I think Russell Wilson probably got more money than his overall talent level should suggest, even compared to what other NFL quarterbacks have received lately. Still, I see why the Seahawks paid Wilson like they did and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing they did. I can't really find evidence that Wilson is overrated or doesn't deserve the money, so I have a hard time bashing him and criticizing his contract until he shows that he's simply not a franchise or above-average quarterback. Chris Chase of "For the Win" doesn't have this problem. In a column that I am guessing he had pre-written in some form (just a guess, I have no proof) he states that Russell Wilson is now vastly overpaid. Great, I can understand this line of thinking. Unfortunately, Chris Chase doesn't explain why he believes Wilson is overpaid other than, "We all know he's not that good," which doesn't really grade out as a persuasive argument for why Wilson is overpaid. An opinion isn't proof. If it were, then Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith would be the two smartest men in sports.
In one fell swoop, Russell Wilson went from the most underpaid quarterback in the NFL to its most overpaid.
BAM! You got scalded by this hot take. Russell Wilson is the most overpaid quarterback in the NFL only seconds after being the most underpaid. Life's a bitch, especially when you are now wealthy beyond all imagination.
The Seattle Seahawks quarterback beat a Friday deadline to extend his contract, signing for a whopping $61 million guaranteed, with a reported $31 million signing bonus
for an annual salary of about $21.9 million that’s just under that of
Aaron Rodgers. The total amount of the four-year deal is worth a
preposterous $87.6 million which doesn’t appear to contain much of the
funny money that usually inflates the contracts of NFL players.
This is the going rate for a franchise quarterback. Is Wilson a franchise quarterback? I don't believe he is on-par with Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Luck, but Wilson has given no evidence my belief is anything but fiction so far. He's been impressive when he needs to be in important games. It's hard to put a value on that.
This was a deal that both sides needed.
Seattle locked up their starter before this season started, avoiding the
headaches and questions that would have come along with Wilson’s
unsigned contract for next year. It also locks up a fine quarterback for
the foreseeable future.
It's a mutually beneficial contract where Wilson gets paid a ton of money and the Seahawks don't have to search for a replacement for Wilson. While Chris Chase thinks the Seahawks overpaid for Russell Wilson, it's more expensive to let Wilson go in free agency and try to find his replacement. Wilson probably is making more money than he rationally should, as are many other quarterbacks in the NFL, but until a team doesn't have a quarterback it's forgotten how much it sucks to not have one. It's hard to put a price on trying to find a quarterback when an NFL team doesn't have one.
But to do that, the ‘Hawks had to overpay a very good QB who,
To call Wilson a "very good QB" is to also understand $20+ million per year is the going rate for a very good quarterback.
thanks to a
phenomenal defense, great offensive line and powerful rushing attack,
has convinced the league he’s one of its best.
Chris Chase will provide no data or any other information that supports his contention the great offensive line, powerful rushing attack and great defense are what makes Russell Wilson the quarterback he is. I'm sorry, I expect more than just the same old talking points about why Wilson is overrated.
He’s the clear winner in the deal.
You don't say? The guy who just got guaranteed $61 million is the clear winner in this deal. You sure about that?
Wilson, who paid his dues playing his third year with the contract of an
NFL pauper, will be in the final year of the deal when he’s 30, when
he’ll still be in his prime (and the salary cap should be considerably
higher). But Seattle wins too.
They win because they keep the quarterback who, overrated or not overrated, has taken them to two straight Super Bowls. Wilson isn't Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson, but this also doesn't mean he is Aaron Rodgers. He's been a pretty good quarterback so far and he got paid like a pretty good quarterback.
So if both sides win, how can Russell Wilson be overpaid? Because, come
on: Russell Wilson isn’t worth Aaron Rodgers money. He’s not worth Drew
Brees money. Heck, he really has no place near Philip Rivers’ tax
bracket.
But, why? Do better than stating, "He's just not as good as these guys." Brees, Rivers and Rodgers all signed their current contracts before the quarterback market had been reset (thanks Joe Flacco!). So it's possible Wilson isn't overpaid, quarterbacks like Rodgers, Brees and Rivers could be underpaid. Maybe not, but at least give statistical and logical reasons other than "He just is" for why Wilson is overpaid.
Now he’s the second-highest paid quarterback in the league? It’s nonsense.
If there were a schoolyard pick of quarterbacks in the NFL, Wilson
should go about 13th, right around Eli Manning and Cam Newton.
Cam Newton just signed a contract very similar, though one year longer, than that which Wilson just signed, while Manning has a cap hit of $19.75 million this year. Just a tip, but if you are going to compare Wilson to two other quarterbacks in an effort to show he is overpaid, try not to compare him to two quarterbacks who have salaries in a similar financial bracket as he has. If Wilson is 13th around Manning and Newton, then Wilson seems to be properly compensated, no?
I mean, if he’s worth $21.9 million per year, what should Andrew Luck get? $30 million? $35 million? $50 million?
Andrew Luck will get a ton of money. He'll get more than Wilson, despite not having had Wilson's success in terms of Super Bowl appearances. See how it works? Then if you compare Luck's salary to that of Rodgers, Brady, and others it will look like Luck is overpaid because he doesn't nearly have the amount of rings and MVP's those guys have.
Yet Wilson deserves every penny of the deal
(Bengoodfella throws hands up in the air) If he deserves the money then how can he be overpaid? Being overpaid means an athlete (or person) is compensated more money than he deserves for his performance. If Wilson deserves the contract, he probably isn't overpaid.
and the Seahawks had no
choice but to pay it, even if it hamstrings them from making deals with
other players over the next three years.
Yes, but quarterback is the most important position on an NFL team. History shows that if a team doesn't have a good quarterback then they aren't winning a Super Bowl and don't have a great chance of making the playoffs.
If Joe Flacco and Andy Dalton are getting nine-figure deals, then the
market is set for a winner like Wilson to thrive, even if quarterback
wins are the most overrated stat in the game. (When Dalton’s wins are
cited, people say they don’t matter. When Wilson’s are, they are.)
The very obvious difference in comparing Dalton to Wilson is that Dalton is 0-4 in his playoff career while Russell Wilson is 6-2 with two Super Bowl appearances. Wins are an overrated stat, there's no doubt, but a comparison of Dalton to Wilson is laughable when the big difference in the two quarterbacks using the win statistic is ignored. If Chris Chase claims the only difference in Wilson and Dalton is wins then I'd like to mention that Russell Wilson doesn't have A.J. Green either and Dalton doesn't have the wins that a quarterback is graded on. Dalton's wins are dismissed because he falls on his face in the playoffs. Chris Chase knows this, yet he acts like this isn't relevant.
Other QBs set the market and Wilson was able to parlay that into a
bigger deal because the other 21 guys he plays with are better than the
21 players on other teams.
Again, this is an opinion which has no factual backing. Wilson is overpaid, overrated and he only got a deal because his team is better than other NFL teams. Fine, without some factual backing it's just an opinion. Do better.
Despite that one ring and the second ring that was lost with one of the
most untimely and awful passes in NFL history, Wilson is an
above-average quarterback on a team that allows such a signal caller to
thrive.
Yes, despite those two Super Bowl appearances in three years, Wilson is an above-average quarterback on a very good team. He'd be 13th in QB rankings, right between two other quarterbacks who are making around $20 million per year as well. Tom Brady is a missed field goal and an untimely pass away from being 2-4 in the Super Bowl. He's two really good passes by the Giants away from being 6-0 in the Super Bowl. Super Bowl wins (right or wrong) is how a quarterback can be graded.
And I'm not a big defender of Russell Wilson, but he's been better than above-average when the Seahawks have needed him to be. Maybe he isn't Aaron Rodgers, but he fits what the Seahawks are doing, and that in itself could be worth the money he's getting in his new contract. I keep waiting for Wilson to fall flat on his face too, but it hasn't happened.
Guys like Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers are quarterbacks who lead, Russell Wilson is a quarterback who sustains.
I don't even know what this means. I feel like Russell Wilson is a pretty good leader, even if he doesn't have an outstanding set of skills on paper that Rodgers and Luck have.
That’s apparently good for $20 million plus in the modern-day NFL.
An above-average quarterback who wins games is worth $20+ million in the modern-day NFL. I don't know if Chris Chase's beef is with the increasing cost of the quarterback position or with Russell Wilson, but when stating Wilson is overpaid then it's better to come with some proof or statistics. An opinion is great, but it seems like Wilson is right where he was expected to be in terms of compensation in a new contract. Until further notice or further proof, I can't call him overpaid yet. I don't particularly like how he lobbied and acted on his way to getting his new contract, I found him to be slightly disingenuous with some of his negotiating tactics, but he got paid and that's all that matters. Let's wait for him to fall on his face, or for any proof the past three years have been not representative of his skill set, before announcing Wilson is overpaid. Trust me, I keep trying to come up with reasons too and I just can't.
Showing posts with label chris chase. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chris chase. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
6 comments Flaming Hot Takes on Deflated Balls and the New England Patriots
I have a history of hating the Patriots. They have been too good at
football over the last decade and a half and they beat my favorite team
in the Super Bowl, which did not please me. I almost got in a fight with
three Patriots fans in Charleston, South Carolina in the early 2000's
because I insisted Tom Brady wasn't as good as he's given credit for
while arguing with them and waiting in line for a hot dog from a street
vendor at 2:30am. I was very inebriated AND wrong, which are two states
of being that go hand-in-hand well. I'm still not a huge fan of them,
partly because of their famous fans (Hey, Bill Simmons!), but I get over
it and I'm more impressed by their long-term excellence at this point.
So it turns out they deflated footballs against the Colts (at least
during the first half) in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts.
They then used regular footballs in the second half and buried the
Colts. It seems like they played better without the deflated footballs.
Either way, this is not legal and they are being killed by the general
public. By "the general public" I mean "sportswriters with hot takes."
I'm not going to defend cheating and I do believe the Patriots will be
and should be punished in some way, but it's never enough with the media
for the Patriots to get punished, something VERY SEVERE must be done.
Sportswriters say this is the ABSOLUTE TURNING POINT AND HERE'S
SOMETHING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION THAT'S BEING WRITTEN BY ME RIGHT NOW SO
PAY ATTENTION. That's how hot takes happen.
Again, I'm not going to defend cheating, and once they figure out who deflated the balls then the punishment needs to be handed down, but these draconian hot takes just make me laugh. I can still agree the Patriots were in the wrong while also laughing at those who react strongly to the Patriots being in the wrong. They'll be punished, it's just a matter of when and how badly. It's fun to discuss sportswriters freaking out over the integrity of the game being ruined. I love a good disaster.
I'll start with Gregg Doyel, who spent most of the week up to the AFC Championship Game getting in contrived and immature fights with the New England media as a way of getting the word out there that he now works for the "Indy Star" and furthering his burgeoning brand/app/whatever. There's no such thing as bad press and Doyel got some press for getting in pissing contests with the New England media. So of course he jumps on the story of the Patriots deflating footballs.
Here's the thing about DeflateGate, this silly idea that the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts:
It's not silly.
It's the Patriots.
Gregg seems to use this reasoning a lot. It's not whether Gil Hodges should be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not, it's that he is Gil Hodges and that's why he should be in the Hall of Fame. The state of existing is the only reasoning Gregg needs.
Lots of people will forever believe the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday. Why? Because it's the Patriots.
Insightful. It needed to be mentioned twice apparently that the Patriots are the Patriots. I feel prepared to move on now.
Either you are, or you are not, willing to cheat.
And Belichick is. The NFL found him guilty of – even responsible for – the Spygate scandal during the 2007 season.
And yet, Belichick managed to escape the death penalty. How could that be?
With very few exceptions, people can be divided into various either/or categories: Employed or unemployed. Smoker or nonsmoker.
Cheater or not a cheater.
Yes, with very few exceptions there are no shades of gray. It's one extreme or another. This is EXACTLY how life works. No areas for maneuvering between two extremes. Welcome to the Gregg Doyel reality, now have a seat on the couch or chair, but don't even think about putting your feet on the loveseat because it doesn't exist in his reality. There's a couch or a chair. Choose one.
Indiana knows about this. The Hoosiers hired Kelvin Sampson in 2007, shortly after he had been busted for NCAA recruiting violations involving impermissible phone calls at Oklahoma. The idea in Bloomington, surely, was this: No way he'd do it again.
Since coming to work for the "Indy Star" Gregg has also been doing a lot of this "I'm an Indian/Indianaite/Indianan like you and here is an example specific to Indiana" stuff.
He did it again.
Oops.
Cheaters cheat. It's what they do.
Now then, is that a definitive statement that Bill Belichick or the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday? Nope. It is not.
Yes, it is a definitive statement. Cheater or not a cheater. Belichick has been proven to be a cheater so that's what he is. Remember, "divided into either/or categories" that's how it all works?
But it's a definitive statement that his past history of cheating makes this allegation – which is ludicrous and absurd and really, really, hard to believe – not so ludicrous. Not so absurd.
Specifically if you are still a little butt hurt that you talked trash all the way up to the AFC Championship Game about how the Colts would win and then they got their ass kicked. It makes it easier to believe the allegations are not absurd in this instance.
Butt hurt or not butt hurt. That is the question. Choose one.
This sort of thing has happened before. Deflating a football is a thing, thanks to Lane Kiffin's 2012 USC Trojans, who were fined and reprimanded by the Pac-12 for deflating footballs against Oregon. Kiffin denied it. A team equipment manager was fired. Was the equipment manager acting on his own? Well sure, that's possible.
Just like it's possible the Patriots are utterly and completely innocent of the allegation against them now, that they deflated one or more footballs on the sideline after NFL officials had examined them before kickoff.
Maybe Lane Kiffin did it. Bill Belichick is close to Nick Saban and Lane Kiffin is Nick Saban's offensive coordinator and Lane Kiffin has deflated balls before. Where was Lane Kiffin on Sunday evening?
First, any idea how easy it is to deflate a football?
No Gregg, I have no idea how to deflate a football. It sounds like a complicated procedure.
It requires one little needle. That's it. Hold the ball, jab the needle, listen for the hiss. Take the needle out.
Take the needle out or don't take the needle out. One or the other.
Second, any idea how awkward it feels to write this story from here, in Indianapolis, as if deflated balls might be the reason this city's team lost on Sunday? The footballs aren't the reason. That game wasn't about the Deflatriots. It was about the Patriots. They're better than the Colts, so much better than lots of us – the line starts right here – had given them credit for. The Patriots were tougher, more skilled, more poised and more innovative. In hindsight the Colts had no chance.
Nice way to bring the story of the Patriots deflating footballs back to you, while also linking your old hot takes. Really the deflating of footballs was about Gregg Doyel more than anything.
Third: What if?
Great point. It gives me a lot to think about.
What if the NFL finds that the Patriots were in fact using a football that was deflated below regulation levels? Maybe the NFL won't be able to determine when or how it happened.
What then?
Obviously Belichick will have to be stripped of his hoodie and forced to work slave labor in the mines of whatever country has the most dangerous mines to work in.
Maybe then Belichick will get the black lung after a day or two of working in the mines and he'll die. Because that's what Belichick deserves, to die.
I'm kidding of course. Doyel's suggestion isn't this extreme, but is equally as stupid.
I'll tell you what should happen: The Patriots should be removed from the Super Bowl. Which means the Colts should be going to Glendale.
An Indianapolis writer thinks the Colts deserve to go to the Super Bowl. Homer or not a homer? Choose one and there is no gray area.
Someone on the Patriots deflated those footballs, but I'm not sure that was the difference in the game nor does a satisfactory punishment seem to be to allow an unworthy team to be in the Super Bowl.
Will this happen? Of course not, which is why I'm mentioning it way down the story – it has to be said somewhere – but not starting this column with that idea. Because it's a preposterous idea, not worthy of the headline. The NFL would never, ever remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl, even if it does find they were using illegal footballs.
Nice troll job, Gregg. Here's how this troll job worked.
-Gregg says what SHOULD happen.
-Gregg says this won't happen.
-Gregg says his own idea of what should happen is so preposterous it doesn't deserve being mentioned in the headline.
-But again, the preposterous idea of what should happen wasn't so crazy or unworthy that Gregg doesn't think it shouldn't happen.
It's a nice way of coming up with a crazy punishment and then not standing by it.
Cheating can't be tolerated. Simple as that. A team can't use an under-inflated football, get caught, and then be allowed to play its next game – a game it reached by winning the one with the deflated football – as if nothing happened.
Cheating can't be tolerated. I can agree with that. But I thought sending the Colts to the Super Bowl was an unworthy idea that didn't merit a mention. Now all of a sudden it's the idea Gregg is building the end of this column around.
Contradictory or not contradictory. Choose one and there is no gray area.
Not a fine, not a docking of draft picks, not even a lifetime suspension of Belichick, though I would support all three, if the Patriots are found guilty of cheating. Sorry -- left out a word. If the Patriots are found guilty of cheating … again.
So the preposterous idea that won't happen and doesn't seem worthy of a headline is the best punishment for the Patriots in Gregg Doyel's opinion. I wonder if he understands how stupid this sounds.
Meantime, allow the system to run its course. The Patriots are innocent until proven guilty. They deserve that.
Even if lots of us have made up our minds already.
Because the Patriots deserve that, too.
(Bengoodfella burns himself closing the article because the hot take is still simmering)
Now Bob Kravitz chimes in with his own hot take about what should happen to the Patriots.
If the NFL deems that the Patriots doctored the footballs to the team's advantage in Sunday's game, one of two things must happen:
Indianapolis writers are all about there being two options. Obviously the two options here are:
1. Death penalty
2. Life imprisonment without parole
If Patriots owner Robert Kraft has an ounce of integrity, he will fire Bill Belichick immediately for toying with the integrity of the game for the second time in his otherwise magnificent career — the first issue being the SpyGate fiasco that earned Belichick and the team fines and a forfeited first-round draft choice.
Okay, that could happen. It sounds sort of dramatic though.
If Roger Goodell has an ounce of integrity,
We could stop here. The answer to this is known already. If it helps the NFL, Goodell does it. If it hurts the NFL, Goodell Jedi-waves it away.
and he's not spending all his time going to pre-game soirees at Kraft's mansion, he will not only fine Belichick and take away draft choices, but suspend the head coach for the upcoming Super Bowl.
Does this sound excessive?
The whole "ounce of integrity" thing sounds a bit dramatic.
It is very hard for me to believe — no, it's impossible for me to believe — that this was one large, cosmic accident. A deflated football, and we're talking about two pounds worth of deflation,
Yes, but not a real two pounds of deflation. A typical football weighs less than a pound. Otherwise quarterbacks would be slinging just short of the equivalent of two newborn babies around the field in the form of a football. So two pounds of air isn't two pounds like most people think of pounds. It's noticeable, but not to the extent Bob Kravitz paints it as being. The Colts-Patriots officials touched the football after every play and managed to not notice the ball was semi-deflated.
It's very hard for me to believe that some rogue ball boy, acting on his or her own, unilaterally decided to use a pressure gauge to independently take some of the air out of the ball.
There's only one way this could happen, and that's with Belichick's full knowledge and approval.
Nope, it could also happen with the approval of Josh McDaniels without Belichick knowing. Think Jon Gruden knew that Brad Johnson took air out of the football during the 2003 Super Bowl? Maybe, maybe not.
Go ahead and chalk it all up as sour grapes on the part of the Colts, who would have lost badly had they used a beach ball, a hockey puck or a badminton shuttlecock. But, the Colts noticed something odd about the football when D'Qwell Jackson intercepted Tom Brady. Jackson himself told me he didn't notice anything strange, but, then, the Colts want to distance themselves from this thing as much as they can.
So D'Qwell Jackson did or didn't notice something strange? Kravitz says Jackson noticed something strange, but Jackson claims he didn't notice something strange. Of course, Kravitz assumes Jackson is lying in order to show his ounce of integrity in protecting the very same cheaters that Kravitz claims lack integrity for covering up the use of deflated footballs. Jackson is either lying or he isn't.
General Manager Ryan Grigson walked over to the Colts public relations spot and took a phone call, and seemed quite perturbed. This was very unusual for a general manager who spends his time quietly watching the game from the press box.
Was this investigation inspired by the Colts? I have no doubt that it was.
So if Jackson is lying about noticing something strange, what does that say about his integrity? Or does he have integrity by staying out of his whole thing? What if Tom Brady is lying about noticing whether the football was deflated or not? Is he staying out of it or lacking an ounce of integrity?
This was cheating — pure and simple.
And either Kraft or Goodell have to do something very dramatic to make it clear that this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated.
If it was anybody but Belichick, if it was a coach who has no history of attempting to circumvent the rules, it would be worth a fine and maybe a draft choice.
See the penalty of deflating footballs isn't such a big deal, but because it's Bill Belichick it becomes a much bigger deal. Because as sportswriters love to point out, sports doesn't deal with innocent before guilty, but apparently sports does have an off-the-books "three strikes" or "repeat offender" rule that should be used for Belichick's latest transgression.
And here, too, is the shame of it: Belichick doesn't need to cheat. His team is that much better than anyone else, save the Seattle Seahawks. We'll find out more about that next Sunday.
Not if Gregg Doyel has his way.
Let's be honest about this: If the balls were properly inflated this past Sunday, the Patriots would have won…um…45-7. The footballs had little or nothing to do with the outcome. The Pats simply ran over the Colts. They out-coached them and out-played them. Badly.
Which is why it would be stupid to remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl.
Winning without honor, without integrity, is not winning. (Unless you're a myopic Patriots fan).
I can agree that winning without integrity isn't winning. To deflate a football against the rules is to lack integrity. I can't figure out how much integrity it really shows is lacking. The Patriots didn't win because they deflated the football. That much is agreed upon. Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as a baseball groundskeeper who landscapes the foul lines to favor the home team's hitters (such as helping the ball stay in play on bunts, etc)? Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as the Minnesota Twins starting fans behind home plate when the home team is at-bat? If Clayton Kershaw was found to have scuffed a baseball during a playoff game and the Dodgers went on to win the series, should Kershaw not be allowed to play in the next series when the Dodgers advance? Should the Dodgers even advance to the next series because they had a player cheat in the previous playoff series? I don't know the answers to these questions, so that's why it is hard for me to jump on the "LOOK AT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY!" train because I have no idea how deflating a football equates to other equal or non-equal minor changes that are legal or not legal in other sports. Does it lack integrity that Boise State's uniforms blend in with their playing surface, thereby giving the team a slight advantage at home?
It was instructive to spend early-morning Wednesday on a couple of Boston radio shows. They wanted to know if Aaron Rodgers should be penalized for admittedly over-inflating footballs. (Not if they're within the prescribed PSI). One wanted to know if Pete Carroll should be fired because so many Seahawks have been popped for using performance-enhancing drugs. One moron even rolled out the Nixonian “well everybody cheats'' argument, which inspired blind laughter on my part. All deflections from the issue at hand.
They are deflections, but also legitimate questions that need to be asked. If Seahawks players were busted for PED's, doesn't that lack integrity too? Why shouldn't Pete Carroll pay for this transgression? If a head coach knows the football his team is using was partially deflated, then wouldn't that same coach know his players are using PED's? Maybe.
Kraft needs to do the right thing. Goodell needs to do the right thing. Belichick should not be coaching in the Super Bowl, or worse.
Or worse. What's worse than not coaching in the Super Bowl? Should the Patriots be forced to trade Tom Brady? Perhaps the Patriots should be stripped of all draft picks until Bill Belichick is publicly drawn and quartered. Bob Kravitz knows deflating the footballs had no impact on the Colts-Patriots game and there is really no precedent in the NFL for deflating footballs, but one thing is for sure. The response must be severe, swift, and be "the right thing" even though few people even know what the fuck that is.
Chris Chase chimes in with his own hot take about how the Patriots should be disqualified from playing in the Super Bowl.
Cheat on a test in school? You fail, no questions asked.
Really? No questions asked? No questions like, "How did you cheat?," "Was anyone else cheating?," nothing like that?
Cheat on your taxes, the IRS will find you. It won’t be pretty.
They may not find you. I've seen plenty of people who cheat in minor ways on their taxes who have never been caught or audited.
The New England Patriots cheated in the AFC championship. As such, the team should be disqualified from the Super Bowl.
(The hot take sizzles on the ground)
Deflating 11 of 12 balls in Sunday’s game, as has been reported by ESPN, is a major violation and something that had a great affect on the game.
Apparently it has a 30+ point effect, even though the Patriots only used the deflated footballs during the first half.
Given the number of deflated balls, it’s almost impossible this was accident, meaning that someone in the New England organization willfully tampered with the rules to give his team an advantage.
Not exactly. Given that nearly all of the footballs were inflated to the wrong pressure it could show this was an accident. If the gauge measuring the pressure in the ball was in error or the person pumping up the balls had the wrong pressure (by accident) then it was a consistent error. If the footballs were all at different pressures with only half of the footballs at the wrong pressure then I could see how the rules have been tampered with. 11 of the 12 footballs being at the wrong level could speak to a consistent error in measuring the pressure. Of course I don't believe this happened, but a consistent error like this could show malfeasance or possibly just a basic error that caused the balls to be improperly inflated.
Of course, it’s not realistic to disqualify New England from the Super Bowl.
Why do the sportswriters who first suggest banning New England from the Super Bowl follow it up with "That's not realistic"? Stop suggesting this solution if the solution isn't realistic.
But, again, they should.
But, again, it's not realistic. But, again, they should. You know, if it weren't unrealistic. But, again, they still should. Though it is unrealistic. It's probably a good penalty. Even though it is unrealistic. Still, the NFL should ban the Patriots from the Super Bowl. It's just not realistic to do this. But, again, it should happen. If only it were realistic. Which it isn't. Though it should be.
The defenders of New England have been even more laughable than they were during the videotape controversy of 2007. “It doesn’t even help that much!” Sure it doesn’t. That’s why they were doing it. Of course it helps. Deflating gave Brady an easier grip on the ball (at least in the first half; there’s question about whether the balls were re-inflated at half time when it was 17-7).
I'm not a defender of New England. I simply know it was an advantage that didn't seem to show up too much on the scoreboard in the first half as compared to the Patriots performance in the second half without the deflated footballs. New England re-inflated the balls at halftime and began to destroy the Colts from that point on...with re-inflated footballs. I have no idea how much a deflated football affected this game and I don't know if anyone else has this answer either.
If it’s found out that Bill Belichick knew anything about this, even after the fact, Draconian sanctions are the only way to go...If Sean Payton gets suspended for an entire year because of Bountygate, Belichick deserves at least the same thing. He affected the sanctity of the game and fairness of one of the three biggest battles of the year.
I would disagree with this. I think intentionally injuring opposing players is worse than deflating footballs. I know deflating footballs involves the whole "integrity of the game" thing, but intentionally injuring opposing players is causing physical harm outside of the game being played. I think that's worse.
Draft picks should be taken away, not for one year, but for two or three, because the Pats are always picking toward the end of the first round anyway. Or take away some salary cap space, like the league unjustly did to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.
Yes, the NFL should choose to take away salary cap space in the same injust way they did it to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.
But I’ll happily blame the Patriots for being skeezy once again. I’ll blame Belichick because, as Goodell said about Payton during Bountygate, the head coach is supposed to know what’s going on with his team.
Oh, so you are going to use Roger Goodell's words as it pertains to knowing exactly what a supervisor's knowledge concerning his underlings actions should be? Okay then.
I’ll blame Tom Brady who clearly knew the balls were deflated but is getting off scot-free in this controversy because he’s the Golden Boy and is handsome and is married to a supermodel. (It’s amazing how no one criticizes Brady. He’s just as guilty as the others.) But there’s blame for others too.
How about the Patriots' center who handled the football on every play? How about the officials who handle the football after every play? The officials are there to enforce the rules and since deflating footballs by two or three pounds is just SO FUCKING NOTICEABLE one would wonder why the officials didn't notice.
But in the here and now, if the report is true, the New England Patriots should be hit hard. But they won’t and the Pats legacy will grow even more.
This will not deflate the Pats legacy.
With a Super Bowl win in two Sundays, people will be inclined to say Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time. But at what?
The greatest coach at football. I can't wait for Belichick to be up for Pro Football Hall of Fame induction. The NFL gets it's very own asterisked PED user when Belichick comes up for enshrinement.
Mark Kiszla is also prepared to blame Tom Brady and wonders why nothing ever sticks to him. Kiszla says Brady is like Barry Bonds. Yep, those words were written.
As I was writing this post, I found these words from Boomer Esiason. It doesn't excuse what the Patriots did or didn't do, but it shows there is more than the "It's just like the Patriots to stretch the rules" narrative that is being pushed. It seems other quarterbacks had an issue with the integrity of the game, including Saint Peyton Manning, who wanted to be allowed to scuff up the football. I'm sure he never scuffed it up without permission though.
Tom Brady is too good to be true. At age 37, the sexy quarterback of the New England Patriots looks cool, whether wearing a championship ring on his finger or Uggs on his feet. He married a supermodel straight from the pages of the Victoria's Secret catalogue. And his hair is perfect.
Not really. In his long hair phase, it was pretty disgusting.
Too good to be true. Isn't that what we once believed about Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong?
Deflating footballs is now equivalent to using PED's, slandering others when they choose to call you out on using PED's, and cheating on your wife. Got it. At least Kiszla comes out swinging and throwing his hot takes around. I'd be disappointed otherwise.
In a league ruled by quarterbacks, made filthy rich by quarterbacks and personified by quarterbacks, Brady is the undisputed king. Oh, Peyton Manning might sing about chicken parm in a television commercial. It's Brady, however, who owns three Super Bowl rings. He's the No. 1 quarterback of his NFL-crazy generation.
Every generation is QB-crazy. It's the most publicized position in the NFL, which explains why fans are QB-crazy.
Before any knucklehead calls for disqualification of New England from the Super Bowl tournament because the Pats played with squeezably soft footballs inflated significantly below the league requirements, let's make it clear the Colts, the Broncos or anybody else weren't going to win in Gillette Stadium on a rainy evening in January.
Because that's unrealistic. Though it should happen. But, again, it is unrealistic. Still, it should happen.
But as defensive tackle Terrance Knighton, the social media conscience of the Denver locker room, declared on Twitter: "If the footballs were deflated by that amount, it's definitely cheating. Harder to fumble, easier to catch, and helps you throw further."
Who would benefit the most from the deflated footballs?
Brady.
As well as Blount and the Patriots' receivers. They would all benefit the most. Though I would also add that if the football is easier to catch then the opposing team's secondary should find it easier to intercept a pass, right? Maybe D'Qwell Jackson made the interception because the ball was deflated so much.
Long on the record with his affinity for throwing with an underinflated football, Brady tossed three touchdown passes against Indy in wet conditions where having a firm grip on a slippery pigskin definitely could have helped him.
Peyton Manning is on record as liking a scuffed ball. If the Broncos ended up using a scuffed ball, does that mean Manning did it?
But let me humbly ask: If suspected cheaters in baseball are treated with such disdain in Hall of Fame balloting and Armstrong fell so hard from grace for the same transgressions committed by so many cyclists in a tainted sport, then why is there not more outrage about the Patriots?
Oh dear God. Because using a deflated football is the same thing as using performance enhancing drugs? The are equivalent misdeeds? That's really what Mark Kiszla is claiming? This seems like a pretty tenuous comparison to me.
Because cheaters never win. Or so are we were taught in elementary school.
It's not the truth that hurts. It's the shrapnel from the shattered myth that makes us bleed.
I have known for years that cheaters do win. No shattered myth here.
Not all forms of cheating are created equal. But, in his heart, maybe, just maybe, Brady isn't all that different from Barry Bonds.
Yes, maybe Tom Brady is exactly like Barry Bonds. Really there is no difference in these two athletes. It's like Kiszla has a hot takes handbook with key words in it and he found the name "Barry Bonds" in the book, so he felt like adding Bonds' name to this column for maximum hot sports take result.
Maybe Tom Brady is more like Bernie Madoff. Brady asks for his fans to buy into him as a clean-cut guy who plays the game "the right way" but he's really taking the fans investment in him and then selling that investment to Satan himself, while continuing to ask for more investment in him as a football player and person, all while putting on a public face of being an angel. This public face of an angel tricks his investors into thinking Brady is doing something with their investment of love and fandom that he really isn't doing. At the end of the day, the fans have nothing to show for their investment in Brady, while he rides off into the sunset with Super Bowl trophies, MVP trophies, and his name as one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. Tom Brady is Bernie Madoff.
Tom Brady you are a PED user who ran Ponzi Scheme so evil, which affected the outcome of the AFC Championship Game in such an obvious way, that even the officials who touched the football after every offensive play didn't know you were obviously taking the air out of the football. Go train for the upcoming baseball season with Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and may the fates deal with you as they see fit.
Again, I'm not going to defend cheating, and once they figure out who deflated the balls then the punishment needs to be handed down, but these draconian hot takes just make me laugh. I can still agree the Patriots were in the wrong while also laughing at those who react strongly to the Patriots being in the wrong. They'll be punished, it's just a matter of when and how badly. It's fun to discuss sportswriters freaking out over the integrity of the game being ruined. I love a good disaster.
I'll start with Gregg Doyel, who spent most of the week up to the AFC Championship Game getting in contrived and immature fights with the New England media as a way of getting the word out there that he now works for the "Indy Star" and furthering his burgeoning brand/app/whatever. There's no such thing as bad press and Doyel got some press for getting in pissing contests with the New England media. So of course he jumps on the story of the Patriots deflating footballs.
Here's the thing about DeflateGate, this silly idea that the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts:
It's not silly.
It's the Patriots.
Gregg seems to use this reasoning a lot. It's not whether Gil Hodges should be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not, it's that he is Gil Hodges and that's why he should be in the Hall of Fame. The state of existing is the only reasoning Gregg needs.
Lots of people will forever believe the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday. Why? Because it's the Patriots.
Insightful. It needed to be mentioned twice apparently that the Patriots are the Patriots. I feel prepared to move on now.
Either you are, or you are not, willing to cheat.
And Belichick is. The NFL found him guilty of – even responsible for – the Spygate scandal during the 2007 season.
And yet, Belichick managed to escape the death penalty. How could that be?
With very few exceptions, people can be divided into various either/or categories: Employed or unemployed. Smoker or nonsmoker.
Cheater or not a cheater.
Yes, with very few exceptions there are no shades of gray. It's one extreme or another. This is EXACTLY how life works. No areas for maneuvering between two extremes. Welcome to the Gregg Doyel reality, now have a seat on the couch or chair, but don't even think about putting your feet on the loveseat because it doesn't exist in his reality. There's a couch or a chair. Choose one.
Indiana knows about this. The Hoosiers hired Kelvin Sampson in 2007, shortly after he had been busted for NCAA recruiting violations involving impermissible phone calls at Oklahoma. The idea in Bloomington, surely, was this: No way he'd do it again.
Since coming to work for the "Indy Star" Gregg has also been doing a lot of this "I'm an Indian/Indianaite/Indianan like you and here is an example specific to Indiana" stuff.
He did it again.
Oops.
Cheaters cheat. It's what they do.
Now then, is that a definitive statement that Bill Belichick or the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday? Nope. It is not.
Yes, it is a definitive statement. Cheater or not a cheater. Belichick has been proven to be a cheater so that's what he is. Remember, "divided into either/or categories" that's how it all works?
But it's a definitive statement that his past history of cheating makes this allegation – which is ludicrous and absurd and really, really, hard to believe – not so ludicrous. Not so absurd.
Specifically if you are still a little butt hurt that you talked trash all the way up to the AFC Championship Game about how the Colts would win and then they got their ass kicked. It makes it easier to believe the allegations are not absurd in this instance.
Butt hurt or not butt hurt. That is the question. Choose one.
This sort of thing has happened before. Deflating a football is a thing, thanks to Lane Kiffin's 2012 USC Trojans, who were fined and reprimanded by the Pac-12 for deflating footballs against Oregon. Kiffin denied it. A team equipment manager was fired. Was the equipment manager acting on his own? Well sure, that's possible.
Just like it's possible the Patriots are utterly and completely innocent of the allegation against them now, that they deflated one or more footballs on the sideline after NFL officials had examined them before kickoff.
Maybe Lane Kiffin did it. Bill Belichick is close to Nick Saban and Lane Kiffin is Nick Saban's offensive coordinator and Lane Kiffin has deflated balls before. Where was Lane Kiffin on Sunday evening?
First, any idea how easy it is to deflate a football?
No Gregg, I have no idea how to deflate a football. It sounds like a complicated procedure.
It requires one little needle. That's it. Hold the ball, jab the needle, listen for the hiss. Take the needle out.
Take the needle out or don't take the needle out. One or the other.
Second, any idea how awkward it feels to write this story from here, in Indianapolis, as if deflated balls might be the reason this city's team lost on Sunday? The footballs aren't the reason. That game wasn't about the Deflatriots. It was about the Patriots. They're better than the Colts, so much better than lots of us – the line starts right here – had given them credit for. The Patriots were tougher, more skilled, more poised and more innovative. In hindsight the Colts had no chance.
Nice way to bring the story of the Patriots deflating footballs back to you, while also linking your old hot takes. Really the deflating of footballs was about Gregg Doyel more than anything.
Third: What if?
Great point. It gives me a lot to think about.
What if the NFL finds that the Patriots were in fact using a football that was deflated below regulation levels? Maybe the NFL won't be able to determine when or how it happened.
What then?
Obviously Belichick will have to be stripped of his hoodie and forced to work slave labor in the mines of whatever country has the most dangerous mines to work in.
Maybe then Belichick will get the black lung after a day or two of working in the mines and he'll die. Because that's what Belichick deserves, to die.
I'm kidding of course. Doyel's suggestion isn't this extreme, but is equally as stupid.
I'll tell you what should happen: The Patriots should be removed from the Super Bowl. Which means the Colts should be going to Glendale.
An Indianapolis writer thinks the Colts deserve to go to the Super Bowl. Homer or not a homer? Choose one and there is no gray area.
Someone on the Patriots deflated those footballs, but I'm not sure that was the difference in the game nor does a satisfactory punishment seem to be to allow an unworthy team to be in the Super Bowl.
Will this happen? Of course not, which is why I'm mentioning it way down the story – it has to be said somewhere – but not starting this column with that idea. Because it's a preposterous idea, not worthy of the headline. The NFL would never, ever remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl, even if it does find they were using illegal footballs.
Nice troll job, Gregg. Here's how this troll job worked.
-Gregg says what SHOULD happen.
-Gregg says this won't happen.
-Gregg says his own idea of what should happen is so preposterous it doesn't deserve being mentioned in the headline.
-But again, the preposterous idea of what should happen wasn't so crazy or unworthy that Gregg doesn't think it shouldn't happen.
It's a nice way of coming up with a crazy punishment and then not standing by it.
Cheating can't be tolerated. Simple as that. A team can't use an under-inflated football, get caught, and then be allowed to play its next game – a game it reached by winning the one with the deflated football – as if nothing happened.
Cheating can't be tolerated. I can agree with that. But I thought sending the Colts to the Super Bowl was an unworthy idea that didn't merit a mention. Now all of a sudden it's the idea Gregg is building the end of this column around.
Contradictory or not contradictory. Choose one and there is no gray area.
Not a fine, not a docking of draft picks, not even a lifetime suspension of Belichick, though I would support all three, if the Patriots are found guilty of cheating. Sorry -- left out a word. If the Patriots are found guilty of cheating … again.
So the preposterous idea that won't happen and doesn't seem worthy of a headline is the best punishment for the Patriots in Gregg Doyel's opinion. I wonder if he understands how stupid this sounds.
Meantime, allow the system to run its course. The Patriots are innocent until proven guilty. They deserve that.
Even if lots of us have made up our minds already.
Because the Patriots deserve that, too.
(Bengoodfella burns himself closing the article because the hot take is still simmering)
Now Bob Kravitz chimes in with his own hot take about what should happen to the Patriots.
If the NFL deems that the Patriots doctored the footballs to the team's advantage in Sunday's game, one of two things must happen:
Indianapolis writers are all about there being two options. Obviously the two options here are:
1. Death penalty
2. Life imprisonment without parole
If Patriots owner Robert Kraft has an ounce of integrity, he will fire Bill Belichick immediately for toying with the integrity of the game for the second time in his otherwise magnificent career — the first issue being the SpyGate fiasco that earned Belichick and the team fines and a forfeited first-round draft choice.
Okay, that could happen. It sounds sort of dramatic though.
If Roger Goodell has an ounce of integrity,
We could stop here. The answer to this is known already. If it helps the NFL, Goodell does it. If it hurts the NFL, Goodell Jedi-waves it away.
and he's not spending all his time going to pre-game soirees at Kraft's mansion, he will not only fine Belichick and take away draft choices, but suspend the head coach for the upcoming Super Bowl.
Does this sound excessive?
The whole "ounce of integrity" thing sounds a bit dramatic.
It is very hard for me to believe — no, it's impossible for me to believe — that this was one large, cosmic accident. A deflated football, and we're talking about two pounds worth of deflation,
Yes, but not a real two pounds of deflation. A typical football weighs less than a pound. Otherwise quarterbacks would be slinging just short of the equivalent of two newborn babies around the field in the form of a football. So two pounds of air isn't two pounds like most people think of pounds. It's noticeable, but not to the extent Bob Kravitz paints it as being. The Colts-Patriots officials touched the football after every play and managed to not notice the ball was semi-deflated.
It's very hard for me to believe that some rogue ball boy, acting on his or her own, unilaterally decided to use a pressure gauge to independently take some of the air out of the ball.
There's only one way this could happen, and that's with Belichick's full knowledge and approval.
Nope, it could also happen with the approval of Josh McDaniels without Belichick knowing. Think Jon Gruden knew that Brad Johnson took air out of the football during the 2003 Super Bowl? Maybe, maybe not.
Go ahead and chalk it all up as sour grapes on the part of the Colts, who would have lost badly had they used a beach ball, a hockey puck or a badminton shuttlecock. But, the Colts noticed something odd about the football when D'Qwell Jackson intercepted Tom Brady. Jackson himself told me he didn't notice anything strange, but, then, the Colts want to distance themselves from this thing as much as they can.
So D'Qwell Jackson did or didn't notice something strange? Kravitz says Jackson noticed something strange, but Jackson claims he didn't notice something strange. Of course, Kravitz assumes Jackson is lying in order to show his ounce of integrity in protecting the very same cheaters that Kravitz claims lack integrity for covering up the use of deflated footballs. Jackson is either lying or he isn't.
General Manager Ryan Grigson walked over to the Colts public relations spot and took a phone call, and seemed quite perturbed. This was very unusual for a general manager who spends his time quietly watching the game from the press box.
Was this investigation inspired by the Colts? I have no doubt that it was.
So if Jackson is lying about noticing something strange, what does that say about his integrity? Or does he have integrity by staying out of his whole thing? What if Tom Brady is lying about noticing whether the football was deflated or not? Is he staying out of it or lacking an ounce of integrity?
This was cheating — pure and simple.
And either Kraft or Goodell have to do something very dramatic to make it clear that this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated.
If it was anybody but Belichick, if it was a coach who has no history of attempting to circumvent the rules, it would be worth a fine and maybe a draft choice.
See the penalty of deflating footballs isn't such a big deal, but because it's Bill Belichick it becomes a much bigger deal. Because as sportswriters love to point out, sports doesn't deal with innocent before guilty, but apparently sports does have an off-the-books "three strikes" or "repeat offender" rule that should be used for Belichick's latest transgression.
And here, too, is the shame of it: Belichick doesn't need to cheat. His team is that much better than anyone else, save the Seattle Seahawks. We'll find out more about that next Sunday.
Not if Gregg Doyel has his way.
Let's be honest about this: If the balls were properly inflated this past Sunday, the Patriots would have won…um…45-7. The footballs had little or nothing to do with the outcome. The Pats simply ran over the Colts. They out-coached them and out-played them. Badly.
Which is why it would be stupid to remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl.
Winning without honor, without integrity, is not winning. (Unless you're a myopic Patriots fan).
I can agree that winning without integrity isn't winning. To deflate a football against the rules is to lack integrity. I can't figure out how much integrity it really shows is lacking. The Patriots didn't win because they deflated the football. That much is agreed upon. Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as a baseball groundskeeper who landscapes the foul lines to favor the home team's hitters (such as helping the ball stay in play on bunts, etc)? Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as the Minnesota Twins starting fans behind home plate when the home team is at-bat? If Clayton Kershaw was found to have scuffed a baseball during a playoff game and the Dodgers went on to win the series, should Kershaw not be allowed to play in the next series when the Dodgers advance? Should the Dodgers even advance to the next series because they had a player cheat in the previous playoff series? I don't know the answers to these questions, so that's why it is hard for me to jump on the "LOOK AT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY!" train because I have no idea how deflating a football equates to other equal or non-equal minor changes that are legal or not legal in other sports. Does it lack integrity that Boise State's uniforms blend in with their playing surface, thereby giving the team a slight advantage at home?
It was instructive to spend early-morning Wednesday on a couple of Boston radio shows. They wanted to know if Aaron Rodgers should be penalized for admittedly over-inflating footballs. (Not if they're within the prescribed PSI). One wanted to know if Pete Carroll should be fired because so many Seahawks have been popped for using performance-enhancing drugs. One moron even rolled out the Nixonian “well everybody cheats'' argument, which inspired blind laughter on my part. All deflections from the issue at hand.
They are deflections, but also legitimate questions that need to be asked. If Seahawks players were busted for PED's, doesn't that lack integrity too? Why shouldn't Pete Carroll pay for this transgression? If a head coach knows the football his team is using was partially deflated, then wouldn't that same coach know his players are using PED's? Maybe.
Kraft needs to do the right thing. Goodell needs to do the right thing. Belichick should not be coaching in the Super Bowl, or worse.
Or worse. What's worse than not coaching in the Super Bowl? Should the Patriots be forced to trade Tom Brady? Perhaps the Patriots should be stripped of all draft picks until Bill Belichick is publicly drawn and quartered. Bob Kravitz knows deflating the footballs had no impact on the Colts-Patriots game and there is really no precedent in the NFL for deflating footballs, but one thing is for sure. The response must be severe, swift, and be "the right thing" even though few people even know what the fuck that is.
Chris Chase chimes in with his own hot take about how the Patriots should be disqualified from playing in the Super Bowl.
Cheat on a test in school? You fail, no questions asked.
Really? No questions asked? No questions like, "How did you cheat?," "Was anyone else cheating?," nothing like that?
Cheat on your taxes, the IRS will find you. It won’t be pretty.
They may not find you. I've seen plenty of people who cheat in minor ways on their taxes who have never been caught or audited.
The New England Patriots cheated in the AFC championship. As such, the team should be disqualified from the Super Bowl.
(The hot take sizzles on the ground)
Deflating 11 of 12 balls in Sunday’s game, as has been reported by ESPN, is a major violation and something that had a great affect on the game.
Apparently it has a 30+ point effect, even though the Patriots only used the deflated footballs during the first half.
Given the number of deflated balls, it’s almost impossible this was accident, meaning that someone in the New England organization willfully tampered with the rules to give his team an advantage.
Not exactly. Given that nearly all of the footballs were inflated to the wrong pressure it could show this was an accident. If the gauge measuring the pressure in the ball was in error or the person pumping up the balls had the wrong pressure (by accident) then it was a consistent error. If the footballs were all at different pressures with only half of the footballs at the wrong pressure then I could see how the rules have been tampered with. 11 of the 12 footballs being at the wrong level could speak to a consistent error in measuring the pressure. Of course I don't believe this happened, but a consistent error like this could show malfeasance or possibly just a basic error that caused the balls to be improperly inflated.
Of course, it’s not realistic to disqualify New England from the Super Bowl.
Why do the sportswriters who first suggest banning New England from the Super Bowl follow it up with "That's not realistic"? Stop suggesting this solution if the solution isn't realistic.
But, again, they should.
But, again, it's not realistic. But, again, they should. You know, if it weren't unrealistic. But, again, they still should. Though it is unrealistic. It's probably a good penalty. Even though it is unrealistic. Still, the NFL should ban the Patriots from the Super Bowl. It's just not realistic to do this. But, again, it should happen. If only it were realistic. Which it isn't. Though it should be.
The defenders of New England have been even more laughable than they were during the videotape controversy of 2007. “It doesn’t even help that much!” Sure it doesn’t. That’s why they were doing it. Of course it helps. Deflating gave Brady an easier grip on the ball (at least in the first half; there’s question about whether the balls were re-inflated at half time when it was 17-7).
I'm not a defender of New England. I simply know it was an advantage that didn't seem to show up too much on the scoreboard in the first half as compared to the Patriots performance in the second half without the deflated footballs. New England re-inflated the balls at halftime and began to destroy the Colts from that point on...with re-inflated footballs. I have no idea how much a deflated football affected this game and I don't know if anyone else has this answer either.
If it’s found out that Bill Belichick knew anything about this, even after the fact, Draconian sanctions are the only way to go...If Sean Payton gets suspended for an entire year because of Bountygate, Belichick deserves at least the same thing. He affected the sanctity of the game and fairness of one of the three biggest battles of the year.
I would disagree with this. I think intentionally injuring opposing players is worse than deflating footballs. I know deflating footballs involves the whole "integrity of the game" thing, but intentionally injuring opposing players is causing physical harm outside of the game being played. I think that's worse.
Draft picks should be taken away, not for one year, but for two or three, because the Pats are always picking toward the end of the first round anyway. Or take away some salary cap space, like the league unjustly did to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.
Yes, the NFL should choose to take away salary cap space in the same injust way they did it to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.
But I’ll happily blame the Patriots for being skeezy once again. I’ll blame Belichick because, as Goodell said about Payton during Bountygate, the head coach is supposed to know what’s going on with his team.
Oh, so you are going to use Roger Goodell's words as it pertains to knowing exactly what a supervisor's knowledge concerning his underlings actions should be? Okay then.
I’ll blame Tom Brady who clearly knew the balls were deflated but is getting off scot-free in this controversy because he’s the Golden Boy and is handsome and is married to a supermodel. (It’s amazing how no one criticizes Brady. He’s just as guilty as the others.) But there’s blame for others too.
How about the Patriots' center who handled the football on every play? How about the officials who handle the football after every play? The officials are there to enforce the rules and since deflating footballs by two or three pounds is just SO FUCKING NOTICEABLE one would wonder why the officials didn't notice.
But in the here and now, if the report is true, the New England Patriots should be hit hard. But they won’t and the Pats legacy will grow even more.
This will not deflate the Pats legacy.
With a Super Bowl win in two Sundays, people will be inclined to say Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time. But at what?
The greatest coach at football. I can't wait for Belichick to be up for Pro Football Hall of Fame induction. The NFL gets it's very own asterisked PED user when Belichick comes up for enshrinement.
Mark Kiszla is also prepared to blame Tom Brady and wonders why nothing ever sticks to him. Kiszla says Brady is like Barry Bonds. Yep, those words were written.
As I was writing this post, I found these words from Boomer Esiason. It doesn't excuse what the Patriots did or didn't do, but it shows there is more than the "It's just like the Patriots to stretch the rules" narrative that is being pushed. It seems other quarterbacks had an issue with the integrity of the game, including Saint Peyton Manning, who wanted to be allowed to scuff up the football. I'm sure he never scuffed it up without permission though.
Tom Brady is too good to be true. At age 37, the sexy quarterback of the New England Patriots looks cool, whether wearing a championship ring on his finger or Uggs on his feet. He married a supermodel straight from the pages of the Victoria's Secret catalogue. And his hair is perfect.
Not really. In his long hair phase, it was pretty disgusting.
Too good to be true. Isn't that what we once believed about Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong?
Deflating footballs is now equivalent to using PED's, slandering others when they choose to call you out on using PED's, and cheating on your wife. Got it. At least Kiszla comes out swinging and throwing his hot takes around. I'd be disappointed otherwise.
In a league ruled by quarterbacks, made filthy rich by quarterbacks and personified by quarterbacks, Brady is the undisputed king. Oh, Peyton Manning might sing about chicken parm in a television commercial. It's Brady, however, who owns three Super Bowl rings. He's the No. 1 quarterback of his NFL-crazy generation.
Every generation is QB-crazy. It's the most publicized position in the NFL, which explains why fans are QB-crazy.
Before any knucklehead calls for disqualification of New England from the Super Bowl tournament because the Pats played with squeezably soft footballs inflated significantly below the league requirements, let's make it clear the Colts, the Broncos or anybody else weren't going to win in Gillette Stadium on a rainy evening in January.
Because that's unrealistic. Though it should happen. But, again, it is unrealistic. Still, it should happen.
But as defensive tackle Terrance Knighton, the social media conscience of the Denver locker room, declared on Twitter: "If the footballs were deflated by that amount, it's definitely cheating. Harder to fumble, easier to catch, and helps you throw further."
Who would benefit the most from the deflated footballs?
Brady.
As well as Blount and the Patriots' receivers. They would all benefit the most. Though I would also add that if the football is easier to catch then the opposing team's secondary should find it easier to intercept a pass, right? Maybe D'Qwell Jackson made the interception because the ball was deflated so much.
Long on the record with his affinity for throwing with an underinflated football, Brady tossed three touchdown passes against Indy in wet conditions where having a firm grip on a slippery pigskin definitely could have helped him.
Peyton Manning is on record as liking a scuffed ball. If the Broncos ended up using a scuffed ball, does that mean Manning did it?
But let me humbly ask: If suspected cheaters in baseball are treated with such disdain in Hall of Fame balloting and Armstrong fell so hard from grace for the same transgressions committed by so many cyclists in a tainted sport, then why is there not more outrage about the Patriots?
Oh dear God. Because using a deflated football is the same thing as using performance enhancing drugs? The are equivalent misdeeds? That's really what Mark Kiszla is claiming? This seems like a pretty tenuous comparison to me.
Because cheaters never win. Or so are we were taught in elementary school.
It's not the truth that hurts. It's the shrapnel from the shattered myth that makes us bleed.
I have known for years that cheaters do win. No shattered myth here.
Not all forms of cheating are created equal. But, in his heart, maybe, just maybe, Brady isn't all that different from Barry Bonds.
Yes, maybe Tom Brady is exactly like Barry Bonds. Really there is no difference in these two athletes. It's like Kiszla has a hot takes handbook with key words in it and he found the name "Barry Bonds" in the book, so he felt like adding Bonds' name to this column for maximum hot sports take result.
Maybe Tom Brady is more like Bernie Madoff. Brady asks for his fans to buy into him as a clean-cut guy who plays the game "the right way" but he's really taking the fans investment in him and then selling that investment to Satan himself, while continuing to ask for more investment in him as a football player and person, all while putting on a public face of being an angel. This public face of an angel tricks his investors into thinking Brady is doing something with their investment of love and fandom that he really isn't doing. At the end of the day, the fans have nothing to show for their investment in Brady, while he rides off into the sunset with Super Bowl trophies, MVP trophies, and his name as one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. Tom Brady is Bernie Madoff.
Tom Brady you are a PED user who ran Ponzi Scheme so evil, which affected the outcome of the AFC Championship Game in such an obvious way, that even the officials who touched the football after every offensive play didn't know you were obviously taking the air out of the football. Go train for the upcoming baseball season with Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and may the fates deal with you as they see fit.
Friday, December 4, 2009
11 comments A Busted List of Busts
Chris Chase has gotten together a list of the 10 biggest busts in the decade of the 2000's in the NFL Draft. In reality, this list is pretty easy to compile since there are a bunch of names that just leap off the tongue who were busts, like David Carr, Joey Harrington, Gerard Warren, David Terrell, Travis Taylor, Courtney Brown, etc. So off the bat, I want to give Chase props for going away a little bit from those names that may seem so obvious and doing a little thinking outside the box. Unfortunately, many times when a person starts thinking outside of the box in making a list, it means they run a greater risk of being wrong about some of the names on the list. That is the problem Chris Chase runs into here.
Compiling a list of the top 10 busts of all-time in the NFL is based purely on opinion, but the problem starts when the list contains players that aren't busts or weren't even close to being as big of a bust as another player. It's nice to think outside the box, but when listing the Top 10 busts for a decade it doesn't make sense to leave guys off the list who were bigger busts than those put on the list. Chris Chase limits this list to players drafted in the 2000's so I won't compare his list to players who weren't drafted in that decade (obviously), but I will use players drafted before the 2000 NFL Draft as examples when necessary.
What makes a draft bust?
If a player is drafted highly in the first round and that player turns out to be nowhere worthy of being drafted anywhere near that position in the draft. Cade McNown would be a great example of this.
Is draft position alone the determining factor? How much does one have to fail? Could a bust have an otherwise fine career, aside from the massive expectations that accompanied him into the league? What role do injuries play in the whole thing? Does bad luck equal bust?
No, draft position is alone not the determining factor, but it plays a major part in the determination.
A player has to fail to the point he is out of the league in a few years because he has no obvious talent that would make him useful to an NFL team. Vinny Testeverde was not a bust and really neither was a guy like Damione Lewis because he has proven a useful, but not a great player.
A bust should not be judged by the expectations others have put on him because of his draft position. For example, Darrius Heyward-Bey is not considered a huge bust by me because he wasn't expected to be drafted that high by the Raiders. I even hesitate to call Mike Mamula a bust (though I would) because he was drafted too high but not based on football talent. A player like Joey Harrington would be considered a bust because he played well in college and his performance there set the expectations for what he could do in the pros.
Injuries play a role in whether a player is a bust, but I don't think a player can be excused for being a bust due to injury. This can be easily debated though and it depends on each individual situation.
Bad luck really shouldn't have much to do with being a bust, but it does. Would a better situation for a player like Ryan Leaf have made a huge difference? Probably not. How about for a player like Heath Shuler? Who really knows? We should look at bad luck when it comes time to determine whether a player is a bust or not, but I don't think it should stop a player from being considered a bust.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions.
Yes, there are right answers. For example, a guy like Kerry Collins was not a bust. Simply because a player underachieved or didn't meet all the expectations he had set for him by the media or the fact his performance in the NFL isn't worthy of his draft position doesn't necessarily mean that player is a bust. I will get to this more later, but the right answer is to list a player who is actually a bust. Guys who perform well but didn't quite meet the expectation of their draft position should not be considered busts in my opinion.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions. You'll find complete flops next to guys who could play a decade in the league.
If a guy played an entire decade in the NFL then he is not a bust. I don't know how I can make that clearer other than to just say it. If the player was in the NFL for a decade (at a decently high level) or more then that means he got 2-3 contracts which means he had some value to an NFL team and should not be considered a bust.
And some of the names you don't see might be as surprising as those you do see. For instance, David Carr or Alex Smith on this list, even though their names frequently pop-up on such rankings.
I would actually agree with the David Carr assertion that he is not a major bust because he had very little chance to excel with some of those Texans teams and I semi-agree with the Alex Smith assertion because he hasn't shown himself to be completely incompetent at playing quarterback in the NFL, though he has come close. Players who are busts are players who are out of the NFL for one reason or another within a couple of years of being drafted.
For example, Cade McNown is a bust because he only stuck with the Bears for two years and no team wanted him after that. If Alex Smith got cut today, don't you think a team would take a chance of him after that and give him a realistic chance to start? It's very possible. Ryan Leaf is still a bust even though he was given second chances, but he was only given another chance because he was a high draft pick and not because of his on-the-field performance...while Alex Smith would be given a second chance because he hasn't been absolutely horrible in the NFL.
Now that I have thoroughly confused everyone as to the criteria I use, let's move on...
Just because they went No. 1 doesn't mean that, outside of a two-month stretch in the spring of the year they were drafted, most people ever thought they'd be great.
It's a little dangerous to use other people's expectations to judge some of these NFL busts. Simply because the media and other people hyped them up, does not mean that player is a bust if he didn't meet those expectations. I think we should base a player being a bust on draft position, performance in college as compared to the NFL (if a guy didn't play well in college and got drafted high, would it surprise anyone he didn't play well in the NFL? Probably not), and how long it took before that player was out of the NFL due to being a useless player.
10. Mike Williams, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 10, 2005
I agree with this choice. Williams was a player who played well in college, stunk in the pros, was out of the league quickly and never was a valuable receiver in the NFL. I wanted to point this out as a good example of a bust...Mike Williams very rightly should be #10 on this list.
Let's just use as a general rule that if a player comes out of college as a highly drafted wide receiver and at some point teams are looking to transition him into a tight end and he DOESN'T have to gain weight for this position switch, that player could be really close to being a bust. I think that is a good rule for wide receivers.
Mike Williams was the reason Dwayne Jarrett was drafted in the 2nd round in 2007. Of course Jarrett currently can't beat out a 36 year old possession receiver with bad hamstrings for the #2 wide receiver spot on a team where the #2 wide receiver ALWAYS faces single coverage...so he is pretty close to being a bust himself. The lesson learned? Don't draft USC wide receivers who are tall and don't have a lot of foot speed.
9. Robert Gallery, T, Oakland Raiders, No. 3, 2004
Absolutely not. While Gallery is not the left tackle that everyone thought he could be, he is still a solid and usable guard. There is no way that I would consider Gallery a bust large enough to be #9 of the 2000's. Maybe he is an underachiever, but not a bust. Just like Leonard Davis is not a bust, Robert Gallery is not a bust. Mike Williams should be placed far ahead of Robert Gallery if we are talking offensive linemen who were busts in the NFL. Otherwise DeWayne Robertson, Jerome McDougle or Reggie Williams would have been great choices in this spot.
Sports Illustrated called him "the best lineman to come out of college in years". He was supposed to dominate the left tackle position for "10 to 15 years".
So we are basing Gallery being a bust on high expectations that others unfairly put on him and not his actual performance in the NFL? That seems completely unfair. If Sports Illustrated says that Drew Bledsoe is going to be voted in the Hall of Fame unanimously when he retires and he only went on to have the career he ended up having in real life, does that mean he is a bust?
But he went from that marquee offensive line position to right tackle to left guard, on the Raiders no less. He's an adequate NFL player, but far from the "next Tony Boselli".
There should never be a guy who is an adequate NFL player put on a list of NFL busts when there are many other busts that can be chosen from the decade like Michael Huff or Ryan Sims.
7. LaVar Arrington, LB, Washington Redskins, No. 2, 2000
Injuries should be taken into account when determining whether a player is a bust or not, but this is just a simply retarded choice. LaVar Arrington made three Pro Bowls and only retired because of injuries. I don't put a whole heck of a lot of stock in Pro Bowl appearances by a player, but the fact Arrington was able to even sniff a Pro Bowl shows that he wasn't any type of bust.
Two Penn State defenders went with top two picks in the first draft of the decade. Neither have played in the league since 2006
To just make a blanket statement say Arrington hasn't played in the NFL since 2006 and that is what makes him a bust is completely unfair. Arrington ruptured his Achilles tendon after signing a huge contract with the New York Giants. After rehabbing that injury, and deciding whether to return to the NFL or not, he got in a serious motorcycle accident. Arrington is in NO WAY a bust and was in fact a very good defensive player who may not have earned his draft position, but would potentially be taken in the first round if the draft was done over again. He had proven he was a good NFL player before he got injured, so he's not a bust.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can label Arrington a bust. He was no worse than David Pollack, Jamal Reynolds, Ryan Sims or Wendell Bryant. In fact he was much better than those players.
5. Maurice Clarett, RB, Denver Broncos, No. 101, 2005
Raise your hand if anyone else thought Maurice Clarett was going to be a good NFL player.
(No one is raising their hand)
There is a reason that the Broncos were mocked for taking the obviously overweight Clarett in the 3rd round in 2005 and that reason is because he was never considered to be a good player for the NFL. There is no way Clarett is a bust because he was just an untalented, unmotivated guy who got drafted too high...in the 3rd round.
I would like to also mention Chris Chase just went from #7 to #5. His list doesn't have a #6, but two #5's. It's a very interesting way to count.
Not a bust in the traditional sense,
Or at all.
it was thought that Maurice Clarett could be a good gamble for the Broncos.
I am sure there was one person who thought this, but the overwhelming reaction was that Shanahan had reached for Clarett in the 3rd round (remember my questions about Shanahan's ability to evaluate talent a few weeks ago? Exhibit A is Maurice Clarett).
Gary Horton, Scouts Inc. on why a team would draft Clarett in the 3rd round when he was projected to be a late round pick:
Obviously Denver has had great success with RBs in the middle to late rounds, so it's hard to criticize them. But you certainly had the feeling Clarett was going to be there until the fifth or sixth...No question, it is a surprise pick, and a roll of the dice.
Randy Mueller on the same issue:
I'm very surprised, just from a character standpoint. You can't challenge Denver Coach Mike Shanahan, but I'm really surprised. I'll be shocked if Clarett steps in like the other guys. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. I thought he would be a sixth- or seventh-round pick, at best. The 40 times, the character issues, all those concerns. I just didn't see him going this early. This guy has issues.
So we have a guy who had no substantial track record of great performance in college, wasn't expected to go as high as he did, and then pretty much did exactly what many expected him to do in the NFL...sounds like a guy who isn't the 6th biggest bust of all-time.
5. Matt Leinart, QB, Arizona Cardinals, No. 10, 2006
Leinart is the 2nd highest quarterback bust on the so-called list of all-time busts. That would mean Chris Chase thinks Leinart is the 2nd biggest bust of the 2000's when it comes to quarterbacks. I would argue this is not true because David Carr, Joey Harrington, or even Kellen Clemens were bigger busts than Matt Leinart has been. We can't just limit these busts to first round quarterbacks. I am not trying to make excuses for Leinart, but he hasn't gotten a good opportunity to show what he can do in the NFL because he has been stuck behind the completely rejuvenated Kurt Warner.
How about Drew Stanton or John Beck, both of whom were high 2nd round draft choices who are not even good enough to be backup quarterbacks just three years after they got drafted? These are guys who are busts, quarterbacks who were drafted highly in the 2nd round and now are 3rd string quarterbacks.
Why Leinart and not Carr or Smith? Leinart was the USC golden boy, the Heisman Trophy winner who became the toast of L.A. and could have been the No. 1 pick in 2005 before coming back and getting his game nitpicked by scouts.
Here we go again with judging players based on other's expectations of them coming out of college and not necessarily basing it on reality. Simply because Leinart had more hype coming out of USC doesn't necessarily mean he is a bigger bust. Hype doesn't equal talent. Sure, Leinart played in a much more higher profile program than Harrington, Akili Smith or David Carr, but that doesn't mean he is a bigger bust because of that.
What kind of logic is that to use to say he won the Heisman Trophy and people at his college loved him, so that makes him a bigger bust? To reason that Leinart is a bigger bust because he was more celebrated than Smith or Carr coming out of college and completely ignoring how the players performed in the NFL is not reasonable. There is no way Matt Leinart is the 5th biggest bust of the 2000's.
4. Reggie Bush, RB, New Orleans Saints, No. 2, 2006
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Reggie Bush is in no way a bust. I have been hard on Reggie Bush in the past, but he is not now, nor does it ever appear he will be, a bust. Even if he were a bust, he wouldn't be the biggest running back bust for the decade of the 2000's, which is where Chris Chase has him on this list.
Check out Bush's numbers, compare them to another running back bust (William Green/Darren McFadden) and try to tell me I am wrong. Bush is a productive running back, maybe not a traditional back, but a productive back nonetheless.
All of the flaws that are readily apparent in Bush's game today weren't so obvious three years ago.
Unless you watched college football and noticed that LenDale White got most of the carries between the tackles and Bush was used as more of an outside runner. When he wasn't used as an outside runner exclusively and he did get the ball between the tackles, Bush would often get to the outside as quickly as he could. It was pretty obvious Bush was talented but he may not have had a future as a feature back in the NFL.
Bush is a fine NFL player, but far from the game-changing superstar he was anticipated to be.
Which means he isn't a game-changing player but doesn't make him the biggest bust in the history of the NFL when it comes to running backs...not even close. It's hard for me to take any list that has Reggie Bush as the 4th biggest bust for the 2000's seriously. He is a good change of pace back and a great receiver coming out of the backfield.
2. JaMarcus Russell, QB, Oakland Raiders, No. 1, 2007
This blog does have a tag that says, "JaMarcus Russell is the worst athlete in pro sports in out lifetime," so I would have to say I agree with this sentiment. I would be tempted to keep dumping on him and say he should be at #1 on this list, but I won't do that.
1. Charles Rogers, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 2, 2003
I have to agree with this choice because I personally thought Rogers was going to be a game-changing wide receiver. Then not only did he stink in Detroit but he also didn't have any value for all the other teams in the NFL due to drug, discipline and "he sucks so we don't want him on our team" problems. Nobody in the NFL even tried to give a crap about rehabbing him. Heck even Ryan Leaf got second and third chances. Rogers was out of the league so quickly, he probably has to be #1 on any list of busts from the 2000's.
I LOVED Charles Rogers coming out of college. The players I love coming out this year, so go ahead and put them down as busts, are Ndamukong Suh (saying I love him is an understatement, I think he should be considered for the Heisman and will be better than Warren Sapp...I really, really like him), Tony Pike, Golden Tate, and Jerry Hughes. I know these aren't novel guys to like, but are four of my favorite 1st/2nd round guys.
The players I really don't like at this point are Carlos Dunlap and Jevon Snead. I think both players are going to stink in the NFL. Dunlap seems to given an inconsistent effort and I don't trust Snead's decision making all that much. I have a feeling both will go higher than they probably should.
Some of the choices on Chris Chase's list are not horrible, but he lists players who are in no way busts in the NFL for the decade of the 2000's.
In fact, here is a list of players who could have appeared on this list over some of the players that Chris Chase did include:
Travis Taylor
Ron Dayne
Sylvester Morris
Gerard Warren
David Terrell
Jamal Reynolds
Willie Middlebrooks
Freddie Mitchell
Mike Williams
Ryan Sims
Wendell Bryant
William Green
DeWayne Robertson
Johnathan Sullivan
Jimmy Kennedy
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Reggie Williams
Kenechi Udeze
J.P. Losman
Troy Williamson
Travis Johnson
David Pollack (As commenter HH pointed out, it may be unfair to include Pollack since he had to retire due to a fluke neck injury. I will be fair and leave his name but say he never got a chance to show what he could do. Same thing for Matt Jones. If he wasn't coked up all the time, he could have been an average receiver.)
Erasmus James
Matt Jones
Michael Huff
Tye Hill
Jason Allen
Bobby Carpenter
Gaines Adams
Jamaal Anderson
Justin Harrell
Jarvis Moss
Buster Davis
Drew Stanton
John Beck
Darren McFadden
Vernon Gholston
Those guys, maybe excluding McFadden and Gholston because they haven't played in the NFL long enough to prove they are incredible busts or not, could have easily been on the list that Chris Chase made. Hence, they did not make the list and that is a shame. Many of these players would have been better choices than some of the players on Chase's bust list.
Compiling a list of the top 10 busts of all-time in the NFL is based purely on opinion, but the problem starts when the list contains players that aren't busts or weren't even close to being as big of a bust as another player. It's nice to think outside the box, but when listing the Top 10 busts for a decade it doesn't make sense to leave guys off the list who were bigger busts than those put on the list. Chris Chase limits this list to players drafted in the 2000's so I won't compare his list to players who weren't drafted in that decade (obviously), but I will use players drafted before the 2000 NFL Draft as examples when necessary.
What makes a draft bust?
If a player is drafted highly in the first round and that player turns out to be nowhere worthy of being drafted anywhere near that position in the draft. Cade McNown would be a great example of this.
Is draft position alone the determining factor? How much does one have to fail? Could a bust have an otherwise fine career, aside from the massive expectations that accompanied him into the league? What role do injuries play in the whole thing? Does bad luck equal bust?
No, draft position is alone not the determining factor, but it plays a major part in the determination.
A player has to fail to the point he is out of the league in a few years because he has no obvious talent that would make him useful to an NFL team. Vinny Testeverde was not a bust and really neither was a guy like Damione Lewis because he has proven a useful, but not a great player.
A bust should not be judged by the expectations others have put on him because of his draft position. For example, Darrius Heyward-Bey is not considered a huge bust by me because he wasn't expected to be drafted that high by the Raiders. I even hesitate to call Mike Mamula a bust (though I would) because he was drafted too high but not based on football talent. A player like Joey Harrington would be considered a bust because he played well in college and his performance there set the expectations for what he could do in the pros.
Injuries play a role in whether a player is a bust, but I don't think a player can be excused for being a bust due to injury. This can be easily debated though and it depends on each individual situation.
Bad luck really shouldn't have much to do with being a bust, but it does. Would a better situation for a player like Ryan Leaf have made a huge difference? Probably not. How about for a player like Heath Shuler? Who really knows? We should look at bad luck when it comes time to determine whether a player is a bust or not, but I don't think it should stop a player from being considered a bust.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions.
Yes, there are right answers. For example, a guy like Kerry Collins was not a bust. Simply because a player underachieved or didn't meet all the expectations he had set for him by the media or the fact his performance in the NFL isn't worthy of his draft position doesn't necessarily mean that player is a bust. I will get to this more later, but the right answer is to list a player who is actually a bust. Guys who perform well but didn't quite meet the expectation of their draft position should not be considered busts in my opinion.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions. You'll find complete flops next to guys who could play a decade in the league.
If a guy played an entire decade in the NFL then he is not a bust. I don't know how I can make that clearer other than to just say it. If the player was in the NFL for a decade (at a decently high level) or more then that means he got 2-3 contracts which means he had some value to an NFL team and should not be considered a bust.
And some of the names you don't see might be as surprising as those you do see. For instance, David Carr or Alex Smith on this list, even though their names frequently pop-up on such rankings.
I would actually agree with the David Carr assertion that he is not a major bust because he had very little chance to excel with some of those Texans teams and I semi-agree with the Alex Smith assertion because he hasn't shown himself to be completely incompetent at playing quarterback in the NFL, though he has come close. Players who are busts are players who are out of the NFL for one reason or another within a couple of years of being drafted.
For example, Cade McNown is a bust because he only stuck with the Bears for two years and no team wanted him after that. If Alex Smith got cut today, don't you think a team would take a chance of him after that and give him a realistic chance to start? It's very possible. Ryan Leaf is still a bust even though he was given second chances, but he was only given another chance because he was a high draft pick and not because of his on-the-field performance...while Alex Smith would be given a second chance because he hasn't been absolutely horrible in the NFL.
Now that I have thoroughly confused everyone as to the criteria I use, let's move on...
Just because they went No. 1 doesn't mean that, outside of a two-month stretch in the spring of the year they were drafted, most people ever thought they'd be great.
It's a little dangerous to use other people's expectations to judge some of these NFL busts. Simply because the media and other people hyped them up, does not mean that player is a bust if he didn't meet those expectations. I think we should base a player being a bust on draft position, performance in college as compared to the NFL (if a guy didn't play well in college and got drafted high, would it surprise anyone he didn't play well in the NFL? Probably not), and how long it took before that player was out of the NFL due to being a useless player.
10. Mike Williams, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 10, 2005
I agree with this choice. Williams was a player who played well in college, stunk in the pros, was out of the league quickly and never was a valuable receiver in the NFL. I wanted to point this out as a good example of a bust...Mike Williams very rightly should be #10 on this list.
Let's just use as a general rule that if a player comes out of college as a highly drafted wide receiver and at some point teams are looking to transition him into a tight end and he DOESN'T have to gain weight for this position switch, that player could be really close to being a bust. I think that is a good rule for wide receivers.
Mike Williams was the reason Dwayne Jarrett was drafted in the 2nd round in 2007. Of course Jarrett currently can't beat out a 36 year old possession receiver with bad hamstrings for the #2 wide receiver spot on a team where the #2 wide receiver ALWAYS faces single coverage...so he is pretty close to being a bust himself. The lesson learned? Don't draft USC wide receivers who are tall and don't have a lot of foot speed.
9. Robert Gallery, T, Oakland Raiders, No. 3, 2004
Absolutely not. While Gallery is not the left tackle that everyone thought he could be, he is still a solid and usable guard. There is no way that I would consider Gallery a bust large enough to be #9 of the 2000's. Maybe he is an underachiever, but not a bust. Just like Leonard Davis is not a bust, Robert Gallery is not a bust. Mike Williams should be placed far ahead of Robert Gallery if we are talking offensive linemen who were busts in the NFL. Otherwise DeWayne Robertson, Jerome McDougle or Reggie Williams would have been great choices in this spot.
Sports Illustrated called him "the best lineman to come out of college in years". He was supposed to dominate the left tackle position for "10 to 15 years".
So we are basing Gallery being a bust on high expectations that others unfairly put on him and not his actual performance in the NFL? That seems completely unfair. If Sports Illustrated says that Drew Bledsoe is going to be voted in the Hall of Fame unanimously when he retires and he only went on to have the career he ended up having in real life, does that mean he is a bust?
But he went from that marquee offensive line position to right tackle to left guard, on the Raiders no less. He's an adequate NFL player, but far from the "next Tony Boselli".
There should never be a guy who is an adequate NFL player put on a list of NFL busts when there are many other busts that can be chosen from the decade like Michael Huff or Ryan Sims.
7. LaVar Arrington, LB, Washington Redskins, No. 2, 2000
Injuries should be taken into account when determining whether a player is a bust or not, but this is just a simply retarded choice. LaVar Arrington made three Pro Bowls and only retired because of injuries. I don't put a whole heck of a lot of stock in Pro Bowl appearances by a player, but the fact Arrington was able to even sniff a Pro Bowl shows that he wasn't any type of bust.
Two Penn State defenders went with top two picks in the first draft of the decade. Neither have played in the league since 2006
To just make a blanket statement say Arrington hasn't played in the NFL since 2006 and that is what makes him a bust is completely unfair. Arrington ruptured his Achilles tendon after signing a huge contract with the New York Giants. After rehabbing that injury, and deciding whether to return to the NFL or not, he got in a serious motorcycle accident. Arrington is in NO WAY a bust and was in fact a very good defensive player who may not have earned his draft position, but would potentially be taken in the first round if the draft was done over again. He had proven he was a good NFL player before he got injured, so he's not a bust.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can label Arrington a bust. He was no worse than David Pollack, Jamal Reynolds, Ryan Sims or Wendell Bryant. In fact he was much better than those players.
5. Maurice Clarett, RB, Denver Broncos, No. 101, 2005
Raise your hand if anyone else thought Maurice Clarett was going to be a good NFL player.
(No one is raising their hand)
There is a reason that the Broncos were mocked for taking the obviously overweight Clarett in the 3rd round in 2005 and that reason is because he was never considered to be a good player for the NFL. There is no way Clarett is a bust because he was just an untalented, unmotivated guy who got drafted too high...in the 3rd round.
I would like to also mention Chris Chase just went from #7 to #5. His list doesn't have a #6, but two #5's. It's a very interesting way to count.
Not a bust in the traditional sense,
Or at all.
it was thought that Maurice Clarett could be a good gamble for the Broncos.
I am sure there was one person who thought this, but the overwhelming reaction was that Shanahan had reached for Clarett in the 3rd round (remember my questions about Shanahan's ability to evaluate talent a few weeks ago? Exhibit A is Maurice Clarett).
Gary Horton, Scouts Inc. on why a team would draft Clarett in the 3rd round when he was projected to be a late round pick:
Obviously Denver has had great success with RBs in the middle to late rounds, so it's hard to criticize them. But you certainly had the feeling Clarett was going to be there until the fifth or sixth...No question, it is a surprise pick, and a roll of the dice.
Randy Mueller on the same issue:
I'm very surprised, just from a character standpoint. You can't challenge Denver Coach Mike Shanahan, but I'm really surprised. I'll be shocked if Clarett steps in like the other guys. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. I thought he would be a sixth- or seventh-round pick, at best. The 40 times, the character issues, all those concerns. I just didn't see him going this early. This guy has issues.
So we have a guy who had no substantial track record of great performance in college, wasn't expected to go as high as he did, and then pretty much did exactly what many expected him to do in the NFL...sounds like a guy who isn't the 6th biggest bust of all-time.
5. Matt Leinart, QB, Arizona Cardinals, No. 10, 2006
Leinart is the 2nd highest quarterback bust on the so-called list of all-time busts. That would mean Chris Chase thinks Leinart is the 2nd biggest bust of the 2000's when it comes to quarterbacks. I would argue this is not true because David Carr, Joey Harrington, or even Kellen Clemens were bigger busts than Matt Leinart has been. We can't just limit these busts to first round quarterbacks. I am not trying to make excuses for Leinart, but he hasn't gotten a good opportunity to show what he can do in the NFL because he has been stuck behind the completely rejuvenated Kurt Warner.
How about Drew Stanton or John Beck, both of whom were high 2nd round draft choices who are not even good enough to be backup quarterbacks just three years after they got drafted? These are guys who are busts, quarterbacks who were drafted highly in the 2nd round and now are 3rd string quarterbacks.
Why Leinart and not Carr or Smith? Leinart was the USC golden boy, the Heisman Trophy winner who became the toast of L.A. and could have been the No. 1 pick in 2005 before coming back and getting his game nitpicked by scouts.
Here we go again with judging players based on other's expectations of them coming out of college and not necessarily basing it on reality. Simply because Leinart had more hype coming out of USC doesn't necessarily mean he is a bigger bust. Hype doesn't equal talent. Sure, Leinart played in a much more higher profile program than Harrington, Akili Smith or David Carr, but that doesn't mean he is a bigger bust because of that.
What kind of logic is that to use to say he won the Heisman Trophy and people at his college loved him, so that makes him a bigger bust? To reason that Leinart is a bigger bust because he was more celebrated than Smith or Carr coming out of college and completely ignoring how the players performed in the NFL is not reasonable. There is no way Matt Leinart is the 5th biggest bust of the 2000's.
4. Reggie Bush, RB, New Orleans Saints, No. 2, 2006
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Reggie Bush is in no way a bust. I have been hard on Reggie Bush in the past, but he is not now, nor does it ever appear he will be, a bust. Even if he were a bust, he wouldn't be the biggest running back bust for the decade of the 2000's, which is where Chris Chase has him on this list.
Check out Bush's numbers, compare them to another running back bust (William Green/Darren McFadden) and try to tell me I am wrong. Bush is a productive running back, maybe not a traditional back, but a productive back nonetheless.
All of the flaws that are readily apparent in Bush's game today weren't so obvious three years ago.
Unless you watched college football and noticed that LenDale White got most of the carries between the tackles and Bush was used as more of an outside runner. When he wasn't used as an outside runner exclusively and he did get the ball between the tackles, Bush would often get to the outside as quickly as he could. It was pretty obvious Bush was talented but he may not have had a future as a feature back in the NFL.
Bush is a fine NFL player, but far from the game-changing superstar he was anticipated to be.
Which means he isn't a game-changing player but doesn't make him the biggest bust in the history of the NFL when it comes to running backs...not even close. It's hard for me to take any list that has Reggie Bush as the 4th biggest bust for the 2000's seriously. He is a good change of pace back and a great receiver coming out of the backfield.
2. JaMarcus Russell, QB, Oakland Raiders, No. 1, 2007
This blog does have a tag that says, "JaMarcus Russell is the worst athlete in pro sports in out lifetime," so I would have to say I agree with this sentiment. I would be tempted to keep dumping on him and say he should be at #1 on this list, but I won't do that.
1. Charles Rogers, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 2, 2003
I have to agree with this choice because I personally thought Rogers was going to be a game-changing wide receiver. Then not only did he stink in Detroit but he also didn't have any value for all the other teams in the NFL due to drug, discipline and "he sucks so we don't want him on our team" problems. Nobody in the NFL even tried to give a crap about rehabbing him. Heck even Ryan Leaf got second and third chances. Rogers was out of the league so quickly, he probably has to be #1 on any list of busts from the 2000's.
I LOVED Charles Rogers coming out of college. The players I love coming out this year, so go ahead and put them down as busts, are Ndamukong Suh (saying I love him is an understatement, I think he should be considered for the Heisman and will be better than Warren Sapp...I really, really like him), Tony Pike, Golden Tate, and Jerry Hughes. I know these aren't novel guys to like, but are four of my favorite 1st/2nd round guys.
The players I really don't like at this point are Carlos Dunlap and Jevon Snead. I think both players are going to stink in the NFL. Dunlap seems to given an inconsistent effort and I don't trust Snead's decision making all that much. I have a feeling both will go higher than they probably should.
Some of the choices on Chris Chase's list are not horrible, but he lists players who are in no way busts in the NFL for the decade of the 2000's.
In fact, here is a list of players who could have appeared on this list over some of the players that Chris Chase did include:
Travis Taylor
Ron Dayne
Sylvester Morris
Gerard Warren
David Terrell
Jamal Reynolds
Willie Middlebrooks
Freddie Mitchell
Mike Williams
Ryan Sims
Wendell Bryant
William Green
DeWayne Robertson
Johnathan Sullivan
Jimmy Kennedy
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Reggie Williams
Kenechi Udeze
J.P. Losman
Troy Williamson
Travis Johnson
David Pollack (As commenter HH pointed out, it may be unfair to include Pollack since he had to retire due to a fluke neck injury. I will be fair and leave his name but say he never got a chance to show what he could do. Same thing for Matt Jones. If he wasn't coked up all the time, he could have been an average receiver.)
Erasmus James
Matt Jones
Michael Huff
Tye Hill
Jason Allen
Bobby Carpenter
Gaines Adams
Jamaal Anderson
Justin Harrell
Jarvis Moss
Buster Davis
Drew Stanton
John Beck
Darren McFadden
Vernon Gholston
Those guys, maybe excluding McFadden and Gholston because they haven't played in the NFL long enough to prove they are incredible busts or not, could have easily been on the list that Chris Chase made. Hence, they did not make the list and that is a shame. Many of these players would have been better choices than some of the players on Chase's bust list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)