9 comments I Found This Column To Be Completely Dispensable

It is pretty hard to define the word "valuable" or "indispensable" in sports...or to at least come to a consensus on the definition. When it comes time to vote at the end of the year in some sports, especially baseball, those voters who vote for the NL and AL MVP seem to think "valuable" means "plays for the best team in the league and is the best player on that team." Others think of it as an intangible thing, where someone like The Jeter would be valuable to the Yankees because he stands for everything a true Yankee is. I think of it in these terms, "if I took every player off x team, losing which player would cause the team to lose more games, than every other player."

I do sort of a cost-benefit analysis. For example, Mark Teixeira is not the most valuable Yankee, though he may be their best player right now. Alex Rodriguez is probably the most valuable Yankee, though an argument could be made for Mariano Rivera being that guy. How many games or situations does Rivera get the Yankees out of with a win that another reliever would not do so? I am rambling, but you get my point. I use indispensable interchangebly with valuable because they are really synonymous.

I am not sure what John Lopez's measurement for "indispensable" is. He names the MVP/MIP (Most indispensable player) for every NFL team and I take issue with a few of them.

Here, then, is a look at the one player each NFC team could least afford to lose to injury. Call them the "crippling" injuries when it comes to a team's hopes for 2009. And since losing a starting quarterback, obviously, would be devastating to every team, we left them out of this little exercise.

I like how we start the entire article off with a completely wrong assumption. This pretty much ruined any credibility this "exercise" had in my mind. I generally like John Lopez's stuff but making a blanket statement that for every NFL team to lose the starting QB would be devastating is a huge thing to just assume in the beginning of an article.

Is Detroit that much worse with Culpepper or Stafford starting? Are the Jets that much worse off if Kellen Clemens comes off the bench? Even for contending teams, how much is the fall off going to be if Favre gets hurt and Jackson or Rosenfels steps in? The Vikings made the playoffs without Favre, wouldn't the loss of another player be worse? I think it is not a good start to just say the loss of a starting QB to every team would be "devastating." The Patriots didn't fall apart without Brady last year and he is one of the top 2 QB's in the NFL. I am going to do my best to play by his insane "no QB" rules.

Atlanta Falcons, Tony Gonzalez

Last year the Falcons were 11-5 with a rookie quarterback starting without Tony Gonzalez. He has never played a snap for them, yet he is somehow now the most valuable player on the team.

Don't get me wrong. Michael Turner is crucial to the Falcons, much like Adrian Peterson is to the Vikings. And the Falcons have an elite, young and strong-armed quarterback in Matt Ryan. This is a multidimensional team that can do a lot of things at a high level. Most often it will be Turner leading the way. Sometimes, it will be Ryan.

So there is our answer. Michael Turner. Take him off the Falcons and I doubt the Falcons go 11-5. We know the Falcons can go 11-5 without Tony Gonzalez. Sometimes this stuff is too easy to criticize without feeling like I am picking on the author. I am even tempted to not pick Turner because Norwood is his backup and go with someone else as MIP...but I know it is not Gonzalez.

Carolina Panthers, Jon Beason

When play-making defensive tackle Maake Kemoeatu was lost for the season with an Achilles tendon injury on the first day of training camp, everything changed for Beason. For starters, as an undersized (6-foot, 237-pound) middle linebacker accustomed to having his defensive linemen take on most blockers, Beason's prospects for another Pro Bowl season suffered a hit.

I like how his way of convincing the crowd that Beason is the MIP on the Panthers is to describe how losing another player on the Panthers is going to so greatly hurt the Panthers defense. So one of the best MLB in the league gets hurt and all of a sudden that MLB may not make the Pro Bowl? Somebody must have more value than Beason then.

Now, he's going to have to deal with much more traffic, and size coming at him. And how much of that pounding can Beason take?

I want to remind everyone John Lopez chose Jon Beason as the most indispensable player on the Panthers roster, not Maake Kemoeatu. Last year Kemoeatu missed one game and the Panthers defense gave up 300 yards in rushing to the Giants. Generally if you are going to list a player as the most indispensable player on a roster you shouldn't go on and on about how that MIP is going to struggle without another player on the roster.

Chicago Bears, Tommie Harris

But the Bears return to prominence depends also on the defense playing to its expected level, and if Harris cannot stay healthy, the Bears' D suffers a severe blow.

I have always liked Tommie Harris and do understand the importance he has to the Bears defense but.......what would the offense of the Bears look like if Devin Hester got injured? I don't think the Bears defense suffers as much without Harris as the offense may suffer without one legitimate wide receiver for Cutler to throw the ball to. I am almost afraid to mention when Urlacher doesn't play well, the Bears defense generally doesn't play well.

Detroit Lions, Shaun Smith

It sounds crazy calling this notorious attitude problem not even yet at the top of the depth chart as pivotal to the Detroit Lions.

Perhaps because it is crazy?

One of the key aspects of Schwartz' defense is funneling as much as possible into the middle of the defense, where the 6-2, 325-pound Smith will be.

So this MVP/MIP pick goes to a backup DT that SHOULD play well in the offensive system the new head coach wants to set up. I think this pick gets the award for "Most Speculation That Led to The Choice of MIP." He is assuming Smith is going to be a starter, assuming Schwartz will be able to run the type of defense he wants to run this year and assuming Smith will be the best player in that defense. That's a lot of assuming for a guy who is supposed to be the most indispensable player on a team.

Green Bay Packers, Greg Jennings

I am going to be honest. I don't know who the Packers MIP is, but I do know they have a ton of decent receivers on that roster. James Jones, Jordy Nelson, and Donald Driver all could have good years, so I don't know how Jennings is the pick.

Jennings has gone from underrated and overlooked on a national scale to quite possibly the best receiver in the game. Sure, it's probably still either the Cardinals' Larry Fitzgerald or the Texans' Andre Johnson that leads the way, and certainly Terrell Owens and Randy Moss would have something to say.

Terrell Owens? Is this 2004? I like Randy Moss but there is no way he is the best receiver in the NFL. It's like John Lopez had a brief brain cramp and thought it was 2004, so he put that last sentence in there. How about Steve Smith and Calvin Johnson, do you think they have an opinion? I think they are better receivers than Moss and Owens.

Minnesota Vikings, Adrian Peterson

I hate to disagree with this but I think Chester Taylor could take up some of the slack if Peterson went down. My choices would be Pat/Kevin Williams. When/If they go down this year, the Vikings are going to have a much more difficult time stopping the run.

New Orleans Saints, Pierre Thomas

(the sound of Bengoodfella laughing uncontrollably)

Saints coaches believe Thomas could be a 1,000-yard running back, which could lead to great things offensively, considering Drew Brees' talent and the prolific passing game. Thomas even has been used as the Wildcat back in training camp this year. Big things could be in store for him.

This choice is filled with wonderfully certain words like "could" and "believe," which COULD lead me to BELIEVE this is more of a prediction rather than actually an analysis of who the MIP on the Saints roster is. I am sorry, I can not allow a MVP/MIP for a team to be chosen on what that player "could" do, which the player has never done before, to make them the most indispensable player on a team. Bump that crap.

The Saints don't have an MIP outside of Drew Brees.

Philadelphia Eagles, Brian Westbrook

Completely disagree. The Eagles have played and won without Westbrook in the past. LeSean McCoy can step in, just like Buckhalter has done in the past, to take over some of the production Westbrook puts up when he is in the lineup. Westbrook is a great player but definitely not the most indispensable player on the Eagles roster. He's close but not necessarily it.

The Eagles got a taste of what life without Westbrook is like in 2008 and it wasn't pretty. Westbrook missed a couple of games early and as the season wound to a close, saw his attempts, yards and yards per-carry dwindle.

The Eagles actually got a taste of what life without a great backup running back is like. Again, the Eagles have succeeded without Westbrook in the lineup and they can do it again...especially with the second best RB in the draft backing him up.

I think for this year with Jim Johnson having died, Brian Dawkins in Denver and there being a leadership void (I hate saying it because it sounds cliche but it could be true), the MIP is currently injured, and that was Stewart Bradley. Seriously, ruling out QB's is absolutely no fun for something like this.

Washington Redskins, Chris Samuels

Defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth was brought in to make life miserable on opposing offenses. Haynesworth was the big offseason splash and indeed should be huge.

Sorry, but the drop off from Samuels to Mike Williams or Jeremy Bridges is not as great as the drop off from Haynesworth to Lorenzo Alexander or Kedric Gholston. Haynesworth is a guy who can change an entire defense just by being on the field and playing all the time as if he has a contract to play for.

Here, then, is a look at the one player each AFC team could least afford to lose to injury. Call them the "crippling" injuries when it comes to a team's hopes for 2009. And since losing a starting quarterback, obviously, would be devastating to every team, we left them out of this little exercise.

It still annoys me we can't use QB's.

Cincinnati Bengals, Chris Henry

I know Chad Johnson has seen his performance decline but Chris Henry is the most indispensable Bengal?

But Henry truly has been the biggest piece of the Bengals' offense thus far, much more so than Chad Ochocinco, in fact. In his first preseason game, Henry torched the Saints for 100-yards receiving and a pair of deep balls.

Well gee, based on that one preseason game I guess it shows that Chris Henry is the MIP for the Bengals. I didn't realize his one preseason game was so impressive. It looks like I will have to go ahead try to vote him into the Pro Bowl based on his one preseason game.

Chris Henry is the #3 receiver on the depth chart right now. There is Laveranues Coles and Chad Johnson ahead of him. The Bengals could afford to lose Henry. Right now, I have to say Cedric Benson is the MIP for the Bengals. Without him on the field the Bengals will have to rely on Brian Leonard or Kenny Watson for running yards. Having no running game would greatly adversely affect Carson Palmer's ability to throw the ball.

Denver Broncos, Brandon Marshall

No. There are other reasonable options for the Broncos including Jabar Gaffney, Brandon Stokley, Chad Jackson and Brandon Lloyd (I said reasonable, not incredibly helpful). Champ Bailey still can take away half of the field from the opposing QB and that makes him my choice. I would even say as a backup it is either Ryan Harris or Ryan Clady, both guys who will give Orton time to find an open receiver, no matter who that receiver is.

The Denver wide receiving corps behind Marshall is subpar at best. With his size, talent and ability to physically beat defensive backs to the ball, Marshall remaining healthy is crucial.

The backups are subpar but that doesn't mean Marshall is the MIP on the Broncos roster because if he/when he doesn't play this year they can still have offensive success. I guarantee a secondary with Alphonso Smith playing the nickel corner is a lot better than a secondary with Josh Bell/Jack Williams playing nickel corner and if the Broncos can succeed this year it depends a lot on the defense playing well. Champ Bailey is key to that success.

Houston Texans, DeMeco Ryans

We all love DeMeco Ryans but where is the pass rush coming from if Mario Williams gets hurt? Where does the passing game go if Andre Johnson isn't there to take the attention of half the secondary? Those are my only two questions and my two candidates for this team's MIP.

Kansas City Chiefs, Larry Johnson

Why do I find it hard to believe Larry Johnson is the most indispensable player on the Chiefs roster?

But if they want to keep things respectable, establish a new identity and maybe even surprise a team or two as they try to head back to the top of the AFC heap, Johnson could show the way. Getting LJ to play hard and be a good citizen is Haley's top priority. It would be quite the statement to everyone in the organization if Haley can get LJ to buy-in, so to speak.

So this choice isn't based on actual football indispensability but is based on the fact Larry Johnson is an asshole and if Todd Haley can get through to him it will set off an ubuntu-like effect through the entire organization ending with the entire team singing Kumbaya and holding hands as fireworks are set off in the distance and the team goes 4-12 this year?

I am going to do something crazy and base it on what a player actually brings to the team and think about what would happen if that player got hurt? Put me down for Dwyane Bowe. Along with actually being the team's best player, if Bowe gets hurt the Chiefs will have a receiving crew full of underachievers and guys who never have nor will achieve.

New York Jets, Nick Mangold

The Jets have high hopes for quarterback Mark Sanchez, who has yet to disappoint either on the field or off. But opposing defenses can change all that in a heartbeat and turn Sanchez' brain into mush, if health problems persist along the offensive line.

I am not specifically arguing that Mangold is not the most indispensable player on the offensive line, I am arguing the entire offensive line is indispensable if the issue is keeping Sanchez upright. Losing Ferguson or any other member of the line would cause the Jets problems.

I know the Jets want to be able to run the ball but if they don't have the real MIP, Kris Jenkins, on the field they won't be able to stop the run. Without him in the middle, the Jets ability to stop the run is going to be greatly diminished.

-Do you know who I haven't talked about in a couple of days? Brett Favre. Don't like you are tired of him, because you aren't. I know there was some question still as to whether he was an asshole or not...well I think all questions have now been answered.

Maybe Brett Favre lost the keenest segment of the Green Bay Packers fan base long ago.

Or maybe he really, truly lost them on Tuesday, when he signed with the hated Minnesota Vikings, and then in Favre fashion, said “If you’re a true Packer fan, you understand.”

Oh yes, Packer fans. If you don't understand Brett's need to force a trade away from your team, wait an entire season to get revenge and then sign with your most hated rival in an effort to get back at your General Manager for not doing exactly as Brett Favre says, you are not a real Packers fan.

“I couldn’t believe the ‘true Packers fans’ should understand thing,” said Ron Knautz. “I’m 54 years old. I’ve been a Packers fan since I was 5, which is when I knew what the Packers were. I got my picture taken with Bart Starr when I was 12. I’m a true Packers fan. Maybe a true Packers player would understand how I feel.”

Of course in 4 years all of these tensions will be gone and the (true or not true) Packers fans will be able to honor Brett Favre and retire his number...unless he decides he wants to come out of retirement again.

I think it would be hilarious if the Packers held a press conference to say they will never retire Brett Favre's jersey until he dies because then, and only then, will they know he is truly retired. I would enjoy that.

On the rare occasion a fan called to support Favre’s right to play for the Vikings, they were bayoneted by the next five callers, who reacted as if they’d just heard someone pitch the positives of joining the Taliban.

Will Brett Favre have any friends or fans left after this is all over? How egotistical for him to sign with his long time team's main rival out of spite and then tell all those fans who have supported him, bought his memorabilia and pretty much paid his salary all of those years in Green Bay they are not "real Packers fans" if they don't support him.

Brett Favre seems to think he is the king of all things Green Bay Packers since he seems to be the only one able to judge who is a true Packers fan and who is not. The Packers won more Super Bowls in the past without Brett Favre than they won with Brett Favre on the roster and they will win more Super Bowls in the future without Brett Favre on the roster. The organization doesn't end just because his time with the team ended. The "true" Packers fans are fans of the team, not just Brett Favre, so they don't have to support his every new decision every time he changes his mind on what he wants to do when it comes to playing football or not.

Brett Favre is so full of himself. I hope all of Lambeau Field boos him when he returns to play for the Vikings this year. It won't happen but it is my dream.

12 comments Prediction Friday

I like to make predictions, and fortunately so do many sportswriters, which gives me an opportunity to not only mock them but give my opinion and solicit other opinions at the same time. Sportswriters like John Lopez also like to make predictions based on what people think are the "trendy" picks in the NFL.

Though I would argue with some of these picks being "trendy" because generally the sportswriters tend to cover the teams extensively and then because they as sportswriters think the teams will be good, just go ahead and label that team "trendy" even if it is one person's opinion and not an actual trend. I will try to ignore this and carry on.

This is my first chance before this upcoming season to do a little NFL discussing. Let's see what John Lopez thinks is "trendy."

The trendy pick: A Cowboys Super Bowl run?

I think predicting the Cowboys to make the Super Bowl is pushing it just a little bit. I think the Cowboys could win a playoff game this year, which for them would be an accomplishment since it hasn't happened since 1996 (yes, I keep bringing this up because my area is full of the annoying kind of Cowboys fans).

I do believe in addition by subtraction and I think many of the distractions being gone and the fact the Cowboys still have a talented and fairly deep team could land them second place in the NFC East. Super Bowl run? I don't believe that is happening. Of course I am the same person who called the Pittsburgh offense "boring and predictable," or something to that effect but meant it in a good way in my AFC preview, so believe me if you dare.

So will it happen?

Not likely. The Cowboys should be better and have first-rate talent, but even if everything goes swimmingly, it would be hard to pass the Giants and Eagles.

I am not as on the Eagles bandwagon as everyone else (Peter King) seems to be. I like LeSean McCoy and thought he should have gone higher in the draft over guys like Donald Brown and Beanie Wells, but they are relying on some really young receivers to carry the load in a tough division. I am not even counting the impact of the loss of Jim Johnson, Brian Dawkins, and Stewart Bradley on defense. Throw in the fact Donovan McNabb has an injury history and with him missing a couple games I can see the Cowboys sliding into the #2 spot in the competitive NFC East.

The trendy pick: The Chargers (for the 9,786th time), could win it all.

Not to go Bill Simmons on everyone, but this is not happening while Norv Turner is the head coach. He is a great offensive coordinator but he is not a great head coach. I think the Chargers have enough firepower and play in a crappy enough division to where they could get a bye week for the playoffs but I don't enough faith they could go much further than that. I want to like the combination of mighty mite Darren Sproles and Tomlinson but I don't believe Sproles can handle carrying the ball 15 times a game and I am not sure how much Tomlinson has left in him. I see the running game as a bit of a mystery this year (Of course since it is another contract year for Sproles he will prove me wrong by gaining 3,000 total yards).

So, will it happen?

Yes. This time, yes. The Chargers could finally get over the hump. Ultimately, players make the biggest difference, and while the Steelers, Patriots and Colts are deservedly favored, San Diego's talent takes a backseat to no one.

Players do make the biggest difference as seen last year when the Steelers and Cardinals clearly had the most talented teams in the NFL (Waiting for everyone to get my sarcasm). San Diego's talent may not take a backseat to anyone and Chris Chambers may rebound from a subpar year last year but I just don't see the Chargers getting over the hump. They seem like a team that will just never be able to put it all together in one season and win a Super Bowl. They have the talent but lack the coaching and some weird intangible I can't put my finger on.

The trendy pick: The 49ers will make a glorious return under Mike Singletary

Return to what? That would be my question. Respectability? Not if they are planning on starting Alex Smith at the QB position. Everyone loves Patrick Willis and I think Shaun Hill can get the job done at QB if given the chance, unfortunately in the NFL having strength at the offensive and defensive lines is especially important and the 49ers have neither. The offensive line is mediocre and they really don't have any one who can rush the passer. Throw in the fact Michael Crabtree is threatening to not sign a contract and enter the 2010 draft and it doesn't seem like their year to make a "glorious return" to anything.

So, will it happen?

No way. Singletary deserved this chance he's gotten, but too many things are stacked against him. He'll get this club playing good football and toughen it up, but by midseason, expect a big crash.

The fact he is inheriting a bad team that has wasted high draft picks on average players like Manny Lawson, Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, Kentwan Balmer, and Rashaun Woods hasn't helped the team at all. I can see the 49ers being better than last year but I don't know if 2nd/3rd place in the NFC West qualifies as a glorious return.

The trendy pick: The Texans are headed to the playoffs

I do see this happening this year actually. Just for right now, and this could change due to injuries or some other unforseen circumstance, I see the playoffs as the Texans, Colts, Steelers, Patriots, San Diego, and Bills. My biggest question about the Texans is their ability to run the ball but I think Steve Slaton is going to have a good year and the Texan defense is bound to be pretty good with some of the good young players they have, even if they weren't very good last year.

So, will it happen?

Yes, print those playoff tickets, Texans fans. Matt Schaub is due a full, healthy season. And when he's on the field, nobody stops this offense.

I don't know if a quarterback is actually ever "due" a healthy season but Schaub is bound to stay healthier this year than last year, though if he does get hurt, I am calling all bets off. We all know from Peter's King brilliant analysis that Dan Orlovsky won't be able to handle the load. The defense needs to step up a little more to get this done, which I believe will happen. Every year someone says the Texans will make it to the playoffs and this year it just happens to be true.

The trendy pick: The Chiefs are on their way back.

Again, this is sort of a vague statement. The Chiefs will be back at some point and as bad as they were last year, they can't go anywhere else but up at this point. Plus they have Matty Icccccccce 1 (or 2, I can't remember which one Matt Ryan is). Everyone knows that good teams give quarterbacks who have had one good year in the NFL, with a team that has successfully plugged players in the system and then watched them leave and do nothing, huge new contracts. That's what good teams do right? They commit themselves long term to guys who have had one good year and no prior track record other than that.

Throw in the fact Todd Haley has a history of getting into sideline arguments with his players and it took him three quarters to open up the offense in the Super Bowl and I even have major questions about the coaching staff.

Of course the Chiefs are on their way back, they can't get much lower, but I don't think it is going to be this year or next year and I don't even know if Matt Cassel is the guy to do it.

So, will it happen?

Nope. It's just asking too much. The Chiefs have cleared some cap space, but they are at least four or five years away.

That's just an ignorant statement. If Todd Haley and Scott Pioli are the guys to turn this around they will have it turned around in less time than that. If they are not the guys to do it, then it may take longer, but there is no way these guys stick around if it takes 4 years to turn the team around and make them respectable again. They will be fired before that point. The Dolphins turned their team around in one year last year and the Panthers went from 1-15 to the Super Bowl in two years. Four or five years is an incredible amount of time in the NFL and this regime won't get that long to turn it around.

The trendy pick: The Bears are going to shock the NFL world.

And have a receiver that catches more than 40 passes or one that exceeds 600 yards receiving? All kidding aside, the Jay Cutler trade has really given Bears fans hope. I am here to knock some of that hope down. The offensive line is just a huge question mark, the defense has gotten old over the past two seasons, and I just don't know who is supposed to catch the ball for them.

I think the defense can turn it around and will do so, the offensive line helped Forte last year have a great rookie season, but I still don't know how this is going to work with the complete lack of receivers for Cutler. Cutler is a great QB but he also has had some good receivers to throw the ball to and an absolutely great offensive line in Denver. Orlando Pace doesn't have too much left in him and I wonder how Cutler will play without great time to throw the ball and great receivers to throw the ball to.

So, will it happen?

Yup. Fear the Bears in 2009. I'm not saying Super Bowl, but if Cutler has any receiver step up, good things will happen.

I did like Earl Bennett coming out of Vanderbilt but the fact he couldn't find the field last year for the Bears make me nervous for his prospects this year. I don't know if the Bears are good enough to win the division and I don't think one of the Wild Cards is coming from this division either. The Bears can win the division and they will as long as a receiver other than Hester steps up, the defense doesn't keep going backwards and the offensive line gives Cutler the time he is used to in throwing. That seems like a lot to have happen but the division is for the taking.

The Vikings flirted with Brett Favre for a reason. And the Packers playing footsy with Michael Vick? Not exactly a confidence-booster.

I don't think the off season moves by the other teams in the division mean necessarily these teams fear the Bears. I know John Lopez is not saying they will make the Super Bowl but the Bears couldn't make the playoffs last year when the Packers stunk and the Lions did not win a game. I know the addition of Cutler is supposed to be the thing that gets the Bears over the hump, but I can't ignore the defense's slow decline and the fact the O-line is a bit of a mystery for them.

-Back to Michael Crabtree. I am going to try and be as impolite as possible about this. What the hell is he thinking?

Per a league source, agent Eugene Parker is telling the 49ers that Crabtree will sit out the season and re-enter the draft in 2010, unless the team gives Crabtree what he wants.

Michael Crabtree is a damn idiot. This is the NFL, not high school or college where there are only a couple guys who know exactly what the hell they are doing. Not to mention he is a rookie receiver, which is a position that has seemed to have quite a learning curve in the past. He needs to get his ass on the field and start to play football. He's an idiot. He can be replaced in a heartbeat...even on a team that is not great like the 49ers.

I defended Crabtree when he came out of the draft because I thought he was the best receiver available and didn't get it when people talked about character issues he has. Now I get it. The worst part is that his agents haven't even made a fucking offer to the 49ers yet! I can't use exclamation points enough for this. Rookies need to sign and get on the field to play with their team.

Rookies in the NFL aren't special anymore and there are 10 other guys who can do exactly what you can as a rookie (in most cases). There's no difference in $42 million guaranteed and $48 million guaranteed but there is a huge difference in starting the season on the second unit on the depth chart and starting the season in the starting lineup. Throw in the fact he had a major-ish surgery before the draft, which may or may not have caused his stock to drop, and it is clear to me he needs to get on the field and play football.

Let him sit out the entire year and entire the draft. It's clear he and his agent haven't thought this through. The 49ers hold his rights until Draft Day. That means he can't go to the Combine again or do anything football related with other teams. He can do it on his own and let the media attend or he can send out in a press release what happened but he can't work for other teams and if a team is going to draft him, especially after he showed what an asshole he can be and his injury this past year, they are going to want to watch him play.

Michael Crabtree could very well be a great receiver but I am a firm believer a rookie has more to lose than to gain by holding out of training camp, especially a rookie wide receiver. The NFL isn't easy and it is important to be in training camp adjusting to the speed of the game. The 49ers may be desperate and give him a chance once (or if) he signs a contract to play with the first team but he has to learn the playbook and be out there with his teammates. He has the prima donna part of being an NFL receiver down, but now he just needs to prove he can actually play. He's an idiot right now though.

-I know from previous experience here that I seem to be one of the few people who cares about NCAA college basketball but that is not going to stop me from commenting on it. Dick Vitale has his preseason Top 40. Why Top 40 instead of Top 25 or Top 50? Because it is Dick Vitale and he does things his way I guess. I have gotten to the point I can't hear him call a game anymore because he spends so much time talking about other topics not related to college basketball, it is just annoying.

I have some problems with his preseason predictions...I admittedly am a little bit of a snob about college basketball. I don't know it all, because no one does, but I feel like I have a firm enough grasp of it to make predictions and be semi-accurate. Last year I predicted UNC would win the National Championship back in July 2008 (I said no one should beat them for the upcoming year, it's really the same thing I guess) and I basically beat the drum for them all year. That's a lot of pressure for me this year to predict correctly again.

1. Kansas:

I know everyone is awaiting my choice for National Champion but it is not as clear cut for me this year. If I had to choose right now, I would say Kansas is my choice, simply because they have experience at PG, a big man to rebound and control the paint and two athletic wing players in Henry and Taylor. It's a formula for success in college basketball. A lot of people talk about depth being important, but it is not as important if you have starters you can trust to not get tired or foul out. Kansas has a couple of guys off the bench they can count on and that's all you need to win a National Championship.

2. Kentucky

Putting aside the fact I hate Kentucky and John Calipari, I will try to be neutral. They have A LOT of talent on that roster and a lot of young talent, which sometimes can be a bad thing. I think #2 is a bit high for them because on some nights they are going to be on and other nights I can see them being a mess. I just don't know how they are going to keep all those players happy and give them shots. Calipari will find a way I am sure. I think the best part of the year will be to see the mass exodus of players from Kentucky to the NBA. Just off the top of my head Cousins, Wall, Patterson, and very possibly Daniel Orton will go pro.

3. Michigan State

They are not an elite team this year. I believe they overachieved last year and I see them as being more of a #8-#15 team. Of course I also didn't see them making the National Championship game last year.

5. Duke:

Same thing for these guys. They are consistently over ranked because people look at the name. They still have no big men, don't have a tough rebounding type player on the roster and have three total guards on the roster worth even putting on the floor, and one of them is a freshman and none are point guards. I would put them in the top 5 if they either had a big man worth a crap or a point guard at all on the roster. The fact is they don't, so Dick Vitale needs to quit jumping on the bandwagon, stop over ranking Duke, and face reality.

(One reason I hate the Interwebs, I wrote this last night and today the Big Lead put this up. They are much more widely read so it looks like I am copying them by saying this. How dare two people have the same point of view. This is America dammit!)

7. Villanova:

I love this team this year and would move them up into the top 5 in the preseason rankings. This is my #3 team in the country. They kept Stokes, Fisher, and Reynolds around and have a top 5 recruiting class coming in. Size may be a bit of a problem because the little skill size they have are freshmen but I really, really like this team. If you put a gun to my head I would say I have Villanova and Kansas in the National Championship game.

8. North Carolina:

Schedule them for a National Championship in two more years. The talent is still there this year and I think this is the right spot for them, they just need more experience.

10. Illinois:
11. Michigan:

I think Michigan deserves this spot but Illinois is over ranked here. Put them at #20 at the maximum because they had a good, not great class this past year. I don't see Illinois making this much noise this year even in a fairly weak Big 10.

15. Florida State:

This team has height on the roster to spare and that height has athleticism and talent. I do question whether Leonard Hamilton is the right coach. He let his team stand around and watch Toney Douglas a little bit too much last year. I would push FSU to #18-#20 for the year. Dick Vitale always over ranks ACC teams.

17. Syracuse
18. Mississippi State

I actually don't love Syracuse as much this year for some reason. I like that they actually recruited a young guy who made Paul Harris expendable in DaShonte Riley but otherwise I am not jumping up and down at this point. I think they hover in and out of the Top 25 this year.

I do like Mississippi State though, even if they did recruit the turd in human form Renaldo Sydney. If they can keep him under control then I can see MSU in the Top 15 all year.

20. Georgia Tech

They did get Derrick Favors who is going to be a one man wrecking crew this year but there is no fucking way they are a Top 20 team in the preseason. No way. After stinking up the ACC last year they are going to be a Top 20 team after one year? I don't see it happening.

22. Florida
23. Butler

I would move both of these teams up 5 or 6 spots. Butler and Florida are going to be Top 20 teams this year.

24. Ohio State
26. Boston College
28. Notre Dame

I don't even think Notre Dame is a Top 40 team this year. Move the other two teams back two spots because I don't think either team is good enough to be in the Top 25 either.

29. Clemson

They will move up to #12 after starting 15-0 like they do every year and then end the season out of the Top 25 near this spot.

30. Oklahoma State
33. Minnesota

Both these teams are better than this. I would move Minnesota into the Top 25. Tubby Smith can recruit and this year he has a team with depth but may lack a go to guy, which could limit their chances of winning a couple games and me moving them up further. I would even move Oklahoma State into the Top 15...maybe not all year but for 50% of the year. How's that for hedging?

35. Siena
37. Tulsa

Both of these teams should be in the Top 25 at many points during this year but will not make it as much as they should because of the conferences they play in. Then in the NCAA Tournament the same "experts" who refused to vote them into the Top 25 in the AP Poll will talk about how "dangerous" they are when going against a higher seed in the second round as a #7 or #8 seed. It happens every year and never fails to annoy me.

I noticed one big omission from this list and that was UCLA. I can't help but think they should be ranked in the Top 40 of this list. I put Indiana as my other sleeper team for this year. Yes, I realize I chose two teams that are big name programs but I think both of them are going to be better than expected this year.

I haven't seen any of these teams play yet, so I am sure they will make me look stupid and not fulfill my predictions. Please forgive me if I change my opinion on some of these teams as we get closer to the season as things change for each team and injuries occur. My goal is to get one person to actually care about college basketball. I think I can do it. I am not trying to make fans, just make people not skip over the occasional college basketball stuff on this here blog.

12 comments I Completely Disgree With This Article John Lopez Wrote

Whenever I start off a post with a compliment to a writer, then you know that is not good news for that writer's latest article. John Lopez has worked for CNNSI.com for a couple of weeks now I believe and he has written two articles. The first one I enjoyed and the second one I did not enjoy quite as much simply because I think it has a faulty premise behind it. There is something about CNNSI.com guys, they tend to read obscure blogs like this one, like Cliff Corcoran and Jeff Pearlman have done in the past, so I have some bizarre feeling that John Lopez is going to end up responding to what I write here. It sounds very egotistical of me and it probably is, but I get weird feelings like this sometimes. I just thought I would throw that out there before I start...

John Lopez thinks that middle linebackers are a dying breed in the NFL for several reasons. First the offenses are becoming less run based and teams are spreading defenses out which calls for faster players, they are not getting paid as much as other positions so he believes this means they are devalued, and because there are no Hall of Fame players at the position right now all playing together. At least that is what I assume from what he has written. Needless to say I completely disagree and what irritates me the most about this article is that he pretty much admits middle linebackers are not a dying breed by listing all the good young middle linebackers who could be great but ignores this and just keep on typing.

Picture in your mind the NFL's all-time most dominating defensive players.

You're probably seeing Ray Nitschke's bent nose, Mike Singletary's cutting stare, Dick Butkus' scowl. Maybe it's Jack Lambert's toothless growl, Junior Seau's wild eyes or Ray Lewis' ferocity.

Unless I am 50 years old, which I am not, I just think of Seau, Singletary, and Ray Lewis...but this is the one and only time I willl agree with John Lopez in this article.

But where have all the great middle linebackers gone? Once roaming wild, today dominating middle linebackers practically are on the verge of extinction.

That's the thing, the dominating middle linebackers have gone nowhere and he is wrong in this article. There are many dominating middle linebackers in the league today, it just so happens many of them are younger. John Lopez just listed six middle linebackers that are among the most famous of all time. Here is when they played:

Nitschke: 1958-1972
Butkus: 1965-1973
Singletary: 1981-1992
Lambert: 1974-1984
Seau: 1990-present
Lewis: 1996-present

What do they all have in common? Every decade two of them played in the NFL together at the exact same time. What that tells me is that though Lopez has listed 6 of the most dominating middle linebackers in history, they did not play in the same era, so it would be irrational to expect there to be a rash of 5 or 6 dominating linebackers right now at this time. Sure there were other dominating linebackers when these players played, but many others did not play at the same level as these. The middle linebacker has gone nowhere over the past couple of years, the trend has stayed the same that there are only a few dominating middle linebackers in the league at the same time.

I would in fact argue that even though middle linebackers are not the highest paid position anymore there are actually many great middle linebackers in the league now and the position could see many great players come from this generation. Right now, Ray Lewis, Jon Beason, Patrick Willis, DeMarco Ryans, and Brian Urlacher come to mind. That doesn't include guys who could be great like Aaron Curry (even if he doesn't rush the passer), Derrick Brooks (editor/author's note: As pointed out to me Derrick Brooks has always been an OLB, which I should have known since I called his teammate Barrett Ruud a MLB just below here. I am not Jay Mariotti so I don't cover up my mistakes but instead point them out.) who hasn't been signed for this upcoming year or players that will need to step up their play another level to be considered great like Stewart Bradley or Barrett Ruud. My point is there are great middle linebackers out there. It's not a dying position.

They have been replaced as feared game-changers by sleek rush-ends, massive defensive tackles and shut-down corners. Recent free-agent signings reflected as much, with Albert Haynesworth signing a seven-year, $100 million contract with the Redskins, Nnamdi Asomugha signing a three-year deal worth $15 million a year and Carolina's Julius Peppers signing a one-year tender worth more than $16 million.

I know what we should do! Let's take two exceptions to a rule and then try to pass those new exceptions off as a new rule! Also, let's pretend like the more money a player gets, the better that player is! Sounds like fun...

Haynesworth was WAY overpaid by the Redskins but I will give that example to Lopez here since this was market value for him. The other two examples of sleek rush-ends and shut-down corners getting all the money are exceptions to the rule. Peppers is only getting $16 million this year because he got the franchise tag on him, there is no way he gets that much money on the open market. Asomugha's contract has been absolutely vilified by GM's and other people around the league and there is no way he gets that much money on the open market. So while these three players are being paid greatly, I am not sure this is proof of the middle linebacker position dying.

Quick: Name the five best middle linebackers in the league today.

Beason, Willis, Lewis, Ryans, and Urlacher. That took me 5 seconds to type.

Baltimore's Lewis? Naturally. Chicago's Brian Urlacher? Of course. Patrick Willis of the Niners and DeMeco Ryans of the Texans? You would get an argument in some circles, but probably.

And ... and ... who else?

Well since we are listing the top 5 middle linebackers, I would say Jon Beason should be added to your list. If you ask for the top 5 at any position, you can only name 5. Just because the top players at the position are well defined doesn't mean the position is dying. Actually, the opposite is true. If there was actual debate about who the top 5 linebackers were in the league then that could very well mean there were no dominating linebackers. Hence the word "dominating" which indicates that person stands out from others.

I think the quarterback is a dying position...

Quick name the top 5 quarterbacks in the league today:

Brady, Manning, Warner, Cutler...

And who else? There could be an argument so the position is dying.

Most impact NFL middle-linebackers today are either relics, such as Zach Thomas and Tedy Bruschi, or hybrids playing the inside-linebacker spot in the ever-popular 3-4 defense, like Karlos Dansby and Bart Scott.

Ray Lewis does play in a 3-4 defense and Mike Singletary played in the 46 defense and Lopez included those two in his list of all-time greats. I don't really see how the defense being played and that linebacker's position in that defense can preclude him from being a dominating middle linebacker. It's not the most dominating middle linebacker in a traditional 4-3 defense, it's who is the most dominating middle linebacker overall. Ray Lewis actually doesn't play middle linebacker but he is still considered a middle linebacker.

Once the premier position on the defensive side of the ball -- the proverbial quarterback of the defense -- middle linebackers now are more like the tight ends of the defense. Or at least that's how they're paid.

I looked it up and could not get any statistics but I am pretty sure middle linebacker has not been one of the highest paid positions on the field ever. I am about 90% sure the skill positions always have been and always will be the highest paid positions on the field. I would also like to point out the franchise tag for linebacker is higher than that of the defensive tackle and very close to that of a defensive end. I am not sure if that really means anything.

Money earned is really a bad way to determine if a position has dominating players because there is always going to be positions that earn more money in football for various reasons. Just because the kicker position is the lowest paid position does not necessarily mean there are no dominating kickers, it just means teams are not willing to pay a lot of money for a dominating kicker. This article really has a faulty premise in my mind.

If you averaged the top-five salaries at every position on the field in 2008, the five highest-paid middle linebackers averaged $5.68 million. Only kickers ($2.24 million) and tight ends ($3.74 million) averaged less. Cornerbacks ($10 million), defensive tackles ($8.04 million) and defensive ends ($8.02 million) averaged significantly more among the five highest-paid players at their respective positions.

Hey, let's use misleading data to prove a point! The best middle linebackers in today's football game are still very young. Jon Beason, Patrick Willis, DeMeco Ryans, Stewart Bradley, Barrett Rudd, and Jerod Mayo are still on their rookie contracts. I may even be missing someone because it doesn't include Aaron Curry since he hasn't signed yet or anyone I have forgotten. Not to mention Ray Lewis just signed a smaller contract because he is at the tail end of his career. I would imagine once these six young players get their contracts extended the middle linebackers are going to have the average salary jump up a bit on average.

Not to mention the idea that the highest paid linebackers are also the best overall is also a faulty premise because of rookie contracts and teams overpaying for players at the position. I am not sure you can use money to show that middle linebackers are a dying breed. It may show how teams value them right now but it doesn't include the up and coming crop of middle linebackers, who are the top middle linebackers now, and the salary they will soon earn.

The position is going the way of the dinosaur for the same reason real dinosaurs disappeared. The landscape and climate have changed.

Football really hasn't changed that much. There have been new innovations in game planning but football is not being played while riding on horses and using a robot to kick a concrete ball around, so it is pretty much the same game.

The beginning of the end of the do-everything, Ray Lewis-type middle linebackers probably began with the advent of run-and-shoot and no-huddle offenses in the mid-1980s.

That doesn't mean there are no more dominating middle linebackers or that there were more dominating middle linebackers "back in the day." There are maybe only 3 or 4 dominating linebackers playing at the same time no matter what decade and today's game is no different.

Offenses have spread the field with four- and five-wide sets. There have been one-back and no-back sets. There have been spreads, wider line-splits and now more teams turning to the wildcat formation that extends the defense even more.

I would argue this had made the middle linebacker even more important than ever. Now there has to be a guy in the middle who can cover a tight end or even a receiver if need be, while still paying attention to the run. It's not as if teams are completely pulling linebackers off the field against the spread offense or the no-huddle offense. The Wildcat formation involves a running back or another skill position player running the ball many times. I think this is a situation where having a middle linebacker in the game is crucial. The Wildcat formation should not reduce the need for middle linebackers on the field.

Classic middle linebackers have been left in the three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust past.

I don't think so. The number of teams who are running a no-huddle offense or a spread offense in the NFL effectively is not that large of a number. Teams may go no-huddle at times during a game or use the spread offense at times during the game but you need an incredibly competent quarterback to run both those offenses and most teams don't have that. Teams still rely on running the ball for success and a great middle linebacker is still needed to stop the run.

Remember? I proved earlier dominating quarterbacks are a dying breed so it is hard for teams to effectively run a no-huddle or spread offense.

That's not to say there is no place for fierce players like San Francisco's Willis, Houston's Ryans or Carolina's Jon Beason. Teams still must stop the run in order to be successful.

So basically he has no point. Teams are going to have to stop the run so the middle linebacker is still going to be a position of necessity for football teams and the middle linebacker is not a dying breed...just a younger and less well paid breed as of now.

And middle linebackers have evolved as well, becoming faster and better in pass coverage without losing tackling punch. But those kinds of talents are rare.

As opposed to the 60's, 70's, and 80's when there were just a ton of guys like Jack Lambert, Mike Singletary, and Dick Butkus running around? There are only a few dominating middle linebackers in each decade and this decade is no different. I don't think the fact today's middle linebacker is required to cover more ground or cover a more diverse set of players is any proof they are a dying breed.

Sure, teams that don't have a dominating middle linebacker are having to sub for their normal middle linebacker on third down or another natural passing down, but that has been the case throughout the history of the NFL. It's not exclusive to today's NFL.

Spread offenses -- with quarterbacks constantly in the shotgun formation, running backs running laterally into pass routes and wide receivers all over the field -- have stressed the linebacking talent pool.

It's not uncommon on college football Saturdays to find safeties playing in the middle-linebacker spot, or not a single linebacker even on the field.

In natural passing situations, maybe...and I still don't think this happens a lot. I watch a lot of college football and I can't recall how many times I have seen a defense not have a single linebacker on the field. I have no way of researching this but I can't even recall a time when my favorite college football team had no linebackers on the field...and they are in a conference where there is a lot of passing done.

John Lopez is in love with taking the exception to a rule and just pretending that is the new rule. Again, I watch a lot of college football and usually see linebackers on the field during most of the game.

College defensive coordinators are forced to put five, six, seven defensive backs on the field. Players who could be NFL linebackers usually are forced to line up on the defensive line.

Players who could be NFL linebackers are "usually" forced to line up on the defensive line? Uusally is overstating the case. Maybe a few times a game...maybe. I am starting to question whether John Lopez watches college football. I can count on one hand how many times I saw a middle linebacker lining up on the defensive line in a game. College defensive coordinators will maybe put 7 defensive backs on the field a few times a game but every college football game I have ever watched has never shown this to be a trend. Again, you can't take something that may happen 5% of the time in a game and turn this new exception into the rule.

It also doesn't matter if could be NFL linebackers are forced to line up on the defensive line or anywhere else on the defense. That doesn't mean they won't be good NFL middle linebackers or even inside/outside linebackers in the NFL. Brian Urlacher was a safety in college and he turned out fine in the NFL. Not to mention the fact the players who could be NFL linebackers and line up on the defensive line are not going to be middle linebackers in most cases and will end up being 3-4 outside linebackers or hybrids of some fashion.

The position has become the most difficult to scout and project, because teams are speculating on whether a collegiate defensive end can play standing up, can tackle and pursue, or if an undersized safety or outside backer can bulk up and play inside.

Or scouts could just look at players who played middle linebacker during their college career and scout those players. That's how Jon Beason, Patrick Willis, Aaron Curry, and a number of other middle linebackers were scouted in the NFL. I don't know of a single middle linebacker currently playing in the NFL who was a defensive end in college. John Lopez has gone from talking about middle linebackers to linebackers overall. I am still talking about middle linebackers.

I don't mean to be rude but I think John Lopez is actually making things up here. College football teams have in no way eliminated the linebacker position and I don't think in any way the middle linebacker is the hardest position to scout. It is far below other positions like receiver, quarterback, and even defensive end. Most of the top players at the MLB position were MLB in college as well. Scouts do have to project if a defensive end could be a outside/inside linebacker in a 3-4 system or to make the switch to outside linebacker but that is not what we are talking about here. God, stay focused on the topic.

The last middle linebacker to enter the Hall of Fame was Mike Singletary, 11 years ago.

So the position has been a dying breed for a while now? Then how come Ray Lewis, Derrick Brooks (not a MLB but an OLB so he will go in as a OLB), and Brian Urlacher are all going in the Hall of Fame as MLB? Like I said earlier, every decade has 3 or 4 top players at the MLB position and it has always been that way. It's not dying, but reloading. There is also a waiting time before a player can be put in the Hall of Fame, so we have to take that wait into account as well for why there hasn't been a MLB inducted lately.

Take a good look at Ray Lewis. Take a mental picture. He is among the last of a dying breed.

Yes, until 2 or 3 of today's MLB go into the Hall of Fame in a few years, just like has happened over the past 40 years. It's not a dying breed, not at all.