Two weeks after furthering the idea in order to create diversity among NFL head coaches there should be blind resumes submitted when a head coaching vacancy occurs, Peter King wondered why white defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer doesn't have a head coaching job yet. I guess once the obvious candidates who "deserve" a head coaching job all get jobs, then the blind resume idea can be put to the test to improve diversity among NFL head coaches. Peter also encouraged his readers to Google or Bing something if they aren't smart enough to understand his pop culture references, in a bid to be as pretentious as possible. This week Peter talks about two AFC coaches who have health issues, finds out that Josh Freeman may not be the answer for the Vikings after having been on the team for three weeks, and reminds us the St. Louis Cardinals have the best fans just in case no one heard this in the past 24 hours. Also, you may not have heard but the Red Sox won the World Series and Peter is very happy about that.
I’m still trying to take it all in. We all are. What a day. What a night.
It wasn’t a heart attack, the club said, but in the wee hours of this
morning, doctors examined Kubiak to see exactly what it was—a stroke,
exhaustion, something else—as a city on edge with the October deaths of
local sports fixtures Bum Phillips and Bud Adams held its breath.
Kubiak is still relatively young, while Bud Adams and Bum Phillips were a lot older. I feel like there is an equivalency being made here that is probably a little bit off. Maybe not, but Kubiak is still in good health while Adams and Phillips were older. Both were 90 years old when they passed away. I would imagine the reaction to the death of Adams/Phillips as compared to the death of Gary Kubiak would be different. Seeing a middle-aged coach collapse on the field is completely different from two older individuals passing away.
In Denver, with 58-year-old coach John Fox lying in a hospital waiting
for surgery to replace a defective heart valve, executive vice president
John Elway negotiated into the night for an interim coach to fill in
for Fox for as long as he needs to convalesce. His target, presumably,
was defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio, the former nine-year coach of
the Jags.
Bruce Arians says the good news is the Denver Broncos now have something to rally around and maybe they can print some T-shirts and the Broncos team will start playing better and Peter King can attribute the Broncos success to the team rallying around John Fox. Tragedies present narratives and narratives are awesome.
In south Florida, in a matter of six days, the left side of the
offensive line vanished. The apparently excessively hazed left tackle
Jonathan Martin went AWOL Monday, and Sunday night just before midnight,
after a crazy day of charges and angry denials, the Dolphins suspended
left guard Richie Incognito (the angry deny-er) for his role in Martin
wigging out.
Who would have thought Richie Ingonito could ever bully anyone? It's not like he's considered a dirty player or anything like that.
Kansas City didn’t score an offensive touchdown Sunday
at Buffalo. But with the defense outscoring the kicker 12-11, the Chiefs
won 23-14, remaining the lone unbeaten team in football. After the bye,
9-0 KC will travel to Denver to play the Broncos, who will be close to
perfect (8-1) with a win at San Diego Sunday.
It's the Undefeated Bowl!...that won't be a bowl game nor a game between two undefeated teams. I'm happy for the Chiefs they are playing so well, but their success just can't seem to be sustainable. On a much scarier note, can you imagine the hoopla surrounding the Chiefs if Tim Tebow was their quarterback right now? Every win would be attributed to his leadership, his clutchiness and blah, blah, blah it would probably be unbearable. So I'm glad it's Alex Smith who has the Chiefs 9-0 and I am very, very excited to see the Chiefs play the Broncos. I have a feeling that is going to be the Chiefs first loss of the season.
And though the playoffs don’t start until two months from today, the
Panthers and Jets would be postseason teams if the derby started today.
Well, the playoffs don't start today so there is no point in speculating where each team would be in the playoffs since the season is only 50% over at this point. Both the Jets and the Panthers could not win another game this season.
How does this projected Wild Card Weekend of matchups look, based on
this morning’s standings (and do not tell me you had Peyton Manning and
Geno Smith as your office-pool picks for road AFC wild-card
quarterbacks):
BUT I DID PETER! I DID! You told me that the Broncos could be a wild card in the AFC because the Chiefs aren't going to lose a game this season and you will be completely ignoring the fact the Broncos still control their own destiny if they are able to beat the Chiefs in two weeks. So thanks to you, I had Manning as a road AFC wild card quarterback because there's no way the Broncos can win the AFC West this late in the season.
Cleveland, which now has the best division record in
the AFC North, continued to play like Believeland. The Browns beat the
3-5 Ravens for the first time since Joe Flacco’s senior season at
Delaware (2007), 24-18. That’s right. Flacco and John Harbaugh now know
what it feels to lose to the Browns. They’d been 11-0 against Cleveland
before Sunday.
If the Ravens only had Anquan Boldin then none of this would have happened. The Ravens would be 8-0 right now. Also, it's completely realistic to expect Joe Flacco and John Harbaugh to play the Browns twice a year for their entire Ravens career and never lose to Cleveland once. That's so realistic.
Seattle (8-1) trailed Tampa Bay (0-8) 21-0 in the
second quarter, and Bucs coach Greg Embattled Schiano (check his birth
certificate; I believe an official name change has happened)
orchestrated the funkiest touchdown play of the season in the process: a
jump-pass TD from running back Mike James to tight end Tom Crabtree,
the kind Tim Tebow used to throw. Fairy tales happen only in Tebowland.
Must...mention...Tim Tebow.
New England beat Pittsburgh in Foxboro, but the story
was more the Steelers’ loss, and the way the Steelers lost. New England
scored 55 points, the most ever allowed by Pittsburgh, and the Steelers
surrendered 610 yards to a team that, at game time, was searching for an
offensive identity.
It's amazing how a team's offensive identity can come back once that team's best offensive players are healthy once again. Shocking how this occurs.
Peyton Manning, Matthew Stafford, Calvin Johnson and Colin Kaepernick had byes this week. Sunday’s 11 games featured exactly none matching teams with winning records. And it’s a weekend we’ll never forget.
The Broncos, Lions and 49ers didn't have a bye this past week, these four players had byes and the rest of the team had to play. Either that or Peter King seems is substituting these players' names for their team's name, which annoys me.
Also, I'm terrible with grammar and run-on sentences, but shouldn't these last two sentences be one compound sentence? I would assume Peter's editor would decide to make this one longer sentence as opposed to a sentence and then a sentence fragment.
As of early this morning, Kubiak was with his family at a hospital eight
minutes from Reliant Stadium. The team has announced only that he is in
stable condition, is undergoing a battery of tests, has good vital
signs, and did not suffer a heart attack. I’m told he left the stadium
with a powerful headache, but we’ll have to wait for the diagnosis later
today.
Kubiak is going to have an even bigger headache once he learns the Texans allowed the Colts to come back and win the game.
Marc Vandermeer, the Texans’ radio voice, had just finished the first
half of the game and hustled out to get a halftime beverage when someone
told him one of the coaches was down on the field, and it appeared to
be Kubiak. “It was startling,’’ Vandermeer said early this morning.
“He’s in such great shape. I have seen him on vacation, floating down a
long, lazy river in central Texas, and he’s cut. He’s svelte. He really
takes care of himself.
A person can be cut and svelte and still not be in good physical shape. It's not like Reggie Lewis was a fat blob who could barely run down the basketball court. A person who appears to be in great physical shape can also have a heart problem or even a heart attack.
Keenum sprinted to the line, yelling, “SPIKE! SPIKE!’’ and using the
well-understood hand motion noting that he was about to spike the ball
on first down to stop the clock. With 39 seconds left and everyone
anticipating that, Keenum took the ball and threw immediately toward the
left side of the end zone for Andre Johnson. The touchdown stunned the
Colts and sent a record Reliant Stadium crowd into a frenzy.
If quarterbacks keep doing the "fake spike and then run a play" thing at some point an alert defensive player is going to rush the quarterback at the snap and knock the quarterback on his ass he tries to sneak a pass to a wide receiver. Then some coach is going to get pissy that his quarterback got knocked on his ass.
“People were so euphoric,’’ a glum Vandermeer said of that first half.
“We were watching a Texans quarterback do things we hadn’t seen before,
and bring such excitement to the stadium.
A Texans quarterback throwing an exciting touchdown pass at the end of the half being something the Texans crowd had not seen before doesn't say a lot about David Carr and Matt Schaub.
There will be cries for relief from the long hours coaches work, and we
should listen to those cries in the wake of what befell Fox and Kubiak
this weekend
Right, because no other 50-plus year old men have ever had any health issues they experience. It's a shame someone held a gun to Fox and Kubiak's head forcing them to be NFL head coaches.
But let’s also be cognizant of what it would take to, say, put a curfew
on coaches’ hours and make them live more normal lives. Many coaches
would simply install office facilities at home to get around what
strictures the NFL puts in place.
Yep. It's the life these coaches have chosen and worked hard to achieve. Let them police themselves, they are big boys.
But if the debate comes, let’s have it. If the Fox and Kubiak events
happened three months apart instead of one day apart, would we be
wondering if we should do something about the workaholic nature of
coaches?
I think the answer to this question is obvious. These guys are adults and if they want to spend their lives at the office let them do it. I really hope the NFL doesn't decide to put a curfew on coaches' hours.
When something like the Jonathan Martin story happens—a perfectly normal
football player cracks under some pressure, walks out on his team, then
has his representatives forward charges of what they claim document
harassment—the first instinct is to blame someone.
How about we blame some of the players that were harassing Incognito? I bet some of those players are Peter's best sources on the Dolphins team, so he won't blame them.
“When you play in the trenches,” Jets tackle Willie Colon said Sunday,
“you always want to see a younger guy earn his rite of passage. And
sometimes, that comes with either playing hard or doing what you’re
told, even though you may not want to do it—some people may label it as
hazing or whatever. But there is a fair line. And I was always taught,
growing up in the league, you respect everybody, because you never know
when you are going to need that one guy down the road.
Well, bullying a teammate isn't exactly respecting everybody.
The MMQB’s Jenny Vrentas asked Colon if “the right way” was a young
player paying $15,000 for a linemen trip to Las Vegas. “When I was in
Pittsburgh,’’ Colon said, “Mike Tomlin said something great: It’s unfair
to make a sixth-round guy pay for a $15,000 trip to Vegas when you have
your starting linemen making over two-point-something million
[dollars]. [Martin was a second-round pick.] He doesn’t have that money.
Guys don’t earn that money until later in their careers. To make a
young guy pay, that is very unfair, and it’s selfish because that man
has a family and people and other needs.
There's more of this from Colon. It's all meaningless drivel to me since Colon apparently has no idea what happened in the Dolphins locker room and can only make generic statements about what he believes is right and wrong. From what it sounds like it, it doesn't seem like this situation was about hazing or just giving a teammate a hard time. It sounds like Incognito was being an asshole on a consistent basis to Martin.
Incognito has toned down a wild on- and off-field life, and he was one
of five players elected by teammates to the Dolphins’ board of player
leaders; that board meets to discuss team issues with coach Joe Philbin.
But Incognito’s humor can have a very sharp edge. Did it cross the line
into hazing, or worse? That is up to the investigation to determine.
Some people are more sensitive than others. It's very possible Incognito was elected to the Dolphins' board of player leaders because no Dolphins player wanted to do it. I've been on a bunch of committees mostly because no one else wants to be on it and that doesn't mean I'm a leader or anything else dramatic like that. I'm sure if Jeff Fisher had chosen to coach the Dolphins as opposed to coaching the Rams then he would never have stood for this bullying to happen.
Adam Schefter reported this is the voicemail that Incognito left Martin in April 2013:
"Hey, wassup, you half n----- piece of s---. I saw you on Twitter, you
been training 10 weeks. [I want to] s--- in your f------ mouth. [I'm
going to] slap your f------ mouth. [I'm going to] slap your real mother
across the face [laughter]. F--- you, you're still a rookie. I'll kill
you."
I have a weird sense of humor, but that's some pretty sharp edge humor right there.
One last point: Philbin has to bear his share of blame here. He’s the
head coach. The buck stops with him concerning what happens in the
locker room.
While true, these players are still adults, and depending on whether Philbin knew of the issues or not depends on whether he could have done anything. It's very possible Philbin saw nothing wrong with the behavior of Incognito and any other Dolphins players, so because Jonathan Martin never complained then Philbin didn't think he had a problem.
But whatever the understanding is with a coach and his players, the
coach is ultimately responsible for player behavior getting out of hand.
Philbin is a very good man, but he needs to take firmer control of his
locker room. He needs to know when a Jonathan Martin is about to spin
over the edge. In this case, he didn’t, and it’s costing his team
dearly.
And while I agree, how is Philbin supposed to know that Martin is about to spin over the edge if he isn't informed or doesn't see behavior that would cause Martin to spin over the edge? It's early still, but I haven't heard anything about how Philbin was supposed to know Martin was being bullied.
When Nick Foles was about to take the field Sunday at Oakland, coach Chip Kelly said to him: “Sling it. Rip it. Feel the game.”
Seven words for seven touchdowns.
Ugh. This is not good.
“It’s a great honor to be up there with so many great quarterbacks, like
Peyton Manning [who threw seven on Sept. 5],’’ Foles said by phone
after the game. “But the most important thing is who I did it with. I am
so proud of Riley Cooper. So happy for him. I love Riley to death, and
he showed today how important he is to this offense, and how valuable he
is as a receiver.”
I thought this quote was really odd. After breaking the record for touchdown passes in a game Foles says he is happy for Riley Cooper? Seemed odd to me. I don't really care about Riley Cooper or what he said at a concert earlier in the year, but is Nick Foles trying to start some sort of redemption story for Cooper or something?
But I’ve maintained all along that Kelly doesn’t need a quick-twitch
quarterback with Mike Vick’s running ability to be a good quarterback in
this system. It’d be nice to have great athleticism, sure. But the most
important thing is a quick-twitch brain, with fast decision-making
ability and efficiency.
Plus, it would help if Foles got to play the Raiders secondary every week as well.
But now, to convince the brass, Foles needs consistency. He’s got seven
more game to show it—and to try to hold off his friend and competitor,
Vick, when he’s healthy enough to play in two or three weeks.
"Decades." I think the word that Peter is looking for her is when Vick is healthy enough to play in two or three decades...you know, because Vick is always injured it seems.
The Vikings are paying Freeman $2 million for 12 weeks of work, he’s
able to play, he’s been with the team for 27 days, and your other
quarterbacks are Christian Ponder and Matt Cassel. So how exactly is
Minnesota anything but a financial way-station on the way to another
team in 2014?
It's a little unrealistic to expect Josh Freeman to come in, learn the Vikings offense and then immediately thrive with the same one-dimensional offense that the Viking were expecting Christian Ponder and Matt Cassel to thrive in. I don't think $2 million was a bad investment to see what Freeman could do either. So as much as it pains me, I'm not sure how anyone could be hard on Josh Freeman for not learning the Vikings offense within a week and then immediately playing very well.
I was going to use a stronger word. But the suspension of their best
player, wide receiver Justin Blackmon, for the rest of the season is an
exclamation point on what a disaster the four-year reign of Gene Smith
(2009-12) as general manager was.
Smith made four top-10 picks in his tenure. Tackle Eugene Monroe (ninth
overall, 2009) was a marginal starter who was traded to Baltimore last
month. Alualu (10th, 2010) would be a backup on many NFL teams.
Quarterback Blaine Gabbert (10th, 2011) has been a disaster and may not
make the 2014 roster. And Blackmon (fifth, 2012) came into the draft
with one DUI charge and has had three more substance-abuse-related
occurrences since, the latest of which resulted in his banishment for
the rest of the season.
Well, that's not good. I'm going on a limb and saying the reason the Jaguars aren't a very good team right now is they haven't drafted well over the last four years. It's just a guess.
Fine Fifteen
1. Kansas City (9-0). Tweeted this Saturday night and
brought out the venom, but hey, facts are facts. When the Chiefs faced
opening-day third-string Buffalo quarterback Jeff Tuel Sunday in Orchard
Park (Matt Flynn would have been my choice), it was the fifth week in a
row that K.C.’s defense went against a quarterback who in training camp
was a backup. Ryan Fitzpatrick, Terrelle Pryor, Case Keenum, Jason
Campbell and Tuel.
The Chiefs have been very fortunate with the caliber of quarterback they have faced early in the season so far. It takes nothing away from the Chiefs because they can only beat the teams on their schedule, but I find it interesting Peter King seems to sort of know the Chiefs aren't the best team in football, but he puts them at #1 in his Fine Fifteen anyway.
2. Indianapolis (6-2). Any doubt left that the Colts made the right pick in the 2012 first round?
Not at all. Any doubt the Colts shouldn't have given up a first round pick for the #3 overall pick in the 2012 draft? I know, it has nothing to do with this discussion about how good Andrew Luck is, but I like to point out the Colts traded a first round pick for Trent Richardson.
5. New England (7-2). Good news: Four straight games of
27 points or more on offense. Bad news: Three of the last four foes
have scored 27 or more on what was supposed to be a much improved
defense.
Peter acknowledges the Patriots are missing Mayo, Wilfork and Talib, but how are the Patriots supposed to be a much improved defense without these players? I missed the proclamation the Patriots were improved on defense without these defensive players, especially since the run of allowing 27 points or more on defense coincides with these injuries to important defensive players.
9. Cincinnati (6-3). A leaky line, receiver drops, the
loss of Geno Atkins for the year. All in all, Thursday night’s 22-20
overtime loss to Miami was as bad a regular-season loss for all reasons
as the Bengals have had in recent years.
But they are my Super Bowl pick from the AFC. What could go wrong?
11. Carolina (5-3). Imagine, six weeks ago, seeing the Panthers handle Atlanta with ease and thinking: That’s absolutely what I expected. Football is a funny game.
But not funny like "The Office." That show was comedy gold every time, except for the times it wasn't.
Panthers are at the Niners and hosting the Patriots in the next two weeks. Now it’s getting serious.
By "serious" does Peter mean "Now the Panthers have to play teams with a winning record and oh shit that's not good because Ron Rivera can't win close games"? If so, then yes, things are about to get "serious."
12. Dallas (5-4). Tony Romo led a winning drive inside of three minutes. I mean, I’m just saying.
Don't ruin the narrative, Peter. Romo is a choker.
15. Philadelphia (4-5). Eagles at home: 0-4. Eagles on road: 4-1. Chip Kelly must be thrilled he’s taking the team to Green Bay next week.
Yes, I'm sure he's thrilled he is taking the Eagles to Green Bay to play Aaron Rodgers (scratch that, he's playing Seneca Wallace...which in reality is much more thrilling). The Eagles have played San Diego, Kansas City, Dallas and New York at home and have played Redskins, Giants, Broncos, Buccaneers and Raiders on the road. I would expect the Eagles to win at least three of those road games and maybe one of the home games. So I think it's a level of competition thing that has the Eagles winning on the road, but not at home.
Defensive Players of the Week
Lawrence Guy, defensive end, San Diego. Normally, if
you’ve been waived three times by age 23, you might be thinking, “Time
to find another line of work.” Not Guy. Cut once by Green Bay and twice
by Indianapolis, all in the last 15 months, Guy was signed by the
Chargers 26 days ago to provide roster depth at defensive end. He did
more than that on Sunday at Washington. In a scoreless game in the first
quarter, he blocked a chip-shot 25-yard field goal attempt. A few
minutes later, with Robert Griffin III pinned at his 1-yard line, Guy
batted a Griffin pass up in the air, and defensive tackle Sean Lissemore
intercepted it for a touchdown. Memo to Guy from Charger brass: You
don’t have to worry about being cut this year.
Really, Peter? Guy is fourth on the defensive end depth chart for the Chargers, has six tackles on the season, one pass defensed (the one described here), and zero sacks. I realize in a 3-4 the purpose of a defensive end isn't sacks and passes defensed, but Guy is a rotational defensive lineman and a special teams guy at-best. I can't imagine why he wouldn't have to worry about being cut this year if the Chargers find another defensive lineman they like better.
Coach of the Week
Mike Shula, offensive coordinator, Carolina.
He's put together a cohesive game-plan that takes advantage of his team's strengths for four games now! That's four weeks in a row he has done his job like he gets paid to do against zero teams with a winning record! What an amazing feat.
Shula’s taken his share of shots since walking in the door at Carolina
with Cam Newton in 2011. But his teaching and patience have paid off in
the past four weeks.
Mike Shula is a really good quarterbacks coach (but I don't think better than the Panthers current QB coach), but I don't think he's an offensive coordinator.
In the 16 quarters of the winning streak, Newton’s thrown two
interceptions. Both came Sunday, but the Panthers are good enough to
survive a couple of errors now.
But they really aren't. The team's weaknesses are being masked by a weak schedule over the last five of six games. The offensive line is average at-best and the secondary isn't good either. I have very little faith in Mike Shula and I think he looks smarter when going against inferior competition.
Goat of the Week
Sean Payton, coach, New Orleans. Eight minutes to
play, Saints down two scores (26-17) to the Jets, 3rd-and-1 at the New
York 36-yard line. Third down: incomplete pass to the fullback. Fourth
down: an end-around to the third-string tight end, Josh Hill. Loss of
eight. Jets take over on downs. There are times to shock the world with
cute. This was not one of them.
Gregg Easterbrook is going to have a field day with these two calls. I'm sure Gregg will criticize Payton for calling an end-around to a third-string tight end. This despite the fact Gregg will talk about how an NFL team was smart for using a little-used player in a key situation to surprise the defense. The bottom line is Sean Payton went for it on fourth down and this is supposed to inspire the Saints to play better and it didn't. I'm sure Gregg will also say the Saints should have "done a little dance" to get the first down.
“I’m not surprised. In fact, I’m a little surprised something like
this hasn’t happened before. If you’re mentally weak, you’re going to
get picked on.”
—Former NFL offensive lineman Ross Tucker, on the Jonathan Martin saga.
I'm not sure how to take this quote. I don't know if Ross Tucker is stating Martin had it coming (which I doubt, but it could read that way) or he is simply commenting on the realities of an NFL locker room. It feels kind of wrong to basically state Jonathan Martin was mentally weak, even if it could be accurate.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
So last Monday I detoured on my way to do some reporting on Kansas
City’s fast start this season and went to Game 5 of the World Series,
driving an hour west of St. Louis after the game so the morning trip
wouldn’t be so onerous. Stopped in Warrenton, Mo., at a Holiday Inn
Express, and checked in for six hours of rest. As I got my key, a family
of four—a dad, from the looks of it, and his three sons, from the looks
of it, about ages 7 to 16—entered the lobby about 90 minutes after
Boston’s 3-1 win over the Cards. The four guys looked crushed. All were
dressed in Cardinals stuff. The youngest boy was wearing a No. 6 Stan
Musial jersey, and he looked like he’d just lost his dog. All of them,
really, looked injured.
CARDINALS FANS ARE SADDER ABOUT THEIR TEAM LOSING THAN YOU ARE! THEY CARE MORE THAN YOU DO!
“Very, very tough,’’ the dad said.
I’ve always thought this, from numerous trips through the Midwest:
What great fans the Cardinals have. I really felt for these guys.
Way to be condescending to "feel" for the Cardinals after the Red Sox beat them in the World Series. I'm sure your feeling bad for them has really made Cardinals fans feel better about the World Series loss.
“Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but sounds like Jonathan Martin needs to punch somebody in the face.”
—@RossTuckerNFL, the former NFL offensive lineman, on the Miami
tackle who left the team after feeling overly hazed by teammates,
according to media reports.
I guess that answers that question about what Ross Tucker thinks. Though I'm not sure punching someone in the face is the right answer. I think there is a response somewhere between taking the abuse and punching someone in the face that would be appropriate.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 9:
g. The more I see San Diego wideout Keenan Allen—his moves, his
presence, his confidence, his hands—the more I think we’re seeing a star
in the making. Great touchdown catch.
I would be more impressed with Peter thinking he is seeing a star in the making in Keenan Allen if this thought didn't come after Allen had put up 26 receptions for 417 yards in the last four games.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 9:
a. I spoke too soon last Tuesday in saying what a good and varied
receiving corps the Bengals have. Unless you count three straight
first-half drops, the dagger of a drop by Mohammed Sanu, as fluky.
2013 has been the season of Peter speaking too soon so far. I think this is mostly due to Peter taking what happens one week during the NFL season and then deciding this one week's occurrence is the beginning of a long-term trend. Right now, Peter has the Broncos as a wild card team in the AFC. I'm thinking that's his next "spoke too soon" thought.
f. Work on your touch, Geno Smith. And when you’re throwing the ball away in the end zone, you’re allowed to run.
Maybe I'm inaccurate, but I feel like every week Peter has some sort of criticism or something he didn't "like" that Geno Smith did in his "things he thinks." Smith is a rookie quarterback whose best offensive weapons are Santonio Holmes, David Nelson, and Jeremy Kerley. Smith is going to make some bad throws, don't get on his ass about every single one. Smith may end up being a terrible quarterback, but nearly every week Peter talks about how Smith needs to get better at something. No shit. He's a rookie.
3. I think I had no clue an excellent writer, Nicholas
Dawidoff, shadowed the New York Jets for an entire season, 2011, and was
free to write a book about it. That book is due out later this month
(odd the book comes out 22-plus months after the season ends), and it’s
called, Collision Low Crossers: A Year Inside the Turbulent World of NFL Football.
This chunk, about the tension between Brian Schottenheimer’s offense and Mike Pettine’s defense, was interesting:
“On the Jets, where the defense was not only tough but original, there
was the growing feeling that Schottenheimer and his offensive players
were holding the team back from winning a championship. The previous
year, the Jets had begun their season with a game against the Ravens and
lost, 10-9. The Jets offense was one for 11 on third down and secured a
franchise-low six first downs.
What is this implication that the Mark Sanchez-led offense of the Jets was holding the Jets defense back? I don't believe it and have never heard tell of Mark Sanchez and the Jets offense ever not pulling their weight for the Jets team as a whole.
4. I think I never ask why teams allow writers all the
way inside. I’m just grateful some teams do. It can only help us further
understand a complicated game.
Well Peter, you got inside access to the Rams during draft time this year because your agent is the agent for Jeff Fisher and the father of Rams COO Kevin Demoff. The odds you would write something unflattering were very close to zero, so the team had nothing to lose by offering you inside access.
5. I think, when watching Robert Griffin III, I’m stuck
between thinking he’s not all the way back from 11-month-old knee
surgery and thinking he is seriously regressing as a quarterback.
This is why I don't think the read-option will necessarily ever go away, but any quarterback who can run the read-option is going to also have to throw the football successfully in order to be a great NFL quarterback. Griffin isn't 100% yet from his knee surgery and he doesn't quite have the receivers he needs to be the passer I think he could be nor has he been forced to develop the skill set at the NFL level, as of yet, where he is comfortable throwing the football without the threat of the read-option being there for the defense to be concerned about.
6. I think, speaking of alarms sounding over the play of RG3, this from Washington Post
columnist Sally Jenkins last week: “He has created fundamental tension
on an offense that is disjointed from catering to him and his operatic
personal demands about how he wants to play.” Yikes.
In fairness to Griffin, it was really smart for the Redskins to build the offense around him last season. Building the offense around Griffin got the team to the playoffs. I do enjoy the media starting to tear down Griffin a little bit this year after he starts to struggle during his second season in the NFL after coming off major knee surgery. That's always fun to watch. Build them up and then tear them down. The media wasn't so worried about Griffin's operatic personal demands this summer when they reported on his knee surgery rehab as breathlessly as Griffin provided information about his knee surgery rehab.
9. I think it’s amazing, with all the talent at
quarterback bursting from college football, that if NFL people could
have one quarterback out of college football right now, they might well
take Florida State quarterback/closer/outfielder Jameis Winston, who has
played eight college games.
This really isn't amazing because scouts like a player whose imperfections they haven't found yet. Give NFL scouts a year and they won't like Winston as much as they did this season. It happened to Matt Barkley, is happening to Jadeveon Clowney, and if Andrew Luck wasn't so damn perfect it would have happened to him too.
Scouts love a player until they can find something wrong with him by micro-critiquing everything he does, at which point they can only see the flaws.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
Red Sox thoughts of the week basically. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Remember a couple of years ago when Peter said his brother-in-law was thinking of getting rid of his Red Sox season tickets because of how the season ended? How quickly things turn around.
a. A few notes about the Red Sox winning the World Series—those who are
so inclined and who hate when I riff about baseball can skip the next 10
items.
As opposed to putting all of his Red Sox thoughts into one item, Peter has 10 Red Sox thoughts and puts them in 10 separate items. Why? Because.
Boston won 3-1, and I walked out of Busch Stadium thinking: This is the
first time in my life the Red Sox are good because of pitching.
During 2013 season the Red Sox were 14th in team ERA, 3rd in quality starts, 10th in batting average against, 15th in OPS against, and 15th in WHIP.
During the 2004 season the Red Sox were 11th in ERA, 5th in quality starts, 4th in batting average against, 3rd in OPS against, and 2nd in WHIP.
During the 2007 season the Red Sox were 2nd in ERA, 9th in quality starts, 2nd in batting average against, 2nd in OPS against, and tied for 1st in WHIP.
This year the Red Sox offense was 1st in runs, 2nd in hits, 6th in home runs, 2nd in batting average, 1st in OBP, 1st in OPS, 3rd in walks, successfully stole 87% of the times they tried to steal a base, and 1st in extra-base hits.
But yeah, not only is this the first time the Red Sox are good because of pitching and it's the pitching that made the Red Sox good. Sure Peter, that's a reality.
d. When did Jon Lester turn into Whitey Ford?
He didn't.
Actually, by asking when Lester turned into Whitey Ford does Peter mean cheat like Whitey Ford cheated or become a great playoff pitcher like Whitey Ford was?
h. If that’s it, Jacoby Ellsbury, and you’re gone, good luck. You
deserve success and a pot of gold. (Though I wouldn’t pay ridiculous
money for him; too risky an investment with all the games missed.) I’d
like to see Ellsbury in Seattle, both for his sake to be close to his
home in Oregon and for a starving franchise’s sake.
Right, because nothing will turn the Mariners around faster than overpaying for an injury-prone outfielder.
The Mets? I guess. But that’s the place too many careers go to die in free agency.
Wow, harsh words from the guy who two years ago was cursing the day the Red Sox signed John Lackey and Carl Crawford.
o. Coffeenerdness: So, in the Starbucks at 55th and Lexington in
Manhattan the other day, late afternoon, I’m in line for a coffee, and
there are two boys in bright orange hoodies, maybe 13, behind me.
Here comes the twist: Peter shot both of them to death because he was scared of them wearing hoodies and felt like standing his ground.
One says to the other: “You have not lived until you get a cotton candy
here.” I’m wondering what in the world that is. They get to the head of
the line and order two grande cotton candies. My curiosity gets the
better of me, and I ask the one kid what that is. The effervescent kid
says: “It’s a secret drink Starbucks has for kids. A vanilla frap with
raspberry syrup.” The barista, making the thing, says to me, “You want
to try it?” I say sure, and the kid says, “DON’T GIVE HIM ANY OF MINE!”
How cute.
No, not how cute. How fucking precocious of them. This is the perfect time for Peter to use his favorite word "precocious." Maybe Peter only uses the word "precocious" to refer to adults, which ruins the entire purpose of the word as I understand what it is intended to mean.
s. Hope new Celtics coach Brad Stevens has the patience for a four-year rebuild.
If the Celtics have the money, Stevens has the patience.
The Adieu Haiku
Jonathan Martin
raises the hazing issue.
And we must listen.
I'm not sure what's up with this new tiny font for the Adieu Haiku, but I have to think it is the work of Peter's editor who wants to try and hide it as much as possible, fully knowing how annoying the adieu haiku can be to readers.
Showing posts with label mythbusting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mythbusting. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
5 comments But I Thought Only Really Tall Players Could Play In The NFL?
We here at Bottom of the Barrel just absolutely love little guys. We love small, gritty, hustling type of players (all white of course...at least in baseball. Not because we are racist but because only white guys are given the term of being "gritty" and "talent maximizing" except for Juan Pierre for some reason.) who maximize their talent but can never maximize the amount of love we can have for them and their effort. After all, we do sponsor the David Eckstein page at Baseball Reference and he is our official/unofficial mascot for this blog. Ok, maybe we like these guys more tongue-in-cheek than anything else.
One thing we definitely don't like though is journalism that talks about little guys because the author of said journalism always ends up making the little guy sound more special or important than he truly is. In the face of these sportswriters who write puff pieces on them, anything positive these players do is a smack in the face to the insurmountable odds they face on a daily basis. Mostly, you find this type journalism in baseball and it always refers to the player "grinding out at bats" or "not having that much talent, but what he lacks in talent he makes up for in heart." Suffice to say, I find it annoying because they are puff pieces that acts as if these players are not world class athletes, which in many cases they are. In the case of David Eckstein he is given by sportswriters the mysterious ability to affect his team in a positive way with his mere presence on the field.
Today, Sam Farmer introduces a new concept to everyone, the idea that short people are not supposed to be able to play football very well, and those that do are real odds beaters. It's like a cliche wrapped in a hyperbole. The title is "They're the Little Big Men Of the NFL." I want to give credit to Fred for finding this article and being kind enough to pass it along to me. Therefore I didn't have to do any work, other than just mock the author and disagree with him, which is how I prefer going about my business.
Some of the NFL's tallest timber this season are mere bonsais in comparison to their football counterparts.
This is different from every other NFL season when every single NFL player has been 6-foot-3 inches and taller. This is really why the NFL wants to expand it's games to the international arena, so they can secure smaller football players. All we have here in America are tall failed basketball players to choose from for our NFL teams. A great example of this is the completely unknown and unpublicized Antonio Gates.
The league leaders in touchdowns (Maurice Jones-Drew), yards rushing (Chris Johnson), receptions (Steve Smith) and sacks (Elvis Dumervil) are all sub-6-footers.
Holy shit. This must not be a coincidence of any type and must be the beginning of a trend! Alert anyone who is anyone and tell them all about this new trend of short people taking over the NFL. Where's Muggsy Bogues when you need him?
Steve Smith of the New York Giants is 5-foot-11 inches tall so it's not exactly like he is a midget out there. This is like someone claiming they aren't overweight because they weigh 400 pounds but are tipping the scales at 390. They may as well be 400 pounds and Steve Smith may as well be 6 feet tall. He is one inch off of 6 feet tall and is taller than the average man's height in the world.
Same thing for Chris Johnson. He is 5-foot-11 inches, so he may as well be 6 feet tall. There isn't a huge difference. I feel like Sam Farmer was just cruising the NFL statistics one day desperately trying to find an article to write since there is no Los Angeles NFL team and just decided he may as well give up trying to find an actual interesting article to write and write a "short people are taking over the world and are gritty too" article.
You can include Elvis Dumervil in this discussion of players who may as well be 6 feet tall. He is also 5-foot-11 inches tall. That's not exactly short, even in the realm of football. Maybe for a pass rusher he is short, but he is also a standup linebacker so he isn't just responsible for sacking the quarterback.
And at 6 feet, New Orleans star Drew Brees, a most-valuable-player candidate, is the NFL's shortest starting quarterback.
What else does Brees, Jones-Drew, and Dumervil have in common? They were all drafted later than their skill set shows they should have been drafted because they were short. Does this mean the NFL hates short players or does this mean these are incredibly skilled athletes who just happen to not be "tall enough" to play in the NFL yet will have success because they are skilled? I vote for the second option, though the NFL does hate short players sometimes. If given the choice between a potential-laden unproductive taller receiver and a potential-laden productive shorter receiver, the team will usually always choose the unproductive, taller receiver.
Since we are having fun with numbers and Sam Farmer is claiming that short people are taking over the NFL, let's take a brief look at the height of the Top 5 players as of Sunday November 15, 2009 in passing yardage, rushing yardage, sacks and receiving yardage. Then we will take a brief look at the Top 5 all-time leaders in each of those categories, just to give a frame of reference.
There have always been shorter NFL players in the league. It's not like this is the first year really short players have led the league in defensive or offensive categories. Emmitt Smith wasn't exactly the tallest guy and he seemed to do fine in the NFL, just like guys like Marvin Harrison aren't the tallest guys in the NFL. Little guys are not taking over the NFL. Yes, there are certain players who are so supremely talented it doesn't matter how tall they are, they are still going to be quality NFL players, but I don't know if this 10 week sample is the beginning of a league-wide trend.
There is no reason to write puff pieces about little guys as if every statistical category in the NFL is being taken over by little people AND it should not be shocking there are guys who aren't tall that can lead the NFL in any statistics. I would agree NFL teams look for taller players now more than they used to, but that doesn't necessarily mean taller players are better players...which is what this article is just assuming. Basically this article is worthless any way I look at it. On to the statistics that show the Top 5 in the NFL in passing yards, rushing yards, receiving yards and sacks:
Passing yardage:
Matt Schaub: 6'5"
Peyton Manning: 6'5"
Tom Brady: 6'4"
Jay Cutler: 6'3"
Drew Brees: 6'0"
Obviously in regard to passing yards and being an quarterback in the NFL, Drew Brees is in the minority in being as short as he is for a quarterback (though he isn't short), but Brees is 6 feet tall so its not exactly like he is a midget.
Let's look at the Top 5 passing yard leaders of all-time:
Brett Favre: 6'2"
Dan Marino: 6'4"
John Elway: 6'3"
Warren Moon: 6'3"
Fran Tarkenton: 6'0"
Most of the most successful quarterbacks of all-time have been 6 feet or taller. Because Drew Brees is 6 feet tall, I would say he fits into this category pretty well. He's shorter for a quarterback but it's not like he is Doug Flutie back there. Really, his height and success in the NFL is not a revelation or too shocking to anyone...except to Sam Farmer.
Obviously when I compare the Top 5 of all-time in each category to the Top 5 ten weeks into the 2009 NFL season I know it is a fairly flawed sample. I just want to show everyone that none of the players Sam Farmer mentions (which are Steve Smith (NYG), Chris Johnson, Elvis Dumervil, and Drew Brees) has height that sticks out in any fashion. Basically the height of the players Farmer mentions as leading the league this year doesn't stand out too greatly from some of the players in the past who have accumulated great statistics.
Rushing yardage:
Chris Johnson: 5'11"
Cedric Benson: 5'11"
Steven Jackson: 6'2"
Adrian Peterson: 6'1"
DeAngelo Williams: 5'9"
Let's look at the all-time leaders in rushing yardage:
Emmitt Smith: 5'9"
Walter Payton: 5'10"
Barry Sanders: 5'8"
Curtis Martin: 5'11"
Jerome Bettis: 5'11"
In fact Chris Johnson is probably taller or as tall as many of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL. From this information I can assume height has never really caused a running back in the NFL to be disadvantaged in any fashion from what I see here. Obviously really short running backs, which Barry Sanders would be one of these, are more of an anomaly. Most really short running backs can be used as a change-of-pace running back, because it is assumed smaller running backs can stand the pounding a larger back could stand. Still, 5'10" is considered a larger back, so it's not like a player has to be a giant at the running back position to be considered tall. In fact, for running backs, being tall may actually hurt them in some cases.
Receiving yardage:
Andre Johnson: 6'3"
Reggie Wayne: 6'0"
Vincent Jackson: 6'5"
Steve Smith (NYG): 5'11"
Randy Moss: 6'4"
I tackled this issue previously on this blog when Andrew Perloff insisted that 6'5" inch receivers were a necessity for a player to be successful, which I believe I sufficiently disproved. Let's look at the Top 5 receivers of all-time.
Jerry Rice: 6'2"
Tim Brown: 6'0"
Isaac Bruce: 6'0"
James Lofton: 6'3"
Marvin Harrison: 6'0"
Steve Smith (NYG) is 5 feet-11-inches tall. Three of the top receivers of all-time are 6 feet tall even. I don't consider that one inch to be terribly important as to cause a receiver a disadvantage in football. The wide receiver position is a position where height is more important than at any of the other positions we are talking about here (except defensive end), but to indicate a 5 foot-11-inches tall player is beating the odds because of his height is just incorrect.
Sacks:
Jared Allen: 6'6"
Elvis Dumervil: 5'11"
James Harrison: 6'0"
Dwight Freeney: 6'1"
Antwan Odom: 6'5"
As you can see, the top sack leaders for this year have been tall individuals for the most part. This is probably because they have to be bigger to deal with the bigger offensive linemen. Now if you will notice the two smallest individuals on this list are both guys who play a standup linebackers in a 3-4 system. I don't want to generalize, but most of the time these guys are blitzing and are able to use their speed to try and get to the quarterback, as well as sometimes dropping into coverage.
So neither Harrison or Dumervil can lumbering big guys due to the fact their job responsibilities vary more than a normal defensive ends would. What I am trying to say is that Dumervil is impressive in how many sacks he has accumulated for how tall he is, but he also isn't a traditional defensive lineman so it may be difficult to compare him to a traditional 4-3 defensive lineman.
Bruce Smith: 6'4"
Reggie White: 6'5"
Kevin Greene: 6'3"
Chris Doleman: 6'5"
Michael Strahan: 6'5"
Historically the more successful down linemen have been bigger guys and that is because they generally have to deal with bigger offensive linemen. So the smaller a guy is, the worse chance he has generally of going one-on-one with an offensive lineman and winning the battle.
So from the preliminary look we have learned that Sam Farmer really is incorrect in assuming little guys don't have the opportunity to succeed in the NFL. Little guys with skills will always have a chance to succeed even at the quarterback, running back, wide receiver, and at certain defensive positions. His revelation that the NFL is just now seeing that little guys can contribute is also mostly incorrect because the NFL has always noticed this. Granted, smaller guys may not be traditionally drafted as high as the "prototype" player at each of these positions, but the history of the NFL is littered with examples of well-skilled little guys who have succeeded in the NFL.
From 5-foot-6 Darren Sproles in San Diego to 5-8 Ray Rice in Baltimore,
I have always been a little irritated by the Darren Sproles obsession many NFL analysts and sportswriters seem to have. I like Darren Sproles but he is paired up with one of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL in LaDainian Tomlinson. It's not like he has to be the feature back for the Chargers. Believe it or not, Sproles has touched the ball 297 times TOTAL in his entire NFL career. To put that in perspective Tomlinson has had a career low of carries last year with 292 rushing attempts. Tomlinson has had more carries and receptions in one year in EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF HIS CAREER than Sproles has had in his entire 5 year NFL career.
Sproles is a change of pace back, pure and simple. I know it sounds like I am demeaning him as a person and player, but he is a great change of pace back, but that's all he is. Let's not act like he is out there carrying the ball 25 times in a game. Sportswriters like Sam Farmer can never let reality get in the way of a good story, so of course Sproles is going to be portrayed like he is the feature back for the Chargers, which isn't true. He is a valuable player, but he isn't built to be a franchise back at 5'6".
from 175-pound DeSean Jackson in Philadelphia to 185-pound Wes Welker in New England, pros all around the country are proving there's a place for the little man in America's biggest game.
DeShaun Jackson is 5-foot-10 inches and Wes Welker is 5-foot-9-inches. Really their weight should have nothing to do with whether they are "big" or not. Randy Moss is a thin guy but that doesn't make him small.
"What we've seen is as the players in the league get bigger and bigger, some of these smaller guys who have great quickness are almost impossible for some of these big guys to catch," said NBC's Cris Collinsworth, among the NFL's taller and lankier receivers when he played.
What Collinsworth means by "what we've seen" is what we have seen through the entire history of the NFL and not just this specific season. Little guys have often done well in the NFL, it's not like this 10 week season is showing a complete revolution in how football players are viewed.
"These guys were almost forbidden fruit at one time for NFL guys. They loved them when they saw them, they'd watch them on tape and say, 'Gosh, look how fast and quick this guy is, but he's only 5-7 or 5-8.'
I don't know what is up with this fairy tale "once upon a time" stuff because this type stuff still goes on. The reason Ray Rice went in the 3rd round is because he was too short. DeShaun Jackson would have been a Top 15 pick if he were a little taller. DeAngelo Williams re-wrote record books at Memphis but he lasted longer than other running backs in the 1st round because he was only 5'9" and was seen as not durable. This still happens and the reason is that for every DeShaun Jackson who got drafted too low because of his height, there are 3 other short guys who actually couldn't have made it in the NFL because of their height.
The knock on Glenn Dorsey coming out of college was the he wasn't extremely tall (he is allegedly 6'1" but I recall that height being slightly disputed) and he hasn't exactly blossomed quite yet in the NFL. He seems to be catching on a little bit more this year, though I also believe he got switched to a defensive end in a 3-4 system which has helped him, while previously he was playing defensive tackle in a 4-3. Could the reason he struggled in the beginning be because he is not a huge guy (comparatively)? It could be. It's about talent, not height at the end of the day.
But this season, it seems, in a league where 6-7 tackles are commonplace and 300 pounds is a jumping-off point for linemen, the number of pint-sized playmakers is remarkable.
There is absolutely no comparison that can be drawn between how offensive linemen are huge now and how running backs don't have to be so huge. They aren't related and the fact there are big offensive linemen doesn't make smaller players more remarkable. It's not like a running back has to block an offensive tackle, generally he has to run behind him so there is no correlation in remarkability that one position is getting bigger while the other is not. Simply because there is a trend in the NFL at one position doesn't mean the trend is taking place at every position. Because teams are looking for heavier and taller offensive linemen doesn't mean this is going on at every position in the NFL. Teams want taller guys at some positions but that doesn't mean the entire NFL is looking to get taller necessarily.
Former NFL coach Jon Gruden, now a "Monday Night Football" commentator, said part of that is because of more spread formations that allow skill-position players such as running backs and receivers to operate in open spaces rather than the more confined spaces of more traditional schemes.
What a great way for Sam Farmer to muddle his own point all up by acknowledging part of it has nothing to do with the player. So it's not that the NFL has smaller guys who are more talented, it's that the schemes are allowing smaller guys more chances to show their skills? So basically Sam Farmer wants us to just ignore everything he is saying when he talks about the influx of "little" talent and pay more attention to how the schemes of coaches have made the players successful.
"Hey, you know all this stuff I have said about new, talented little guys doing well in the NFL? Well, it turns out there have been guys who have excelled in the NFL in the past who were as tall as these guys and it's not really the players, but the schemes that are causing the little guys to lead the NFL in some of these categories. But hey, what's up with those USC Trojans?"
"With the introduction of all these spread offenses where you're seeing shotgun formations, one-back sets, wide receivers, tight ends and backs spread all over the field, there are needs and traits that guys are looking for. Guys who can work in space and use their quickness."
Again, so it's the NFL that's changing and not the players? What happened to all this talk about little guys in the NFL changing the landscape? It sounds to me like the landscape changed in the NFL and allowed the little guys to be successful.
Denver's Dumervil, the league's shortest defensive end at 5-11, has 10 1/2 sacks. That ties him for the NFL lead with Minnesota's Jared Allen, who is 7 inches taller.
Sam Farmer is kind of trying to compare apples and oranges here. Dumevil is a defensive end in passing situations, but he is a standup 3-4 linebacker in most other situations. Jared Allen is a defensive end in a 4-3 scheme where his job is to get to the quarterback, while Dumervil has other priorities at times in the 3-4 scheme he plays in. Kudos to Dumervil for having 10.5 sacks but he and Allen have slightly different job responsibilities to just blindly compare them.
To compare Allen and Dumervil is like comparing LaDainian Tomlinson catching 65 passes in a season and Randy Moss catching 63 passes in a season and then saying that Tomlinson is as good of a receiver as Moss because they caught nearly the same amount of passes. Well yes and no. Tomlinson has a different responsibility when he has to catch the ball compared to the responsibilities of Randy Moss, which makes it harder to compare the two players.
"When you're smaller, a lot of people look down on you and think you can't get the job done because of your size," said Pittsburgh Steelers running back Stefan Logan,
Who? Is this Stefan Logan the same Stefan Logan who has zero carries and zero catches on the year? The Stefan Logan who is primarily a kick returner, a good kick returner, but just a kick returner nonetheless? I know he is a little guy and all of that but he also has never carried the ball in the NFL. He's not exactly a Jackie Robinson-type example for other short people who want to play football to follow. Again, all due respect to Stefan Logan I am pretty sure short guys returned kicks prior to him making it in the NFL.
Mel Gray is 5'9," Dante Hall is 5'8," and Allen Rossum is 5'8." They all returned kicks with success in the NFL. I could go on but you get my point. Logan is short, but short guys have returned kick offs and punts prior to him being in the NFL.
At the University of South Dakota -- where he might never have been recruited if not for a highlight tape his dad helped him compile -- Logan earned the nickname "Joystick" for his rub-your-eyes speed and dazzling abilities with the football in his hands. He set school records in yards rushing (5,958) and all-purpose yards (7,859), but still had to prove himself for a year in the Canadian Football League before the Steelers came calling.
I find it deeply ironic that Sam Farmer is writing an article about how short guys are finally getting a chance to contribute in the NFL and he uses as one of his examples a guy who has accumulated no NFL stats on offense and his only football opportunities outside of returning kicks was in the CFL and as a lightly recruited kid who went to the University of South Dakota. I would think Farmer would want to interview someone who actually has shown little guys can contribute on a regular basis in the NFL on offense or defense, but I guess I would think wrong.
What I find also interesting is that Sam Farmer is acting like short NFL players have never been given the chance before this year to do anything in the NFL. There have been plenty of short guys who are fast and can return kicks, so what makes Stefan Logan so special, other than the fact Sam Farmer wants to force this "little guy" angle down our throats and Logan consented to an interview?
Of course, there are distinct advantages to being a smaller player...In Baltimore, where the average height of those linemen is almost 6-5, Rice can vanish behind a wall of blockers a head taller than he.
This is absolutely true, which is why the NFL has had other running backs like Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders have success in the NFL. Seriously, there really have been other height challenged players who succeeded in the NFL prior to this year. As we saw above, most of the NFL greats at the running back position have been below 6 feet tall. As we saw above in regard to the current Top 5 running backs in rushing yards, "smaller" running backs are still the norm. Tall running backs are not a bad thing at all, but the NFL tends to have a problem with exceptionally tall running backs because it is perceived they can be tackled by their legs easily or don't have the quickness a shorter running back does.
What makes running backs like Brandon Jacobs and Steven Jackson so hard to tackle is that they are just so damn big coming from the running back position. Running backs have traditionally not all been 6 feet tall, but many successful running backs have been between 5'9"-5'11" tall and they are generally smaller, sturdy built guys who can run the ball effectively behind the offensive line.
The smaller, smaller running backs generally are 5'5"-5'8" feet tall and are "change of pace" backs that are in there to run around the edges and get in open space. This generally has not changed. No matter how much we would like to believe it has, the most popular example of Darren Sproles shows that this really hasn't changed. Though Sproles had a wonderful playoff game last year, he is still used as a change-of-pace back for the Chargers.
In San Diego in January, after Sproles amassed 328 all-purpose yards in a playoff victory over the Colts -- the third-highest total in NFL playoff history -- Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers was asked a tongue-in-cheek question:
Could he tackle Sproles if the two were locked in a broom closet?
Philip Rivers shouldn't have to tackle anyone anywhere because he is a quarterback. I know the question was tongue-in-cheek but Rivers is not really supposed to know how to tackle.
"No," Rivers said with a smile. "Or a phone booth."
I get it! Darren Sproles is Superman! His 1,386 total yards from scrimmage (yes, that is all he has totaled) for his career is just an incredible amount that no one will ever be able to match. Unless you want to count his own teammate LaDainian Tomlinson or many of the other running backs in the NFL.
And considering some of the running back's Superman-like performances, you occasionally get the feeling Sproles just might know where the nearest phone booth is..
Let's look at the Superman-like numbers. Sproles is 58th in the NFL in rushing yardage behind guys like David Garrard, Aaron Rodgers, Glen Coffee, Jerome Harrison, and just ahead of Jamaal Charles. Again, I like Sproles but this isn't as impressive as many in the media would make you believe he is. I know he is stuck behind Tomlinson, but I can't argue with his statistics.
Sproles is tied for 76th in the NFL in receiving yards with Dustin Keller and behind immortals such as Jabar Gaffney, Josh Morgan, and Justin Gage...but he is still ahead of Terrell Owens.
Sproles game log is here. Tell me when you find a Superman performance. Let's not lower our standards simply because he is short. Sproles is a great change-of-pace back but that's really all he is. He is a weapon for the Chargers but he isn't changing the way the NFL running back is perceived.
Long story short (get it?) there have been shorter players in the NFL in the past, this year is no different, and there will be shorter NFL players in the future. The success of the players is because of their skill, not necessarily because of how tall they are. There have been successful players at many of the skill positions in the past in the NFL, just because shorter guys are leading the league this year in some categories doesn't make this a new, huge, important trend. Also, 5-foot-11 inches is not short for a wide receiver or a running back. That's just stupid to think.
These "shorter" NFL players are not any more spectacular than the other NFL players who have succeeded in the NFL simply because they are short. They still have NFL level skills and that is all a player really needs to find a place in the NFL on a team. Little guys aren't really coming up any bigger this year than they have in the past and there is never an excuse for a little guy puff piece.
One thing we definitely don't like though is journalism that talks about little guys because the author of said journalism always ends up making the little guy sound more special or important than he truly is. In the face of these sportswriters who write puff pieces on them, anything positive these players do is a smack in the face to the insurmountable odds they face on a daily basis. Mostly, you find this type journalism in baseball and it always refers to the player "grinding out at bats" or "not having that much talent, but what he lacks in talent he makes up for in heart." Suffice to say, I find it annoying because they are puff pieces that acts as if these players are not world class athletes, which in many cases they are. In the case of David Eckstein he is given by sportswriters the mysterious ability to affect his team in a positive way with his mere presence on the field.
Today, Sam Farmer introduces a new concept to everyone, the idea that short people are not supposed to be able to play football very well, and those that do are real odds beaters. It's like a cliche wrapped in a hyperbole. The title is "They're the Little Big Men Of the NFL." I want to give credit to Fred for finding this article and being kind enough to pass it along to me. Therefore I didn't have to do any work, other than just mock the author and disagree with him, which is how I prefer going about my business.
Some of the NFL's tallest timber this season are mere bonsais in comparison to their football counterparts.
This is different from every other NFL season when every single NFL player has been 6-foot-3 inches and taller. This is really why the NFL wants to expand it's games to the international arena, so they can secure smaller football players. All we have here in America are tall failed basketball players to choose from for our NFL teams. A great example of this is the completely unknown and unpublicized Antonio Gates.
The league leaders in touchdowns (Maurice Jones-Drew), yards rushing (Chris Johnson), receptions (Steve Smith) and sacks (Elvis Dumervil) are all sub-6-footers.
Holy shit. This must not be a coincidence of any type and must be the beginning of a trend! Alert anyone who is anyone and tell them all about this new trend of short people taking over the NFL. Where's Muggsy Bogues when you need him?
Steve Smith of the New York Giants is 5-foot-11 inches tall so it's not exactly like he is a midget out there. This is like someone claiming they aren't overweight because they weigh 400 pounds but are tipping the scales at 390. They may as well be 400 pounds and Steve Smith may as well be 6 feet tall. He is one inch off of 6 feet tall and is taller than the average man's height in the world.
Same thing for Chris Johnson. He is 5-foot-11 inches, so he may as well be 6 feet tall. There isn't a huge difference. I feel like Sam Farmer was just cruising the NFL statistics one day desperately trying to find an article to write since there is no Los Angeles NFL team and just decided he may as well give up trying to find an actual interesting article to write and write a "short people are taking over the world and are gritty too" article.
You can include Elvis Dumervil in this discussion of players who may as well be 6 feet tall. He is also 5-foot-11 inches tall. That's not exactly short, even in the realm of football. Maybe for a pass rusher he is short, but he is also a standup linebacker so he isn't just responsible for sacking the quarterback.
And at 6 feet, New Orleans star Drew Brees, a most-valuable-player candidate, is the NFL's shortest starting quarterback.
What else does Brees, Jones-Drew, and Dumervil have in common? They were all drafted later than their skill set shows they should have been drafted because they were short. Does this mean the NFL hates short players or does this mean these are incredibly skilled athletes who just happen to not be "tall enough" to play in the NFL yet will have success because they are skilled? I vote for the second option, though the NFL does hate short players sometimes. If given the choice between a potential-laden unproductive taller receiver and a potential-laden productive shorter receiver, the team will usually always choose the unproductive, taller receiver.
Since we are having fun with numbers and Sam Farmer is claiming that short people are taking over the NFL, let's take a brief look at the height of the Top 5 players as of Sunday November 15, 2009 in passing yardage, rushing yardage, sacks and receiving yardage. Then we will take a brief look at the Top 5 all-time leaders in each of those categories, just to give a frame of reference.
There have always been shorter NFL players in the league. It's not like this is the first year really short players have led the league in defensive or offensive categories. Emmitt Smith wasn't exactly the tallest guy and he seemed to do fine in the NFL, just like guys like Marvin Harrison aren't the tallest guys in the NFL. Little guys are not taking over the NFL. Yes, there are certain players who are so supremely talented it doesn't matter how tall they are, they are still going to be quality NFL players, but I don't know if this 10 week sample is the beginning of a league-wide trend.
There is no reason to write puff pieces about little guys as if every statistical category in the NFL is being taken over by little people AND it should not be shocking there are guys who aren't tall that can lead the NFL in any statistics. I would agree NFL teams look for taller players now more than they used to, but that doesn't necessarily mean taller players are better players...which is what this article is just assuming. Basically this article is worthless any way I look at it. On to the statistics that show the Top 5 in the NFL in passing yards, rushing yards, receiving yards and sacks:
Passing yardage:
Matt Schaub: 6'5"
Peyton Manning: 6'5"
Tom Brady: 6'4"
Jay Cutler: 6'3"
Drew Brees: 6'0"
Obviously in regard to passing yards and being an quarterback in the NFL, Drew Brees is in the minority in being as short as he is for a quarterback (though he isn't short), but Brees is 6 feet tall so its not exactly like he is a midget.
Let's look at the Top 5 passing yard leaders of all-time:
Brett Favre: 6'2"
Dan Marino: 6'4"
John Elway: 6'3"
Warren Moon: 6'3"
Fran Tarkenton: 6'0"
Most of the most successful quarterbacks of all-time have been 6 feet or taller. Because Drew Brees is 6 feet tall, I would say he fits into this category pretty well. He's shorter for a quarterback but it's not like he is Doug Flutie back there. Really, his height and success in the NFL is not a revelation or too shocking to anyone...except to Sam Farmer.
Obviously when I compare the Top 5 of all-time in each category to the Top 5 ten weeks into the 2009 NFL season I know it is a fairly flawed sample. I just want to show everyone that none of the players Sam Farmer mentions (which are Steve Smith (NYG), Chris Johnson, Elvis Dumervil, and Drew Brees) has height that sticks out in any fashion. Basically the height of the players Farmer mentions as leading the league this year doesn't stand out too greatly from some of the players in the past who have accumulated great statistics.
Rushing yardage:
Chris Johnson: 5'11"
Cedric Benson: 5'11"
Steven Jackson: 6'2"
Adrian Peterson: 6'1"
DeAngelo Williams: 5'9"
Let's look at the all-time leaders in rushing yardage:
Emmitt Smith: 5'9"
Walter Payton: 5'10"
Barry Sanders: 5'8"
Curtis Martin: 5'11"
Jerome Bettis: 5'11"
In fact Chris Johnson is probably taller or as tall as many of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL. From this information I can assume height has never really caused a running back in the NFL to be disadvantaged in any fashion from what I see here. Obviously really short running backs, which Barry Sanders would be one of these, are more of an anomaly. Most really short running backs can be used as a change-of-pace running back, because it is assumed smaller running backs can stand the pounding a larger back could stand. Still, 5'10" is considered a larger back, so it's not like a player has to be a giant at the running back position to be considered tall. In fact, for running backs, being tall may actually hurt them in some cases.
Receiving yardage:
Andre Johnson: 6'3"
Reggie Wayne: 6'0"
Vincent Jackson: 6'5"
Steve Smith (NYG): 5'11"
Randy Moss: 6'4"
I tackled this issue previously on this blog when Andrew Perloff insisted that 6'5" inch receivers were a necessity for a player to be successful, which I believe I sufficiently disproved. Let's look at the Top 5 receivers of all-time.
Jerry Rice: 6'2"
Tim Brown: 6'0"
Isaac Bruce: 6'0"
James Lofton: 6'3"
Marvin Harrison: 6'0"
Steve Smith (NYG) is 5 feet-11-inches tall. Three of the top receivers of all-time are 6 feet tall even. I don't consider that one inch to be terribly important as to cause a receiver a disadvantage in football. The wide receiver position is a position where height is more important than at any of the other positions we are talking about here (except defensive end), but to indicate a 5 foot-11-inches tall player is beating the odds because of his height is just incorrect.
Sacks:
Jared Allen: 6'6"
Elvis Dumervil: 5'11"
James Harrison: 6'0"
Dwight Freeney: 6'1"
Antwan Odom: 6'5"
As you can see, the top sack leaders for this year have been tall individuals for the most part. This is probably because they have to be bigger to deal with the bigger offensive linemen. Now if you will notice the two smallest individuals on this list are both guys who play a standup linebackers in a 3-4 system. I don't want to generalize, but most of the time these guys are blitzing and are able to use their speed to try and get to the quarterback, as well as sometimes dropping into coverage.
So neither Harrison or Dumervil can lumbering big guys due to the fact their job responsibilities vary more than a normal defensive ends would. What I am trying to say is that Dumervil is impressive in how many sacks he has accumulated for how tall he is, but he also isn't a traditional defensive lineman so it may be difficult to compare him to a traditional 4-3 defensive lineman.
Bruce Smith: 6'4"
Reggie White: 6'5"
Kevin Greene: 6'3"
Chris Doleman: 6'5"
Michael Strahan: 6'5"
Historically the more successful down linemen have been bigger guys and that is because they generally have to deal with bigger offensive linemen. So the smaller a guy is, the worse chance he has generally of going one-on-one with an offensive lineman and winning the battle.
So from the preliminary look we have learned that Sam Farmer really is incorrect in assuming little guys don't have the opportunity to succeed in the NFL. Little guys with skills will always have a chance to succeed even at the quarterback, running back, wide receiver, and at certain defensive positions. His revelation that the NFL is just now seeing that little guys can contribute is also mostly incorrect because the NFL has always noticed this. Granted, smaller guys may not be traditionally drafted as high as the "prototype" player at each of these positions, but the history of the NFL is littered with examples of well-skilled little guys who have succeeded in the NFL.
From 5-foot-6 Darren Sproles in San Diego to 5-8 Ray Rice in Baltimore,
I have always been a little irritated by the Darren Sproles obsession many NFL analysts and sportswriters seem to have. I like Darren Sproles but he is paired up with one of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL in LaDainian Tomlinson. It's not like he has to be the feature back for the Chargers. Believe it or not, Sproles has touched the ball 297 times TOTAL in his entire NFL career. To put that in perspective Tomlinson has had a career low of carries last year with 292 rushing attempts. Tomlinson has had more carries and receptions in one year in EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF HIS CAREER than Sproles has had in his entire 5 year NFL career.
Sproles is a change of pace back, pure and simple. I know it sounds like I am demeaning him as a person and player, but he is a great change of pace back, but that's all he is. Let's not act like he is out there carrying the ball 25 times in a game. Sportswriters like Sam Farmer can never let reality get in the way of a good story, so of course Sproles is going to be portrayed like he is the feature back for the Chargers, which isn't true. He is a valuable player, but he isn't built to be a franchise back at 5'6".
from 175-pound DeSean Jackson in Philadelphia to 185-pound Wes Welker in New England, pros all around the country are proving there's a place for the little man in America's biggest game.
DeShaun Jackson is 5-foot-10 inches and Wes Welker is 5-foot-9-inches. Really their weight should have nothing to do with whether they are "big" or not. Randy Moss is a thin guy but that doesn't make him small.
"What we've seen is as the players in the league get bigger and bigger, some of these smaller guys who have great quickness are almost impossible for some of these big guys to catch," said NBC's Cris Collinsworth, among the NFL's taller and lankier receivers when he played.
What Collinsworth means by "what we've seen" is what we have seen through the entire history of the NFL and not just this specific season. Little guys have often done well in the NFL, it's not like this 10 week season is showing a complete revolution in how football players are viewed.
"These guys were almost forbidden fruit at one time for NFL guys. They loved them when they saw them, they'd watch them on tape and say, 'Gosh, look how fast and quick this guy is, but he's only 5-7 or 5-8.'
I don't know what is up with this fairy tale "once upon a time" stuff because this type stuff still goes on. The reason Ray Rice went in the 3rd round is because he was too short. DeShaun Jackson would have been a Top 15 pick if he were a little taller. DeAngelo Williams re-wrote record books at Memphis but he lasted longer than other running backs in the 1st round because he was only 5'9" and was seen as not durable. This still happens and the reason is that for every DeShaun Jackson who got drafted too low because of his height, there are 3 other short guys who actually couldn't have made it in the NFL because of their height.
The knock on Glenn Dorsey coming out of college was the he wasn't extremely tall (he is allegedly 6'1" but I recall that height being slightly disputed) and he hasn't exactly blossomed quite yet in the NFL. He seems to be catching on a little bit more this year, though I also believe he got switched to a defensive end in a 3-4 system which has helped him, while previously he was playing defensive tackle in a 4-3. Could the reason he struggled in the beginning be because he is not a huge guy (comparatively)? It could be. It's about talent, not height at the end of the day.
But this season, it seems, in a league where 6-7 tackles are commonplace and 300 pounds is a jumping-off point for linemen, the number of pint-sized playmakers is remarkable.
There is absolutely no comparison that can be drawn between how offensive linemen are huge now and how running backs don't have to be so huge. They aren't related and the fact there are big offensive linemen doesn't make smaller players more remarkable. It's not like a running back has to block an offensive tackle, generally he has to run behind him so there is no correlation in remarkability that one position is getting bigger while the other is not. Simply because there is a trend in the NFL at one position doesn't mean the trend is taking place at every position. Because teams are looking for heavier and taller offensive linemen doesn't mean this is going on at every position in the NFL. Teams want taller guys at some positions but that doesn't mean the entire NFL is looking to get taller necessarily.
Former NFL coach Jon Gruden, now a "Monday Night Football" commentator, said part of that is because of more spread formations that allow skill-position players such as running backs and receivers to operate in open spaces rather than the more confined spaces of more traditional schemes.
What a great way for Sam Farmer to muddle his own point all up by acknowledging part of it has nothing to do with the player. So it's not that the NFL has smaller guys who are more talented, it's that the schemes are allowing smaller guys more chances to show their skills? So basically Sam Farmer wants us to just ignore everything he is saying when he talks about the influx of "little" talent and pay more attention to how the schemes of coaches have made the players successful.
"Hey, you know all this stuff I have said about new, talented little guys doing well in the NFL? Well, it turns out there have been guys who have excelled in the NFL in the past who were as tall as these guys and it's not really the players, but the schemes that are causing the little guys to lead the NFL in some of these categories. But hey, what's up with those USC Trojans?"
"With the introduction of all these spread offenses where you're seeing shotgun formations, one-back sets, wide receivers, tight ends and backs spread all over the field, there are needs and traits that guys are looking for. Guys who can work in space and use their quickness."
Again, so it's the NFL that's changing and not the players? What happened to all this talk about little guys in the NFL changing the landscape? It sounds to me like the landscape changed in the NFL and allowed the little guys to be successful.
Denver's Dumervil, the league's shortest defensive end at 5-11, has 10 1/2 sacks. That ties him for the NFL lead with Minnesota's Jared Allen, who is 7 inches taller.
Sam Farmer is kind of trying to compare apples and oranges here. Dumevil is a defensive end in passing situations, but he is a standup 3-4 linebacker in most other situations. Jared Allen is a defensive end in a 4-3 scheme where his job is to get to the quarterback, while Dumervil has other priorities at times in the 3-4 scheme he plays in. Kudos to Dumervil for having 10.5 sacks but he and Allen have slightly different job responsibilities to just blindly compare them.
To compare Allen and Dumervil is like comparing LaDainian Tomlinson catching 65 passes in a season and Randy Moss catching 63 passes in a season and then saying that Tomlinson is as good of a receiver as Moss because they caught nearly the same amount of passes. Well yes and no. Tomlinson has a different responsibility when he has to catch the ball compared to the responsibilities of Randy Moss, which makes it harder to compare the two players.
"When you're smaller, a lot of people look down on you and think you can't get the job done because of your size," said Pittsburgh Steelers running back Stefan Logan,
Who? Is this Stefan Logan the same Stefan Logan who has zero carries and zero catches on the year? The Stefan Logan who is primarily a kick returner, a good kick returner, but just a kick returner nonetheless? I know he is a little guy and all of that but he also has never carried the ball in the NFL. He's not exactly a Jackie Robinson-type example for other short people who want to play football to follow. Again, all due respect to Stefan Logan I am pretty sure short guys returned kicks prior to him making it in the NFL.
Mel Gray is 5'9," Dante Hall is 5'8," and Allen Rossum is 5'8." They all returned kicks with success in the NFL. I could go on but you get my point. Logan is short, but short guys have returned kick offs and punts prior to him being in the NFL.
At the University of South Dakota -- where he might never have been recruited if not for a highlight tape his dad helped him compile -- Logan earned the nickname "Joystick" for his rub-your-eyes speed and dazzling abilities with the football in his hands. He set school records in yards rushing (5,958) and all-purpose yards (7,859), but still had to prove himself for a year in the Canadian Football League before the Steelers came calling.
I find it deeply ironic that Sam Farmer is writing an article about how short guys are finally getting a chance to contribute in the NFL and he uses as one of his examples a guy who has accumulated no NFL stats on offense and his only football opportunities outside of returning kicks was in the CFL and as a lightly recruited kid who went to the University of South Dakota. I would think Farmer would want to interview someone who actually has shown little guys can contribute on a regular basis in the NFL on offense or defense, but I guess I would think wrong.
What I find also interesting is that Sam Farmer is acting like short NFL players have never been given the chance before this year to do anything in the NFL. There have been plenty of short guys who are fast and can return kicks, so what makes Stefan Logan so special, other than the fact Sam Farmer wants to force this "little guy" angle down our throats and Logan consented to an interview?
Of course, there are distinct advantages to being a smaller player...In Baltimore, where the average height of those linemen is almost 6-5, Rice can vanish behind a wall of blockers a head taller than he.
This is absolutely true, which is why the NFL has had other running backs like Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders have success in the NFL. Seriously, there really have been other height challenged players who succeeded in the NFL prior to this year. As we saw above, most of the NFL greats at the running back position have been below 6 feet tall. As we saw above in regard to the current Top 5 running backs in rushing yards, "smaller" running backs are still the norm. Tall running backs are not a bad thing at all, but the NFL tends to have a problem with exceptionally tall running backs because it is perceived they can be tackled by their legs easily or don't have the quickness a shorter running back does.
What makes running backs like Brandon Jacobs and Steven Jackson so hard to tackle is that they are just so damn big coming from the running back position. Running backs have traditionally not all been 6 feet tall, but many successful running backs have been between 5'9"-5'11" tall and they are generally smaller, sturdy built guys who can run the ball effectively behind the offensive line.
The smaller, smaller running backs generally are 5'5"-5'8" feet tall and are "change of pace" backs that are in there to run around the edges and get in open space. This generally has not changed. No matter how much we would like to believe it has, the most popular example of Darren Sproles shows that this really hasn't changed. Though Sproles had a wonderful playoff game last year, he is still used as a change-of-pace back for the Chargers.
In San Diego in January, after Sproles amassed 328 all-purpose yards in a playoff victory over the Colts -- the third-highest total in NFL playoff history -- Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers was asked a tongue-in-cheek question:
Could he tackle Sproles if the two were locked in a broom closet?
Philip Rivers shouldn't have to tackle anyone anywhere because he is a quarterback. I know the question was tongue-in-cheek but Rivers is not really supposed to know how to tackle.
"No," Rivers said with a smile. "Or a phone booth."
I get it! Darren Sproles is Superman! His 1,386 total yards from scrimmage (yes, that is all he has totaled) for his career is just an incredible amount that no one will ever be able to match. Unless you want to count his own teammate LaDainian Tomlinson or many of the other running backs in the NFL.
And considering some of the running back's Superman-like performances, you occasionally get the feeling Sproles just might know where the nearest phone booth is..
Let's look at the Superman-like numbers. Sproles is 58th in the NFL in rushing yardage behind guys like David Garrard, Aaron Rodgers, Glen Coffee, Jerome Harrison, and just ahead of Jamaal Charles. Again, I like Sproles but this isn't as impressive as many in the media would make you believe he is. I know he is stuck behind Tomlinson, but I can't argue with his statistics.
Sproles is tied for 76th in the NFL in receiving yards with Dustin Keller and behind immortals such as Jabar Gaffney, Josh Morgan, and Justin Gage...but he is still ahead of Terrell Owens.
Sproles game log is here. Tell me when you find a Superman performance. Let's not lower our standards simply because he is short. Sproles is a great change-of-pace back but that's really all he is. He is a weapon for the Chargers but he isn't changing the way the NFL running back is perceived.
Long story short (get it?) there have been shorter players in the NFL in the past, this year is no different, and there will be shorter NFL players in the future. The success of the players is because of their skill, not necessarily because of how tall they are. There have been successful players at many of the skill positions in the past in the NFL, just because shorter guys are leading the league this year in some categories doesn't make this a new, huge, important trend. Also, 5-foot-11 inches is not short for a wide receiver or a running back. That's just stupid to think.
These "shorter" NFL players are not any more spectacular than the other NFL players who have succeeded in the NFL simply because they are short. They still have NFL level skills and that is all a player really needs to find a place in the NFL on a team. Little guys aren't really coming up any bigger this year than they have in the past and there is never an excuse for a little guy puff piece.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
14 comments Using Myths to Dispel Myths
Don't forget to update all necessary Fantasy teams for this weekend. For some reason, I am lost with most my college football and pro football picks for this weekend. I have no idea who to choose for the NFL or college games. It's embarrassing how much research I did this week just to make the college football picks.
For the second time in less than a week I have a personal story to tell, so feel free to skip to the next paragraph if you would like. I have been informed by my loved one I write WAY too much in my posts. To quote, "It was 5 or 6 pages long, I couldn't even read it all because I had other things to do. Brevity is the key. No one has time to read everything you write. Remember, brevity." (Really I think she was just pissy because she hates AJ Burnett and thought the Yankees were going to lose) I got no sympathy for my pleas that I love to write and that is why I write a lot. So I am working on editing a little more, of course I have said that before.
Kent pointed me in the direction of an Andrew Perloff column that attempts to disprove wide receiver myths. It's just a whole bundle of assumptions and statements that I am not sure are 100% true. Let's take a lot at some of the problems I see with this article and feel free to point out any I may miss because honestly, for a small article there was a lot to digest...I feel like I missed something.
1. Teams need a tall, fast wide receiver.
Only a handful of teams have a 6-foot-4 receiver with speed. That model of the dominant No. 1 receiver is outdated as the rules continue to change and receivers don't need to be as physical.
Obviously a tall receiver with speed is the "model" teams search for, but I don't recall a time in NFL history when more than a handful of teams had 6-foot-4 inch receivers with speed. Really just because few teams have that model of a 6-foot-4 receiver with speed doesn't mean the model is outdated, but it's just difficult to find. It's not like there are just a large group of 6-foot-4 inch receivers with blinding speed who are now unemployed because teams don't need them. Quite the opposite actually, teams still want guys like this, there are just not a whole hell of a lot of them. I don't even think there were a bunch of teams that had this "model" receiver in the past, so nothing has really changed.
I think he believes the rules that favor receivers mean teams don't need tall physical receivers. I actually sort of see it the opposite way. Now that the receivers can be more physical, a tall physical receiver can be of more benefit to a team, especially in the red zone.
Let's look at this year's top receivers (so far) and how tall they are to see if tall, fast dominating receivers are hard to find. Out of the Top 10 receiving yards leaders in the NFL as of now, here are the heights of these players:
Steve Smith (NYG): 5 foot 11 inches
Reggie Wayne: 6 foot 0 inches
Vincent Jackson: 6 foot 5 inches
Calvin Johnson: 6 foot 5 inches
Randy Moss: 6 foot 4 inches
Andre Johnson: 6 foot 3 inches
Antonio Gates: 6 foot 4 inches
Hines Ward: 6 foot 0 inches
Jerricho Cotchery: 6 foot 0 inches
Dallas Clark: 6 foot 3 inches
This tells me a receiver doesn't have to be big and tall to be successful in the NFL today, that would seem to support the theory Perloff is trying to support here. The old "model" of the 6-foot-4 fast receiver is not needed anymore or at least aren't as productive. Of course then using my completely non-scientific method (for lack of time for a ton of research), let's see if the NFL EVER had a group of 6-foot-4-inch fast, dominating receivers.
Let's look at the Top Receivers by Yardage in NFL History and their heights now:
Jerry Rice: 6 foot 2 inches
Tim Brown: 6 foot 0 inches
Isaac Bruce: 6 foot 0 inches
James Lofton: 6 foot 3 inches
Marvin Harrison: 6 foot 0 inches
Cris Carter: 6 foot 3 inches
Henry Ellard: 5 foot 11 inches
Andre Reed: 6 foot 2 inches
Steve Largent: 5 foot 11 inches
Terrell Owens: 6 foot 3 inches
Granted, receiving yards are not the end-all-be-all that determines if a player is a good receiver or not. The fact there is not a single 6-foot-4 inch player in the Top 10 all-time in receiving yards tells me that requiring a player to be that tall at wide receiver has never really been one of necessity for a team. This isn't the strongest evidence in the world but it at least shows the "model" receiver never seemed to be the dominant "model" the NFL wanted for their receivers. Actually, this year the league leaders in reception yards are actually on average taller than the all-time leaders in receiving yards, which if I had done more research could potentially show the dominating receivers in the NFL have actually gotten taller as the years go by.
Since I think the "model" is not actually not needed anymore, merely hard to find, I still say the new rule changes benefit these receivers and they will be in just as much demand now as they ever have been...possibly even more so.
It's not really a wide receiver myth because it has never been true.
2. A talented wide receiver will find a way to make plays.
I really don't have a huge problem with this reasoning because to an extent it is true. I do have a problem with a statement he makes though:
Even a guy who thrived in a system can find himself boxed out by the defense or a slight tweak, like Larry Fitzgerald so far this season. Meanwhile, Indianapolis' offense is turning nobodies like Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie into fantasy stars.
Garcon and Collie being fantasy stars has nothing really to do with them being good wide receivers. A player can have different value in real life and in Fantasy Football, so I just don't want us to mix the two up. They are really two completely different values and I don't see the point of mentioning players being fantasy stars when talking about real football performance. Not to mention the fact Garcon and Collie are catching passes is because Clark or Wayne are being boxed out by the defense. So they are thriving because Perloff's #2 may in fact be true...still fantasy is a bad thing to bring up in this discussion.
3. Numbers tell the story.
Is this where we talk about how important a player's grit and determination is to his team's success and that is what makes him such a great receiver?
Lynn Swann was a controversial Hall of Fame pick because he ranks 181st all time with 5,462 receiving yards. That's less than Larry Fitzgerald, who is only 26 years old.
Read that sentence again. To me, the numbers tell me the entire story. Lynn Swann did not get a lot of receiving yards and he seems to have been more of a deep threat for the Steelers. Was he a great deep threat? Possibly. One of the best receivers in NFL history? I don't think so. Numbers tell me enough of the story here in my mind. I am sure there are other numbers for Swann that are impressive (actually when we look at his career numbers, this isn't really true) but I don't see how receiving yards can be deceptive for Swann here.
Look at Swann's overall career numbers. The only thing that sticks out for me is how fairly unimpressive they are to me. He may have played in an era when throwing the ball was not quite as prevalent as it is today, but I would love to see what story, outside of these numbers, spoke to Hall of Fame voters to think numbers didn't tell the whole story. Not having great numbers and really helping your team is fine, but it doesn't mean you should be voted to the NFL's Hall of Fame.
Hall of Fame Vice President Joe Horrigan said. "Whenever there's a big debate on receivers, it's dangerous to look at the statistics too much because they're not always a perfect indicator of what that player did for the team.
It's perfectly freaking great that Lynn Swann did something fantastic for his team, but he wasn't voted into the Pittsburgh Steelers Hall of Fame, but he was voted into the NFL Hall of Fame. There are hundreds of players who have done great things for their team but that doesn't mean those players are one of the best players at their position of all-time. Being voted into the NFL Hall of Fame means a player is one of the best players at his position of all-time.
There is a huge, massive difference in what a player does for his team and if what that player has done for his team makes him one of the greatest football players of all-time. I've never thought about it, but after using this reasoning and seeing his numbers I don't know if Lynn Swann should have been a Hall of Fame receiver. Really, in this example, numbers do tell a story to me and that story is that Lynn Swann may not have deserved to be in the Hall of Fame.
4. Great receivers win Super Bowls.
First off, we have to define a "great receiver," which is nearly impossible. I won't even try since it is such a subjective definition to give to a receiver. I will just rely on who I personally think are great receivers.
Let's look at who I would consider to be great receivers on the last 10 Super Bowl winning teams: (Remember this doesn't include guys like Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald who made it to the Super Bowl but didn't win the game for reasons potentially out of their control)
2009 Pittsburgh: Hines Ward
2008 New York Giants: Plaxico Burress
2007 Indianapolis Colts: Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, (to a lesser extent...Dallas Clark)
2006 Pittsburgh: Hines Ward
2005 New England: None
2004 New England: None
2003 Tampa Bay: Keyshawn Johnson
2002 New England: None
2001 Baltimore: None
2000 St. Louis: Issac Bruce, Torry Holt
What this tells us just from looking at wide receivers who have won a Super Bowl is that it doesn't take a great wide receiver to win the Super Bowl if you are the New England Patriots or have one of the greatest defenses of all-time. Those Patriots teams still had Troy Brown, Deion Branch, and David Givens who weren't exactly bad receivers for them, but I wouldn't consider them "great" receivers. So you do sort of need a great receiver to win a Super Bowl. Does a team need a Hall of Fame receiver? Probably not, because there are only so many of those to go around for each team. Just because a receiver is not HoF worthy doesn't make him not a great receiver though.
Of course the only comparison for this "myth" is with Hall of Fame receivers which is much too high of a standard. It's like me saying you don't need a great quarterback/coach to win a Super Bowl and then list quarterbacks/coaches who aren't in the Hall of Fame who won a Super Bowl.
Amongst active players, the only two sure-fire Hall of Fame receivers -- Randy Moss and Terrell Owens -- have zero Super Bowl rings.
I think I disagree with those two being the only two sure-fire Hall of Famers. I can think of a couple others, especially if we use the Lynn Swann "he did so much for his team" theory for HoF entrance. Holding a "great receiver" to the standard of a Hall of Fame receiver is a bit much in my opinion.
A few borderline-to-probable Canton guys have won Super Bowls -- Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Hines Ward -- but their teams probably could have captured titles without them.
I personally don't necessarily consider Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt to be borderline Hall of Fame candidates. They have a pretty good claim in my mind.
I also find it laughably funny at the idea the 2000 Rams could have won the Super Bowl without Isaac Bruce AND Torry Holt at wide receiver. Andrew Perloff does realize they played on the same team, right? Marshall Faulk was a great running back but I am pretty sure the Rams would not have won the Super Bowl with Az-Hakim and Ricky Proehl as their starting wide receivers. I don't want to seem like a jerk, but to indicate the Rams still would have won the Super Bowl with those two starting, and not Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, is so blatantly false it shouldn't even be written.
I have read this sentence at least 6 times, and I love Ricky Proehl because he played for my favorite team and lives in the same city I do, but this statement is incredibly false. I am laughing right now at the idea the Rams didn't need Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce.
Drops are a bit overrated. Obviously they're not good, but if guys like Edwards and Owens get open and don't haul it in, it still makes the defense adjust and creates opportunities for others.
I can see the logic on this statement but I don't think the fact the defense is forced to adjust when a ball is thrown to a receiver like Terrell Owens or Braylon Edwards makes drops overrated. It means anytime the ball goes to a star receiver the defense has to adjust a little bit...drops are missed opportunities for first downs and I never see those missed opportunities as overrated.
The Patriots are 18-0 in the regular season when Tom Brady and Wes Welker on the field together. That's better than the Brady-Moss combo.
For a guy who thinks Lynn Swann belongs in the Hall of Fame based on the idea he stretches the field for other receivers, it sure is funny that Perloff doesn't see the value of having Randy Moss on the field, to stretch the field, for Wes Welker. Welker is a good receiver but part of his value is he has a Randy Moss to stretch the field for him. I don't know if you can even really compare these two combos or say one is better than the other because they are fairly dependent on each other in the Patriots system.
Everyone said the Giants lost last year's Super Bowl because they lost Plaxico Burress. Has anyone considered they were not a dominant Super Bowl champ in the first place? They were a wild-card team who beat the Patriots on a miracle catch.
Even the most diehard New England Patriots fan will admit the Giants team didn't just beat them on a miracle catch. That team also played good defense and ran the ball well. It was a miracle catch but the entire reason the Giants were in the game at that point was because of their good defense and good running game.
The Giants were also 10-2 with Burress in the starting lineup and 2-3 without him in the lineup, so it seems like his absence had some sort of impact on the team.
They were never a dynasty to start with, so pointing to one player as the reason they didn't repeat seems far-fetched.
Nobody ever said the New York Giants were a dynasty. It has just been acknowledged the Giants didn't repeat IN PART because they were missing their #1 wide receiver and really their record with and without Burress shows it to be true his absence had an effect on their season.
Everyone talks about how the spread offense in college makes evaluating quarterbacks difficult. Don't forget how deceiving receivers' production in college is these days as well. And don't even bother scouting spread offense tight ends.
Let's just look at tight ends from the 2009 draft who played in a spread (or spread type offense...there are so many hybrids now it's hard to define but a couple teams that run an actual spread offense) offense in college and their numbers in the NFL this year:
Brandon Pettigrew (Ok. State): 10 catches 131 yards
Chase Coffman (Missouri): no stats
Shawn Nelson (USM...not really spread but sort of close): 3 catches 26 yards
Now for tight ends from the 2008 draft who played in a spread offense in college:
Martellus Bennett (Texas A&M): 20 catches 283 yards 4 TD's (2008), 4 catches 40 yards (2009)
Jermichael Finley (Texas): 6 catches 74 yards 1 TD (2008), 11 catches 190 yards 1 TD (2009)
Martin Rucker (Missouri): 2 catches 17 yards
Derek Fine (Kansas): 10 catches 94 yards 1 TD (2008), 5 catches 34 yards (2009)
So what do all these wonderful numbers really mean? I have no idea. Remember these are rookie and 2nd year tight ends and outside of Pettigrew and Bennett were not high draft choices, not guys who are counted on to start. I don't know what type of numbers the other tight ends who weren't in the spread offense in college put up in their first and second years in the NFL, but I would take a guess they do on average similar to how these "spread offense" tight ends have done. It's clear there are some tight ends who came from spread-based offenses in college, who have contributed in the NFL. Remember, there aren't a lot of great tight ends that put up huge numbers in the NFL and it also matters what type of offense the tight end plays in while in the NFL.
I don't know if a tight end in a spread offense should have his numbers be considered any more deceiving than a tight end who plays in a run-based offense in college. Should you not bother scouting tight ends who play in a run-based offense too? Their college numbers could be deceptive as well. The player should be scouted for his skills and if those skills can transfer to the NFL. I don't think we can assume the numbers for a tight end who plays in a spread-offense in college are deceptive.
I don't know if all these statements were wide receiver myths, but they seemed more like blanket statements that I didn't agree with 100% to me.
-Boy, my MLB playoff picks are sure going straight to hell aren't they? 2 teams I have winning their series are going to get swept. I fully expect the Red Sox to pull it out though, if they know how to do anything, it's comeback when their backs are against the wall. The Cardinals could also comeback in my mind because they should have won Game 2 and if they make it to Game 5 I have confidence in Adam Wainwright.
I am not a Yankees fan at all, but I can't lie and say I wasn't absolutely pleased A-Rod hit a game tying homerun last night. I got so tired of people being on his ass for not being a "clutch" playoff performer. The only difference I can tell in his swing is that he is making the pitcher pitch to him now and not actually looking to hit a homerun, but waiting for a pitch to hit. His at-bat against Nathan last night was a thing of beauty because he laid off the crap Nathan threw early in the count knowing he wasn't going to throw him anything good he could hit until he had to.
In the past, he has swung at the crap pitchers threw early in the count. I think that is what makes Jeter a good hitter in the postseason or at least makes him seem "clutch," because he knows pitchers aren't going to want to throw him a strike in a tight spot so he waits for a pitch to hit and then tries to hit it. A-Rod's a cheater and probably a piece of shit, but I get tired of people being on him for being a playoff "choker."
For the second time in less than a week I have a personal story to tell, so feel free to skip to the next paragraph if you would like. I have been informed by my loved one I write WAY too much in my posts. To quote, "It was 5 or 6 pages long, I couldn't even read it all because I had other things to do. Brevity is the key. No one has time to read everything you write. Remember, brevity." (Really I think she was just pissy because she hates AJ Burnett and thought the Yankees were going to lose) I got no sympathy for my pleas that I love to write and that is why I write a lot. So I am working on editing a little more, of course I have said that before.
Kent pointed me in the direction of an Andrew Perloff column that attempts to disprove wide receiver myths. It's just a whole bundle of assumptions and statements that I am not sure are 100% true. Let's take a lot at some of the problems I see with this article and feel free to point out any I may miss because honestly, for a small article there was a lot to digest...I feel like I missed something.
1. Teams need a tall, fast wide receiver.
Only a handful of teams have a 6-foot-4 receiver with speed. That model of the dominant No. 1 receiver is outdated as the rules continue to change and receivers don't need to be as physical.
Obviously a tall receiver with speed is the "model" teams search for, but I don't recall a time in NFL history when more than a handful of teams had 6-foot-4 inch receivers with speed. Really just because few teams have that model of a 6-foot-4 receiver with speed doesn't mean the model is outdated, but it's just difficult to find. It's not like there are just a large group of 6-foot-4 inch receivers with blinding speed who are now unemployed because teams don't need them. Quite the opposite actually, teams still want guys like this, there are just not a whole hell of a lot of them. I don't even think there were a bunch of teams that had this "model" receiver in the past, so nothing has really changed.
I think he believes the rules that favor receivers mean teams don't need tall physical receivers. I actually sort of see it the opposite way. Now that the receivers can be more physical, a tall physical receiver can be of more benefit to a team, especially in the red zone.
Let's look at this year's top receivers (so far) and how tall they are to see if tall, fast dominating receivers are hard to find. Out of the Top 10 receiving yards leaders in the NFL as of now, here are the heights of these players:
Steve Smith (NYG): 5 foot 11 inches
Reggie Wayne: 6 foot 0 inches
Vincent Jackson: 6 foot 5 inches
Calvin Johnson: 6 foot 5 inches
Randy Moss: 6 foot 4 inches
Andre Johnson: 6 foot 3 inches
Antonio Gates: 6 foot 4 inches
Hines Ward: 6 foot 0 inches
Jerricho Cotchery: 6 foot 0 inches
Dallas Clark: 6 foot 3 inches
This tells me a receiver doesn't have to be big and tall to be successful in the NFL today, that would seem to support the theory Perloff is trying to support here. The old "model" of the 6-foot-4 fast receiver is not needed anymore or at least aren't as productive. Of course then using my completely non-scientific method (for lack of time for a ton of research), let's see if the NFL EVER had a group of 6-foot-4-inch fast, dominating receivers.
Let's look at the Top Receivers by Yardage in NFL History and their heights now:
Jerry Rice: 6 foot 2 inches
Tim Brown: 6 foot 0 inches
Isaac Bruce: 6 foot 0 inches
James Lofton: 6 foot 3 inches
Marvin Harrison: 6 foot 0 inches
Cris Carter: 6 foot 3 inches
Henry Ellard: 5 foot 11 inches
Andre Reed: 6 foot 2 inches
Steve Largent: 5 foot 11 inches
Terrell Owens: 6 foot 3 inches
Granted, receiving yards are not the end-all-be-all that determines if a player is a good receiver or not. The fact there is not a single 6-foot-4 inch player in the Top 10 all-time in receiving yards tells me that requiring a player to be that tall at wide receiver has never really been one of necessity for a team. This isn't the strongest evidence in the world but it at least shows the "model" receiver never seemed to be the dominant "model" the NFL wanted for their receivers. Actually, this year the league leaders in reception yards are actually on average taller than the all-time leaders in receiving yards, which if I had done more research could potentially show the dominating receivers in the NFL have actually gotten taller as the years go by.
Since I think the "model" is not actually not needed anymore, merely hard to find, I still say the new rule changes benefit these receivers and they will be in just as much demand now as they ever have been...possibly even more so.
It's not really a wide receiver myth because it has never been true.
2. A talented wide receiver will find a way to make plays.
I really don't have a huge problem with this reasoning because to an extent it is true. I do have a problem with a statement he makes though:
Even a guy who thrived in a system can find himself boxed out by the defense or a slight tweak, like Larry Fitzgerald so far this season. Meanwhile, Indianapolis' offense is turning nobodies like Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie into fantasy stars.
Garcon and Collie being fantasy stars has nothing really to do with them being good wide receivers. A player can have different value in real life and in Fantasy Football, so I just don't want us to mix the two up. They are really two completely different values and I don't see the point of mentioning players being fantasy stars when talking about real football performance. Not to mention the fact Garcon and Collie are catching passes is because Clark or Wayne are being boxed out by the defense. So they are thriving because Perloff's #2 may in fact be true...still fantasy is a bad thing to bring up in this discussion.
3. Numbers tell the story.
Is this where we talk about how important a player's grit and determination is to his team's success and that is what makes him such a great receiver?
Lynn Swann was a controversial Hall of Fame pick because he ranks 181st all time with 5,462 receiving yards. That's less than Larry Fitzgerald, who is only 26 years old.
Read that sentence again. To me, the numbers tell me the entire story. Lynn Swann did not get a lot of receiving yards and he seems to have been more of a deep threat for the Steelers. Was he a great deep threat? Possibly. One of the best receivers in NFL history? I don't think so. Numbers tell me enough of the story here in my mind. I am sure there are other numbers for Swann that are impressive (actually when we look at his career numbers, this isn't really true) but I don't see how receiving yards can be deceptive for Swann here.
Look at Swann's overall career numbers. The only thing that sticks out for me is how fairly unimpressive they are to me. He may have played in an era when throwing the ball was not quite as prevalent as it is today, but I would love to see what story, outside of these numbers, spoke to Hall of Fame voters to think numbers didn't tell the whole story. Not having great numbers and really helping your team is fine, but it doesn't mean you should be voted to the NFL's Hall of Fame.
Hall of Fame Vice President Joe Horrigan said. "Whenever there's a big debate on receivers, it's dangerous to look at the statistics too much because they're not always a perfect indicator of what that player did for the team.
It's perfectly freaking great that Lynn Swann did something fantastic for his team, but he wasn't voted into the Pittsburgh Steelers Hall of Fame, but he was voted into the NFL Hall of Fame. There are hundreds of players who have done great things for their team but that doesn't mean those players are one of the best players at their position of all-time. Being voted into the NFL Hall of Fame means a player is one of the best players at his position of all-time.
There is a huge, massive difference in what a player does for his team and if what that player has done for his team makes him one of the greatest football players of all-time. I've never thought about it, but after using this reasoning and seeing his numbers I don't know if Lynn Swann should have been a Hall of Fame receiver. Really, in this example, numbers do tell a story to me and that story is that Lynn Swann may not have deserved to be in the Hall of Fame.
4. Great receivers win Super Bowls.
First off, we have to define a "great receiver," which is nearly impossible. I won't even try since it is such a subjective definition to give to a receiver. I will just rely on who I personally think are great receivers.
Let's look at who I would consider to be great receivers on the last 10 Super Bowl winning teams: (Remember this doesn't include guys like Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald who made it to the Super Bowl but didn't win the game for reasons potentially out of their control)
2009 Pittsburgh: Hines Ward
2008 New York Giants: Plaxico Burress
2007 Indianapolis Colts: Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, (to a lesser extent...Dallas Clark)
2006 Pittsburgh: Hines Ward
2005 New England: None
2004 New England: None
2003 Tampa Bay: Keyshawn Johnson
2002 New England: None
2001 Baltimore: None
2000 St. Louis: Issac Bruce, Torry Holt
What this tells us just from looking at wide receivers who have won a Super Bowl is that it doesn't take a great wide receiver to win the Super Bowl if you are the New England Patriots or have one of the greatest defenses of all-time. Those Patriots teams still had Troy Brown, Deion Branch, and David Givens who weren't exactly bad receivers for them, but I wouldn't consider them "great" receivers. So you do sort of need a great receiver to win a Super Bowl. Does a team need a Hall of Fame receiver? Probably not, because there are only so many of those to go around for each team. Just because a receiver is not HoF worthy doesn't make him not a great receiver though.
Of course the only comparison for this "myth" is with Hall of Fame receivers which is much too high of a standard. It's like me saying you don't need a great quarterback/coach to win a Super Bowl and then list quarterbacks/coaches who aren't in the Hall of Fame who won a Super Bowl.
Amongst active players, the only two sure-fire Hall of Fame receivers -- Randy Moss and Terrell Owens -- have zero Super Bowl rings.
I think I disagree with those two being the only two sure-fire Hall of Famers. I can think of a couple others, especially if we use the Lynn Swann "he did so much for his team" theory for HoF entrance. Holding a "great receiver" to the standard of a Hall of Fame receiver is a bit much in my opinion.
A few borderline-to-probable Canton guys have won Super Bowls -- Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Hines Ward -- but their teams probably could have captured titles without them.
I personally don't necessarily consider Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt to be borderline Hall of Fame candidates. They have a pretty good claim in my mind.
I also find it laughably funny at the idea the 2000 Rams could have won the Super Bowl without Isaac Bruce AND Torry Holt at wide receiver. Andrew Perloff does realize they played on the same team, right? Marshall Faulk was a great running back but I am pretty sure the Rams would not have won the Super Bowl with Az-Hakim and Ricky Proehl as their starting wide receivers. I don't want to seem like a jerk, but to indicate the Rams still would have won the Super Bowl with those two starting, and not Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, is so blatantly false it shouldn't even be written.
I have read this sentence at least 6 times, and I love Ricky Proehl because he played for my favorite team and lives in the same city I do, but this statement is incredibly false. I am laughing right now at the idea the Rams didn't need Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce.
Drops are a bit overrated. Obviously they're not good, but if guys like Edwards and Owens get open and don't haul it in, it still makes the defense adjust and creates opportunities for others.
I can see the logic on this statement but I don't think the fact the defense is forced to adjust when a ball is thrown to a receiver like Terrell Owens or Braylon Edwards makes drops overrated. It means anytime the ball goes to a star receiver the defense has to adjust a little bit...drops are missed opportunities for first downs and I never see those missed opportunities as overrated.
The Patriots are 18-0 in the regular season when Tom Brady and Wes Welker on the field together. That's better than the Brady-Moss combo.
For a guy who thinks Lynn Swann belongs in the Hall of Fame based on the idea he stretches the field for other receivers, it sure is funny that Perloff doesn't see the value of having Randy Moss on the field, to stretch the field, for Wes Welker. Welker is a good receiver but part of his value is he has a Randy Moss to stretch the field for him. I don't know if you can even really compare these two combos or say one is better than the other because they are fairly dependent on each other in the Patriots system.
Everyone said the Giants lost last year's Super Bowl because they lost Plaxico Burress. Has anyone considered they were not a dominant Super Bowl champ in the first place? They were a wild-card team who beat the Patriots on a miracle catch.
Even the most diehard New England Patriots fan will admit the Giants team didn't just beat them on a miracle catch. That team also played good defense and ran the ball well. It was a miracle catch but the entire reason the Giants were in the game at that point was because of their good defense and good running game.
The Giants were also 10-2 with Burress in the starting lineup and 2-3 without him in the lineup, so it seems like his absence had some sort of impact on the team.
They were never a dynasty to start with, so pointing to one player as the reason they didn't repeat seems far-fetched.
Nobody ever said the New York Giants were a dynasty. It has just been acknowledged the Giants didn't repeat IN PART because they were missing their #1 wide receiver and really their record with and without Burress shows it to be true his absence had an effect on their season.
Everyone talks about how the spread offense in college makes evaluating quarterbacks difficult. Don't forget how deceiving receivers' production in college is these days as well. And don't even bother scouting spread offense tight ends.
Let's just look at tight ends from the 2009 draft who played in a spread (or spread type offense...there are so many hybrids now it's hard to define but a couple teams that run an actual spread offense) offense in college and their numbers in the NFL this year:
Brandon Pettigrew (Ok. State): 10 catches 131 yards
Chase Coffman (Missouri): no stats
Shawn Nelson (USM...not really spread but sort of close): 3 catches 26 yards
Now for tight ends from the 2008 draft who played in a spread offense in college:
Martellus Bennett (Texas A&M): 20 catches 283 yards 4 TD's (2008), 4 catches 40 yards (2009)
Jermichael Finley (Texas): 6 catches 74 yards 1 TD (2008), 11 catches 190 yards 1 TD (2009)
Martin Rucker (Missouri): 2 catches 17 yards
Derek Fine (Kansas): 10 catches 94 yards 1 TD (2008), 5 catches 34 yards (2009)
So what do all these wonderful numbers really mean? I have no idea. Remember these are rookie and 2nd year tight ends and outside of Pettigrew and Bennett were not high draft choices, not guys who are counted on to start. I don't know what type of numbers the other tight ends who weren't in the spread offense in college put up in their first and second years in the NFL, but I would take a guess they do on average similar to how these "spread offense" tight ends have done. It's clear there are some tight ends who came from spread-based offenses in college, who have contributed in the NFL. Remember, there aren't a lot of great tight ends that put up huge numbers in the NFL and it also matters what type of offense the tight end plays in while in the NFL.
I don't know if a tight end in a spread offense should have his numbers be considered any more deceiving than a tight end who plays in a run-based offense in college. Should you not bother scouting tight ends who play in a run-based offense too? Their college numbers could be deceptive as well. The player should be scouted for his skills and if those skills can transfer to the NFL. I don't think we can assume the numbers for a tight end who plays in a spread-offense in college are deceptive.
I don't know if all these statements were wide receiver myths, but they seemed more like blanket statements that I didn't agree with 100% to me.
-Boy, my MLB playoff picks are sure going straight to hell aren't they? 2 teams I have winning their series are going to get swept. I fully expect the Red Sox to pull it out though, if they know how to do anything, it's comeback when their backs are against the wall. The Cardinals could also comeback in my mind because they should have won Game 2 and if they make it to Game 5 I have confidence in Adam Wainwright.
I am not a Yankees fan at all, but I can't lie and say I wasn't absolutely pleased A-Rod hit a game tying homerun last night. I got so tired of people being on his ass for not being a "clutch" playoff performer. The only difference I can tell in his swing is that he is making the pitcher pitch to him now and not actually looking to hit a homerun, but waiting for a pitch to hit. His at-bat against Nathan last night was a thing of beauty because he laid off the crap Nathan threw early in the count knowing he wasn't going to throw him anything good he could hit until he had to.
In the past, he has swung at the crap pitchers threw early in the count. I think that is what makes Jeter a good hitter in the postseason or at least makes him seem "clutch," because he knows pitchers aren't going to want to throw him a strike in a tight spot so he waits for a pitch to hit and then tries to hit it. A-Rod's a cheater and probably a piece of shit, but I get tired of people being on him for being a playoff "choker."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)