I love the summer but in certain ways I also don't like the summer at all because many writers take a vacation from writing bad journalism and decide to annoy their families while taking an actual vacation. Fortunately two up and coming BoTB favorites are stepping up in the clutch, Tim Keown and Dan McNeil. If you recall, Tim Keown hates Kobe's face and Dan McNeil wanted no part of Cutler in Chicago because he thought Kyle Orton was a better quarterback. I thank them for writing and picking up the slack left by others.
-Let's start first with Tim Keown. ESPN is having some of their Page 2 writers make up "wishes" for sports this week, which is about 1,000,000 times better than "Who's Now" or whatever stupid ass fake competition they have set up, but yet Tim Keown still manages to hate athlete's faces and personalities.
I think basketball -- pro and college combined, if not separately -- possesses a breadth of talent comparable to any era in history. I think baseball players are stronger (I know, I know) and better-conditioned than ever before, and I believe that has created a game that is played at a level of physical (not to be confused with mental) prowess that matches any other time. Football is a slightly different story, at least in the NFL, since I think it's been hijacked by overbearing coaches who follow the latest trend like wild dogs tracking a scent.
I am not 100% sure what Keown is referring to when he says "overbearing coaches who follow the latest trend..." I don't specifically know which coach he is talking about, but NFL coaches have always followed any type of trends that seem to work in helping their team win games. It's not a new development. The 3-4 defense, the forward pass, the 46 defense, the run and shoot offense, the no huddle offense, the West Coast offense, and the running quarterback...so yes, just recently they started following trends in Tim Keown's fictional world.
Today we're wishing, and more than anything in sports today I'm wishing for personality. I'm wishing for guys with something to say and the desire to say it.
I'm tired of everyone in the media getting lathered up over a middle reliever "guaranteeing" a win in an important game. That's not news, and that's not personality.
I truly believe Tim Keown lives in his own fantasy world where middle relievers are guaranteeing victories and the NFL just recently started following trends. The problem is that he is allowing his fictional world to be used for real life examples that just aren't true. When you are trying to write a fact based column it is better to not use fictional examples, it tends to not help prove your point.
And how about some old-fashioned clubhouse dissension? Remember when that word -- dissension -- was such a part of the baseball lexicon? When's the last time you heard it used? Like everything else these days, it's mostly used speculatively,
How about when Michael Barrett and Carlos Zambrano got into a fight or anything involving Big Z while he has been with the Cubs, Alex Rodriguez and Joe Girardi argued last week over which game A-Rod should sit out, Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds fought each other in the dugout, or how about Terrell Owens arguing with everyone outside of the Pope on the sidelines when he was with the Cowboys? These things have all happened in the past couple of years, and these are just incidents off the top of my head, so there is plenty of dissension. Again, I have no idea what Tim Keown is talking about here.
If he wants the days of when Ruben Patterson would knock out a teammate in practice or teammates getting in fights, then he should just attend NFL training camps. This sort of thing happens frequently. Not in Keown's fictional sports world though.
I long for personalities such as former All-Star shortstop Garry Templeton, who got so indignant over being picked as a reserve in the 1979 All-Star Game that he issued the famous line "If I ain't startin', I ain't departin'.
Absolutely, we need more athletes to act like divas when they don't get exactly what they want, that's exactly what the sports world needs. I am going to go on a limb and say Garry Templeton did not deserve to start the All Star Game, so I am not sure having athletes think too high of themselves is something else the sports world needs.
Has Keown not been paying attention? T.O., Chad Johnson, Ron Artest, and countless others are doing exactly what he is saying he wants to see more of in sports. Basically he is calling out the major stars like Kobe, LeBron, and Albert Pujols for not acting like self indulgent assholes. Of course he is also using guys who were not major sports stars in the past, like Garry Templeton, as examples of the type of behavior he wants...which tells me major sports stars have never acted in the way Tim Keown wants, but he will pretend they have anyway.
I also wish we didn't live in a sports world where too many people eager to fill the vacancy have decided that facial expressions (Kobe) and choreographed pregame (LeBron) and post-touchdown (Terrell Owens, Chad Johnson) celebrations are adequate substitutions for personality.
There he goes with hating on Kobe's face again. Can't Tim Keown see that all of these pregame and post-touchdown celebrations are personality? That's exactly what they are. I don't know what else he wants from the athletes and to be honest, I have no idea how he has been hired by ESPN. I don't enjoy nor understand his columns. He wants athletes to have more personality and then he doesn't count the athletes that have personality as having the sufficient amount or the right personality.
Think about this: What kind of personality does Peyton Manning have?
I don't care. I just care that he can throw a football, that's all that matters. I need the football game to entertain me, not Peyton Manning.
I just know I don't like it when controversy takes the form of LeBron James' walking off the court without shaking hands or speaking to the media after losing a playoff series. Weird as it was, give me Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman diminishing Larry Bird on the basis of his Caucasian-ness any day.
Tim Keown will take racial discrimination over poor sportsmanship any day of the week. Tim had no problem with Apartheid in South Africa because at least they shook each other's hands after each soccer match.
If it looks like I'm picking on the LeBron-Kobe-Tiger-Peyton level of athlete, that's not the intent. At the moment, they're the most obvious examples of athletes who have reached the level of fame that leaves them afraid to say something that might damage their own corporate interests. They're afraid to offend anybody.
What I don't understand is why they HAVE to offend someone? Is it necessary for these athletes to have something controversial to say?
Every beat writer and local broadcaster is dying to have a go-to guy in the clubhouse or locker room, someone who is there with a good quote or a concise summary of what just happened. The smart guys get this, and that's why most of them -- Dave Winfield, Orel Hershiser, John Kruk, Barkley, Magic Johnson -- end up on television.
Regardless if the media is the athletes friend or not, if the athlete does something extremely controversial, the media will inevitably turn on that athlete. Look at Terrell Owens. He is always good for a quote but he has few friends in the media because of his behavior and his ability to create dissension.
Also, please don't call John Kruk smart.
The Kings and their fans waited far longer than was reasonable for the 7-foot Causwell to give them some sign of … well, just about anything. By the mid-'90s, it was clear he wasn't going to give it to them, and the sign that the organization was tired of waiting came from Reynolds, who said, "Sometimes potential becomes notential."
Now there is personality! Whew, what a laugh riot!
It wasn't that long ago, but it's almost unthinkable that an NBA coach would be that honest today. We'd get something like "Duane's working hard to put in the time needed for him to become a productive member of a winning team."
Because if the coach says anything else the 24 hour media cycle will blow it way out of proportion.
I still have no idea what Tim Keown wants. He wants more clubhouse dissension, more athletes acting like they are bizarre people and athletes speaking their minds more often. Apparently this will all lead to more entertaining sporting events, which is all I care about. I have no idea how Tim Keown got his job at ESPN but it certainly wasn't from his ability to write coherent articles. Everytime he mentions an athlete that shows some personality, like T.O., he dismisses it. I still don't understand the NFL coaches following trends comment, like this is something new.
Here is someone that Tim "I Hate Kobe's Face" Keown might like...Terrence Williams. He does have personality.
-Speaking of more anger and personality, Dan McNeil writes words down indicating he sees a correlation between Lou Pinella acting like an immature child and the Cubs winning games.
We need a new Lou. This one won't do.
Writing like Woody Paige does will not get you brownie points from me.
Try as Piniella might to convince the world he's walking on rice paper without leaving a trace, he always has been most comfortable near the edge. Or completely over it. That's who he is.
Lou Piniella is also 65 years old. His losing his temper and acting like an ass on the field does not mean that his teams will win more games.
Unearthing bases. Kicking dirt. Spitting. Scratching. Fighting one of his own players, as he did in Cincinnati with the behemoth-sized Rob Dibble.
Now there is some personality, quick call and alert Tim Keown!
None of those outlandish behaviors will solve the Cubs' most urgent problems, but when a historically fiery manager ceases to breathe fire, then you have a brand new problem to tack onto the list: resignation.
So because Lou Piniella is not stomping around and throwing bases, this means he no longer cares about how his team is doing? The fact he has not been acting like an ass on a regular basis since he got to Chicago is not a sign of mangerial maturity, but a sign that he just doesn't care anymore.
I bet Dan McNeil thinks because the manager doesn't get irate the players see that and think, "well there is no reason to play hard." I am sure this is 100% true.
Time for Piniella to take one of his struggling bullpen arms over the fence, the way the Tigers' Ryan Raburn did Tuesday night, to beat Kevin Gregg in the bottom of the ninth.
Hell yeah! Throw your team's closer under the bus, that's the sure fire way to have the team pull together and help the team win more games. It's like the opposite of Ubuntu, where the point is to pull the team completely apart and create dissension where each player is playing to save his own ass. Which helps the team by having 25 selfish assholes who hate their manager rather than 25 selfish assholes who like their manager...they will play so much harder at that point.
Who's this team's closer if it's not going to be Gregg, who has blown three saves and is averaging more than 20 pitches per inning?
I am not going to insult the stat of pitches per inning, but there are plenty of other Kevin Gregg statistics that stink that could mean so very much more than pitches per inning.
I'm all for seeing Piniella wave Marmol in for mop-up duty, too, if there aren't more performances like Tuesday's, when he whiffed three of the four Detroit hitters he faced.
If Carlos Marmol can't strike out 75% of the batters he faces then he clearly doesn't deserve to pitch in any key situations.
We need more actions, those like Monday night when Piniella benched Alfonso Soriano for the Cubs' one-night stand in Atlanta.
Yes, more actions that result in the Cubs being shut out by a mediocre team have to be a good thing and will definitely help the team win more games.
Good. Soriano needed it.
The Cubs lost and had 9 hits in 6 1/3 innings against the Braves starter. If only there were someone on the bench who is struggling, but could drive in runs for the Cubs at a ball park where this player has hit .338/.393/.725 over his career. Oh yeah Alfonso Soriano has done that, but I guess it was a good thing Soriano sat.
Of Piniella's regulars, only veterans Derrek Lee and Ryan Theriot have proven reliable. They are the only Cubs position players who should be an automatic when Piniella pencils in his daily lineup.
Yes, Piniella should rotate the other 12 players into the empty 6 spots in the lineup based on who is hot, that will surely allow the players to break out of a slump by not giving them consistent at-bats.
I couldn't believe it when he didn't want to talk about his team's habitual struggle to not capitalize on scoring opportunities the other night.
I'm not encouraging Piniella to barbeque his players publicly.
Well Dan McNeill is certainly encouraging Piniella to use passive aggressive techniques that will serve the same purpose as BBQ'ing his player publicly. People may notice when Kevin Gregg starts only pitching in 11-3 ball games and doesn't close games anymore and the fans may notice when Aramis Ramirez and Gevany Soto are not playing on a regular basis.
Nobody is asking for the postgame spread to be hurled against the wall of the clubhouse. Nothing contrived or falsely manufactured is necessary.
From this article:
Try as Piniella might to convince the world he's walking on rice paper without leaving a trace, he always has been most comfortable near the edge. Or completely over it. That's who he is.
Unearthing bases. Kicking dirt. Spitting. Scratching. Fighting one of his own players, as he did in Cincinnati with the behemoth-sized Rob Dibble.
It sounds to me like Dan McNeil does want Piniella to do something contrived like that.
Find new roles for those not handling their current ones. Keep shakin' up that lineup card and that bullpen. An untrustworthy pen has cost many managers their jobs.
Also, don't forget to publicly embarrass your players by passively aggressively removing them from their role on the team. That will definitely help the team.
So has indifference.
Indifference is now categorized as "not throwing things, picking fights with players, and being ejected from every game."
-The third article for the day is actually pretty brief, but first I want to shine the spotlight on the horribleness that is Rick Reilly. I won't even quote his article, just link it and let everyone know he gets paid millions of dollars to write articles like this. It is, from what I can gather, a completely fictional story that is a waste of nearly everyone's time.
I am going to infringe on Fred's territory here a little and talk about baseball. Gerry Fraley writes an article about what a great hitter Albert Pujols is and I can't help but think this sounds a lot like an article written about Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa and we all know what they have in common.
I am not saying Albert Pujols is on steroids, but I am saying we should be suspicious of him no matter how much he denies it.
Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg are being left behind in the dust.
Joe DiMaggio is nowhere close.
Contemporaries Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez cannot squeeze into the conversation.
When the topic turns to greatest right-handed power hitter of all time, there is only one reasonable answer: St. Louis' Albert Pujols.
He goes into Wednesday's play with the highest slugging percentage all-time among right-handed hitters at .628 and rising. He has a .713 slugging percentage for this season.
Many similar accolades have been said about other sluggers and many of these sluggers turned out to be on steroids. Throw in the fact he is hitting better than two sluggers who have been caught using steroids and my steroid-dar goes up even more.
He could become the first hitter in more than half a century to lead a league in home runs while having fewer strikeouts than long balls.
I can accept the fact he doesn't strike out a lot as not being proof he is on steroids. The part where he is the best RH hitter of all time could be proof of PED use in my book.
I warn you, we are about to go into a strikeout discussion that I am going to try to ignore as much as possible to stay on the track that this article sounds like an article written about someone who is using PED's.
Tampa Bay's Carlos Pena led the American League with 22 homers, which almost offset his 91 strikeouts.
Philadelphia's Ryan Howard and Detroit's Miguel Cabrera were the league home-run champions last season. Howard had 48 homers and 199 strikeouts. Cabrera had 37 homers and 126 whiffs.
Again I want to emphasize that a strikeout, though not always good, is not always a bad thing as long as it is not accompanied by a lack of power and lack of walks. It's okay to strike out 199 times if you are Ryan Howard because you get on base other ways, but when you are Jeff Failcoeur and you strike out 150 times and hit 14 home runs with 50 walks, it is not a good thing.
In no way does the strikeouts offset the home runs in the case of some of these players. A strikeout for Ryan Howard is the equivalent of a gritty ground out to the short stop by David Eckstein. God bless his little soul.
Pujols hates strikeouts. He considers them the ultimate in tossed-away at-bats, and no at-bats should ever be wasted. Pujols has had fewer than 70 strikeouts annually since his rookie season of 2001.
Kudos to Pujols for striking out very little. Barry Bonds also struck out very little and we all know what happened to him.
If a baseball player is hitting better than any other player in the history of the game, then we should automatically be suspicious of him. It's just the way it is in baseball for the foreseeable future. How Gerry Fraley is not suspicious is beyond me.
Unlike Bonds, who stubbornly led the NL in walks 12 times, Pujols does not take the walks and move along. He dislikes walks almost as virulently as strikeouts.
Pujols reached 100 walks for the first time in his career last season. He has 23 intentional walks this season, more than double the total of any other major-leaguer, but only 54 walks overall.
In regard to what it does for the team, there is no difference in a pop up and a strikeout, even when hit by Albert Pujols.
Among right-handed hitters, no one generates more power than Albert Pujols. No one ever.
I hate it, but that alone should make us suspicious considering every other hitter of this generation who has broken MLB records was on PED's.
Showing posts with label dan mcneil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dan mcneil. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
8 comments Dan McNeil and Ross Tucker Race to the Finish Line of Stupidity
That's right everyone. Bust out the chips and open another beer, it's two for one Saturday! I realize everyone has had enough of Jay Cutler thus far, but Dan McNeil has a primo bad article about Jay Cutler. (I did just type "primo," so you know this is some serious business.) It was written before Cutler got traded to McNeil's hometown team, the Chicago Bears, but it is ever so relevant for today. Also, Ross Tucker thinks he has the perfect draft strategy for the Detroit Lions. I think he may have taken one too many hits on the practice field.
Let's start off with Dan McNeil. He compares Jay Cutler to Kyle Orton, except he uses no statistics and just gives his opinion...which is a wrong opinion because he does not use statistics and has apparently not watched the NFL during the last two years.
Might Orton be more mature?
Ask me when Orton sobers up.
More mature than your average college student?
Everyone loves Jack and Coke!
Is that vomit, piss, water, or did one of her breast implants pop?
Brady Quinn wants Orton's number.
I think I am going to go with a big "no" on Orton being more mature than Jay Cutler. Really, that is not the question though. The question really should be who the better quarterback is and I think we know the answer to that one.
Jay Cutler is this decade's Ryan Leaf. Big body. Big arm. Big dope.
Leaf. Cutler.
They are actually very similar. Cutler had more completions and less attempts last year than Ryan Leaf had for his entire career, Cutler threw almost double the touchdown passes last year than Leaf threw for his entire career, and his career QB rating is 37 points higher than Ryan Leaf. See, they are very similar when it comes to the things that really matter, which is performance on the field. Similar being defined as "not alike."
Are columnists allergic to statistics? Or are they just too damn lazy to look things up? Hyperbole has its place and time but when writing an editorial type opinion column, it's not the best time to include facts and claims that are incredibly off base. There are no similarities to Ryan Leaf and Jay Cutler, unless you want to count the statistics Cutler accumulated his first year when he only started five games and you compare those to Leaf's entire career. Then they are more similar.
Even their personalities are different. Leaf offended everyone with his abrasive personality, while Cutler is a big cry baby. Dan, you missed this one.
Cutler's erratic play is reason enough for Bears general manager Jerry Angelo to pass on cutting a deal for the disgruntled Denver Broncos quarterback.
He has been a starter in the NFL for barely 2.5 years and is 25 years old. He showed improvement from his first full season as a starter to his second full season as a starter. I don't know what else you want from him.
It's not hard to see Cutler does not have erratic play, see the NFL keeps statistics, look at them. You may learn something from them. Every NFL quarterback is going to have statistics that vary from game to game based on who they are playing, but Cutler made progress as whole last year as a quarterback, which is generally a favorable indicator of his future potential.
And why Cutler advocates are tacking ''franchise quarterback'' and ''star'' to his business card is a mystery. Cutler has been in the league three years, and his next playoff appearance will be his first.
Yes, it is completely Cutler's fault he has not made the playoffs as a starting quarterback in the NFL. The absolutely horrible defense Denver put on the field the last two years has nothing to do with it. Why can't Cutler learn to rush the passer? It's all his fault!
Just like some quarterbacks get a little bit too much credit for their team's success based on the team's record (Kerry Collins/Jake Delhomme), some quarterbacks are to blame for their team's lack of success. At least that is how the brainless media would like for everyone to think.
The next sentence Dan McNeil writes that I agree with, will be the first.
The reason these silly Cutler "advocates" are putting "star" and "franchise quarterback" beside his name is because of his "statistics" and because no matter how you sort those statistics Cutler is a pretty damn good quarterback for a 25 year old who had no running game last year, or at least had no consistent running game.
Blame fantasy football. Big numbers have distorted reality so much, we can't decipher what's good anymore. Cutler threw for more than 4,500 yards last season and made the Pro Bowl,
These numbers are not distorted and fantasy football has nothing to do with this. The numbers speak for themselves. He threw for 4.500 yards last year, that is a good number, no matter how you want to portray it.
but when the Broncos needed him to be ''the man'' and take them to the playoffs, he spit the bit.
Do you know what other quarterback did not take his team to the playoffs when his team needed him to be "the man?" Drew Brees. I bet Dan McNeil thinks he sucks too. Maybe the problem is that Chicago columnist have not seen a good quarterback in such a long time and really don't understand what makes a great quarterback, so everyone is afraid of getting a good one. Much like Joe Morgan and computers.
Denver lost to Carolina, Buffalo and San Diego in its final three games.
The defense gave up 30, 30, and 52 points in those games. Dammit Cutler, it's all your fault!
Sounds more like Rex Grossman than Elway.
It does not sound more like Rex Grossman. Here are his career numbers. Cutler's are much better.
I wish I could just write whatever I want, get paid for it and my readers would never call me out on my inaccuracies. Actually I don't, because I like to write accurate sentences. It gives me a little credibility and doesn't make me look like an ass.
Cutler threw 25 touchdown passes with 18 interceptions and posted an above-average 86 rating in 2008. He also contributed largely to bad losses to Kansas City -- after a 3-0 start -- and to Oakland in Week 12 at home.
You want to endure another few seasons of ''Good Rex, Bad Rex''?
Unbelievable. I am not even going to try and match wits with McNeil here. Two bad games in a 16 game schedule is not that bad for a quarterback. Especially one that is 25 years old.
Minnesota also is interested, but several members of the coaching staff have seen enough red flags from Cutler that they reportedly are attempting to dissuade coach Brad Childress from pressing the issue.
I am sure that is the only reason they are not pursuing him. It has nothing to do with the fact they traded a 4th round pick for Sage Rosenfels and then signed him for 2 year at $9 million earlier in the offseason. Absolutely nothing.
And the Vikings have Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels scheduled to duel for the No. 1 job in training camp.
Just throw that important fact in. The Falcons were going to look into trading for Cutler, but they were also turned off by his attitude.
And they have their own Pro Bowl quarterback in Matt Ryan...but it was mostly Cutler's bad attitude that caused them not to trade for him.
The New York Jets also are in the Cutler sweepstakes as they seek Brett Favre's successor. Veteran safety Kerry Rhodes has stated publicly he won't welcome the self-assured Cutler on board.
Maybe Rhodes saw a little bit of Brett Favre in Cutler and did not like that. If the media saw some Brett Favre in Cutler he would be their new darling.
The unkempt quarterback refused to reply to messages left by new Broncos coach Josh McDaniels.
Yes, Cutler is a baby. I have covered this to no end.
McNeil was comparing Cutler to Orton and he calls Cutler "unkempt?" Compared to Mister Neckbeard? The same one who has had pictures taken of him with a heavy amount of a liquid on his shirt? Cutler is more unkempt than that guy?
If the Bears had a track record of making good soldiers out of questionable characters, it would be easier to have an open mind. I struggle, however, to imagine coach Lovie Smith and his wingmen helping Cutler see the light.
Cutler does not have questionable character, he is a cry baby. There is a difference. Just because the Bears coaching staff sucks doesn't mean Cutler is a bad quarterback.
Even if the Bears were able to tame Cutler, there is no evidence they're able to unlock his potential. The Bears never have developed quarterbacks.
"Our team has a horrible coaching staff, there is no good reason to trade for a great quarterback because they will do a horrible job of developing him." That doesn't sound like a reason to avoid Cutler, but more like a reason to fire the coaching staff.
Quarterbacks coach Pep Hamilton hasn't made me think, ''Oh, yeah! A young Mike Holmgren.'' Offensive coordinator Ron Turner had one great season with the Bears. In 1995.
Seriously, not a reason to avoid trading for Cutler. You can repeat yourself a few more times but it is not changing the fact this is a bad reason to not trade for Cutler.
It's true the Bears have more questions than answers about Kyle Orton, but Orton shares more with Cutler than people know. With their teams fighting for a wild-card berth, both posted sub-50 ratings in two of their final three games last season.
That is pretty much all Orton shares with Cutler in regard to football skill. Outside of those three games, Cutler was the better quarterback by a wide, wide margin. Cherry picking statistics to prove a point is fun!
I don't see Orton petulantly not replying to a text from his head coach, however, when Smith praises the play of Brett Basanez in a preseason game this August. Orton likely won't be baited into a war of words with another quarterback in his division, the way Cutler was last year with San Diego's Philip Rivers.
Neither of these two things just listed that Orton does not do will help the Chicago Bears win football games.
Orton will also not throw for 4,500 yards and nearly 30 touchdowns. Orton is a good stop gap quarterback or a backup quarterback, but he is not Jay Cutler. Everyone but Clark Judge and Dan McNeil agree with this.
A good leader must be willing to be unpopular. So far, that's the only part of the job Cutler has down.
Well, that and being a much better quarterback than about 25 other quarterbacks in the league...including Kyle Orton.
Ross Tucker thinks the Lions should just not make a pick when the time comes for them to pick in the April draft.
In the wake of Matthew Stafford's "flawless" private workout with the Detroit brass Tuesday, some sources have reported the Lions' intention to draft the Georgia quarterback with the No. 1-overall pick is a "done deal."
Other reports, however, indicate Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith remains the Lions' top choice and they point to the fact that the Lions have begun preliminary negotiations with Smith's representation. Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and Virginia left tackle Eugene Monroe also remain in the conversation as the Lions' new brain trust makes its biggest decision to date.
I could get on board with two of these four players, not Stafford and Monroe, because I think Curry and Jason Smith are going to be good pros. The Lions do have options though.
Here's some free advice for the Lions: Strongly consider passing on the No. 1 pick. Just let the time run out, Minnesota Vikings-style. Don't bother skimming the rest of the column looking for an April Fool's Day reveal. It's a serious suggestion.
Here's some free advice for Ross Tucker.......what are you talking about?
Given the financial commitment inherent in making the No. 1 pick and the lack of a clear-cut best player, the Lions should consider letting the clock strike zero and let the Rams make the first selection. Maybe even let the Chiefs slide in there too, before making a pick at three or four.
I can partially understand this reasoning. After all, money is one of the reasons I don't always think picking a quarterback #1 in the draft is a smart idea. It takes a few years for them to develop and they just feel like big gambles to me for what they get paid. I may be wrong, and there are exceptions, but I think in the Lions' situation picking a tackle or a defensive player is the smart move.
The #1 pick is expensive, but even if the Lions did this, who is to say the agent for the player they select won't want that player slotted as the #1 pick in the draft no matter where that player is picked? It could very well happen.
The money paid to the top five rookies has gotten so steep that this approach could be a legitimate option for a team.
So the Lions should just pass up the chance to pick until the 6th pick in the draft? That is potentially blowing the opportunity to get the best player in the draft. The Lions have to have faith in their personnel department to believe they can draft the best player, if they don't have that confidence, they should get a new personnel department.
This is why I think Ross Tucker is wrong and dumb for suggesting this. Let's look at last year's rookie class and how much money the teams paid out for them. Even at #3 Matt Ryan got more money and more guaranteed money than anyone else in the draft, because he was a quarterback. What Ross Tucker does not understand is that picking a certain position can cost more, so if the Lions try to slide down to #7, and pick Stafford or Sanchez, they may still have to pony up a shitload of money. Looking at what the rookies signed for last year, it seems like at #9 the numbers for a rookie, looking just at the numbers and not in-depth at the contract, become fairly reasonable. To suggest the Lions should fall from #1 to #8/#9 just for money reasons is lunacy. Rather than that, they should trade the pick, put all the name of the players they are considering in a hat and draw a name out, or even just draft Aaron Curry (my personal choice). It doesn't matter, but if money is the problem, the Lions are going to have to pass up on picking for 7 or 8 picks before the money gets fairly reasonable.
If the Lions would truly be content with any of the aforementioned four players, there's no need to waste time negotiating or spend top-slot money when they can simply let the clock run out and take one of the other players a pick or two down the line.
Again, if they pick Matthew Stafford at any point in the top 5, they could very well end up paying him the largest contract in the draft.
every subsequent pick in the top five of the draft has ended up commanding around $2 million less in guaranteed compensation than the prior pick. That means the Lions could save a cool $4 million at least by letting the Rams and Chiefs pick first, while still landing a very good player who they were considering taking with the top pick anyway.
Are you kidding me? That is $4 million over the life of the contract, which comes to saving less than one million per year and missing out on choosing two players that could make a difference. For God's sake, if the Lions are that cheap, just trade the #1 pick to the Rams or the Chiefs for a 7th round pick or something. Get something out of it, rather than just not picking and hoping you get the player you want.
The thing that seems to get lost when discussing a rookie wage scale is that the money has only gotten out of hand for the first 10, maybe 15, selections. In fact, the later portion of the first round and almost all of the selections in the second round often represent a tremendous value for the teams picking in that range. The sweet spot in terms of return on investment appears to be spots 20-50, where a team can select a player with a high probability to be a quality starter at a price that is less than what a veteran starter would likely get on the open market at that position.
I bet Ross Tucker thinks the Lions should just not draft until the middle of the first round. They would save so much money at that point!
Sure the #1 pick is expensive, but any pick in the top 10 is going to be that way. Why not pay more and draft the player you actually want and not risk that player going somewhere else?
The same cannot be said for the top five or 10 picks, however. For example, if the Lions choose Curry, Monroe or Smith instead of Stafford with the top pick, that player will immediately become the highest-paid player in league history at his position, a reality that makes no sense considering he will basically be getting paid for what he did in college and what he might be able to do in the NFL.
I agree, it makes absolutely no sense the way the rookies get paid in the top 10 picks of the draft. Is it really worth it to the Lions though to make a public statement they don't like this? They need to re-energize a fan base and actually win a game this year, this is no time for statements about how rookie salaries are out of whack. Save it for another day and pick the best player available.
The Lions are staring the here and now squarely in the face, and their best option, as crazy as it sounds, might be to simply let time run out.
It sounds crazy because it is crazy. I have no problem with the Lions not picking #1 in the draft but they need to make a move that gets them something in return for not picking #1 in the draft. Just letting the clock run out should not be an option. No team wants to pay for the #1 pick in the draft but to avoid paying a rookie a lot of money, a team would have to fall out of the top 10 picks or so. The system sucks and is unfair to teams because they are overpaying for a rookie contract but the Lions are in no position to buck the system. They have two first round picks this year and need both of them, money expenditures be damned.
If they don't want the #1 pick, try to trade it and if they can't get anything for it, try again. Don't give the pick away or let the clock run out because they will still end up paying a lot for a rookie, and they could miss out on the exact player they want. What if Curry, Monroe, and Smith are the first three picks and the Lions choose to pick at #4 and get Stafford...then he wants more money than the top 3 because he is a quarterback? Then the Lions picked 4th and still paid more than anyone else. Find a player you want and choose that player.
Ross Tucker.......my nemesis.
Let's start off with Dan McNeil. He compares Jay Cutler to Kyle Orton, except he uses no statistics and just gives his opinion...which is a wrong opinion because he does not use statistics and has apparently not watched the NFL during the last two years.
Might Orton be more mature?
Ask me when Orton sobers up.
More mature than your average college student?
Everyone loves Jack and Coke!
Is that vomit, piss, water, or did one of her breast implants pop?
Brady Quinn wants Orton's number.
I think I am going to go with a big "no" on Orton being more mature than Jay Cutler. Really, that is not the question though. The question really should be who the better quarterback is and I think we know the answer to that one.
Jay Cutler is this decade's Ryan Leaf. Big body. Big arm. Big dope.
Leaf. Cutler.
They are actually very similar. Cutler had more completions and less attempts last year than Ryan Leaf had for his entire career, Cutler threw almost double the touchdown passes last year than Leaf threw for his entire career, and his career QB rating is 37 points higher than Ryan Leaf. See, they are very similar when it comes to the things that really matter, which is performance on the field. Similar being defined as "not alike."
Are columnists allergic to statistics? Or are they just too damn lazy to look things up? Hyperbole has its place and time but when writing an editorial type opinion column, it's not the best time to include facts and claims that are incredibly off base. There are no similarities to Ryan Leaf and Jay Cutler, unless you want to count the statistics Cutler accumulated his first year when he only started five games and you compare those to Leaf's entire career. Then they are more similar.
Even their personalities are different. Leaf offended everyone with his abrasive personality, while Cutler is a big cry baby. Dan, you missed this one.
Cutler's erratic play is reason enough for Bears general manager Jerry Angelo to pass on cutting a deal for the disgruntled Denver Broncos quarterback.
He has been a starter in the NFL for barely 2.5 years and is 25 years old. He showed improvement from his first full season as a starter to his second full season as a starter. I don't know what else you want from him.
It's not hard to see Cutler does not have erratic play, see the NFL keeps statistics, look at them. You may learn something from them. Every NFL quarterback is going to have statistics that vary from game to game based on who they are playing, but Cutler made progress as whole last year as a quarterback, which is generally a favorable indicator of his future potential.
And why Cutler advocates are tacking ''franchise quarterback'' and ''star'' to his business card is a mystery. Cutler has been in the league three years, and his next playoff appearance will be his first.
Yes, it is completely Cutler's fault he has not made the playoffs as a starting quarterback in the NFL. The absolutely horrible defense Denver put on the field the last two years has nothing to do with it. Why can't Cutler learn to rush the passer? It's all his fault!
Just like some quarterbacks get a little bit too much credit for their team's success based on the team's record (Kerry Collins/Jake Delhomme), some quarterbacks are to blame for their team's lack of success. At least that is how the brainless media would like for everyone to think.
The next sentence Dan McNeil writes that I agree with, will be the first.
The reason these silly Cutler "advocates" are putting "star" and "franchise quarterback" beside his name is because of his "statistics" and because no matter how you sort those statistics Cutler is a pretty damn good quarterback for a 25 year old who had no running game last year, or at least had no consistent running game.
Blame fantasy football. Big numbers have distorted reality so much, we can't decipher what's good anymore. Cutler threw for more than 4,500 yards last season and made the Pro Bowl,
These numbers are not distorted and fantasy football has nothing to do with this. The numbers speak for themselves. He threw for 4.500 yards last year, that is a good number, no matter how you want to portray it.
but when the Broncos needed him to be ''the man'' and take them to the playoffs, he spit the bit.
Do you know what other quarterback did not take his team to the playoffs when his team needed him to be "the man?" Drew Brees. I bet Dan McNeil thinks he sucks too. Maybe the problem is that Chicago columnist have not seen a good quarterback in such a long time and really don't understand what makes a great quarterback, so everyone is afraid of getting a good one. Much like Joe Morgan and computers.
Denver lost to Carolina, Buffalo and San Diego in its final three games.
The defense gave up 30, 30, and 52 points in those games. Dammit Cutler, it's all your fault!
Sounds more like Rex Grossman than Elway.
It does not sound more like Rex Grossman. Here are his career numbers. Cutler's are much better.
I wish I could just write whatever I want, get paid for it and my readers would never call me out on my inaccuracies. Actually I don't, because I like to write accurate sentences. It gives me a little credibility and doesn't make me look like an ass.
Cutler threw 25 touchdown passes with 18 interceptions and posted an above-average 86 rating in 2008. He also contributed largely to bad losses to Kansas City -- after a 3-0 start -- and to Oakland in Week 12 at home.
You want to endure another few seasons of ''Good Rex, Bad Rex''?
Unbelievable. I am not even going to try and match wits with McNeil here. Two bad games in a 16 game schedule is not that bad for a quarterback. Especially one that is 25 years old.
Minnesota also is interested, but several members of the coaching staff have seen enough red flags from Cutler that they reportedly are attempting to dissuade coach Brad Childress from pressing the issue.
I am sure that is the only reason they are not pursuing him. It has nothing to do with the fact they traded a 4th round pick for Sage Rosenfels and then signed him for 2 year at $9 million earlier in the offseason. Absolutely nothing.
And the Vikings have Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels scheduled to duel for the No. 1 job in training camp.
Just throw that important fact in. The Falcons were going to look into trading for Cutler, but they were also turned off by his attitude.
And they have their own Pro Bowl quarterback in Matt Ryan...but it was mostly Cutler's bad attitude that caused them not to trade for him.
The New York Jets also are in the Cutler sweepstakes as they seek Brett Favre's successor. Veteran safety Kerry Rhodes has stated publicly he won't welcome the self-assured Cutler on board.
Maybe Rhodes saw a little bit of Brett Favre in Cutler and did not like that. If the media saw some Brett Favre in Cutler he would be their new darling.
The unkempt quarterback refused to reply to messages left by new Broncos coach Josh McDaniels.
Yes, Cutler is a baby. I have covered this to no end.
McNeil was comparing Cutler to Orton and he calls Cutler "unkempt?" Compared to Mister Neckbeard? The same one who has had pictures taken of him with a heavy amount of a liquid on his shirt? Cutler is more unkempt than that guy?
If the Bears had a track record of making good soldiers out of questionable characters, it would be easier to have an open mind. I struggle, however, to imagine coach Lovie Smith and his wingmen helping Cutler see the light.
Cutler does not have questionable character, he is a cry baby. There is a difference. Just because the Bears coaching staff sucks doesn't mean Cutler is a bad quarterback.
Even if the Bears were able to tame Cutler, there is no evidence they're able to unlock his potential. The Bears never have developed quarterbacks.
"Our team has a horrible coaching staff, there is no good reason to trade for a great quarterback because they will do a horrible job of developing him." That doesn't sound like a reason to avoid Cutler, but more like a reason to fire the coaching staff.
Quarterbacks coach Pep Hamilton hasn't made me think, ''Oh, yeah! A young Mike Holmgren.'' Offensive coordinator Ron Turner had one great season with the Bears. In 1995.
Seriously, not a reason to avoid trading for Cutler. You can repeat yourself a few more times but it is not changing the fact this is a bad reason to not trade for Cutler.
It's true the Bears have more questions than answers about Kyle Orton, but Orton shares more with Cutler than people know. With their teams fighting for a wild-card berth, both posted sub-50 ratings in two of their final three games last season.
That is pretty much all Orton shares with Cutler in regard to football skill. Outside of those three games, Cutler was the better quarterback by a wide, wide margin. Cherry picking statistics to prove a point is fun!
I don't see Orton petulantly not replying to a text from his head coach, however, when Smith praises the play of Brett Basanez in a preseason game this August. Orton likely won't be baited into a war of words with another quarterback in his division, the way Cutler was last year with San Diego's Philip Rivers.
Neither of these two things just listed that Orton does not do will help the Chicago Bears win football games.
Orton will also not throw for 4,500 yards and nearly 30 touchdowns. Orton is a good stop gap quarterback or a backup quarterback, but he is not Jay Cutler. Everyone but Clark Judge and Dan McNeil agree with this.
A good leader must be willing to be unpopular. So far, that's the only part of the job Cutler has down.
Well, that and being a much better quarterback than about 25 other quarterbacks in the league...including Kyle Orton.
Ross Tucker thinks the Lions should just not make a pick when the time comes for them to pick in the April draft.
In the wake of Matthew Stafford's "flawless" private workout with the Detroit brass Tuesday, some sources have reported the Lions' intention to draft the Georgia quarterback with the No. 1-overall pick is a "done deal."
Other reports, however, indicate Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith remains the Lions' top choice and they point to the fact that the Lions have begun preliminary negotiations with Smith's representation. Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and Virginia left tackle Eugene Monroe also remain in the conversation as the Lions' new brain trust makes its biggest decision to date.
I could get on board with two of these four players, not Stafford and Monroe, because I think Curry and Jason Smith are going to be good pros. The Lions do have options though.
Here's some free advice for the Lions: Strongly consider passing on the No. 1 pick. Just let the time run out, Minnesota Vikings-style. Don't bother skimming the rest of the column looking for an April Fool's Day reveal. It's a serious suggestion.
Here's some free advice for Ross Tucker.......what are you talking about?
Given the financial commitment inherent in making the No. 1 pick and the lack of a clear-cut best player, the Lions should consider letting the clock strike zero and let the Rams make the first selection. Maybe even let the Chiefs slide in there too, before making a pick at three or four.
I can partially understand this reasoning. After all, money is one of the reasons I don't always think picking a quarterback #1 in the draft is a smart idea. It takes a few years for them to develop and they just feel like big gambles to me for what they get paid. I may be wrong, and there are exceptions, but I think in the Lions' situation picking a tackle or a defensive player is the smart move.
The #1 pick is expensive, but even if the Lions did this, who is to say the agent for the player they select won't want that player slotted as the #1 pick in the draft no matter where that player is picked? It could very well happen.
The money paid to the top five rookies has gotten so steep that this approach could be a legitimate option for a team.
So the Lions should just pass up the chance to pick until the 6th pick in the draft? That is potentially blowing the opportunity to get the best player in the draft. The Lions have to have faith in their personnel department to believe they can draft the best player, if they don't have that confidence, they should get a new personnel department.
This is why I think Ross Tucker is wrong and dumb for suggesting this. Let's look at last year's rookie class and how much money the teams paid out for them. Even at #3 Matt Ryan got more money and more guaranteed money than anyone else in the draft, because he was a quarterback. What Ross Tucker does not understand is that picking a certain position can cost more, so if the Lions try to slide down to #7, and pick Stafford or Sanchez, they may still have to pony up a shitload of money. Looking at what the rookies signed for last year, it seems like at #9 the numbers for a rookie, looking just at the numbers and not in-depth at the contract, become fairly reasonable. To suggest the Lions should fall from #1 to #8/#9 just for money reasons is lunacy. Rather than that, they should trade the pick, put all the name of the players they are considering in a hat and draw a name out, or even just draft Aaron Curry (my personal choice). It doesn't matter, but if money is the problem, the Lions are going to have to pass up on picking for 7 or 8 picks before the money gets fairly reasonable.
If the Lions would truly be content with any of the aforementioned four players, there's no need to waste time negotiating or spend top-slot money when they can simply let the clock run out and take one of the other players a pick or two down the line.
Again, if they pick Matthew Stafford at any point in the top 5, they could very well end up paying him the largest contract in the draft.
every subsequent pick in the top five of the draft has ended up commanding around $2 million less in guaranteed compensation than the prior pick. That means the Lions could save a cool $4 million at least by letting the Rams and Chiefs pick first, while still landing a very good player who they were considering taking with the top pick anyway.
Are you kidding me? That is $4 million over the life of the contract, which comes to saving less than one million per year and missing out on choosing two players that could make a difference. For God's sake, if the Lions are that cheap, just trade the #1 pick to the Rams or the Chiefs for a 7th round pick or something. Get something out of it, rather than just not picking and hoping you get the player you want.
The thing that seems to get lost when discussing a rookie wage scale is that the money has only gotten out of hand for the first 10, maybe 15, selections. In fact, the later portion of the first round and almost all of the selections in the second round often represent a tremendous value for the teams picking in that range. The sweet spot in terms of return on investment appears to be spots 20-50, where a team can select a player with a high probability to be a quality starter at a price that is less than what a veteran starter would likely get on the open market at that position.
I bet Ross Tucker thinks the Lions should just not draft until the middle of the first round. They would save so much money at that point!
Sure the #1 pick is expensive, but any pick in the top 10 is going to be that way. Why not pay more and draft the player you actually want and not risk that player going somewhere else?
The same cannot be said for the top five or 10 picks, however. For example, if the Lions choose Curry, Monroe or Smith instead of Stafford with the top pick, that player will immediately become the highest-paid player in league history at his position, a reality that makes no sense considering he will basically be getting paid for what he did in college and what he might be able to do in the NFL.
I agree, it makes absolutely no sense the way the rookies get paid in the top 10 picks of the draft. Is it really worth it to the Lions though to make a public statement they don't like this? They need to re-energize a fan base and actually win a game this year, this is no time for statements about how rookie salaries are out of whack. Save it for another day and pick the best player available.
The Lions are staring the here and now squarely in the face, and their best option, as crazy as it sounds, might be to simply let time run out.
It sounds crazy because it is crazy. I have no problem with the Lions not picking #1 in the draft but they need to make a move that gets them something in return for not picking #1 in the draft. Just letting the clock run out should not be an option. No team wants to pay for the #1 pick in the draft but to avoid paying a rookie a lot of money, a team would have to fall out of the top 10 picks or so. The system sucks and is unfair to teams because they are overpaying for a rookie contract but the Lions are in no position to buck the system. They have two first round picks this year and need both of them, money expenditures be damned.
If they don't want the #1 pick, try to trade it and if they can't get anything for it, try again. Don't give the pick away or let the clock run out because they will still end up paying a lot for a rookie, and they could miss out on the exact player they want. What if Curry, Monroe, and Smith are the first three picks and the Lions choose to pick at #4 and get Stafford...then he wants more money than the top 3 because he is a quarterback? Then the Lions picked 4th and still paid more than anyone else. Find a player you want and choose that player.
Ross Tucker.......my nemesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)