.
There is one thing Dan does know how to do and that is troll Red Sox fans. He says Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez suck and are overpaid when they play for the Red Sox, and then once they are traded, he predicts them to be a part of the team that wins the World Series the next season. I feel bad for Dan. His need for attention is so great. It must be lonely and sad to be a miserable, negative person who craves any type of attention even if it is negative attention.
The Red Sox are selling character this spring. They have cleaned up their toxic clubhouse.
I know this accomplishment is unimpressive to Dan because the Red Sox aren't winning games and nothing impresses Dan except for success. Yet, I would think a guy who wrote an entire book with Terry Francona about the Red Sox and how a poison atmosphere in the clubhouse and in management helped submarine the success of the Red Sox over the last couple of years would at least acknowledge cleaning up a toxic clubhouse is a good first step to putting a winning team together.
No more Josh Beckett snarling and looking for snitches.
The snitches were part of the way Dan Shaughnessy gathered his information for the Terry Francona book and any columns he wrote about the Red Sox poisoned clubhouse. Maybe Dan is just mad the Red Sox have tried to clear the clubhouse of as much drama as possible. It makes it so hard to do his job when there isn't misery around the Red Sox.
No more Carl Crawford complaining about how mean everybody is in Boston. No more aloof Adrian Gonzalez, arms folded, looking down on those who would question his commitment.
Dan is making a list of the Red Sox players who had issues over the last couple of years, but he also wants you to know that team chemistry is overrated and whether these ex-Red Sox players were on the team or not does not affect the team as a whole. So the attitude of these players had nothing to do with the Red Sox struggles over the last couple of years nor did it negatively affect the clubhouse Dan's opinion. It's just that Gonzalez was aloof, which Dan finds worthy enough to mention constantly, but not worthy of any consideration on how this attitude may have affected his teammates.
Kevin Youkilis isn’t here to gossip or complain. Goofy Bobby Valentine is gone and so are the coaches who wouldn’t talk to the manager.
And really, how could a player who gossips and complains or coaches who won't talk to the manager negatively affect the Red Sox team in any fashion? It's not like coaches need to communicate in order to have a functioning, winning team.
It’s all Hakuna Matata in Camp Farrell.
And of course Dan can't stand all of this happiness and immediately has to interject some misery and drama into the mix. Dan is a miserable person and he doesn't believe other people can naturally be happy, so he has to get to the bottom of all this happiness and create suspicion the Red Sox clubhouse is actually miserable. It's all a facade!
Character guys have been brought into the fold. Shane Victorinio is the Flyin’ Hawaiian, the man who lit the room with his smile when the Phillies won the World Series in 2008. Jonny Gomes is quick with a joke or to light up your smoke.
Billy Joel song quotes are always cool to use in a column...as long as it is 1977. Quick digression/psychoanalysis about this specific song quote that is probably way off the mark:
Dan Shaughnessy quotes "Piano Man" by Billy Joel. This is a song about a piano player who goes about his business of playing the piano and making tips in a bar while ruminating on the regulars (who all appear to be miserable) that come in and out of the bar. The narrator (the piano man) helps them forget about their troubles for a while, but in return these mostly miserable patrons give the piano man tips and shower with him with compliments about how he could do so much better than he is doing by playing piano in this specific bar.
So that's the background of the song and I can't help but wonder if Dan sees himself as the humble piano man who sees all of these miserable Red Sox fans and Red Sox players around him and he believes he cheers them up by writing about the issues the team has. Dan probably sees himself as being able to do better than he is doing in his professional career, but he chooses to cover the Red Sox and make Red Sox fans feel better about their team. People come and go, while Dan is still here commenting on what he sees. What Dan probably fails to realize in this scenario I have cooked up is that HE is the source of the Red Sox fan's misery. He isn't making them feel better about the team, but he is wallowing in the misery of the team. Dan isn't the piano man who makes everyone feel better, Dan is a patron of the bar who only comes off to his readers as being completely miserable and enjoying the misery he wallows in. He's the asshole who wistfully wants the Red Sox team to be what they were in the past when they shared his misery through the Curse of the Bambino.
Ryan Dempster is rumored to be a successor to Alex Trebek. Stephen Drew is as polite as his brother,
Plus, Stephen Drew is an unemotional asshole just like his brother. I don't understand the Alex Trebek reference for Dempster, possibly because I am not close enough to the Red Sox team to get it. I'll just call this reference stupid because I feel like it is a safe assumption this reference is stupid.
John Lackey is auditioning for Comeback Player of the Year and Mr. Congeniality.
We all know if John Lackey came back to the Red Sox camp after missing a year due to Tommy John surgery and acted like an asshole, then Dan would be sure to write about what an underachieving, overpaid douchebag Lackey is. Damn Lackey for daring to have a good attitude and not be as cranky as he used to be.
It’s all just swell. These Red Sox are contending for a playoff spot and the Lady Byng Trophy.
How dare the Red Sox try to find players who won't act like conceited assholes and seem to have a positive attitude about them! I have said this before, but the reason Dan is mocking the good attitude and personality of the Red Sox players is because it makes him unhappy to see them happy. If there isn't drama and the team isn't losing he has nothing to write about. He can't write columns saying what a bunch of assholes the Red Sox team has if they are nice guys and he can't write columns saying how terrible the Red Sox team are if they aren't struggling. It's the worst of all worlds for him. So Dan resorts to mocking the Red Sox players for being congenial in an effort to stir up trouble.
Or . . . Sox fans may wake up in the middle of the summer with the horrible realization famously expressed by the townie character (played by Rob Schneider) in “The Waterboy” when he learns that the football team will be without its best player:
“Oh no! We suck again!’’
That’s when it’ll be time to issue the Edvard Munch “Scream” masks on Yawkey Way.
I think reasonable Red Sox fans know the team isn't going to be very good. Also, Dan stated Picasso painted "The Scream" when he originally wrote this column. In his defense, facts aren't as important as important to him as his ability to troll his audience.
I hate to break it to everybody, but chemistry in a baseball clubhouse is way overrated. Winning requires talent, pitching, and three-run homers.
Thanks for the update on what baseball requires, Earl Weaver. So clubhouse chemistry may be overrated, but this doesn't mean issues in the clubhouse can't also affect a team on the field. It's entirely possible a player's attitude or struggles can affect the clubhouse as a whole. I'll remember this statement by Dan that clubhouse chemistry is overrated the next time he compliments (I know, he won't ever compliment anyone, but I'll be on the lookout regardless) a player for working hard and this hard work rubbing off on his teammates.
More than the other team sport, baseball is built on individual skill sets. A batter gets no help from his teammates. It’s the same for the pitcher.
I think Dan should interview some starting pitchers to see if they don't get help from their catcher while on the mound. I have a feeling the answer Dan gets will contradict the idea a pitcher gets no help from his teammates.
That’s that’s why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who hate each other.
That's why you can have winning teams when you have a clubhouse full of guys who like each other a lot. It can go both ways.
The 1986 Sox won the American League pennant and came within a strike of winning the World Series in six games against the Mets. That team had miserable John McNamara as manager, lazy Calvin Schiraldi at closer, entitled Roger Clemens as MVP, and an angry Jim Rice who told Sport Magazine that “my teammates aren’t friends, they’re associates.’’
Calling his teammates "associates" instead of friends doesn't mean Jim Rice didn't get along with his teammates. It simply means they weren't good friends. Teams who don't have great chemistry can win, there's no doubt about that, but just because the 2013 Red Sox appear to like each other doesn't mean the team is on the wrong long-term path. It's not like Ben Cherington has made a decision to only sign and draft players who are really nice guys. He's obviously looking for talented players, but a clubhouse that gets along is one less thing for the Red Sox to have to worry about during the season. It's not like the Red Sox are only choosing to sign players who are nice.
McNamara hated all young players and believed reliever Sammy Stewart was one of the worst human beings who ever lived.
Coming from Dan Shaughnessy that is saying something. Dan has something negative to say about everyone and everything.
Oh, and the 2004 team — the iconic team that threw off the Curse of the Bambino? Let’s not forget all the personal stuff they had to overcome. Pedro Martinez was wildly jealous of Curt Schilling. Manny refused to speak to his manager at times and insisted on taking an off day when the Sox were strapped for outfielders.
It got so bad that the fellows decided to pour a little Jack Daniel’s into cups before Game 4.
Through a 162 game season it is going to be very rare for 25 baseball players to get along all of the time. Things will happen and angry words will be said that don't affect the long-term team chemistry. Players won't all get along all of the time. That's very important to know and chalking up a few personality conflicts or arguments as "bad team chemistry" may be overstating the case a bit.
Also, the 2004 Red Sox drank alcohol in the locker room? Haven't we learned from the beer and fried chicken stories from 2011 that drinking alcohol is how a team starts to lose games and lose focus? How can the overblown nature of the fried chicken and beer story being attributed to the Red Sox collapse square with the Red Sox drinking alcohol before a playoff game in 2004? Shouldn't the Red Sox have lost this series with the Yankees because they weren't focused enough on the game at hand?
Think of all the bad stories we’d have read about the 2004 Red Sox if Dave Roberts got thrown out stealing and they lost Game 4.
You know which idiot would have been writing these stories? Dan Shaughnessy.
Jack Daniel’s before the games? What a bunch of losers. If the Sox had lost four straight to the Yankees, news of the Jack would have made “Chicken and Beer” sound like “Remember the Titans.’’
Except the Red Sox didn't lose so no one cared about the Jack Daniel's before games. This is just like if the Red Sox didn't collapse down the stretch of the 2011 season no one would have cared about the fried chicken and beer. What this tells me is that the amount of alcohol or fried chicken a team consumes doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a team wins games or not. It's obvious Dan understands this as well, but he passes up writing real columns for the sake of having a cheap lede where he can bash the Red Sox at any possible opportunity.
But those 2004 Sox were not losers. They won.
It’s all about winning. The winners gets straight A’s in chemistry. The losers are chemistry’s F Troop.
They were also a team who appeared to be (at least from an outsider's perspective) a fairly close-knit team that enjoyed playing with each other. I'm sure there were a few disagreements during the season, but the Red Sox were a loveable team and they won the World Series. World Series can be won with good team chemistry.
Which is why chemistry is overrated.
Some talent would be good.
Chemistry isn't overrated. The Red Sox are trying to get some talent on the team, but they are trying to rebuild their team right now. Dan criticizes the Red Sox when they make stupid free agent signings, yet it seems he wants the Red Sox to keep playing the lottery that is trying to lure in big name free agents who want big money. Dan will complain about the Red Sox no matter what they do. They have held back on spending as much money and traded away their "mistake" players and he talks about how the team has no talent. This is why sportswriters don't and should not have any pull with teams. They tend to be impatient idiots at times, just like the fans are.
Nice guys finish last.
But they don't finish last because they are nice guys. So while team chemistry may be overrated, being nice and having good team chemistry isn't the reason the Red Sox may finish in last place. I realize Dan has no patience with anyone who tries to be positive, but if John Lackey was being a moody asshole then you and I both know Dan Shaughnessy would criticize him for this. That's the good part about being a sportswriter who has no true beliefs other than a commitment to negativity. The Red Sox spend money and Dan criticizes these big free agent signings for not smiling and playing pretty with the media, while if the Red Sox don't spend money, then Dan criticizes the Red Sox for signing guys without talent and says team chemistry doesn't mean anything. Just remember the next time Dan accuses a Red Sox player of being moody that he thinks team chemistry and being a nice guy is overrated.
Further evidence of Dan's trolling ability can be seen in his MLB predictions for the 2013 season.
Dan picks the Blue Jays to win the AL East and states the Yankees are going to win the first Wild Card spot. He's just trolling Red Sox fans by predicting the Yankees will still manage to win the Wild Card. Then Dan has the Los Angeles Dodgers, the same Los Angeles Dodgers team the Red Sox traded those bums Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford to, winning the World Series. This is significant for two reasons:
1. The Dodgers greatly increased their payroll this offseason, so Dan is saying in a way that he thinks the Dodgers will win the World Series because they spent a lot of money to acquire talent. This is, of course, something he wishes the Red Sox would do simply because they didn't do this. Go buy some players guys! If the Red Sox signed expensive free agents Dan would write a column about how these guys better perform and these are the same old free spending Red Sox with expensive, underachieving players.
2. The choice of the Dodgers to win the World Series is also significant because Dan is saying the same assholes who didn't play well in Boston are going to lead the Dodgers to the World Series. Quite a few articles were written by Dan on how Crawford/Gonzalez/Beckett weren't worth the money they were paid, but now he is essentially saying they are worth that money once they have left Boston because they will lead the Dodgers to the World Series.
There is one thing Dan does know how to do and that is troll Red Sox fans. He says Crawford/Beckett/Gonzalez suck and are overpaid when they play for the Red Sox, and then once they are traded, he predicts them to be a part of the team that wins the World Series the next season. I feel bad for Dan. His need for attention is so great. It must be lonely and sad to be a miserable, negative person who craves any type of attention even if it is negative attention.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
0 comments When Student-Athletes Strike Back
I have created a BotB Yahoo Fantasy Football League if anyone cares to join. There should be some rule changes this year as compared to last year's league. Either way, the league ID is 250429 and the password is "eckstein." I put a message up on the board there about some possible rule changes in the league. If you have an opinion, feel free to chime in. We only have room for two more players. I have also created a College Football Yahoo Pick 'Em league if anyone cares to join that league. The league ID is 5656 and the password is "asu."
Robert Nkemdiche is ranked as one of top high school football recruits in the country (if not the #1 overall recruit) for the 2013 class and he had narrowed his list of colleges to attend (in order to play football of course) down to this list. He wants attend Clemson and told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution a few weeks ago he would commit to them if they would offer a scholarship to his friend, Ryan Carter. Do I like this? No, I don't like this. I feel like I should hate the idea college athletes can dictate to colleges which players they should or should not offer a scholarship to. This is the atmosphere the NCAA and their colleges have created and the recruiting world we live in right now. I don't want to like what Nkemdiche is attempting to do, but I smile a little bit at him using what power he has to get his friend a full scholarship so they can play for Clemson together.
Gregg Doyel thinks this move is not noble and is in fact indecent. (Yes, I know this is a bit older article, but it still deserves posting here) I don't think this move is indecent and is merely an example of a high school recruit using what leverage he has before signing his letter of intent. Of course there is the little matter that Nkemdiche has stated he would play for Clemson even if they don't offer Ryan Carter a scholarship. This little fact makes the whole discussion moot, so it is being conveniently ignored in favor of a good ol' fashion debate.
I'm still not entirely sure college athletes should be paid and I do despise the idea of a "package deal" where a recruit chooses a college with the knowledge an AAU coach or high school coach will also be hired at that school. I see this situation differently from a package deal where a college hires a recruit's high school coach in order to get that recruit to commit to the college. A player wanting a college to offer a scholarship is a different kind of package deal and it probably happens more frequently than we all know. This situation is different because Nkemdiche came out and said what he wanted rather than have it be a mutual understanding between him and the college he chooses to attend. I would imagine situations where a recruit wants a college to offer a friend of his a scholarship mostly take place behind the scenes. It does sound shady. Still, I sort of like (mostly because Clemson isn't the college football team I cheer for) how Nkemdiche is using what power he has to help his friend out. Clemson could always say, "Hell no" and back off their recruitment of Nkemdiche, but they haven't chosen to do that as of yet.
It's like we've entered some bizarro world where down is up, wrong is right, and high school senior Robert Nkemdiche is a hero for trying to extort Clemson into giving his buddy a football scholarship.
Considering he has stated he would go to Clemson even if they didn't offer his buddy a football scholarship, it isn't really extortion. Who cares about silly details like that though? Let's get angry!
What Nkemdiche is trying to do is wrong, and more than just wrong -- which is obviously an opinion, and therefore up for debate -- it's against the spirit of the NCAA rulebook. And that's not an opinion. That's a fact.
It is against the spirit of NCAA rules for Clemson to offer a scholarship to whichever player they choose to offer a scholarship to? Or is it against the spirit of NCAA rules for a player to want his chosen college to offer a scholarship to a specific player? Either way, I don't care about the spirit of the rules if a specific NCAA rule isn't being broken.
The NCAA wouldn't allow Clemson to give Robert Nkemdiche's buddy a $37,000 car to win Nkemdiche's signature on scholarship papers. Why would the NCAA let Clemson give Nkemdiche's buddy a $37,000 education for the same purpose?
Again, considering Nkemdiche has committed to Clemson no matter if they offer Ryan Carter or not, this is a moot point. The NCAA would allow Clemson to offer a $37,000 education if they choose to do so. There is a difference in Clemson giving one of Nkemdiche's buddies a car worth $37,000 and offering one of Nkemdiche's buddies a scholarship worth $37,000. One is an NCAA violation and the other is not.
If a recruit like Nkemdiche says he'll go to a specific school if that school offers a friend of his a scholarship, how is that different than an elite four/five-star high school quarterback saying he is going to commit to whatever college his favorite high school receiver, who happens to be a two/three-star recruit, commits to? This happens. It's understood these players are a package deal even if they don't come right out and say it. Would the NCAA step in and say, "No, no, no, you both can't go to the same college. You have to make decisions on what school to attend completely separate from each other." Of course not. This would be a cute story announcers would tell during a game about this enduring friendship where the two players wanted to play with each other so badly they went to the same high school and college. A college football program would know in order to get the quarterback they would also have to offer the wide receiver a scholarship.
It's entirely possible that College X wouldn't recruited the wide receiver if they knew it wouldn't give them a shot at the quarterback, but it is an understood thing. The difference in this case is the recruit verbally requested a school (Clemson) sign his friend. Whether Clemson does this or not is up to them, just like it up to school X to offer a scholarship to a wide receiver knowing his high school quarterback will commit to that same school.
Package deals happen all the time. It seems few people care until a recruit comes out and announces what he wants rather than keep it hidden using innuendos.
So this is wrong, a big-time recruit named Robert Nkemdiche trying to finagle a scholarship for a much smaller-time recruit named ... wait, you know what? I'm not going to make it worse for the much smaller-time recruit by naming him. It's not (name redacted)'s fault that Nkemdiche is trying to leverage his status into a scholarship for a friend.
Ryan Carter. His name is Ryan Carter, he is a two star recruit and he has scholarship offers from Ol' Miss, Arkansas State, East Carolina, Tulane, and Southern Mississippi. These aren't ACC schools, but there are quite a few Conference USA schools on the list. It's not like he got no scholarship offers from Division I schools.
He doesn't deserve the scrutiny that has come, and will get worse, because of this. Google doesn't forget, so this will follow (name redacted) wherever he goes, and while I'm not exactly saving (name redacted) that anguish by refusing to print his name, I'd rather not add to his woes. This isn't his fault.
I don't understand why Ryan Carter would get scrutiny for this. Nkemdiche and Clemson are the ones getting scrutiny concerning this story. Carter is only news because he is the player Nkemdiche wants on the Clemson team. There is no reason Carter should get criticism.
If Clemson offers (name redacted) a scholarship? Well, sure. Then it would be Clemson's fault, because giving (name redacted) a $37,000 scholarship just to win the services of Nkemdiche would violate the spirit of the NCAA rulebook.
If Clemson wants to spend one of their scholarships on Ryan Carter, that is their business. I see this as a different situation from Nkemdiche insisting his high school coach be hired by Clemson University. If Clemson wants to use a limited resource, scholarships, in order to attract a player then I don't necessarily like it, but I don't see this as an evil deed. Ryan Carter would get a full ride to a great school and a chance to play in the ACC. As much as it seems the NCAA takes advantage of student-athletes, it is interesting to see a student-athlete use his recruitment to help one of his teammates and friends gain a scholarship to a school that plays in a major conference. It feels dirty initially, but I'm not entirely sure it is dirty if Clemson is willing to play this game.
The NCAA would hide behind the same thing that Clemson fans are hiding behind now: Maybe (name redacted) is worth the scholarship on his own merit!
Or perhaps Clemson could hide behind the idea they can offer a football scholarship to whichever college-eligible recruits they choose to offer a football scholarship to. Here's another fake scenario...would it make a difference if Nkemdiche was a junior in college and said he would stay at Clemson for one more year (and not go to the NFL) if they offered his brother a scholarship so they could play together for one year? At this point is Nkemdiche being dirty and under-handed?
Until this week, (name redacted) was at the front of the menu with the chicken fingers and potato skins. He was listed as a two-star recruit by some services, with offers from non-BCS schools Arkansas State, Georgia State, Southern Miss and Tulane.
Because major conference schools are in no way allowed to recruit an athlete Gregg Doyel perceives is "below" their conference standing. Ryan Carter is probably getting an opportunity at Clemson he may not otherwise receive, but simply because he is not receiving scholarship offers from major conference schools does not mean he could not turn out to be a quality college football player. He very well may not be a good college football player, but if Clemson chooses to use a scholarship on him for four years then I have no issue with their recruitment of Ryan Carter.
And now comes Package Deal 201, a package suggested by the recruit himself. Robert Nkemdiche seems to be a smart young man, and with Clemson's help he has seen how the system works.
No, Nkemdiche is playing the system. He is ensuring the opportunity he has created for himself also helps a few of his high school teammates.
Oh, right -- Clemson isn't completely blameless here, not after taking commitments from two of Nkemdiche's teammates at Grayson (Ga.) High, running back Wayne Gallman and defensive back David Kamara, and accepting as an invited walk-on a third, quarterback Nick Schuessler, who bolted from Mississippi State once the Grayson-to-Clemson pipeline started gushing. Recruiting experts agree, Gallman is worthy of the scholarship to Clemson. Kamara? Probably not. (Name redacted)? Absolutely not.
When have the recruiting experts ever been wrong? Just looking at the ACC players who were drafted just this past year...it turns out recruiting experts can be wrong quite a bit. There were six players drafted out of the ACC this past year who were 2-star recruits out of high school. Andre Branch, who went to Clemson by the way, was a two-star recruit and he was drafted in the second round of this year's draft. I'm not saying Ryan Carter will be drafted or even has the talent to be drafted, but recruiting experts don't know everything and the highest drafted player out of the ACC was a three-star high school recruit. Four four-star recruits were drafted in the 6th and 7th rounds. I take exception to the idea we can look at recruiting rankings and say Clemson has no business offering Ryan Carter a scholarship and Ryan Carter has no business going to Clemson.
Or he was, until he told the New York Times on Sunday that he's not trying to extort anybody, that he will go to Clemson whether the Tigers offer a scholarship to (name redacted) or not. That's a nice touch, but it's too late.
Well, not really. He very well could be telling the truth and saying he and his teammate aren't a package deal. From all appearances it seems Nkemdiche is going to Clemson even if Ryan Carter doesn't get a scholarship offer.
A lot can change in seven months, but Clemson already has been told what it would take to make Nkemdiche a done deal.
And they can choose to ignore this. If they choose to offer Ryan Carter a scholarship then that is their business. It's Clemson's scholarship allotment to worry about, and as much as I don't like the idea of a package deal, I see this in a different light than if Ndemdiche was trying to get his high school football coach a job on the Clemson coaching staff.
The billion-dollar college football system screws the labor, so people are loving it now that this one laborer, Nkemdiche, is trying to screw the system right back.
I wouldn't say Nkemdiche is trying to screw the system right back. He is trying to use his position as the #1 overall recruit in the 2013 class to get some of his high school teammates on the Clemson football team. I don't necessarily want recruits to make a habit of doing this, but he is using what power he has now to get his friend a scholarship to an ACC program.
This is the bizarro world I mentioned earlier. College football writers, smart ones like Bruce Feldman of CBSSports.com and Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated, are OK with this whole thing.
They are ok with it because they believe student-athletes can be exploited by the colleges they choose to attend. In terms of economic value it is probably worth it for Clemson to offer scholarships to both Carter and Nkemdiche, especially if Nkemdiche is the star the recruiting experts are predicting he will be.
Feldman wrote about Nkemdiche's request and noted that "he probably is worth it for Clemson." Staples went further, ridiculing anti-Nkemdiche arguments and concluding his story: "bless Nkemdiche for using all the juice he has before it runs dry."
Staples column is especially helpful on this subject. He refers to this as a negotiation before Nkemdiche signs his letter of intent. Once he signs that letter of intent, Nkemdiche has no more leverage. In a world where college coaches make millions and can jump around from school-to-school, but some college athletes have to sit out a year when they transfer, I don't see Nkemdiche bringing down the college football establishment or violating the spirit of NCAA rules in this situation. Again, Clemson could always decline his request.
Because college football is a cesspool, it's OK that Nkemdiche is pumping more sludge into the deep end? Nonsensical. Bizarro.
He's using what leverage he has to get an outcome he desires. I don't know if this violates the spirit of NCAA rules.
They see nothing wrong with a recruit using his NFL-level potential to muscle Clemson into giving $37,000 in goods and services to a Tulane-level buddy.
Clemson isn't giving Carter $37,000. They are giving him a scholarship offer, which is a limited resource for a football program. Clemson has had two-star recruits on the football team before and they will have two-star recruits on the football team in the future. I don't understand how it all of a sudden becomes a problem when a recruit uses his leverage when committing to a school.
I'm not necessarily in favor of paying student-athletes, but there are plenty of examples of colleges using these student-athletes to make millions of dollars for the school. This is an example of an athlete striking back and trying to use his talent to get his friend a scholarship to an ACC football program.
This is where we are in college sports: It's hopelessly dirty, so let's play in the mud!
It's purely an opinion this is a dirty move by Nkemdiche. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I don't think I would want every recruit pulling the same move, but it will work as long as college football programs are willing to play the game. It's not anywhere more hopelessly dirty than some of the recruiting tactics college coaches use.
Your move, Clemson. Nkemdiche and (name redacted) are waiting. The world is watching. The cesspool is beckoning. You're already in the cesspool -- but how deep do you want to go?
Poor Clemson University. They only made $30+ million in 2010-2011 from the football program. How far into the cesspool is Clemson willing to go to add a top-level recruit to the team in order to make even more money for the school? I'm guessing pretty far into the cesspool since the coaching staff mainly cares about winning football games. If Clemson doesn't care and wants to offer Carter a scholarship, then I don't see the issue. Clemson has a limited resources they would be offering to Carter in the form of a scholarship and they are not offering straight cash. So Clemson has to give up something in order to offer a scholarship to Carter. I don't want high school recruits to make this type of demand a habit, but it is interesting to see an elite recruit use leverage in this way.
Robert Nkemdiche is ranked as one of top high school football recruits in the country (if not the #1 overall recruit) for the 2013 class and he had narrowed his list of colleges to attend (in order to play football of course) down to this list. He wants attend Clemson and told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution a few weeks ago he would commit to them if they would offer a scholarship to his friend, Ryan Carter. Do I like this? No, I don't like this. I feel like I should hate the idea college athletes can dictate to colleges which players they should or should not offer a scholarship to. This is the atmosphere the NCAA and their colleges have created and the recruiting world we live in right now. I don't want to like what Nkemdiche is attempting to do, but I smile a little bit at him using what power he has to get his friend a full scholarship so they can play for Clemson together.
Gregg Doyel thinks this move is not noble and is in fact indecent. (Yes, I know this is a bit older article, but it still deserves posting here) I don't think this move is indecent and is merely an example of a high school recruit using what leverage he has before signing his letter of intent. Of course there is the little matter that Nkemdiche has stated he would play for Clemson even if they don't offer Ryan Carter a scholarship. This little fact makes the whole discussion moot, so it is being conveniently ignored in favor of a good ol' fashion debate.
I'm still not entirely sure college athletes should be paid and I do despise the idea of a "package deal" where a recruit chooses a college with the knowledge an AAU coach or high school coach will also be hired at that school. I see this situation differently from a package deal where a college hires a recruit's high school coach in order to get that recruit to commit to the college. A player wanting a college to offer a scholarship is a different kind of package deal and it probably happens more frequently than we all know. This situation is different because Nkemdiche came out and said what he wanted rather than have it be a mutual understanding between him and the college he chooses to attend. I would imagine situations where a recruit wants a college to offer a friend of his a scholarship mostly take place behind the scenes. It does sound shady. Still, I sort of like (mostly because Clemson isn't the college football team I cheer for) how Nkemdiche is using what power he has to help his friend out. Clemson could always say, "Hell no" and back off their recruitment of Nkemdiche, but they haven't chosen to do that as of yet.
It's like we've entered some bizarro world where down is up, wrong is right, and high school senior Robert Nkemdiche is a hero for trying to extort Clemson into giving his buddy a football scholarship.
Considering he has stated he would go to Clemson even if they didn't offer his buddy a football scholarship, it isn't really extortion. Who cares about silly details like that though? Let's get angry!
What Nkemdiche is trying to do is wrong, and more than just wrong -- which is obviously an opinion, and therefore up for debate -- it's against the spirit of the NCAA rulebook. And that's not an opinion. That's a fact.
It is against the spirit of NCAA rules for Clemson to offer a scholarship to whichever player they choose to offer a scholarship to? Or is it against the spirit of NCAA rules for a player to want his chosen college to offer a scholarship to a specific player? Either way, I don't care about the spirit of the rules if a specific NCAA rule isn't being broken.
The NCAA wouldn't allow Clemson to give Robert Nkemdiche's buddy a $37,000 car to win Nkemdiche's signature on scholarship papers. Why would the NCAA let Clemson give Nkemdiche's buddy a $37,000 education for the same purpose?
Again, considering Nkemdiche has committed to Clemson no matter if they offer Ryan Carter or not, this is a moot point. The NCAA would allow Clemson to offer a $37,000 education if they choose to do so. There is a difference in Clemson giving one of Nkemdiche's buddies a car worth $37,000 and offering one of Nkemdiche's buddies a scholarship worth $37,000. One is an NCAA violation and the other is not.
If a recruit like Nkemdiche says he'll go to a specific school if that school offers a friend of his a scholarship, how is that different than an elite four/five-star high school quarterback saying he is going to commit to whatever college his favorite high school receiver, who happens to be a two/three-star recruit, commits to? This happens. It's understood these players are a package deal even if they don't come right out and say it. Would the NCAA step in and say, "No, no, no, you both can't go to the same college. You have to make decisions on what school to attend completely separate from each other." Of course not. This would be a cute story announcers would tell during a game about this enduring friendship where the two players wanted to play with each other so badly they went to the same high school and college. A college football program would know in order to get the quarterback they would also have to offer the wide receiver a scholarship.
It's entirely possible that College X wouldn't recruited the wide receiver if they knew it wouldn't give them a shot at the quarterback, but it is an understood thing. The difference in this case is the recruit verbally requested a school (Clemson) sign his friend. Whether Clemson does this or not is up to them, just like it up to school X to offer a scholarship to a wide receiver knowing his high school quarterback will commit to that same school.
Package deals happen all the time. It seems few people care until a recruit comes out and announces what he wants rather than keep it hidden using innuendos.
So this is wrong, a big-time recruit named Robert Nkemdiche trying to finagle a scholarship for a much smaller-time recruit named ... wait, you know what? I'm not going to make it worse for the much smaller-time recruit by naming him. It's not (name redacted)'s fault that Nkemdiche is trying to leverage his status into a scholarship for a friend.
Ryan Carter. His name is Ryan Carter, he is a two star recruit and he has scholarship offers from Ol' Miss, Arkansas State, East Carolina, Tulane, and Southern Mississippi. These aren't ACC schools, but there are quite a few Conference USA schools on the list. It's not like he got no scholarship offers from Division I schools.
He doesn't deserve the scrutiny that has come, and will get worse, because of this. Google doesn't forget, so this will follow (name redacted) wherever he goes, and while I'm not exactly saving (name redacted) that anguish by refusing to print his name, I'd rather not add to his woes. This isn't his fault.
I don't understand why Ryan Carter would get scrutiny for this. Nkemdiche and Clemson are the ones getting scrutiny concerning this story. Carter is only news because he is the player Nkemdiche wants on the Clemson team. There is no reason Carter should get criticism.
If Clemson offers (name redacted) a scholarship? Well, sure. Then it would be Clemson's fault, because giving (name redacted) a $37,000 scholarship just to win the services of Nkemdiche would violate the spirit of the NCAA rulebook.
If Clemson wants to spend one of their scholarships on Ryan Carter, that is their business. I see this as a different situation from Nkemdiche insisting his high school coach be hired by Clemson University. If Clemson wants to use a limited resource, scholarships, in order to attract a player then I don't necessarily like it, but I don't see this as an evil deed. Ryan Carter would get a full ride to a great school and a chance to play in the ACC. As much as it seems the NCAA takes advantage of student-athletes, it is interesting to see a student-athlete use his recruitment to help one of his teammates and friends gain a scholarship to a school that plays in a major conference. It feels dirty initially, but I'm not entirely sure it is dirty if Clemson is willing to play this game.
The NCAA would hide behind the same thing that Clemson fans are hiding behind now: Maybe (name redacted) is worth the scholarship on his own merit!
Or perhaps Clemson could hide behind the idea they can offer a football scholarship to whichever college-eligible recruits they choose to offer a football scholarship to. Here's another fake scenario...would it make a difference if Nkemdiche was a junior in college and said he would stay at Clemson for one more year (and not go to the NFL) if they offered his brother a scholarship so they could play together for one year? At this point is Nkemdiche being dirty and under-handed?
Until this week, (name redacted) was at the front of the menu with the chicken fingers and potato skins. He was listed as a two-star recruit by some services, with offers from non-BCS schools Arkansas State, Georgia State, Southern Miss and Tulane.
Because major conference schools are in no way allowed to recruit an athlete Gregg Doyel perceives is "below" their conference standing. Ryan Carter is probably getting an opportunity at Clemson he may not otherwise receive, but simply because he is not receiving scholarship offers from major conference schools does not mean he could not turn out to be a quality college football player. He very well may not be a good college football player, but if Clemson chooses to use a scholarship on him for four years then I have no issue with their recruitment of Ryan Carter.
And now comes Package Deal 201, a package suggested by the recruit himself. Robert Nkemdiche seems to be a smart young man, and with Clemson's help he has seen how the system works.
No, Nkemdiche is playing the system. He is ensuring the opportunity he has created for himself also helps a few of his high school teammates.
Oh, right -- Clemson isn't completely blameless here, not after taking commitments from two of Nkemdiche's teammates at Grayson (Ga.) High, running back Wayne Gallman and defensive back David Kamara, and accepting as an invited walk-on a third, quarterback Nick Schuessler, who bolted from Mississippi State once the Grayson-to-Clemson pipeline started gushing. Recruiting experts agree, Gallman is worthy of the scholarship to Clemson. Kamara? Probably not. (Name redacted)? Absolutely not.
When have the recruiting experts ever been wrong? Just looking at the ACC players who were drafted just this past year...it turns out recruiting experts can be wrong quite a bit. There were six players drafted out of the ACC this past year who were 2-star recruits out of high school. Andre Branch, who went to Clemson by the way, was a two-star recruit and he was drafted in the second round of this year's draft. I'm not saying Ryan Carter will be drafted or even has the talent to be drafted, but recruiting experts don't know everything and the highest drafted player out of the ACC was a three-star high school recruit. Four four-star recruits were drafted in the 6th and 7th rounds. I take exception to the idea we can look at recruiting rankings and say Clemson has no business offering Ryan Carter a scholarship and Ryan Carter has no business going to Clemson.
Or he was, until he told the New York Times on Sunday that he's not trying to extort anybody, that he will go to Clemson whether the Tigers offer a scholarship to (name redacted) or not. That's a nice touch, but it's too late.
Well, not really. He very well could be telling the truth and saying he and his teammate aren't a package deal. From all appearances it seems Nkemdiche is going to Clemson even if Ryan Carter doesn't get a scholarship offer.
A lot can change in seven months, but Clemson already has been told what it would take to make Nkemdiche a done deal.
And they can choose to ignore this. If they choose to offer Ryan Carter a scholarship then that is their business. It's Clemson's scholarship allotment to worry about, and as much as I don't like the idea of a package deal, I see this in a different light than if Ndemdiche was trying to get his high school football coach a job on the Clemson coaching staff.
The billion-dollar college football system screws the labor, so people are loving it now that this one laborer, Nkemdiche, is trying to screw the system right back.
I wouldn't say Nkemdiche is trying to screw the system right back. He is trying to use his position as the #1 overall recruit in the 2013 class to get some of his high school teammates on the Clemson football team. I don't necessarily want recruits to make a habit of doing this, but he is using what power he has now to get his friend a scholarship to an ACC program.
This is the bizarro world I mentioned earlier. College football writers, smart ones like Bruce Feldman of CBSSports.com and Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated, are OK with this whole thing.
They are ok with it because they believe student-athletes can be exploited by the colleges they choose to attend. In terms of economic value it is probably worth it for Clemson to offer scholarships to both Carter and Nkemdiche, especially if Nkemdiche is the star the recruiting experts are predicting he will be.
Feldman wrote about Nkemdiche's request and noted that "he probably is worth it for Clemson." Staples went further, ridiculing anti-Nkemdiche arguments and concluding his story: "bless Nkemdiche for using all the juice he has before it runs dry."
Staples column is especially helpful on this subject. He refers to this as a negotiation before Nkemdiche signs his letter of intent. Once he signs that letter of intent, Nkemdiche has no more leverage. In a world where college coaches make millions and can jump around from school-to-school, but some college athletes have to sit out a year when they transfer, I don't see Nkemdiche bringing down the college football establishment or violating the spirit of NCAA rules in this situation. Again, Clemson could always decline his request.
Because college football is a cesspool, it's OK that Nkemdiche is pumping more sludge into the deep end? Nonsensical. Bizarro.
He's using what leverage he has to get an outcome he desires. I don't know if this violates the spirit of NCAA rules.
They see nothing wrong with a recruit using his NFL-level potential to muscle Clemson into giving $37,000 in goods and services to a Tulane-level buddy.
Clemson isn't giving Carter $37,000. They are giving him a scholarship offer, which is a limited resource for a football program. Clemson has had two-star recruits on the football team before and they will have two-star recruits on the football team in the future. I don't understand how it all of a sudden becomes a problem when a recruit uses his leverage when committing to a school.
I'm not necessarily in favor of paying student-athletes, but there are plenty of examples of colleges using these student-athletes to make millions of dollars for the school. This is an example of an athlete striking back and trying to use his talent to get his friend a scholarship to an ACC football program.
This is where we are in college sports: It's hopelessly dirty, so let's play in the mud!
It's purely an opinion this is a dirty move by Nkemdiche. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I don't think I would want every recruit pulling the same move, but it will work as long as college football programs are willing to play the game. It's not anywhere more hopelessly dirty than some of the recruiting tactics college coaches use.
Your move, Clemson. Nkemdiche and (name redacted) are waiting. The world is watching. The cesspool is beckoning. You're already in the cesspool -- but how deep do you want to go?
Poor Clemson University. They only made $30+ million in 2010-2011 from the football program. How far into the cesspool is Clemson willing to go to add a top-level recruit to the team in order to make even more money for the school? I'm guessing pretty far into the cesspool since the coaching staff mainly cares about winning football games. If Clemson doesn't care and wants to offer Carter a scholarship, then I don't see the issue. Clemson has a limited resources they would be offering to Carter in the form of a scholarship and they are not offering straight cash. So Clemson has to give up something in order to offer a scholarship to Carter. I don't want high school recruits to make this type of demand a habit, but it is interesting to see an elite recruit use leverage in this way.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
6 comments Give Wade The Spotlight
When LeBron chose Miami over New York, I was bitter. But not bitter enough to sway from my longstanding belief that chemistry is a word used by teams of lesser talent. I jumped on the Jeff Van Gundy 72 wins bandwagon. I did not think LeBron's claims of mulitple championships were premature or outlandish, but realistic. They had two of the best three players in the NBA, and three of the top 15 (clearly Bosh has played his way out of that category now). Before the Heat, the NBA's evolution was becoming more conducive to such a sudden mass assembly of stars. The Miami Heat (Wade and Shaq), Los Angeles Lakers (Kobe and Pau) and Boston Celtics (Allen, Pierce and Garnett) succeeded immediately. There was no logical reason to say LeBron's Heat would not follow suit other than to hopefully play the "I told you so" card a later date.
Seeing the trend and hoping to capitalize before it was too late, the New York Knicks got in line. Every other recent championship had landed that knock out blow, whether via free agency or trade, and now it was New York's turn. So they took a bunch of body shots and traded away half the team for Melo, who would hopefully turn into that championship right hook. As of now, the results are less than ideal, with the Knicks amassing a 7-8 (as of this writing) record since the deal.
Of course it's too early to tell with the Knicks and Heat, but they have caused me to reevaluate my time steadfast chemistry formula. It can be generally agreed upon that better players improve the play of their teammates. And I'm not just talking about the LeBron's and Kobe's, but all great players. By default, they draw attention to themselves, allowing teammates to ride their coattails to wins and championships (see Robert Horry - Yes, Robert Horry. I can't wait for the backlash on that one). The discrepancy, then, is by what margin does one player elevate a teammate's play over another.
This, in a sense, is the crux of the Kobe/LeBron debate. Kobe purists point to the championships. LeBron's faithful note that when Kobe had no help (between Shaq and Pau), he merely lead the Lakers to the playoffs as a low seed, complemented by a first round exit. LeBron, on the other hand, carried some role players, a heavy backpack and the most disgusting free throw form in the NBA - Anderson Varejao - to the #1 seed and deep playoff runs. Using my previous logic, I have always staunchly supported LeBron as the NBA's best. He does more with less. But now he has more and is doing less. So where do we draw the line between chemistry and individual play?
I have always assumed that teams, and not players, possess chemistry, with familiarity being the means to that end. But looking at the current makeup of NBA teams, some players simply breed chemistry while others do not. I'm not simply talking about players that dominate the ball. The nature of the game dictates that great players have the ball in their hands. Point guard is simply the word used for players under 6'3, not necessarily those who pass the ball best. Nor am I talking about the great passer as high chemistry players (although some clearly are).
From my outside perspective, chemistry seems to be built into a player's game. It's an innate, unteachable talent not necessarily limited to the NBA's best. That said, not all the great ones have it, and sometimes greatness supersedes chemistry. And Dwyane Wade bulldozed his way to an NBA championship as the rest of his team watched happily from the sidelines. Writers recently praised Kobe for his ability adapt his game to a team-first mentality, but all basketball fans know that nothing has changed. When the playoffs role around, it's Kobe Bryant vs. the opponent, with contributions only coming from others when he's in need of help. Sometimes, this is the best method. If you take away Kobe's attacking mentality, he loses his competitive edge. As much as team chemistry benefits the team, you cannot rip the heart out of your best player's natural inclination.
So let's get back to the present. Chauncey Billups and Carmelo Anthony, despite excellent play throughout their careers, missed this chemistry gene. We all know of Melo's ball-stopping habits. Billups, however, presents a less clear situation. Sure, he nearly won back-to-back titles with Detroit. But sometimes multiple chemistry players can make up for one guy. And that's what Billups was. When one bucket or one big play was needed, it was Billups' no-fear mentality that brought games home. He relished the moment. He cherished it. He couldn't get enough of it.
This, I believe, is what is at the heart of the Heat's late game issues. Dwyane Wade is that killer, selfish, give me the ball guy. But how can he play his game when the ball consistently rests in the hands of LeBron, the clearly better player? LeBron wants rings, but not the moments that lead to them. Wade wants both.
Seeing the trend and hoping to capitalize before it was too late, the New York Knicks got in line. Every other recent championship had landed that knock out blow, whether via free agency or trade, and now it was New York's turn. So they took a bunch of body shots and traded away half the team for Melo, who would hopefully turn into that championship right hook. As of now, the results are less than ideal, with the Knicks amassing a 7-8 (as of this writing) record since the deal.
Of course it's too early to tell with the Knicks and Heat, but they have caused me to reevaluate my time steadfast chemistry formula. It can be generally agreed upon that better players improve the play of their teammates. And I'm not just talking about the LeBron's and Kobe's, but all great players. By default, they draw attention to themselves, allowing teammates to ride their coattails to wins and championships (see Robert Horry - Yes, Robert Horry. I can't wait for the backlash on that one). The discrepancy, then, is by what margin does one player elevate a teammate's play over another.
This, in a sense, is the crux of the Kobe/LeBron debate. Kobe purists point to the championships. LeBron's faithful note that when Kobe had no help (between Shaq and Pau), he merely lead the Lakers to the playoffs as a low seed, complemented by a first round exit. LeBron, on the other hand, carried some role players, a heavy backpack and the most disgusting free throw form in the NBA - Anderson Varejao - to the #1 seed and deep playoff runs. Using my previous logic, I have always staunchly supported LeBron as the NBA's best. He does more with less. But now he has more and is doing less. So where do we draw the line between chemistry and individual play?
I have always assumed that teams, and not players, possess chemistry, with familiarity being the means to that end. But looking at the current makeup of NBA teams, some players simply breed chemistry while others do not. I'm not simply talking about players that dominate the ball. The nature of the game dictates that great players have the ball in their hands. Point guard is simply the word used for players under 6'3, not necessarily those who pass the ball best. Nor am I talking about the great passer as high chemistry players (although some clearly are).
From my outside perspective, chemistry seems to be built into a player's game. It's an innate, unteachable talent not necessarily limited to the NBA's best. That said, not all the great ones have it, and sometimes greatness supersedes chemistry. And Dwyane Wade bulldozed his way to an NBA championship as the rest of his team watched happily from the sidelines. Writers recently praised Kobe for his ability adapt his game to a team-first mentality, but all basketball fans know that nothing has changed. When the playoffs role around, it's Kobe Bryant vs. the opponent, with contributions only coming from others when he's in need of help. Sometimes, this is the best method. If you take away Kobe's attacking mentality, he loses his competitive edge. As much as team chemistry benefits the team, you cannot rip the heart out of your best player's natural inclination.
So let's get back to the present. Chauncey Billups and Carmelo Anthony, despite excellent play throughout their careers, missed this chemistry gene. We all know of Melo's ball-stopping habits. Billups, however, presents a less clear situation. Sure, he nearly won back-to-back titles with Detroit. But sometimes multiple chemistry players can make up for one guy. And that's what Billups was. When one bucket or one big play was needed, it was Billups' no-fear mentality that brought games home. He relished the moment. He cherished it. He couldn't get enough of it.
This, I believe, is what is at the heart of the Heat's late game issues. Dwyane Wade is that killer, selfish, give me the ball guy. But how can he play his game when the ball consistently rests in the hands of LeBron, the clearly better player? LeBron wants rings, but not the moments that lead to them. Wade wants both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)