Showing posts with label wide receivers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wide receivers. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
2 comments MMQB Review: Marvin Demoff Plays Emperor Palpatine to Peter's Anakin Edition
Peter King told us last week in MMQB that he really enjoys the obituaries in "The New York Times," he made a few guesses about how the NFL Draft is going to turn out, discussed the Darrelle Revis trade, and glossed over Jimmy Haslem potentially being convicted for a crime. It's not like that would be a big deal or anything of course. This week Peter talks about all the surprises in the NFL Draft, talks about the time he spent in the (not a shock) Rams' war room, and apologizes for lacking non-football related notes. Because I'm sure everyone reads MMQB for Peter's half-thought out ruminations on baseball and to see what latest anti-gun screed he has cooked up for this week. Oh, the horror of an NFL column not having enough non-football related topics contained within it.
(Four days before the NFL Draft, Peter King and Jeff Fisher's agent Marvin Demoff calls Peter)...
(Peter is whistling a U2 song when his cell rings) "Brett, is that you?"
(Marvin Demoff) "Peter, you have to stop answering the phone that way. How many times have I told you that? I will let you have Brett Favre's cell phone number at the end of the 2014 season. No sooner, no less. Your habit has to be broken."
(Peter King) "Sorry, sir."
(Marvin Demoff) "Don't you think Jeff Fisher is doing a great job in St. Louis?"
(Peter King) "Oh, I think he's doing a right splendid job down there in St.---"
(Marvin Demoff) "Over there, Peter, not 'down there.'"
(Peter King) "Oh...right. I think he's doing a right splendid job over there in St. Louis. I've been telling my readers just like you like me to what a fantastic team the Rams are putting together. I let my readers know what a fine coach Mr. Fisher is."
(Marvin Demoff) "Yeah, you are doing great. I need you to ask your bosses if you can be in the Rams war room for this year's NFL Draft. I just need you to be in the war room and report on what a fine organization is being run by Fisher and Les Snead. No big deal, just say nothing negative about the job Jeff Fisher is doing, exactly like you have been doing so far even though Fisher has hired a coach who placed bounties on opposing players and then hired that coach's son when he not ready for the position."
(Peter King) "Oh, sir, you know I'd never say nothing negative about the Fisher team being run down there in St. Louis."
(Marvin Demoff) "Again, it's 'over there,' not 'down there.' While you are in St. Louis writing about all the great things the Rams organization is doing, take a tour of St. Louis and get to know the city so you know where the hell it is. Just convince your bosses this is the team you need to be embedded with or I will never give you Favre's cell phone number."
(Peter King) "I'll get done, sir. I do the good work and will make Mr. Fisher seem like the next Bob Lombardi---"
(Marvin Demoff) "It's 'Vince Lombardi," Peter, not 'Bob Lombardi.'"
(Peter King) "Either way, you'll be real impressed with the work I'll do. I'm gonna make him look real good and see if I can't help you land him another contract in St. Louis."
(Marvin Demoff) "That's real good Peter. I'm proud of you. Make me even prouder and remember to never ever say anything bad about the Rams and say only good things about who they draft."
(Peter King) "I won't forget, I promise sir. And I'm taking that tour of St. Louis while I'm there. Nebraska is such a beautiful state I bet."
(Marvin Demoff) "St. Louis is in Missou---ok, just go convince your bosses, Peter. Talk to you later."
Being with the coaches, GM, scouts and execs of the Rams for Round 1, I saw and heard what a rush the draft is for football-freak 30- and 40-somethings.
The NFL is popular and those who have jobs with NFL teams like their job. Apparently this is a concept Peter had never come to understand prior to spending time in the Rams' war room. Peter just figured everyone read MMQB for his sharp wit and astute observations on the Red Sox team.
There's gambling -- which the Rams did especially well in moving from pick 22 to pick 30.
(Marvin Demoff nods his head in encouragement and rubs his hands together excitedly at how Peter is starting MMQB off)
There are big-screen TVs, and the occasional chuckle at a Kiper or Mayock statement, and catered swordfish and strip steaks, and you're with all your friends (mostly), doing what guys love to do: talk football.
I feel like I am really there in the war room. What a descriptive narrative by Peter King. There is big-screen televisions and catered swordfish? It's not like Peter to bring up any interesting perks he gets while doing his job, so you know this must have been some really good catered swordfish.
I was here to write a story on the Rams for this week's issue of Sports Illustrated (shameless plug -- on iPads Wednesday and newsstands Thursday!).
So we get a preview of the article on the Rams in MMQB AND we get an entire full article in "Sports Illustrated" this week? It's going to be interesting to read about the Rams war room, but it is such a coincidence that Peter was embedded with Jeff Fisher's team. I'm interested to learn more about Jeff Fisher's plan to go 8-8 this upcoming year. I am kidding of course, the Rams seemingly did a great job in the draft and it is just a coincidence Peter breathlessly reported on Fisher's decision between the Dolphins and the Rams over a year ago. It was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with Peter throwing his agent a solid by driving up the interest in his client.
Well, I lucked out, as you'll read in the story this week, because GM Les Snead, coach Jeff Fisher and COO Kevin Demoff made stuff happen.
Wait, wait...Kevin Demoff? That must be a misspelling because there is a Marvin Demoff that represents Fisher and Peter King. It turns out this is not a misspelling and Kevin Demoff his Marvin Demoff's son.
So for those of you keeping track, Jeff Fisher was hired by his agent's son and now that same agent has another of his clients who is a respected reporter in the Rams war room reporting on the Rams draft day dealings and selections. A more jaded person would say Marvin Demoff worked this all out so his client, who is a reporter, could report positive things about another one of his clients, Jeff Fisher, so that his son who happens to be the COO of the Rams would look good. I am not jaded and would never suggest anything like this was ever thought nor happened. It was all just a coincidence.
You saw the Rams trade twice -- from 16 up to eight, to take wideout/returner Tavon Austin, and from 22 down to 30, to take versatile linebacker Alec Ogletree -- but what you didn't see was the glee in the room when both picks were made.
You also won't hear from Peter about the red flags that came along with Alec Ogletree and how Austin is a bit of a risk because he put up his fantastic numbers in a very wide receiver-friendly college system and is not built like the typical #1 wide receiver.
Twenty-five or so football people in the room, not in cliques or camps, but together, and pretty excited when the moves were made. Case in point: When Ogletree was picked, special teams coach John Fassel and linebackers coach Frank Bush high-fived and considered the impact of the first two picks.
My question to Peter would be this...the Rams traded up to get Tavon Austin and Alec Ogletree, so why would anyone expect the Rams organization to be upset about these picks specifically when they traded up to get these players? Is it really news that the Rams organization was happy about these picks? They traded up to specifically acquire these players.
"Wait,'' Fassel said. "I don't want him to block the punts -- I want to see Tavon return 'em!''
And they both laughed the kind of laugh you hear in a draft room when you've just had a good day.
It's all rainbows and sunshine in the Rams war room. Well played Marvin Demoff, well played.
Will Austin be the electric player he was at West Virginia? Don't know.
But Peter does know the Rams were excited to pick Austin and that has to mean something, right? Usually the staff of an NFL team mopes around after selecting a player they specifically traded up to acquire.
Will Ogletree be all player and no distraction, which made him tumble down the board in Round 1? Don't know that either. But for one night, the Rams seemed to help their team quite a bit, and it's obvious from the view I got why football's such a drug to so many.
BREAKING NEWS: An NFL team liked their draft picks.
Topics of the day:
1. I admire what Doug Marrone did. I think passing on the quarterback who helped him get an NFL head-coaching job was tough -- but it was the loyal thing to his organization, and the honorable thing to do once he found he liked E.J. Manuel more than his own Ryan Nassib.
So Peter admires Doug Marrone for choosing the quarterback he likes best who will also best enable him to keep his NFL head coaching job? It doesn't take much to get Peter's admiration it seems. Do what is best for you to keep your current job and Peter thinks you are a peachy guy.
Why would Marrone draft a quarterback he doesn't believe is the best option at #16 in the first round? Is there an NFL head coach who would do this completely out of loyalty to one of his college players?
2. Who doesn't love what the Vikings did? Sharrif Floyd 23rd?
Players sometimes fall for a reason, plus he has short arms, which apparently is a bad thing for a defensive lineman.
The most dangerous deep-threat receiver in the pool, Cordarrelle Patterson, 29th?
I remember the last time the Vikings selected a dangerous deep-threat and a defensive lineman in the first round it was Troy Williamson and Erasmus James. I'm not saying Patterson and Floyd are going to be busts, but let's not crown the Vikings quite yet. They appear to have had a great draft, but Patterson isn't exactly a non-risk at #29.
4. Cleveland does the Belichickian thing, trading into the future.
Except unlike Belichick's Patriots teams the Browns need good players right now. There's a small difference in the Belichick approach for the Patriots and the Browns.
5. The quarterbacks didn't go 6-29-31-33-40, the way we were sold that they might. They went 16-39-73-98-110. They fell because we all bought the hype --
What's this "we" shit? I didn't buy into any hype. My mock draft had one quarterback going in the first round. Granted, I was WAY off on when Nassib would go, but there isn't a "we" in the conversation. Peter King bought into the hype.
As one personnel man told me Sunday: "I think we just couldn't believe there wasn't a run on them late in the first round, and it's because it turned out teams just didn't see them as their quarterbacks of the future.''
Thank God I have this quote from an anonymous personnel guy to tell me that teams who don't like a quarterback won't draft that quarterback in the first round. This is completely new knowledge to me.
Here will be one of the great trivia questions five years from now: Who was the first running back picked in the 2013 draft? Even this morning, you have to think hard to say Giovani Bernard (37th, to Cincinnati). This was the first time since 1973 a runner wasn't picked in the first round, and no wonder. In 2010, an undrafted back (Arian Foster) won the rushing title. In 2011, the top five in the rushing race were drafted 60th, 55th, 154th, 53rd and not at all. And of course last year, the 173rd pick, a rookie, Alfred Morris, finished second in the rushing race to Adrian Peterson.
Where was Adrian Peterson drafted again? That's right, the first round. So there may not have been a franchise running back in this year's draft, but it still may be worth it from time-to-time to draft running backs in the first round.
There can still be great running backs picked high, but why do it unless you have a combo speed/power guy like Peterson -- especially when rushing gems drop out of the sky on Day 3?
What if a team has found it's speed/power guy in the 2014 draft and wants to make sure they get this running back by drafting him in the first round? Does that make it a bad pick or did they simply draft the guy they wanted when they wanted him? Say Eddie Lacy has a great rookie season, wouldn't it make sense for an NFL team to look at T.J. Yeldon and think, "It may be worth it to take him with a first round pick"?
13. Two Philly thoughts: I have no idea what Chip Kelly's going to do on offense, and I think he likes it that way. If two of his three quarterbacks (Nick Foles and Matt Barkley) are pocket guys, is he really going to make his quarterback pocket a movable feast? I think Tony Dungy's right (his son played for Kelly at Oregon) when he says he expects Kelly's NFL offense to be like Buffalo's under Jim Kelly -- very fast-paced, but not necessarily with a quarterback who has to run to win
Is having a fast-paced offense not necessarily with a quarterback who has to run to win any different from the hurry-up offense the Patriots run or the no-huddle offense the Falcons ran at times last year? I fully expect Chip Kelly to do some different things in terms of running the Eagles offense, but there are NFL teams who run a fast-paced offense without a quarterback who has to run to win.
14. Stop killing the Cowboys. Just stop. Dallas got the No. 1 center on many boards at 31 (Travis Frederick), filling a gaping hole; an offensive tight end to someday replace Jason Witten (Gavin Escobar) at 47; and a 51-game starter at wideout from Baylor, Terrance Williams (who averaged 19 yards a catch last year) at 74. As one GM told me Sunday: "Frederick might be a reach, but if you get a starter for your team for six or eight years -- at any position -- isn't that worth the 31st pick overall in a lousy draft?"
This wasn't a lousy draft at all. If anything this is one of the deepest drafts over the last decade. There were quality players to be found in the fourth and fifth round. It certainly wasn't considered a top-heavy draft, but the draft wasn't lousy.
When Arizona took Mathieu early in the third round, I immediately thought that was the kind of move other teams in the NFC West would have tried.
Upon hearing this I immediately think you are an idiot and I have no idea what you mean by this comment.
Seattle went the risky route with Bruce Irvin in the first round last year (and took cornerback Tharold Simon two days after he was arrested this year).
There is a big difference in drafting Bruce Irvin in the first round and taking Mathieu in the third round. There is less money involved and there are more questions about Mathieu's ability to be mature and thrive in the NFL. Bruce Irvin was more of a risk because he was seen as being drafted too early. Irvin broke a sign in March of 2012 and had spent 2.5 weeks in jail five years before being drafted. Mathieu's red flags were more numerous and also spread over a shorter period of time.
"It's uncharacteristic of our organization to take chances on guys with troubled pasts,'' Cardinals general manager Steve Keim told me Sunday night. "But we thought this was a good player and person for us to take.''
"He is good at football," is all Steve Keim had to say. That's what he really means.
The Cardinals, one league source told me earlier Sunday, will randomly drug test Mathieu as often as weekly after he signs his NFL contract -- a contract, I'm told, that will not include any guaranteed money. Rather, Mathieu will earn bonus money in the form of roster bonuses, to ensure that the club is protected in the event that he lapses and the team chooses to cut him. If that happens, the Cardinals will be out a prime draft choice, but not any guaranteed money. Last year's 69th pick, wideout T.J. Graham of the Bills, signed a four-year deal with a $671,000 bonus. For Mathieu to make that money, he'll have to be a member of the Cardinals in good standing week to week -- and clean.
I'm not sure Peter is completely understanding the issue with Mathieu. It isn't the money the Cardinals should be worried most about. For them, taking a chance on a player who will earn a $700,000 isn't a huge risk. This is the team that gave Kevin Kolb a huge contract, so if Mathieu doesn't stick I don't think money would be the Cardinals biggest concern. The concern is mostly about spending an early third round draft choice on a player who has red flags when it comes to his personal life and behavior. It's smart for the Cardinals to protect themselves in terms of bonus money, but I wouldn't think the money spent on a third round draft choice is the main concern here.
Some team was going to take Mathieu,
Most likely an NFC West team, because drafting Mathieu is the kind of move other NFC West teams would have tried.
others were interested somewhere in the middle of the draft.
Mainly NFC West teams of course. Only that division would have the out-of-the-box thinking to draft a guy like Mathieu. We all know it is a move Jeff Fisher would have tried because he is the perfect combination of willing to give a guy a second chance while also being a disciplinarian who doesn't stand for a player's bullshit.
Oakland GM Reggie McKenzie said the health scare "became a non-issue for us'' once Raiders medical officials cleared him.
When I heard the Raiders took D.J. Hayden in the first round I thought that was the kind of move an AFC West team would try to pull. That's SO AFC West to draft a guy who almost died on the football field!
Can he? Hayden hasn't been in a football practice or game since that fateful day last November in Houston. He said he's rough-housed with friends around his home, but hasn't had the kind of contact he'll have come July in Raiders camp. Will he be able to put the accident out of his mind when bigger, stronger and faster players come at him from all directions?
"Great question,'' he said. "I definitely understand that. You don't know 'til you get out there. The chance of it happening again are slim and none. But I can tell you I think the more reps I get, the more comfortable I will be and the better I will do. I am not worried about it.''
Hmmm...this doesn't exactly instill confidence that Hayden won't be a little gun-shy once he gets out on the football field. "You don't know until you get out there," while probably true, isn't exactly making me believe Hayden won't be affected the first time he tries to tackle an opposing player.
Nix and Marrone both judged Manuel the best quarterback in the crop. Buffalo traded from No. 8 t in the first round to No. 16, picked Manuel at 16, and stashed an extra second-round pick in the process.
When I talked to Marrone on Sunday, it was apparent that even though the pick was three days old, the impact of it -- all of it -- was still fresh. And it still bothered him.
"I don't know if words can explain it,'' Marrone said from his office.
Yeah, you can explain it. You like Manuel better than Nassib. It's business. Drafting Nassib in the first round simply to show sort of loyalty to him despite not thinking he was the best quarterback for the Bills would have been doing Nassib any good, Marrone any good, and the Bills any good.
"The responsibility I had was to get the best player we could get. There are a lot of people relying on me to get the best players we can get here -- all the people in the organization and all the fans who buy tickets to see us play.''
NFL coaches pass on their ex-players all the time. Pete Carroll passed on Taylor Mays a few years ago and he still hasn't regretted that decision.
I don't see it as disloyal. I see it as a coach who got a job and whose new job is to look at a pool of players and pick the best one. Why would he automatically pick the one he'd been with, just because he'd been with him and had success?
I'm not sure any rational person has stated that Doug Marrone should have drafted Ryan Nassib purely out of loyalty. He's arguing with no one. I feel like there is a future JemeHill column titled, "Everyone Who Thinks Doug Marrone Should Have Drafted Ryan Nassib Out of Loyalty is Wrong."
Should he put on blinders because he'd won with one player and pick a player he felt deep down was inferior to another one? No. His loyalty is with the Buffalo Bills now, not to the players had at Syracuse.
Again, this seems pretty obvious. I really don't know who would argue with Marrone not taking Nassib if he didn't think he was the best quarterback for Buffalo.
Now about the Manuel pick. Marrone didn't want to get into comparison shopping here, because saying what one guy does better than the other is going to leave the second guy looking like a loser. But Manuel, though a questionable decision-maker, was more accurate last season. He's two inches taller and a better athlete. Now, there are things Nassib did better. He's more instinctive in the pocket and appears to be better at picking the right target downfield.
So Nassib has better instincts for a quarterback and throws the ball to the right guy better. Manuel looks more like a quarterback, which is something I thought was seeming less and less important, but that's neither here nor there.
No. But who wouldn't be impressed with Barkley's demeanor after he was the 98th overall pick, a year after choosing to stay in school when he could have been a top 10 pick after his third straight standout season at USC?
So it is the time of the column where we compliment Matt Barkley for having all of the measurables of a starting NFL quarterback except the skill set required?
"Whether I'm the first pick or whether I'm Mr. Irrelevant, I'm in the NFL now. My jersey's not going to say, 'Fourth round Barkley.' It's going to say, 'Barkley.' ''
Well, that's assuming Barkley even gets a jersey on Sundays. He could end up wearing the Clausen line of sideline wear that includes a mike in his ear, a team t-shirt, and a sad look on his face. This is what the inactive NFL quarterback rocks while on the sidelines.
"Repetitive accuracy is the No. 1 quality we're looking for in a quarterback,'' Kelly said Saturday, and when he was asked about Barkley's average arm strength, he said, "We're not trying to knock over milk cartons at the county fair.''
Repetitive accuracy is the No. 1 quality Chip Kelly wants in a quarterback? Kelly does realize his starting quarterback has a career completion percentage of 56.3% (though Vick's accuracy has been much better in Philadelphia)?
But the consensus was he'd have been a top 10 pick. Tannehill's deal: four years, $12.7 million. The 98th pick last year, Ravens center Gino Gradkowski, signed for four years and $2.58 million. Turns out it was a $10.1 million year of school for Matt Barkley.
Man, I hope it was worth it. Go on take the money and run is what I always say. Don't give the scouts time to pick you apart and decide why you aren't a Top-10 pick.
Cleveland made two of the three trades for next year's picks, which is something Bill Belichick always has liked to do -- and Cleveland GM Mike Lombardi goes to the Belichick school of draft maneuvering.
This is where the similarities between these two begin and end. Otherwise, Bill Belichick is Bill Belichick and Mike Lombardi is Mike Lombardi. He can't ride those Belichick coattails forever and the comparisons between the two end quickly.
Browns fans: Just remember when Josh Gordon is crushed over the middle by the heir to Troy Polamalu, Syracuse strong safety Shamarko Thomas, Thomas is the guy your team let the Steelers have.
Well, Doug Marrone also passed on Thomas (Thomas went to Syracuse) to take Duke Williams, so there's a chance Shamarko Thomas isn't the heir apparent to Troy Polamalu.
Then Peter gives credit to Ted Thompson for having Eddie Lacy and Jonathan Franklin fall to him. I like both picks, but after writing about the running back position has been devalued Peter shouldn't act so surprised top running backs are available in the second and fourth rounds. After all, Peter just pointed out how many of the leading rushers during the 2012 season were not early round picks. So Ted Thompson was merely smart and knew he could get the guy he wanted in the draft given the current state of the running back position.
On a trade you paid no attention to.
Stop telling me what I did or did not pay attention to.
Now as the picks ticked by, they knew they risked losing the linebacker they liked most at this point, Kansas State's Arthur Brown. So the Ravens dealt the 62nd pick along with fifth- and sixth-round picks to Seattle for the 56th pick. They picked Brown.
It's a fucking riveting story and I originally had Brown mocked to the Ravens in the first round, but backed off it because I'm a wimp. Boy, I wish I had paid more attention to this trade. Thanks for pointing out what I do or don't pay attention to, Peter.
Brown's a potential captain, the kind of leader the Ravens hope two or three years down the road will start to fill the void left by Ray Lewis. Great trade.
A great trade, no, a fantastic trade. If only I had paid more attention to it.
I write quite a bit in the magazine in my Rams story about the trade from 22 to 30 for Alec Ogletree. The Rams coveted Ogletree, and they took a calculated risk they'd lose him by not picking him at 22. In fact, had they lost Ogletree between 22 and 30, it would have cast a pall over the entire draft.
No, it would have cast a pall over the entire universe as a whole. The Rams had to have Alec Ogletree. Fortunately they have the best GM and head coach in the history of the NFL.
But that's why they pay Jeff Fisher and Les Snead the big dough.
And boy are they worth it! (Marvin Demoff smiles happily)
The trade brought back Atlanta's third-round pick, and with that pick, the Rams picked West Virginia wideout Stedman Bailey, who led college football with 25 touchdown catches last year. Bailey and Tavon Austin could remake the Rams' attack into a latter-day Greatest Show on Turf with their quickness and playmaking ability downfield.
Again, these two guys also played in an incredibly wide receiver-friendly college offense and are both under six feet. I feel like this needs to be mentioned before we start comparing them to Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce.
And it never would have happened if Snead and Fisher hadn't taken the risk of potentially losing Ogletree. Win some, lose some. But the weekend, as I'll explain in my story this week, was a big win for the Rams -- assuming Ogletree is a solid citizen as well as a playmaking linebacker.
"Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are risk-takers! But not such big risk-takers that they take bad risks. Oh no, they are smart risk-takers, the perfect blend of pretty much anything any head coach and GM should be. Under the management of rising genius COO Kevin Demoff the Rams are on an upper trajectory in the NFC West."
I would imagine that's how Marvin Demoff demanded the first sentence of Peter's column on the Rams would begin.
"I'm all in for Week 1, just like you guys are."
-- Robert Griffin III, the rehabbing Washington quarterback, at the club's draft party for fans over the weekend. He jumped up and down on stage, and the crowd reacted like a packed house at a Jay-Z show.
"...reacted like a packed house at a Jay-Z show." Peter is hip with his urban music analogies. He knows what a "Jay-Z" is, he can Superman that ho' and knows all the modern dance moves (Peter starts doing the Macarena).
Then Peter begins absolutely salivating all over Tavon Austin to the point it is embarrassing.
I enlisted SI college football guru Andy Staples to help me with the math on something that amazes me about the smurfy Austin, the first pick of the St. Louis Rams and the only offensive skill player to be picked in the top 15 of the 2013 draft. Austin told me he missed one practice in his four years at West Virginia. Doing the math with Staples, if you figure Austin went through three sets of spring practices (15 per year, 45 total), four preseasons (25 per year, 100 total), four bowl games (15 per year, 60 total) and about 50 regular-season practices per year (100 total), that adds up to 405 practices.
Austin practiced 404 out of 405 West Virginia practices, then, and played in 52 of 52 WVU games.
More bonus facts about Austin: In his first 48 college games, he rushed the ball only 51 times, mostly on end-arounds and options. In his 49th game, against Oklahoma, he rushed 21 times for 344 yards. Imagine having a game with runs of 74, 56, 54 and 47 yards ... in one half (the second).
The Big 12 record for all-purpose yards in a game prior to that game was 375. Against Oklahoma, Austin had 572.
I realize Austin is an exciting player, but Peter isn't doing much to make my kooky conspiracy theory that he is pumping up the Rams' draft and Jeff Fisher simply because his agent (Marvin Demoff) represents Fisher and King, while Demoff's song is the COO of the Rams. It just all seems too perfect in my mind, though I know it probably isn't true. Maybe if Peter wrote something negative about the Rams it would help, but good luck with that happening.
The first names of the seven Denver draft picks: Sylvester, Montee, Kayvon, Quanterus, Tavarres, Vinston and Zac.
Peter loves to bring up when a minority player has a funny name. He is never not shocked at how creative minorities can be with these names they give their children. They so crazy!
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
And as Marvin Demoff instructed, Peter did take a tour of St. Louis. He notes this in his weekly travel note.
Here in St. Louis, with a couple of hours free Thursday afternoon and not wanting to obsess about the draft, I took a walk from my downtown hotel over to the Gateway Arch. I've seen it before, but not really up close. I walked around both bases of it -- it's much wider than I thought.
Why does it not shock me that the Gateway Arch is wider than Peter thought?
And there was a tour group of what looked to be junior-high kids hearing a guide give some of the facts and figures of the Arch, so I loitered in the back and listened.
Let's call this what it really was, Peter King leered in the background as innocent school children took a tour of the Gateway Arch, causing the adult chaperones to get a step or two closer to the children for their own protection.
It's beautiful, by the way.
Thanks for the information. I can't wait for Peter's visit to the Grand Canyon where he remarks it is deeper than he expected, but more majestic than he ever imagined.
Ten Things I Think I Think
2. I think if I'm Mark Sanchez, I ask John Idzik very respectfully to put me out of my misery and release me.
I think if I am John Idzik then I wouldn't release Mark Sanchez until I know Geno Smith could be a good backup and that David Gerrard can be a temporary starter. I don't know if I would go about releasing Sanchez until I know a rookie and a guy who didn't play football last year could hold down the starting quarterback job. We all know Sanchez isn't a great quarterback, he isn't even an average quarterback, but take it from a guy who has watched Jimmy Clausen start at quarterback, it can be much worse than having Sanchez as the Jets starting quarterback.
Whether you think it was smart to take Smith or not, the fact is he's in Jersey now, and the Jets are going to give him a fair shot to be the long-term quarterback. It's silly to think it's not going to be a total zoo around that team if Sanchez stays this season. I'd rather have a prayer with team peace while developing a new quarterback and spending $91 million on players than mayhem and spending $103 million.
This isn't a bad plan, but it is always a zoo in New York anyway. Plus, if Rex Ryan has any say left in the organization then he isn't about to start to get his season-ending firing started in May by developing a new quarterback and giving himself zero backup options at the quarterback position that he trusts at least 20% to win games.
I think the Jets should release Sanchez, but not necessarily be in a rush to do so.
5. I think this illustrates the bizarre nature of this year's draft: One team I spoke with Friday, not in the market to draft a quarterback but stunned at the descent of Ryan Nassib, told me Nassib was the second-rated quarterback on its board. And one team I spoke with Sunday had 10 quarterbacks rated higher than Nassib.
It's almost like each NFL team has a very different draft board that reflects how each team values the collegiate players entering the NFL Draft.
b. GM David Caldwell saw Denard Robinson for what he was -- a versatile weapon who loves football -- and plucked him 135th overall. What will he be? A running back, probably. Or a slot receiver, or a wide receiver, or a Brad Smith-esque quarterback/receiver. What I've said about Tim Tebow for a year holds true for Robinson:
He's worthless and shouldn't be considered a quarterback by any stretch of the imagination?
Just get the guy on your team and find something for him to do. He'll find a way with his hands on the ball to be a factor.
Except Tebow didn't do anything with the football in his hands on the ball over the last year. I know, I know, these are just small details. Tebow is awesome and no one will give him a shot. NFL teams are famous for not giving talented players a chance to show what they can do on the football field.
c. Skeptical about the smurfy (5-7, 173-pound) receiver/returner Ace Sanders in the fourth round? Understandable. But Sanders was the guy the Rams would have targeted in the third or fourth round if they weren't able to move up for Tavon Austin.
Oh, well I didn't know the Rams were going to draft Ace Sanders if they couldn't get Tavon Austin. The fact the Rams were going to draft Sanders totally changes my opinion of Sanders as a receiver. I didn't realize Ace Sanders was such an NFC West-type pick. Now if the Vikings were going to draft Sanders if they didn't get Corradelle Patterson, well then obviously that means Sanders would suck as a wide receiver.
7. I think, not that it's going to tell the tale of the guy's career, there was a little bit too much woe-is-me head-hanging out of Geno Smith Thursday night. Buck up, fella.
He had booked a hotel room for Thursday night and didn't get drafted so he had to make the decision to stay in town one more night or stay behind and show up after he didn't get drafted in the first round. It's embarrassing. I think it's natural to hang your head when you are being shown on national television every five minutes with the fact you haven't been chosen yet being discussed constantly.
9. I think Manti Te'o at 25 would have been eminently justified. Manti Te'o at 38 is a value pick for San Diego.A value pick when they traded up to get him? Speaking of woe-is-me head-hanging, how about the ESPN draft analysts mentioning the fact Te'o had not gotten chosen every five minutes?
10.I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Been a little busy with football thoughts this week to have non-football ones, but I'll give it a go.
That was Peter's first thought. His first non-football thought was that he didn't have many non-football thoughts.
e. Thanks for putting Houston in the American League, whoever did that.
Yeah, "whoever did that." I'm pretty sure it is easy to figure out who put Houston in the American League. I'm surprised Peter even knows there is an MLB team in Houston. He probably wasn't aware of this until the Red Sox played the Astros recently. Peter loves baseball, you know. He just seems to know very little about the sport.
f. Red Sox and Yankees, 33-16. Rays and Jays, 21-30. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around this year?
It's almost like the preseason narratives don't perfectly describe exactly how the season is going to end up progressing. The Blue Jays were good on paper and the Red Sox weren't, how could reality be different? Peter's world is shaken.
g. Coffeenerdness: St. Louis has Peet's coffee, which automatically makes it a place worth visiting. It's in the casino down by the Arch.
I'm guessing this isn't the same casino that Peter visited in New Orleans after the Super Bowl where he was shocked that there were drunk people and not a lively, spirited crowd at 6am. Who knew casinos could be a place for such ruffians at 6am?
j. Forgive me my limited non-football notes this week. I'll be better next week.
Actually, by doing better you would have even more limited set of non-football notes.
The Adieu Haiku
Vikes picked a punter.
Chris Kluwe, endangered dude?
Come write for SI.
Just average punter.
Peter likes his politics.
CFL next stop.
(Four days before the NFL Draft, Peter King and Jeff Fisher's agent Marvin Demoff calls Peter)...
(Peter is whistling a U2 song when his cell rings) "Brett, is that you?"
(Marvin Demoff) "Peter, you have to stop answering the phone that way. How many times have I told you that? I will let you have Brett Favre's cell phone number at the end of the 2014 season. No sooner, no less. Your habit has to be broken."
(Peter King) "Sorry, sir."
(Marvin Demoff) "Don't you think Jeff Fisher is doing a great job in St. Louis?"
(Peter King) "Oh, I think he's doing a right splendid job down there in St.---"
(Marvin Demoff) "Over there, Peter, not 'down there.'"
(Peter King) "Oh...right. I think he's doing a right splendid job over there in St. Louis. I've been telling my readers just like you like me to what a fantastic team the Rams are putting together. I let my readers know what a fine coach Mr. Fisher is."
(Marvin Demoff) "Yeah, you are doing great. I need you to ask your bosses if you can be in the Rams war room for this year's NFL Draft. I just need you to be in the war room and report on what a fine organization is being run by Fisher and Les Snead. No big deal, just say nothing negative about the job Jeff Fisher is doing, exactly like you have been doing so far even though Fisher has hired a coach who placed bounties on opposing players and then hired that coach's son when he not ready for the position."
(Peter King) "Oh, sir, you know I'd never say nothing negative about the Fisher team being run down there in St. Louis."
(Marvin Demoff) "Again, it's 'over there,' not 'down there.' While you are in St. Louis writing about all the great things the Rams organization is doing, take a tour of St. Louis and get to know the city so you know where the hell it is. Just convince your bosses this is the team you need to be embedded with or I will never give you Favre's cell phone number."
(Peter King) "I'll get done, sir. I do the good work and will make Mr. Fisher seem like the next Bob Lombardi---"
(Marvin Demoff) "It's 'Vince Lombardi," Peter, not 'Bob Lombardi.'"
(Peter King) "Either way, you'll be real impressed with the work I'll do. I'm gonna make him look real good and see if I can't help you land him another contract in St. Louis."
(Marvin Demoff) "That's real good Peter. I'm proud of you. Make me even prouder and remember to never ever say anything bad about the Rams and say only good things about who they draft."
(Peter King) "I won't forget, I promise sir. And I'm taking that tour of St. Louis while I'm there. Nebraska is such a beautiful state I bet."
(Marvin Demoff) "St. Louis is in Missou---ok, just go convince your bosses, Peter. Talk to you later."
Being with the coaches, GM, scouts and execs of the Rams for Round 1, I saw and heard what a rush the draft is for football-freak 30- and 40-somethings.
The NFL is popular and those who have jobs with NFL teams like their job. Apparently this is a concept Peter had never come to understand prior to spending time in the Rams' war room. Peter just figured everyone read MMQB for his sharp wit and astute observations on the Red Sox team.
There's gambling -- which the Rams did especially well in moving from pick 22 to pick 30.
(Marvin Demoff nods his head in encouragement and rubs his hands together excitedly at how Peter is starting MMQB off)
There are big-screen TVs, and the occasional chuckle at a Kiper or Mayock statement, and catered swordfish and strip steaks, and you're with all your friends (mostly), doing what guys love to do: talk football.
I feel like I am really there in the war room. What a descriptive narrative by Peter King. There is big-screen televisions and catered swordfish? It's not like Peter to bring up any interesting perks he gets while doing his job, so you know this must have been some really good catered swordfish.
I was here to write a story on the Rams for this week's issue of Sports Illustrated (shameless plug -- on iPads Wednesday and newsstands Thursday!).
So we get a preview of the article on the Rams in MMQB AND we get an entire full article in "Sports Illustrated" this week? It's going to be interesting to read about the Rams war room, but it is such a coincidence that Peter was embedded with Jeff Fisher's team. I'm interested to learn more about Jeff Fisher's plan to go 8-8 this upcoming year. I am kidding of course, the Rams seemingly did a great job in the draft and it is just a coincidence Peter breathlessly reported on Fisher's decision between the Dolphins and the Rams over a year ago. It was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with Peter throwing his agent a solid by driving up the interest in his client.
Well, I lucked out, as you'll read in the story this week, because GM Les Snead, coach Jeff Fisher and COO Kevin Demoff made stuff happen.
Wait, wait...Kevin Demoff? That must be a misspelling because there is a Marvin Demoff that represents Fisher and Peter King. It turns out this is not a misspelling and Kevin Demoff his Marvin Demoff's son.
So for those of you keeping track, Jeff Fisher was hired by his agent's son and now that same agent has another of his clients who is a respected reporter in the Rams war room reporting on the Rams draft day dealings and selections. A more jaded person would say Marvin Demoff worked this all out so his client, who is a reporter, could report positive things about another one of his clients, Jeff Fisher, so that his son who happens to be the COO of the Rams would look good. I am not jaded and would never suggest anything like this was ever thought nor happened. It was all just a coincidence.
You saw the Rams trade twice -- from 16 up to eight, to take wideout/returner Tavon Austin, and from 22 down to 30, to take versatile linebacker Alec Ogletree -- but what you didn't see was the glee in the room when both picks were made.
You also won't hear from Peter about the red flags that came along with Alec Ogletree and how Austin is a bit of a risk because he put up his fantastic numbers in a very wide receiver-friendly college system and is not built like the typical #1 wide receiver.
Twenty-five or so football people in the room, not in cliques or camps, but together, and pretty excited when the moves were made. Case in point: When Ogletree was picked, special teams coach John Fassel and linebackers coach Frank Bush high-fived and considered the impact of the first two picks.
My question to Peter would be this...the Rams traded up to get Tavon Austin and Alec Ogletree, so why would anyone expect the Rams organization to be upset about these picks specifically when they traded up to get these players? Is it really news that the Rams organization was happy about these picks? They traded up to specifically acquire these players.
"Wait,'' Fassel said. "I don't want him to block the punts -- I want to see Tavon return 'em!''
And they both laughed the kind of laugh you hear in a draft room when you've just had a good day.
It's all rainbows and sunshine in the Rams war room. Well played Marvin Demoff, well played.
Will Austin be the electric player he was at West Virginia? Don't know.
But Peter does know the Rams were excited to pick Austin and that has to mean something, right? Usually the staff of an NFL team mopes around after selecting a player they specifically traded up to acquire.
Will Ogletree be all player and no distraction, which made him tumble down the board in Round 1? Don't know that either. But for one night, the Rams seemed to help their team quite a bit, and it's obvious from the view I got why football's such a drug to so many.
BREAKING NEWS: An NFL team liked their draft picks.
Topics of the day:
1. I admire what Doug Marrone did. I think passing on the quarterback who helped him get an NFL head-coaching job was tough -- but it was the loyal thing to his organization, and the honorable thing to do once he found he liked E.J. Manuel more than his own Ryan Nassib.
So Peter admires Doug Marrone for choosing the quarterback he likes best who will also best enable him to keep his NFL head coaching job? It doesn't take much to get Peter's admiration it seems. Do what is best for you to keep your current job and Peter thinks you are a peachy guy.
Why would Marrone draft a quarterback he doesn't believe is the best option at #16 in the first round? Is there an NFL head coach who would do this completely out of loyalty to one of his college players?
2. Who doesn't love what the Vikings did? Sharrif Floyd 23rd?
Players sometimes fall for a reason, plus he has short arms, which apparently is a bad thing for a defensive lineman.
The most dangerous deep-threat receiver in the pool, Cordarrelle Patterson, 29th?
I remember the last time the Vikings selected a dangerous deep-threat and a defensive lineman in the first round it was Troy Williamson and Erasmus James. I'm not saying Patterson and Floyd are going to be busts, but let's not crown the Vikings quite yet. They appear to have had a great draft, but Patterson isn't exactly a non-risk at #29.
4. Cleveland does the Belichickian thing, trading into the future.
Except unlike Belichick's Patriots teams the Browns need good players right now. There's a small difference in the Belichick approach for the Patriots and the Browns.
5. The quarterbacks didn't go 6-29-31-33-40, the way we were sold that they might. They went 16-39-73-98-110. They fell because we all bought the hype --
What's this "we" shit? I didn't buy into any hype. My mock draft had one quarterback going in the first round. Granted, I was WAY off on when Nassib would go, but there isn't a "we" in the conversation. Peter King bought into the hype.
As one personnel man told me Sunday: "I think we just couldn't believe there wasn't a run on them late in the first round, and it's because it turned out teams just didn't see them as their quarterbacks of the future.''
Thank God I have this quote from an anonymous personnel guy to tell me that teams who don't like a quarterback won't draft that quarterback in the first round. This is completely new knowledge to me.
Here will be one of the great trivia questions five years from now: Who was the first running back picked in the 2013 draft? Even this morning, you have to think hard to say Giovani Bernard (37th, to Cincinnati). This was the first time since 1973 a runner wasn't picked in the first round, and no wonder. In 2010, an undrafted back (Arian Foster) won the rushing title. In 2011, the top five in the rushing race were drafted 60th, 55th, 154th, 53rd and not at all. And of course last year, the 173rd pick, a rookie, Alfred Morris, finished second in the rushing race to Adrian Peterson.
Where was Adrian Peterson drafted again? That's right, the first round. So there may not have been a franchise running back in this year's draft, but it still may be worth it from time-to-time to draft running backs in the first round.
There can still be great running backs picked high, but why do it unless you have a combo speed/power guy like Peterson -- especially when rushing gems drop out of the sky on Day 3?
What if a team has found it's speed/power guy in the 2014 draft and wants to make sure they get this running back by drafting him in the first round? Does that make it a bad pick or did they simply draft the guy they wanted when they wanted him? Say Eddie Lacy has a great rookie season, wouldn't it make sense for an NFL team to look at T.J. Yeldon and think, "It may be worth it to take him with a first round pick"?
13. Two Philly thoughts: I have no idea what Chip Kelly's going to do on offense, and I think he likes it that way. If two of his three quarterbacks (Nick Foles and Matt Barkley) are pocket guys, is he really going to make his quarterback pocket a movable feast? I think Tony Dungy's right (his son played for Kelly at Oregon) when he says he expects Kelly's NFL offense to be like Buffalo's under Jim Kelly -- very fast-paced, but not necessarily with a quarterback who has to run to win
Is having a fast-paced offense not necessarily with a quarterback who has to run to win any different from the hurry-up offense the Patriots run or the no-huddle offense the Falcons ran at times last year? I fully expect Chip Kelly to do some different things in terms of running the Eagles offense, but there are NFL teams who run a fast-paced offense without a quarterback who has to run to win.
14. Stop killing the Cowboys. Just stop. Dallas got the No. 1 center on many boards at 31 (Travis Frederick), filling a gaping hole; an offensive tight end to someday replace Jason Witten (Gavin Escobar) at 47; and a 51-game starter at wideout from Baylor, Terrance Williams (who averaged 19 yards a catch last year) at 74. As one GM told me Sunday: "Frederick might be a reach, but if you get a starter for your team for six or eight years -- at any position -- isn't that worth the 31st pick overall in a lousy draft?"
This wasn't a lousy draft at all. If anything this is one of the deepest drafts over the last decade. There were quality players to be found in the fourth and fifth round. It certainly wasn't considered a top-heavy draft, but the draft wasn't lousy.
When Arizona took Mathieu early in the third round, I immediately thought that was the kind of move other teams in the NFC West would have tried.
Upon hearing this I immediately think you are an idiot and I have no idea what you mean by this comment.
Seattle went the risky route with Bruce Irvin in the first round last year (and took cornerback Tharold Simon two days after he was arrested this year).
There is a big difference in drafting Bruce Irvin in the first round and taking Mathieu in the third round. There is less money involved and there are more questions about Mathieu's ability to be mature and thrive in the NFL. Bruce Irvin was more of a risk because he was seen as being drafted too early. Irvin broke a sign in March of 2012 and had spent 2.5 weeks in jail five years before being drafted. Mathieu's red flags were more numerous and also spread over a shorter period of time.
"It's uncharacteristic of our organization to take chances on guys with troubled pasts,'' Cardinals general manager Steve Keim told me Sunday night. "But we thought this was a good player and person for us to take.''
"He is good at football," is all Steve Keim had to say. That's what he really means.
The Cardinals, one league source told me earlier Sunday, will randomly drug test Mathieu as often as weekly after he signs his NFL contract -- a contract, I'm told, that will not include any guaranteed money. Rather, Mathieu will earn bonus money in the form of roster bonuses, to ensure that the club is protected in the event that he lapses and the team chooses to cut him. If that happens, the Cardinals will be out a prime draft choice, but not any guaranteed money. Last year's 69th pick, wideout T.J. Graham of the Bills, signed a four-year deal with a $671,000 bonus. For Mathieu to make that money, he'll have to be a member of the Cardinals in good standing week to week -- and clean.
I'm not sure Peter is completely understanding the issue with Mathieu. It isn't the money the Cardinals should be worried most about. For them, taking a chance on a player who will earn a $700,000 isn't a huge risk. This is the team that gave Kevin Kolb a huge contract, so if Mathieu doesn't stick I don't think money would be the Cardinals biggest concern. The concern is mostly about spending an early third round draft choice on a player who has red flags when it comes to his personal life and behavior. It's smart for the Cardinals to protect themselves in terms of bonus money, but I wouldn't think the money spent on a third round draft choice is the main concern here.
Some team was going to take Mathieu,
Most likely an NFC West team, because drafting Mathieu is the kind of move other NFC West teams would have tried.
others were interested somewhere in the middle of the draft.
Mainly NFC West teams of course. Only that division would have the out-of-the-box thinking to draft a guy like Mathieu. We all know it is a move Jeff Fisher would have tried because he is the perfect combination of willing to give a guy a second chance while also being a disciplinarian who doesn't stand for a player's bullshit.
Oakland GM Reggie McKenzie said the health scare "became a non-issue for us'' once Raiders medical officials cleared him.
When I heard the Raiders took D.J. Hayden in the first round I thought that was the kind of move an AFC West team would try to pull. That's SO AFC West to draft a guy who almost died on the football field!
Can he? Hayden hasn't been in a football practice or game since that fateful day last November in Houston. He said he's rough-housed with friends around his home, but hasn't had the kind of contact he'll have come July in Raiders camp. Will he be able to put the accident out of his mind when bigger, stronger and faster players come at him from all directions?
"Great question,'' he said. "I definitely understand that. You don't know 'til you get out there. The chance of it happening again are slim and none. But I can tell you I think the more reps I get, the more comfortable I will be and the better I will do. I am not worried about it.''
Hmmm...this doesn't exactly instill confidence that Hayden won't be a little gun-shy once he gets out on the football field. "You don't know until you get out there," while probably true, isn't exactly making me believe Hayden won't be affected the first time he tries to tackle an opposing player.
Nix and Marrone both judged Manuel the best quarterback in the crop. Buffalo traded from No. 8 t in the first round to No. 16, picked Manuel at 16, and stashed an extra second-round pick in the process.
When I talked to Marrone on Sunday, it was apparent that even though the pick was three days old, the impact of it -- all of it -- was still fresh. And it still bothered him.
"I don't know if words can explain it,'' Marrone said from his office.
Yeah, you can explain it. You like Manuel better than Nassib. It's business. Drafting Nassib in the first round simply to show sort of loyalty to him despite not thinking he was the best quarterback for the Bills would have been doing Nassib any good, Marrone any good, and the Bills any good.
"The responsibility I had was to get the best player we could get. There are a lot of people relying on me to get the best players we can get here -- all the people in the organization and all the fans who buy tickets to see us play.''
NFL coaches pass on their ex-players all the time. Pete Carroll passed on Taylor Mays a few years ago and he still hasn't regretted that decision.
I don't see it as disloyal. I see it as a coach who got a job and whose new job is to look at a pool of players and pick the best one. Why would he automatically pick the one he'd been with, just because he'd been with him and had success?
I'm not sure any rational person has stated that Doug Marrone should have drafted Ryan Nassib purely out of loyalty. He's arguing with no one. I feel like there is a future JemeHill column titled, "Everyone Who Thinks Doug Marrone Should Have Drafted Ryan Nassib Out of Loyalty is Wrong."
Should he put on blinders because he'd won with one player and pick a player he felt deep down was inferior to another one? No. His loyalty is with the Buffalo Bills now, not to the players had at Syracuse.
Again, this seems pretty obvious. I really don't know who would argue with Marrone not taking Nassib if he didn't think he was the best quarterback for Buffalo.
Now about the Manuel pick. Marrone didn't want to get into comparison shopping here, because saying what one guy does better than the other is going to leave the second guy looking like a loser. But Manuel, though a questionable decision-maker, was more accurate last season. He's two inches taller and a better athlete. Now, there are things Nassib did better. He's more instinctive in the pocket and appears to be better at picking the right target downfield.
So Nassib has better instincts for a quarterback and throws the ball to the right guy better. Manuel looks more like a quarterback, which is something I thought was seeming less and less important, but that's neither here nor there.
No. But who wouldn't be impressed with Barkley's demeanor after he was the 98th overall pick, a year after choosing to stay in school when he could have been a top 10 pick after his third straight standout season at USC?
So it is the time of the column where we compliment Matt Barkley for having all of the measurables of a starting NFL quarterback except the skill set required?
"Whether I'm the first pick or whether I'm Mr. Irrelevant, I'm in the NFL now. My jersey's not going to say, 'Fourth round Barkley.' It's going to say, 'Barkley.' ''
Well, that's assuming Barkley even gets a jersey on Sundays. He could end up wearing the Clausen line of sideline wear that includes a mike in his ear, a team t-shirt, and a sad look on his face. This is what the inactive NFL quarterback rocks while on the sidelines.
"Repetitive accuracy is the No. 1 quality we're looking for in a quarterback,'' Kelly said Saturday, and when he was asked about Barkley's average arm strength, he said, "We're not trying to knock over milk cartons at the county fair.''
Repetitive accuracy is the No. 1 quality Chip Kelly wants in a quarterback? Kelly does realize his starting quarterback has a career completion percentage of 56.3% (though Vick's accuracy has been much better in Philadelphia)?
But the consensus was he'd have been a top 10 pick. Tannehill's deal: four years, $12.7 million. The 98th pick last year, Ravens center Gino Gradkowski, signed for four years and $2.58 million. Turns out it was a $10.1 million year of school for Matt Barkley.
Man, I hope it was worth it. Go on take the money and run is what I always say. Don't give the scouts time to pick you apart and decide why you aren't a Top-10 pick.
Cleveland made two of the three trades for next year's picks, which is something Bill Belichick always has liked to do -- and Cleveland GM Mike Lombardi goes to the Belichick school of draft maneuvering.
This is where the similarities between these two begin and end. Otherwise, Bill Belichick is Bill Belichick and Mike Lombardi is Mike Lombardi. He can't ride those Belichick coattails forever and the comparisons between the two end quickly.
Browns fans: Just remember when Josh Gordon is crushed over the middle by the heir to Troy Polamalu, Syracuse strong safety Shamarko Thomas, Thomas is the guy your team let the Steelers have.
Well, Doug Marrone also passed on Thomas (Thomas went to Syracuse) to take Duke Williams, so there's a chance Shamarko Thomas isn't the heir apparent to Troy Polamalu.
Then Peter gives credit to Ted Thompson for having Eddie Lacy and Jonathan Franklin fall to him. I like both picks, but after writing about the running back position has been devalued Peter shouldn't act so surprised top running backs are available in the second and fourth rounds. After all, Peter just pointed out how many of the leading rushers during the 2012 season were not early round picks. So Ted Thompson was merely smart and knew he could get the guy he wanted in the draft given the current state of the running back position.
On a trade you paid no attention to.
Stop telling me what I did or did not pay attention to.
Now as the picks ticked by, they knew they risked losing the linebacker they liked most at this point, Kansas State's Arthur Brown. So the Ravens dealt the 62nd pick along with fifth- and sixth-round picks to Seattle for the 56th pick. They picked Brown.
It's a fucking riveting story and I originally had Brown mocked to the Ravens in the first round, but backed off it because I'm a wimp. Boy, I wish I had paid more attention to this trade. Thanks for pointing out what I do or don't pay attention to, Peter.
Brown's a potential captain, the kind of leader the Ravens hope two or three years down the road will start to fill the void left by Ray Lewis. Great trade.
A great trade, no, a fantastic trade. If only I had paid more attention to it.
I write quite a bit in the magazine in my Rams story about the trade from 22 to 30 for Alec Ogletree. The Rams coveted Ogletree, and they took a calculated risk they'd lose him by not picking him at 22. In fact, had they lost Ogletree between 22 and 30, it would have cast a pall over the entire draft.
No, it would have cast a pall over the entire universe as a whole. The Rams had to have Alec Ogletree. Fortunately they have the best GM and head coach in the history of the NFL.
But that's why they pay Jeff Fisher and Les Snead the big dough.
And boy are they worth it! (Marvin Demoff smiles happily)
The trade brought back Atlanta's third-round pick, and with that pick, the Rams picked West Virginia wideout Stedman Bailey, who led college football with 25 touchdown catches last year. Bailey and Tavon Austin could remake the Rams' attack into a latter-day Greatest Show on Turf with their quickness and playmaking ability downfield.
Again, these two guys also played in an incredibly wide receiver-friendly college offense and are both under six feet. I feel like this needs to be mentioned before we start comparing them to Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce.
And it never would have happened if Snead and Fisher hadn't taken the risk of potentially losing Ogletree. Win some, lose some. But the weekend, as I'll explain in my story this week, was a big win for the Rams -- assuming Ogletree is a solid citizen as well as a playmaking linebacker.
"Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are risk-takers! But not such big risk-takers that they take bad risks. Oh no, they are smart risk-takers, the perfect blend of pretty much anything any head coach and GM should be. Under the management of rising genius COO Kevin Demoff the Rams are on an upper trajectory in the NFC West."
I would imagine that's how Marvin Demoff demanded the first sentence of Peter's column on the Rams would begin.
"I'm all in for Week 1, just like you guys are."
-- Robert Griffin III, the rehabbing Washington quarterback, at the club's draft party for fans over the weekend. He jumped up and down on stage, and the crowd reacted like a packed house at a Jay-Z show.
"...reacted like a packed house at a Jay-Z show." Peter is hip with his urban music analogies. He knows what a "Jay-Z" is, he can Superman that ho' and knows all the modern dance moves (Peter starts doing the Macarena).
Then Peter begins absolutely salivating all over Tavon Austin to the point it is embarrassing.
I enlisted SI college football guru Andy Staples to help me with the math on something that amazes me about the smurfy Austin, the first pick of the St. Louis Rams and the only offensive skill player to be picked in the top 15 of the 2013 draft. Austin told me he missed one practice in his four years at West Virginia. Doing the math with Staples, if you figure Austin went through three sets of spring practices (15 per year, 45 total), four preseasons (25 per year, 100 total), four bowl games (15 per year, 60 total) and about 50 regular-season practices per year (100 total), that adds up to 405 practices.
Austin practiced 404 out of 405 West Virginia practices, then, and played in 52 of 52 WVU games.
More bonus facts about Austin: In his first 48 college games, he rushed the ball only 51 times, mostly on end-arounds and options. In his 49th game, against Oklahoma, he rushed 21 times for 344 yards. Imagine having a game with runs of 74, 56, 54 and 47 yards ... in one half (the second).
The Big 12 record for all-purpose yards in a game prior to that game was 375. Against Oklahoma, Austin had 572.
I realize Austin is an exciting player, but Peter isn't doing much to make my kooky conspiracy theory that he is pumping up the Rams' draft and Jeff Fisher simply because his agent (Marvin Demoff) represents Fisher and King, while Demoff's song is the COO of the Rams. It just all seems too perfect in my mind, though I know it probably isn't true. Maybe if Peter wrote something negative about the Rams it would help, but good luck with that happening.
The first names of the seven Denver draft picks: Sylvester, Montee, Kayvon, Quanterus, Tavarres, Vinston and Zac.
Peter loves to bring up when a minority player has a funny name. He is never not shocked at how creative minorities can be with these names they give their children. They so crazy!
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
And as Marvin Demoff instructed, Peter did take a tour of St. Louis. He notes this in his weekly travel note.
Here in St. Louis, with a couple of hours free Thursday afternoon and not wanting to obsess about the draft, I took a walk from my downtown hotel over to the Gateway Arch. I've seen it before, but not really up close. I walked around both bases of it -- it's much wider than I thought.
Why does it not shock me that the Gateway Arch is wider than Peter thought?
And there was a tour group of what looked to be junior-high kids hearing a guide give some of the facts and figures of the Arch, so I loitered in the back and listened.
Let's call this what it really was, Peter King leered in the background as innocent school children took a tour of the Gateway Arch, causing the adult chaperones to get a step or two closer to the children for their own protection.
It's beautiful, by the way.
Thanks for the information. I can't wait for Peter's visit to the Grand Canyon where he remarks it is deeper than he expected, but more majestic than he ever imagined.
Ten Things I Think I Think
2. I think if I'm Mark Sanchez, I ask John Idzik very respectfully to put me out of my misery and release me.
I think if I am John Idzik then I wouldn't release Mark Sanchez until I know Geno Smith could be a good backup and that David Gerrard can be a temporary starter. I don't know if I would go about releasing Sanchez until I know a rookie and a guy who didn't play football last year could hold down the starting quarterback job. We all know Sanchez isn't a great quarterback, he isn't even an average quarterback, but take it from a guy who has watched Jimmy Clausen start at quarterback, it can be much worse than having Sanchez as the Jets starting quarterback.
Whether you think it was smart to take Smith or not, the fact is he's in Jersey now, and the Jets are going to give him a fair shot to be the long-term quarterback. It's silly to think it's not going to be a total zoo around that team if Sanchez stays this season. I'd rather have a prayer with team peace while developing a new quarterback and spending $91 million on players than mayhem and spending $103 million.
This isn't a bad plan, but it is always a zoo in New York anyway. Plus, if Rex Ryan has any say left in the organization then he isn't about to start to get his season-ending firing started in May by developing a new quarterback and giving himself zero backup options at the quarterback position that he trusts at least 20% to win games.
I think the Jets should release Sanchez, but not necessarily be in a rush to do so.
5. I think this illustrates the bizarre nature of this year's draft: One team I spoke with Friday, not in the market to draft a quarterback but stunned at the descent of Ryan Nassib, told me Nassib was the second-rated quarterback on its board. And one team I spoke with Sunday had 10 quarterbacks rated higher than Nassib.
It's almost like each NFL team has a very different draft board that reflects how each team values the collegiate players entering the NFL Draft.
b. GM David Caldwell saw Denard Robinson for what he was -- a versatile weapon who loves football -- and plucked him 135th overall. What will he be? A running back, probably. Or a slot receiver, or a wide receiver, or a Brad Smith-esque quarterback/receiver. What I've said about Tim Tebow for a year holds true for Robinson:
He's worthless and shouldn't be considered a quarterback by any stretch of the imagination?
Just get the guy on your team and find something for him to do. He'll find a way with his hands on the ball to be a factor.
Except Tebow didn't do anything with the football in his hands on the ball over the last year. I know, I know, these are just small details. Tebow is awesome and no one will give him a shot. NFL teams are famous for not giving talented players a chance to show what they can do on the football field.
c. Skeptical about the smurfy (5-7, 173-pound) receiver/returner Ace Sanders in the fourth round? Understandable. But Sanders was the guy the Rams would have targeted in the third or fourth round if they weren't able to move up for Tavon Austin.
Oh, well I didn't know the Rams were going to draft Ace Sanders if they couldn't get Tavon Austin. The fact the Rams were going to draft Sanders totally changes my opinion of Sanders as a receiver. I didn't realize Ace Sanders was such an NFC West-type pick. Now if the Vikings were going to draft Sanders if they didn't get Corradelle Patterson, well then obviously that means Sanders would suck as a wide receiver.
7. I think, not that it's going to tell the tale of the guy's career, there was a little bit too much woe-is-me head-hanging out of Geno Smith Thursday night. Buck up, fella.
He had booked a hotel room for Thursday night and didn't get drafted so he had to make the decision to stay in town one more night or stay behind and show up after he didn't get drafted in the first round. It's embarrassing. I think it's natural to hang your head when you are being shown on national television every five minutes with the fact you haven't been chosen yet being discussed constantly.
9. I think Manti Te'o at 25 would have been eminently justified. Manti Te'o at 38 is a value pick for San Diego.A value pick when they traded up to get him? Speaking of woe-is-me head-hanging, how about the ESPN draft analysts mentioning the fact Te'o had not gotten chosen every five minutes?
10.I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Been a little busy with football thoughts this week to have non-football ones, but I'll give it a go.
That was Peter's first thought. His first non-football thought was that he didn't have many non-football thoughts.
e. Thanks for putting Houston in the American League, whoever did that.
Yeah, "whoever did that." I'm pretty sure it is easy to figure out who put Houston in the American League. I'm surprised Peter even knows there is an MLB team in Houston. He probably wasn't aware of this until the Red Sox played the Astros recently. Peter loves baseball, you know. He just seems to know very little about the sport.
f. Red Sox and Yankees, 33-16. Rays and Jays, 21-30. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around this year?
It's almost like the preseason narratives don't perfectly describe exactly how the season is going to end up progressing. The Blue Jays were good on paper and the Red Sox weren't, how could reality be different? Peter's world is shaken.
g. Coffeenerdness: St. Louis has Peet's coffee, which automatically makes it a place worth visiting. It's in the casino down by the Arch.
I'm guessing this isn't the same casino that Peter visited in New Orleans after the Super Bowl where he was shocked that there were drunk people and not a lively, spirited crowd at 6am. Who knew casinos could be a place for such ruffians at 6am?
j. Forgive me my limited non-football notes this week. I'll be better next week.
Actually, by doing better you would have even more limited set of non-football notes.
The Adieu Haiku
Vikes picked a punter.
Chris Kluwe, endangered dude?
Come write for SI.
Just average punter.
Peter likes his politics.
CFL next stop.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
0 comments Taking a Dip Into Peter King's Mailbag
I don't normally cover Peter King's mailbag. If I do, it is usually to focus on one of Peter's readers who asks him a stupid question or just seems overall clueless. Peter usually doesn't give an exciting enough response to a question in order to merit a response from me. This week Peter responds to two questions in his mailbag and I think these responses are worth covering. Also, I simply can't ignore Joe Flacco's latest burst of confidence in his own abilities and have to comment on his comments. I'll cover what Flacco's burst of confidence first.
1. I am sure many of you heard Joe Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL. The way this was quoted by many media outlets takes it out of context a little bit, but I still think Flacco is delusional. Here is Flacco's full quote:
“Without a doubt. What do you expect me to say? … I assume everybody thinks they’re a top-five quarterback. I mean, I think I’m the best. I don’t think I’m top five, I think I’m the best. I don’t think I’d be very successful at my job if I didn’t feel that way. I mean, c’mon? That’s not really too tough of a question. But that doesn’t mean that things are gonna work out that way. It just means that that’s the way it is, that’s the way I feel it is, and that’s the way I feel it should be.”
So while I am getting ready to rip him a bit, I do see where Flacco is coming from in a way. He is a starting quarterback in the NFL. He has to have faith in his abilities, right? That's almost a part of the job description. So Flacco basically says he considers himself to be the best quarterback in the NFL, but he also realizes he is deluding himself. It makes sense, but then it also doesn't. Flacco wants a new contract and I think that's pretty much what any quote that comes out of Flacco's mouth is intended to achieve.
While it is true that Joe Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL, he mostly says this to pump his own self up. That would lead me to ask why he has to pump himself up about his abilities? Do you think the real best quarterback in the NFL has to convince himself or tell a reporter he is the best quarterback in the NFL? Probably not. Brees, Rodgers, Brady, etc simply allow their performance on the field speak for itself without having to rate their abilities amongst their peers. The question gets asked of Flacco because he clearly isn't the best quarterback in the NFL and to hear him say so provides a good quote.
There is a disparity in the Ravens accomplishments as a team and the perceived ability of Flacco to lead his team to even greater accomplishments. So in my opinion, by stating he believes he is the best quarterback in the NFL, Flacco shows us he doesn't really believe this to be true. The quotes read almost like he is trying to convince himself this is true. Eli Manning stated he was an elite quarterback and then showed us this was true. He didn't say he was "the best" quarterback though. He didn't rate himself. It's almost like Flacco has to convince himself his statement is true or he has to believe it to be true to do his job well. Flacco is saying he is a top-five quarterback because he knows his performance on the field doesn't reflect this. It is almost as if he keeps reassuring himself he is one of the best, he will stay confident.
So the question of who is the NFL's best quarterback comes to mind. I would say Aaron Rodgers, but that can be argued. I do know Flacco isn't even a Top 10 quarterback in my mind. Here is a list of quarterbacks I would rather have than Joe Flacco (and no, these are not in order of how I rank these quarterbacks):
Philip Rivers
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Aaron Rodgers
Matt Schaub
Matt Ryan
Cam Newton
Jay Cutler
Tony Romo
Matthew Stafford
So that's my list. I'm glad Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL. I'm guessing he is the only who believes this...even though Flacco probably doesn't really believe it in reality.
2. Here is Peter's mailbag for this week. In the mailbag is this question:
"Isn't Ryan Tannehill just this year's Blaine Gabbert? Do you really think he's worth a first-round pick, not to mention a top five pick? Also, I don't understand why St. Louis isn't banging down Cleveland's door to make a deal for the fourth pick to get Justin Blackmon. Are the Rams just not that impressed with him or are they banking that he'll fall to them?''
-- From Ash, Cincinnati
PK: The stats say that about half of the first-round picks over the past 20 years are washouts, or just OK. So it's possible that Tannehill is that.
I hope Peter realizes he can answer any question about any NFL Draft prospect beginning with this sentence. Basically, saying half of 1st round draft picks are just OK or washouts isn't really an answer.
Re: Blackmon, be careful about him.
He bites?
I like him too, but he's not nearly the size of the franchise big receivers playing now -- Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald.
From what I have seen and heard, Blackmon isn't the consensus best receiver in this draft. That could very well be Kendall Wright from Baylor. So my personal feelings about Blackmon aside, I absolutely think Peter is wrong about his "size of the franchise big receivers playing now." A franchise receiver doesn't have to be big. So comparing Blackmon to franchise big receivers is pointless because there are franchise "smaller" receivers. Yes, Blackmon is "only" 6'1" (maybe slightly smaller) and 215 pounds, but there are franchise receivers who aren't "big" receivers. So based solely on Blackmon's height and size, there is nothing to be careful about. I've done this before, but since Peter absolutely refuses to do any type of research and prefers just spouting off nonsense, I will do it again.
Looking at the Top 10 wide receivers in the NFL (in receiving yards) every year since 2006...these are how many of these receivers are listed as 6'1" or shorter were in the Top 10 in the NFL in receiving yards:
2006: 7 (Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Donald Driver, Lee Evans, Anquan Boldin, Torry Holt, Steve Smith)
2007: 5 (Wayne, Johnson, Brandon Marshall, Roddy White, Torry Holt)
2008: 7 (Smith, White, Greg Jennings, Marshall, Antonio Bryant, Wes Welker, Wayne)
2009: 5 (Welker, Wayne, Santonio Holmes, Smith, Hines Ward)
2010: 6 (Brandon Lloyd, White, Wayne, Jennings, Mike Wallace, Santana Moss)
2011: 7 (Welker, Victor Cruz, Smith, White, Marshall, Wallace, Hakeem Nicks)
So you can see that Justin Blackmon can still be a franchise-type receiver at his present height. You can also see there are quite a few names on that list more than once, which means these are "franchise" type receivers. So while Peter can list the height of Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson and other "big" receivers as a way to dismiss him or have concerns about Justin Blackmon, I think he is off-point.
How much tape on Justin Blackmon has Peter watched? I am guessing not very much and the criticisms of "He just doesn't look big enough" is how players like Mike Wallace and Steve Smith fall to the later rounds of the draft. Peter needs to be careful about taking the height of a college player and believing this height will necessarily negatively affect the player's ability to perform at a high level in the NFL. It's a good way to end up wrong about a player.
3. Peter received another piece of mail that asked the following question about everyone's favorite broadcaster:
"I watch the Jon Gruden specials with the quarterbacks also but mostly because I am a draft junkie. I wonder though if Gruden is so good working with young QB's, why didn't he develop any in the 10 years he was a head coach in the league?''
-- From Jeremiah Stadt, Jacksonville
How dare you question Jon Gruden's ability to develop a young quarterback simply because he has never developed a young quarterback! Peter is offended.
PK: Complex answer.
Not really. The answer is complex if you want it to be made complex. The answer is Jon Gruden always preferred veteran quarterbacks when he was a head coach and he isn't an expert on developing young quarterbacks. Gruden does the QB Camps with quarterbacks because ESPN thinks he is photogenic and fun to hear talk, not because he is supposed to be an expert on developing young quarterbacks. Still, Peter defends Jon Gruden as if Gruden just didn't have many quarterbacks to work with in the NFL. This isn't entirely false, but Peter takes an odd path to defend Gruden.
Gruden didn't have many premier, highly drafted quarterbacks to work with.
Reading comprehension skills are good to have, Peter. The questioner asked why Gruden didn't DEVELOP any young quarterbacks. He didn't ask why Gruden didn't draft one high in the NFL Draft. If you pay attention to the question, you can provide a better answer. Yes, Gruden works with (probable) highly drafted quarterbacks on his QB Camp show, but the question wasn't about whether Gruden had highly drafted quarterbacks to work with when he was an NFL head coach. The question was about why Gruden is considered an expert on your quarterbacks if he didn't develop a young quarterback.
Remember, he cultivated veterans like Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson instead of taking young quarterbacks high in drafts and then working to get them to be long-term starters.
No one will argue Gruden can cultivate veteran quarterbacks. Peter's answer still doesn't answer the question of how Gruden is qualified to work with young college quarterbacks since he doesn't seem to have a history of working with them while he was a head coach.
When he was the head coach of the Raiders they drafted only one quarterback and Gruden didn't really have a chance to work with this quarterback (Marques Tuiasosopo) since Gruden left to coach Tampa Bay in 2002.
When Gruden was in Tampa Bay, they drafted three quarterbacks. Those quarterbacks were Chris Simms, Josh Johnson and Bruce Gradkowski. So the question of why Gruden didn't develop a young quarterback while he was a head coach is still a viable question. It doesn't mean Gruden isn't a good quarterbacks coach, but the question is still viable.
Except for third-rounder Chris Simms, Gruden had mostly lesser guys to work with -- Shaun King, Bruce Gradkowski, Luke McCown and a few others I'm forgetting.
But again, the question was asking why Gruden didn't develop any young quarterbacks. That means help work with Shaun King (who was a 2nd round pick) and Chris Simms (who was a 3rd round pick) and turn them into viable NFL starting quarterbacks.
That's not to say he's a great quarterback coach,
No one is saying he isn't a great quarterback coach.
It's just to say he didn't fail with a couple of first-rounders.
No, he didn't fail with a couple of first-rounders, but the question didn't seem to be about Gruden failing with first-round picks. The question was why he has a QB Camp on ESPN when he didn't develop any young quarterbacks. So mentioning he never had any highly talented quarterbacks to work with sort of doesn't answer the question.
I'm not saying Gruden isn't a good quarterback coach, but the real answer to this question isn't to defend Gruden's record or try to pretend a quarterback drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round can't be developed by Gruden. The real answer is, much like how ESPN hires many of their "experts," Gruden doesn't need to be an expert on young quarterbacks. He simply has to look good in front of a camera and put on a good performance when talking to the young quarterbacks. So it doesn't matter if Gruden has a history of developing quarterbacks or not. At ESPN a person doesn't have to be an expert or necessarily have a history in working with young quarterbacks, he/she simply has to look good on camera and sound like an expert.
Don't mistake ESPN's hiring of an individual for a chosen job as an indication that person is supposed to be an expert in that chosen job.
1. I am sure many of you heard Joe Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL. The way this was quoted by many media outlets takes it out of context a little bit, but I still think Flacco is delusional. Here is Flacco's full quote:
“Without a doubt. What do you expect me to say? … I assume everybody thinks they’re a top-five quarterback. I mean, I think I’m the best. I don’t think I’m top five, I think I’m the best. I don’t think I’d be very successful at my job if I didn’t feel that way. I mean, c’mon? That’s not really too tough of a question. But that doesn’t mean that things are gonna work out that way. It just means that that’s the way it is, that’s the way I feel it is, and that’s the way I feel it should be.”
So while I am getting ready to rip him a bit, I do see where Flacco is coming from in a way. He is a starting quarterback in the NFL. He has to have faith in his abilities, right? That's almost a part of the job description. So Flacco basically says he considers himself to be the best quarterback in the NFL, but he also realizes he is deluding himself. It makes sense, but then it also doesn't. Flacco wants a new contract and I think that's pretty much what any quote that comes out of Flacco's mouth is intended to achieve.
While it is true that Joe Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL, he mostly says this to pump his own self up. That would lead me to ask why he has to pump himself up about his abilities? Do you think the real best quarterback in the NFL has to convince himself or tell a reporter he is the best quarterback in the NFL? Probably not. Brees, Rodgers, Brady, etc simply allow their performance on the field speak for itself without having to rate their abilities amongst their peers. The question gets asked of Flacco because he clearly isn't the best quarterback in the NFL and to hear him say so provides a good quote.
There is a disparity in the Ravens accomplishments as a team and the perceived ability of Flacco to lead his team to even greater accomplishments. So in my opinion, by stating he believes he is the best quarterback in the NFL, Flacco shows us he doesn't really believe this to be true. The quotes read almost like he is trying to convince himself this is true. Eli Manning stated he was an elite quarterback and then showed us this was true. He didn't say he was "the best" quarterback though. He didn't rate himself. It's almost like Flacco has to convince himself his statement is true or he has to believe it to be true to do his job well. Flacco is saying he is a top-five quarterback because he knows his performance on the field doesn't reflect this. It is almost as if he keeps reassuring himself he is one of the best, he will stay confident.
So the question of who is the NFL's best quarterback comes to mind. I would say Aaron Rodgers, but that can be argued. I do know Flacco isn't even a Top 10 quarterback in my mind. Here is a list of quarterbacks I would rather have than Joe Flacco (and no, these are not in order of how I rank these quarterbacks):
Philip Rivers
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Aaron Rodgers
Matt Schaub
Matt Ryan
Cam Newton
Jay Cutler
Tony Romo
Matthew Stafford
So that's my list. I'm glad Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL. I'm guessing he is the only who believes this...even though Flacco probably doesn't really believe it in reality.
2. Here is Peter's mailbag for this week. In the mailbag is this question:
"Isn't Ryan Tannehill just this year's Blaine Gabbert? Do you really think he's worth a first-round pick, not to mention a top five pick? Also, I don't understand why St. Louis isn't banging down Cleveland's door to make a deal for the fourth pick to get Justin Blackmon. Are the Rams just not that impressed with him or are they banking that he'll fall to them?''
-- From Ash, Cincinnati
PK: The stats say that about half of the first-round picks over the past 20 years are washouts, or just OK. So it's possible that Tannehill is that.
I hope Peter realizes he can answer any question about any NFL Draft prospect beginning with this sentence. Basically, saying half of 1st round draft picks are just OK or washouts isn't really an answer.
Re: Blackmon, be careful about him.
He bites?
I like him too, but he's not nearly the size of the franchise big receivers playing now -- Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald.
From what I have seen and heard, Blackmon isn't the consensus best receiver in this draft. That could very well be Kendall Wright from Baylor. So my personal feelings about Blackmon aside, I absolutely think Peter is wrong about his "size of the franchise big receivers playing now." A franchise receiver doesn't have to be big. So comparing Blackmon to franchise big receivers is pointless because there are franchise "smaller" receivers. Yes, Blackmon is "only" 6'1" (maybe slightly smaller) and 215 pounds, but there are franchise receivers who aren't "big" receivers. So based solely on Blackmon's height and size, there is nothing to be careful about. I've done this before, but since Peter absolutely refuses to do any type of research and prefers just spouting off nonsense, I will do it again.
Looking at the Top 10 wide receivers in the NFL (in receiving yards) every year since 2006...these are how many of these receivers are listed as 6'1" or shorter were in the Top 10 in the NFL in receiving yards:
2006: 7 (Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Donald Driver, Lee Evans, Anquan Boldin, Torry Holt, Steve Smith)
2007: 5 (Wayne, Johnson, Brandon Marshall, Roddy White, Torry Holt)
2008: 7 (Smith, White, Greg Jennings, Marshall, Antonio Bryant, Wes Welker, Wayne)
2009: 5 (Welker, Wayne, Santonio Holmes, Smith, Hines Ward)
2010: 6 (Brandon Lloyd, White, Wayne, Jennings, Mike Wallace, Santana Moss)
2011: 7 (Welker, Victor Cruz, Smith, White, Marshall, Wallace, Hakeem Nicks)
So you can see that Justin Blackmon can still be a franchise-type receiver at his present height. You can also see there are quite a few names on that list more than once, which means these are "franchise" type receivers. So while Peter can list the height of Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson and other "big" receivers as a way to dismiss him or have concerns about Justin Blackmon, I think he is off-point.
How much tape on Justin Blackmon has Peter watched? I am guessing not very much and the criticisms of "He just doesn't look big enough" is how players like Mike Wallace and Steve Smith fall to the later rounds of the draft. Peter needs to be careful about taking the height of a college player and believing this height will necessarily negatively affect the player's ability to perform at a high level in the NFL. It's a good way to end up wrong about a player.
3. Peter received another piece of mail that asked the following question about everyone's favorite broadcaster:
"I watch the Jon Gruden specials with the quarterbacks also but mostly because I am a draft junkie. I wonder though if Gruden is so good working with young QB's, why didn't he develop any in the 10 years he was a head coach in the league?''
-- From Jeremiah Stadt, Jacksonville
How dare you question Jon Gruden's ability to develop a young quarterback simply because he has never developed a young quarterback! Peter is offended.
PK: Complex answer.
Not really. The answer is complex if you want it to be made complex. The answer is Jon Gruden always preferred veteran quarterbacks when he was a head coach and he isn't an expert on developing young quarterbacks. Gruden does the QB Camps with quarterbacks because ESPN thinks he is photogenic and fun to hear talk, not because he is supposed to be an expert on developing young quarterbacks. Still, Peter defends Jon Gruden as if Gruden just didn't have many quarterbacks to work with in the NFL. This isn't entirely false, but Peter takes an odd path to defend Gruden.
Gruden didn't have many premier, highly drafted quarterbacks to work with.
Reading comprehension skills are good to have, Peter. The questioner asked why Gruden didn't DEVELOP any young quarterbacks. He didn't ask why Gruden didn't draft one high in the NFL Draft. If you pay attention to the question, you can provide a better answer. Yes, Gruden works with (probable) highly drafted quarterbacks on his QB Camp show, but the question wasn't about whether Gruden had highly drafted quarterbacks to work with when he was an NFL head coach. The question was about why Gruden is considered an expert on your quarterbacks if he didn't develop a young quarterback.
Remember, he cultivated veterans like Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson instead of taking young quarterbacks high in drafts and then working to get them to be long-term starters.
No one will argue Gruden can cultivate veteran quarterbacks. Peter's answer still doesn't answer the question of how Gruden is qualified to work with young college quarterbacks since he doesn't seem to have a history of working with them while he was a head coach.
When he was the head coach of the Raiders they drafted only one quarterback and Gruden didn't really have a chance to work with this quarterback (Marques Tuiasosopo) since Gruden left to coach Tampa Bay in 2002.
When Gruden was in Tampa Bay, they drafted three quarterbacks. Those quarterbacks were Chris Simms, Josh Johnson and Bruce Gradkowski. So the question of why Gruden didn't develop a young quarterback while he was a head coach is still a viable question. It doesn't mean Gruden isn't a good quarterbacks coach, but the question is still viable.
Except for third-rounder Chris Simms, Gruden had mostly lesser guys to work with -- Shaun King, Bruce Gradkowski, Luke McCown and a few others I'm forgetting.
But again, the question was asking why Gruden didn't develop any young quarterbacks. That means help work with Shaun King (who was a 2nd round pick) and Chris Simms (who was a 3rd round pick) and turn them into viable NFL starting quarterbacks.
That's not to say he's a great quarterback coach,
No one is saying he isn't a great quarterback coach.
It's just to say he didn't fail with a couple of first-rounders.
No, he didn't fail with a couple of first-rounders, but the question didn't seem to be about Gruden failing with first-round picks. The question was why he has a QB Camp on ESPN when he didn't develop any young quarterbacks. So mentioning he never had any highly talented quarterbacks to work with sort of doesn't answer the question.
I'm not saying Gruden isn't a good quarterback coach, but the real answer to this question isn't to defend Gruden's record or try to pretend a quarterback drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round can't be developed by Gruden. The real answer is, much like how ESPN hires many of their "experts," Gruden doesn't need to be an expert on young quarterbacks. He simply has to look good in front of a camera and put on a good performance when talking to the young quarterbacks. So it doesn't matter if Gruden has a history of developing quarterbacks or not. At ESPN a person doesn't have to be an expert or necessarily have a history in working with young quarterbacks, he/she simply has to look good on camera and sound like an expert.
Don't mistake ESPN's hiring of an individual for a chosen job as an indication that person is supposed to be an expert in that chosen job.
Monday, June 27, 2011
6 comments Hey! It's a List of Overrated Players for 2011!
Matt Miller of Bleacher Report has gathered together a list of overrated players for 2011. Matt founded New Era Scouting and has been published in several publications according to his bio. So the question remains, why the hell is he writing for Bleacher Report? There has to be a better forum for him to get his sports-related thoughts out into the world. It is incredibly difficult to get a list of truly overrated players together, simply since the term overrated is dependent on a person's point of view of that player. Each person has a different point of view on a player, so opinions can widely vary. Nevertheless, Matt Miller gives it a shot.
Joe Namath was overrated by the media—definitely not his fault, but nevertheless his entire career has the footnote of "overrated" attached to it.
Matt and I are getting off on the right foot it seems. I have somewhat agreed with this opinion in the past. I know some would disagree, but that's the nature of the "overrated" argument I guess.
We place the label of overrated on players who are overpaid, over-hyped and over-covered by the ESPNs of the world.
I don't know if I would recommend or agree with using ESPN as the main source of opinion on whether a player is overrated by the amount of coverage they give. So these players are going to be over-hyped and over-covered players and that's why they are overrated?
I may agree with Miller that some of these players are overrated, but sometimes his reasoning is a bit odd. Those are the parts I will highlight.
Which players in the NFL rank as the most overrated for 2011?
I know you were concerned about this, so don't worry...there is a list with each entry on a separate page. Bleacher Report is concerned about pageviews and a separate entry on each page serves this purpose. So we don't get just a list, but we also have to click over to a new page to find the next overrated player.
Also, I apologize for calling it a "list." As Bleacher Report points out, it is a "slideshow," so get your ViewMaster ready.
25. Plaxico Burress
Since word of his June 6 release was announced, Plaxico Burress' name has been all over the national football news wires.
This really doesn't have much to do with him being overrated, especially since he hasn't signed a contract yet. Is he overrated if he gets paid $1 million for 2011? Likely not.
Burress was an average NFL receiver before his incarceration.
I think Burress may be a bit overrated by those covering his return to the NFL, but there is no way he was an average receiver before his incarceration. He was having a down year before he went to jail, but he had 1,000 yard seasons two out of the three previous seasons (missing by 12 yards the one season he missed the mark) and 63+ catches in those seasons as well. If that was average, a lot of teams would like more average receivers like him.
24. Dez Bryant
Bryant does have the physical skills and talent to become a top-five wide receiver, but to date he has not shown the ability to stay healthy nor the work ethic to become the best.
He has been in the NFL one entire season. He missed four games in his rookie year and this is "not showing an ability to stay healthy?" Let's not reach in order to call a player overrated.
23. Michael Crabtree
Notice how the first three players are wide receivers. It doesn't appear Matt Miller is a fan of wide receivers in the NFL.
Crabtree, much like Dez Bryant, is insanely talented but has not shown the maturity or work ethic to succeed at a rate that matches his ability.
Crabtree has also not shown the ability to throw the football to himself, which would have helped him become a better receiver had he learned to do this. I am sure it is his lack of maturity rather than the unsettled quarterback position that is his biggest problem.
21. Kyle Orton
Career passer rating: 79.6
Career record when starting: 34-34
Career completion percentage: 61.6%
Those are Jay Cutler's numbers. Is Jay Cutler overrated? He's a hell of a lot more popular and well-thought of as compared to Orton. Hell, Orton had people calling for Tim Tebow to start over him. I agree Orton isn't a great quarterback, but who the hell thinks or said he was? The fact he was a starter for the second-worst team in the NFL doesn't make him overrated.
There is this belief that Orton is better than his numbers.
Orton is an average to slightly above average NFL quarterback. No one I know thinks differently. There is a belief Orton is a high-quality backup quarterback who isn't going to win games for you by himself.
19. Mike Jenkins
Dallas cornerback Mike Jenkins is living off his one good season in 2009 when he had five interceptions and 19 passes defensed.
The real Jenkins was on display in 2010 with one interception and four passes defensed.
I don't know where Matt Miller is getting his numbers from but I have nine passes defensed for Jenkins here, here, and here. The funny part is in his response to a commenter on this post, Miller accuses a person of making up statistics to make Eli Manning look better when the same could be said for Miller getting the stats wrong in judging Mike Jenkins.
Miller seems like a smart guy so he should know judging a cornerback purely on passes defensed and interceptions is a faulty way to judge a corner. Part of the reason Jenkins may not have as many passes defensed or interceptions is because quarterbacks may not have thrown at him often. It is entirely possible Jenkins just didn't have as many passes thrown in his direction in 2010 as he did in 2009, which would result in a drop in his statistics.
I don't think Jenkins is that highly rated, again I feel like Bleacher Report requests their writers do lists that are overly long in order to increase pageviews, but maybe one good year and then one "bad" year makes him overrated in the mind of Mat Miller. He sure doesn't require a large sample size before making judgments.
18. Brian Cushing
Performance-enhancing drugs are amazing, aren't they?
And then, in March of 2010, Cushing was suspended for the first four games of the 2010 season for failing a drug test and violating the NFL's anti-steroid policy.
I'm not saying Cushing was juicing, but it sure does look that way.
Of course you aren't saying Brian Cushing was juicing. You are just commenting that PEDs are awesome and then detailing how Cushing failed a drug test and his performance got worse. You aren't saying, but just strongly hinting to the point you may as well say it. This coy bullshit where a writer beats around the bush while accusing-but-not-really of using PEDs and that exonerates himself because he didn't actually say it has grown old.
Stating Fact A and then stating Fact B while attempting to draw a connection between the two facts doesn't mean you can then state you aren't trying to draw a connection. If you weren't trying to draw a connection you wouldn't have written the two statements the way you did.
With a full season on the horizon in 2011, we would not be surprised to see Cushing's name start to flash as a Pro Bowl-caliber player,
And yet he is the 18th most overrated player for the 2011 season. This seems like quite a contradiction.
but the fact of the matter is that he hasn't been the same since coming back after suspension.
So Cushing has had a great year in the NFL and an average year in the NFL. Matt Miller wouldn't be shocked if Cushing had a great year this year, but he is still overrated?
17. Percy Harvin
Percy Harvin has never posted a 1,000-yard season. He's never had more than eight touchdowns in a year.
He's 23 years old and has been in the NFL for two entire seasons. Let's go easy on the guy.
And yet he's been voted to a Pro Bowl and named the 2009 AP NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year.
He was the best offensive rookie of 2009, which is a small pool of players to choose from as it is, and he returned two kickoffs for touchdowns that same year so he made the Pro Bowl as a return specialist. He was named to the Pro Bowl only when Desean Jackson made it as a receiver and a returner. After having a great rookie year, especially for a receiver, Harvin went out in 2010 and had more receptions and yards than his rookie year in 1 fewer game. So he IMPROVED upon his 2009 season, yet for some reason he is overrated. I don't get it.
But the thing is, he didn't. Harvin can have one or two big plays but is largely controllable.
He can have one or two big plays? Is that per game? If so, that's pretty fucking great.
As a receiver he's never been great, despite accolades and attention that would suggest otherwise.
He's "never" been a great receiver? He has been in the NFL for two years and is 23 years old. It's not like he is a highly paid receiver who hasn't produced in the five years he's been in the league. He's still just a kid. The accolades he received were for being a great offensive rookie and he made the Pro Bowl as a kick returner, which doesn't have much to do with his skill as a receiver.
16. DeAngelo Williams
When looking at the NFL free agency landscape you will notice that running back DeAngelo Williams largely ranks as the best available running back, even on my own personal list.
Williams peaked in 2008 with an amazing 1,515 yards and 18 touchdowns. The following season he posted 1,117 yards
Let's leave out facts to help prove a point! Sound good? Great! Consider it done!
Williams posted 1,117 yards in 13 games. That comes out to 1,375 yards over a 16 game schedule. That's still not bad, especially with a 5.2 ypc average.
and then in 2010 he was only able to get to 361 yards before being injured.
Injuries are a recent problem for Williams. Still not sure this makes him overrated. I have knowledge Matt Miller doesn't have, so I don't blame him for not knowing this, but if the Panthers had a better record or there were another severe running back injury Williams would most likely have played this year because he could have played.
And there is the problem: Williams may not be able to hold up as a one-man backfield.
DeAngelo Williams: 5 seasons, 841 carries
Adrian Peterson: 4 seasons, 1148 carries
Chris Johnson: 3 seasons, 925 carries
Michael Turner: 7 seasons, 1116 carries
Maurice Jones-Drew: 5 seasons, 1141 carries
Ray Rice: 3 seasons, 668 carries
So even compared to two players his size, Jones-Drew and Rice, Williams doesn't seem to have much mileage on his tires. Compared to other "bigger" running backs, Williams has much less mileage. Of course Williams has been hurt (though, again, I know for a fact he could have played) and I guess that's the reason behind the theory of why he may have future injuries and why he is overrated.
13. Bob Sanders
Drafted in 2004, Bob Sanders has never played all 16 games in a single season.
And he's still called "one of the best safeties in the NFL, when healthy."
So Matt Miller is disputing that Sanders is called one of the best safeties in the NFL when he is healthy, says Sanders has played in 9 games over the last three years (out of a total of 7 seasons), and said he was amazing early in his career. So in the four early years of his career when he was healthier he was amazing...so he is one of the best safeties in the NFL when he is healthy?
12. Darnell Dockett
As an NFL player, he's just average. Despite what he may tell you.
Dockett has never posted 50 tackles in a season.
This is true unless you don't want to count the combined 50+ tackles he had in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. If you don't count those, then this statement is absolutely correct. Also, what's up with the arbitrary tackles standard for Dockett? Why is 50 tackles for a defensive tackle the threshold that Dockett must reach?
There were two defensive tackles in the NFL that had 50+ solo tackles last year. So holding Dockett to this standard seems rather arbitrary to me.
He has never had 10 sacks.
Again, he is a defensive tackle so getting sacks isn't always their first priority. No doubt, it is a priority, but sacks isn't always the best way to judge a defensive tackle.
Compared to other defensive tackles, his passes-defensed numbers are also painfully low.
So we are using passes defensed now? This can be completely dependent on the defensive scheme that is being run. Some defensive tackles drop back into coverage more often and if you look at the defensive line leaders in passes defensed, most of them (and nearly all of the leaders) are defensive ends, not defensive tackles.
Is that being picky? Perhaps, but that is our job here.
No, it is not your job. If you state a player is overrated then you shouldn't have to be picky about it. Having to be picky to prove a player is overrated probably means that player isn't overrated since you have to work hard to prove it.
9. Tim Tebow
A quarterback with a 1-2 record as a starter and a laughable 50 percent completion percentage in his rookie year was somehow lauded as one of the next great NFL players this summer.
Seriously, you are going to make me defend Tim Tebow? It's not going to happen. I will say this...he overhauled his throwing motion and anyone who seemed to think he could play well immediately in the NFL was fooling themselves. So judging him after one year isn't fair. Still, he shouldn't be the Broncos starter this year either.
Notice how Matt Miller says both of the Broncos quarterbacks are overrated. Somebody is not a Broncos fan, or at least a fan of the Broncos quarterbacks. Wonder what his thoughts on Brady Quinn are?
9. Jason Babin
Really? Other than the NFL poll among players that had him the 85th best player in the league where has ESPN or any other organization hyped him up? That's the only instance of him being overrated really.
That track record, and label as a draft bust, somehow added up to Babin being named the 85th-best player in the NFL by his peers.
Babin has the rare misfortune of being overrated by his coworkers.
That's really the only instance of him being overrated, yet while making $1 million dollars and getting very little coverage for how well he played last year he is overrated? Not sure about that.
7. Donovan McNabb
I don't disagree completely with this. Let's see part of the reasoning though.
Some food for thought:
McNabb is No. 4 among active quarterbacks in fumbles.
#1 on that list? Brett Favre
#6 on that list? Tom Brady
#8 on that list? Drew Brees
#12 on that list? Peyton Manning
On the all-time list, let's see which terrible quarterback is #4 in fumbles...oh, it's John Elway.
Oh, and he's second among active quarterbacks in yards lost to sacks and times sacked.
Somebody is cherry-picking the hell out of some statistics. Yards lost to sacks? Brett Favre is ahead of McNabb on this list in both spots, so that's some other food for thought.
4. Mario Williams
Williams has been the best of the three, but he is still not worthy of being the No. 1 pick nor a two-time Pro Bowl player.
Before saying Williams wasn't worthy of being taken No. 1 overall, let's figure out who was worthy of being the No. 1 pick in 2006.
D'Brickashaw Ferguson? Probably not.
Vernon Davis? No.
Jay Cutler? Arguable.
Haloti Ngata? How would he have played in a 4-3 defense is a question, but I say no.
Nick Mangold? No.
DeAngelo Williams? He's overrated too remember.
DeMeco Ryans? No.
Greg Jennings? Probably not.
Maurice Jones-Drew? Most likely no.
Brandon Marshall? Arguable.
So if Williams wasn't worth the No. 1 overall pick I would like to know who was worth the choice. He's been pretty durable, only missing three games in his career, and he has produced well on a generally poor defensive team.
Williams was very good in 2007 and 2008, but he has also declined dramatically since then.
Yeah, he didn't even have 10 sacks or 50 tackles over the last two years. I am sure his decline has nothing to do with the quality of defensive tackles on his team or how other teams have been able to double-team him with impunity. The Texans had 30 sacks in 2010 with Williams getting 8.5 of those and they had 29 sacks in 2009 and Williams had 9.0 of those.
Sure, Williams performed well during other years when the Texans didn't have great defensive line pressure from other players. This doesn't mean teams haven't paid more attention to him over the past couple of years in response to the lack of overall defensive line talent on the Texans.
3. Terrell Owens
Owens has been a great receiver at times in his career, but he has also been known for his inability to take a hit to catch the ball in traffic (this is where the term "alligator arms" comes from) and his me-first attitude.
I understand the "alligator arms" part, but Owens was 37 years old this past season and he caught 72 balls for 983 yards. That's still pretty great production.
Owens has produced at a Hall of Fame level, especially early in his career, but his attitude and tendency to question his quarterbacks keep Owens on both the players list and this one.
So he's overrated for a reason that has little to do with his performance? Nice.
Then he puts Eli Manning as the 2nd most overrated player in the NFL based on the fact he got lucky in the Super Bowl. I am not sure how I feel about this. Sure, Manning gets publicity and endorsements partly because of his name, but I am not sure who considers him to be more than an above average quarterback.
1. Kevin Williams
Kevin Williams ranks as our most overrated player in the NFL. And not until I started looking at his stats in ranking my top 100 players in the NFL did I realize it.
Kevin Williams is a defensive tackle...are his passes defensed or interceptions not high enough. What about his yards per carry average, is that a bit low too?
Joe Namath was overrated by the media—definitely not his fault, but nevertheless his entire career has the footnote of "overrated" attached to it.
Matt and I are getting off on the right foot it seems. I have somewhat agreed with this opinion in the past. I know some would disagree, but that's the nature of the "overrated" argument I guess.
We place the label of overrated on players who are overpaid, over-hyped and over-covered by the ESPNs of the world.
I don't know if I would recommend or agree with using ESPN as the main source of opinion on whether a player is overrated by the amount of coverage they give. So these players are going to be over-hyped and over-covered players and that's why they are overrated?
I may agree with Miller that some of these players are overrated, but sometimes his reasoning is a bit odd. Those are the parts I will highlight.
Which players in the NFL rank as the most overrated for 2011?
I know you were concerned about this, so don't worry...there is a list with each entry on a separate page. Bleacher Report is concerned about pageviews and a separate entry on each page serves this purpose. So we don't get just a list, but we also have to click over to a new page to find the next overrated player.
Also, I apologize for calling it a "list." As Bleacher Report points out, it is a "slideshow," so get your ViewMaster ready.
25. Plaxico Burress
Since word of his June 6 release was announced, Plaxico Burress' name has been all over the national football news wires.
This really doesn't have much to do with him being overrated, especially since he hasn't signed a contract yet. Is he overrated if he gets paid $1 million for 2011? Likely not.
Burress was an average NFL receiver before his incarceration.
I think Burress may be a bit overrated by those covering his return to the NFL, but there is no way he was an average receiver before his incarceration. He was having a down year before he went to jail, but he had 1,000 yard seasons two out of the three previous seasons (missing by 12 yards the one season he missed the mark) and 63+ catches in those seasons as well. If that was average, a lot of teams would like more average receivers like him.
24. Dez Bryant
Bryant does have the physical skills and talent to become a top-five wide receiver, but to date he has not shown the ability to stay healthy nor the work ethic to become the best.
He has been in the NFL one entire season. He missed four games in his rookie year and this is "not showing an ability to stay healthy?" Let's not reach in order to call a player overrated.
23. Michael Crabtree
Notice how the first three players are wide receivers. It doesn't appear Matt Miller is a fan of wide receivers in the NFL.
Crabtree, much like Dez Bryant, is insanely talented but has not shown the maturity or work ethic to succeed at a rate that matches his ability.
Crabtree has also not shown the ability to throw the football to himself, which would have helped him become a better receiver had he learned to do this. I am sure it is his lack of maturity rather than the unsettled quarterback position that is his biggest problem.
21. Kyle Orton
Career passer rating: 79.6
Career record when starting: 32-29
Career completion percentage: 58.1
Career passer rating: 84.3Career record when starting: 34-34
Career completion percentage: 61.6%
Those are Jay Cutler's numbers. Is Jay Cutler overrated? He's a hell of a lot more popular and well-thought of as compared to Orton. Hell, Orton had people calling for Tim Tebow to start over him. I agree Orton isn't a great quarterback, but who the hell thinks or said he was? The fact he was a starter for the second-worst team in the NFL doesn't make him overrated.
There is this belief that Orton is better than his numbers.
Orton is an average to slightly above average NFL quarterback. No one I know thinks differently. There is a belief Orton is a high-quality backup quarterback who isn't going to win games for you by himself.
19. Mike Jenkins
Dallas cornerback Mike Jenkins is living off his one good season in 2009 when he had five interceptions and 19 passes defensed.
The real Jenkins was on display in 2010 with one interception and four passes defensed.
I don't know where Matt Miller is getting his numbers from but I have nine passes defensed for Jenkins here, here, and here. The funny part is in his response to a commenter on this post, Miller accuses a person of making up statistics to make Eli Manning look better when the same could be said for Miller getting the stats wrong in judging Mike Jenkins.
Miller seems like a smart guy so he should know judging a cornerback purely on passes defensed and interceptions is a faulty way to judge a corner. Part of the reason Jenkins may not have as many passes defensed or interceptions is because quarterbacks may not have thrown at him often. It is entirely possible Jenkins just didn't have as many passes thrown in his direction in 2010 as he did in 2009, which would result in a drop in his statistics.
I don't think Jenkins is that highly rated, again I feel like Bleacher Report requests their writers do lists that are overly long in order to increase pageviews, but maybe one good year and then one "bad" year makes him overrated in the mind of Mat Miller. He sure doesn't require a large sample size before making judgments.
18. Brian Cushing
Performance-enhancing drugs are amazing, aren't they?
And then, in March of 2010, Cushing was suspended for the first four games of the 2010 season for failing a drug test and violating the NFL's anti-steroid policy.
I'm not saying Cushing was juicing, but it sure does look that way.
Of course you aren't saying Brian Cushing was juicing. You are just commenting that PEDs are awesome and then detailing how Cushing failed a drug test and his performance got worse. You aren't saying, but just strongly hinting to the point you may as well say it. This coy bullshit where a writer beats around the bush while accusing-but-not-really of using PEDs and that exonerates himself because he didn't actually say it has grown old.
Stating Fact A and then stating Fact B while attempting to draw a connection between the two facts doesn't mean you can then state you aren't trying to draw a connection. If you weren't trying to draw a connection you wouldn't have written the two statements the way you did.
With a full season on the horizon in 2011, we would not be surprised to see Cushing's name start to flash as a Pro Bowl-caliber player,
And yet he is the 18th most overrated player for the 2011 season. This seems like quite a contradiction.
but the fact of the matter is that he hasn't been the same since coming back after suspension.
So Cushing has had a great year in the NFL and an average year in the NFL. Matt Miller wouldn't be shocked if Cushing had a great year this year, but he is still overrated?
17. Percy Harvin
Percy Harvin has never posted a 1,000-yard season. He's never had more than eight touchdowns in a year.
He's 23 years old and has been in the NFL for two entire seasons. Let's go easy on the guy.
And yet he's been voted to a Pro Bowl and named the 2009 AP NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year.
He was the best offensive rookie of 2009, which is a small pool of players to choose from as it is, and he returned two kickoffs for touchdowns that same year so he made the Pro Bowl as a return specialist. He was named to the Pro Bowl only when Desean Jackson made it as a receiver and a returner. After having a great rookie year, especially for a receiver, Harvin went out in 2010 and had more receptions and yards than his rookie year in 1 fewer game. So he IMPROVED upon his 2009 season, yet for some reason he is overrated. I don't get it.
But the thing is, he didn't. Harvin can have one or two big plays but is largely controllable.
He can have one or two big plays? Is that per game? If so, that's pretty fucking great.
As a receiver he's never been great, despite accolades and attention that would suggest otherwise.
He's "never" been a great receiver? He has been in the NFL for two years and is 23 years old. It's not like he is a highly paid receiver who hasn't produced in the five years he's been in the league. He's still just a kid. The accolades he received were for being a great offensive rookie and he made the Pro Bowl as a kick returner, which doesn't have much to do with his skill as a receiver.
16. DeAngelo Williams
When looking at the NFL free agency landscape you will notice that running back DeAngelo Williams largely ranks as the best available running back, even on my own personal list.
In retrospect, that may have been ambitious.
He wrote the article about the best free agents available on May 31, 2011 and he wrote this column on June 7, 2011. I guess a lot changes in seven days.Williams peaked in 2008 with an amazing 1,515 yards and 18 touchdowns. The following season he posted 1,117 yards
Let's leave out facts to help prove a point! Sound good? Great! Consider it done!
Williams posted 1,117 yards in 13 games. That comes out to 1,375 yards over a 16 game schedule. That's still not bad, especially with a 5.2 ypc average.
and then in 2010 he was only able to get to 361 yards before being injured.
Injuries are a recent problem for Williams. Still not sure this makes him overrated. I have knowledge Matt Miller doesn't have, so I don't blame him for not knowing this, but if the Panthers had a better record or there were another severe running back injury Williams would most likely have played this year because he could have played.
And there is the problem: Williams may not be able to hold up as a one-man backfield.
At 5'8" and 210 lbs, Williams is on the small side for a featured back, and hits could be catching up to him.
The amount of hits he has taken could be catching up to him, but he hasn't had a problem being the feature back in the past and most NFL teams use two running backs these days anyway. Let's get some perspective on whether this point of view has merit or not. Let's see how many carries other running backs have had in their NFL career:DeAngelo Williams: 5 seasons, 841 carries
Adrian Peterson: 4 seasons, 1148 carries
Chris Johnson: 3 seasons, 925 carries
Michael Turner: 7 seasons, 1116 carries
Maurice Jones-Drew: 5 seasons, 1141 carries
Ray Rice: 3 seasons, 668 carries
So even compared to two players his size, Jones-Drew and Rice, Williams doesn't seem to have much mileage on his tires. Compared to other "bigger" running backs, Williams has much less mileage. Of course Williams has been hurt (though, again, I know for a fact he could have played) and I guess that's the reason behind the theory of why he may have future injuries and why he is overrated.
13. Bob Sanders
Drafted in 2004, Bob Sanders has never played all 16 games in a single season.
And he's still called "one of the best safeties in the NFL, when healthy."
The fact is, Sanders is never healthy. The Colts gave up on him after he played in just nine games over the last three seasons.
Let's get into a little semantics talk. Sanders can be one of the best safeties in the NFL when healthy, but he is never healthy. So saying he is still called one of the best safeties in the NFL when healthy, isn't a contradiction or an indication this statement is wrong. It could very well be correct, it is just Sanders is never healthy.So Matt Miller is disputing that Sanders is called one of the best safeties in the NFL when he is healthy, says Sanders has played in 9 games over the last three years (out of a total of 7 seasons), and said he was amazing early in his career. So in the four early years of his career when he was healthier he was amazing...so he is one of the best safeties in the NFL when he is healthy?
12. Darnell Dockett
As an NFL player, he's just average. Despite what he may tell you.
Dockett has never posted 50 tackles in a season.
This is true unless you don't want to count the combined 50+ tackles he had in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. If you don't count those, then this statement is absolutely correct. Also, what's up with the arbitrary tackles standard for Dockett? Why is 50 tackles for a defensive tackle the threshold that Dockett must reach?
There were two defensive tackles in the NFL that had 50+ solo tackles last year. So holding Dockett to this standard seems rather arbitrary to me.
He has never had 10 sacks.
Again, he is a defensive tackle so getting sacks isn't always their first priority. No doubt, it is a priority, but sacks isn't always the best way to judge a defensive tackle.
Compared to other defensive tackles, his passes-defensed numbers are also painfully low.
So we are using passes defensed now? This can be completely dependent on the defensive scheme that is being run. Some defensive tackles drop back into coverage more often and if you look at the defensive line leaders in passes defensed, most of them (and nearly all of the leaders) are defensive ends, not defensive tackles.
Is that being picky? Perhaps, but that is our job here.
No, it is not your job. If you state a player is overrated then you shouldn't have to be picky about it. Having to be picky to prove a player is overrated probably means that player isn't overrated since you have to work hard to prove it.
9. Tim Tebow
A quarterback with a 1-2 record as a starter and a laughable 50 percent completion percentage in his rookie year was somehow lauded as one of the next great NFL players this summer.
Seriously, you are going to make me defend Tim Tebow? It's not going to happen. I will say this...he overhauled his throwing motion and anyone who seemed to think he could play well immediately in the NFL was fooling themselves. So judging him after one year isn't fair. Still, he shouldn't be the Broncos starter this year either.
Notice how Matt Miller says both of the Broncos quarterbacks are overrated. Somebody is not a Broncos fan, or at least a fan of the Broncos quarterbacks. Wonder what his thoughts on Brady Quinn are?
9. Jason Babin
Really? Other than the NFL poll among players that had him the 85th best player in the league where has ESPN or any other organization hyped him up? That's the only instance of him being overrated really.
That track record, and label as a draft bust, somehow added up to Babin being named the 85th-best player in the NFL by his peers.
Babin has the rare misfortune of being overrated by his coworkers.
That's really the only instance of him being overrated, yet while making $1 million dollars and getting very little coverage for how well he played last year he is overrated? Not sure about that.
7. Donovan McNabb
I don't disagree completely with this. Let's see part of the reasoning though.
Some food for thought:
McNabb is No. 4 among active quarterbacks in fumbles.
#1 on that list? Brett Favre
#6 on that list? Tom Brady
#8 on that list? Drew Brees
#12 on that list? Peyton Manning
On the all-time list, let's see which terrible quarterback is #4 in fumbles...oh, it's John Elway.
Oh, and he's second among active quarterbacks in yards lost to sacks and times sacked.
Somebody is cherry-picking the hell out of some statistics. Yards lost to sacks? Brett Favre is ahead of McNabb on this list in both spots, so that's some other food for thought.
4. Mario Williams
Williams has been the best of the three, but he is still not worthy of being the No. 1 pick nor a two-time Pro Bowl player.
Before saying Williams wasn't worthy of being taken No. 1 overall, let's figure out who was worthy of being the No. 1 pick in 2006.
D'Brickashaw Ferguson? Probably not.
Vernon Davis? No.
Jay Cutler? Arguable.
Haloti Ngata? How would he have played in a 4-3 defense is a question, but I say no.
Nick Mangold? No.
DeAngelo Williams? He's overrated too remember.
DeMeco Ryans? No.
Greg Jennings? Probably not.
Maurice Jones-Drew? Most likely no.
Brandon Marshall? Arguable.
So if Williams wasn't worth the No. 1 overall pick I would like to know who was worth the choice. He's been pretty durable, only missing three games in his career, and he has produced well on a generally poor defensive team.
Williams was very good in 2007 and 2008, but he has also declined dramatically since then.
Yeah, he didn't even have 10 sacks or 50 tackles over the last two years. I am sure his decline has nothing to do with the quality of defensive tackles on his team or how other teams have been able to double-team him with impunity. The Texans had 30 sacks in 2010 with Williams getting 8.5 of those and they had 29 sacks in 2009 and Williams had 9.0 of those.
Sure, Williams performed well during other years when the Texans didn't have great defensive line pressure from other players. This doesn't mean teams haven't paid more attention to him over the past couple of years in response to the lack of overall defensive line talent on the Texans.
3. Terrell Owens
Owens has been a great receiver at times in his career, but he has also been known for his inability to take a hit to catch the ball in traffic (this is where the term "alligator arms" comes from) and his me-first attitude.
I understand the "alligator arms" part, but Owens was 37 years old this past season and he caught 72 balls for 983 yards. That's still pretty great production.
Owens has produced at a Hall of Fame level, especially early in his career, but his attitude and tendency to question his quarterbacks keep Owens on both the players list and this one.
So he's overrated for a reason that has little to do with his performance? Nice.
Then he puts Eli Manning as the 2nd most overrated player in the NFL based on the fact he got lucky in the Super Bowl. I am not sure how I feel about this. Sure, Manning gets publicity and endorsements partly because of his name, but I am not sure who considers him to be more than an above average quarterback.
1. Kevin Williams
Kevin Williams ranks as our most overrated player in the NFL. And not until I started looking at his stats in ranking my top 100 players in the NFL did I realize it.
Kevin Williams is a defensive tackle...are his passes defensed or interceptions not high enough. What about his yards per carry average, is that a bit low too?
| Year | Tackles | Sacks | PD | FF | Awards |
| 2004 | 52 | 11.5 | 8 | 2 | Pro Bowl, 1st team All-Pro |
| 2005 | 31 | 4 | 7 | 0 | None |
| 2006 | 28 | 5 | 6 | 0 | Pro Bowl, 1st team All-Pro |
| 2007 | 29 | 3 | 6 | 1 | Pro Bowl, 1st team All-Pro |
| 2008 | 46 | 8 | 4 | 1 | Pro Bowl, 1st team All-Pro |
| 2009 | 22 | 6 | 7 | 1 | Pro Bowl, 1st team All-Pro |
| 2010 | 27 | 1 | 10 | 1 | Pro Bowl |
Kevin Williams has been living off his stellar 2004 season for six years.
Yeah, but he defensed 10 passes this past year, isn't that great? Otherwise, Kevin Williams didn't have a great year in 2010, that's for sure. Even in a 4-3 defense Williams should be getting more tackles and sacks than he got this year. So it would seem like he is a bit overrated. This was a good catch.
Still, there are too many poorly-reasoned and reaches on this list. Maybe the list would seem to have more merit if it was the Top 10 overrated players in the NFL for 2011.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)