It's Saturday and I after my little moral rebuttal about Tiger Woods with Jay Mariotti, I am ready for something a little bit lighter. Fortunately Bill Simmons has an NFL power poll up. That's exactly what I need. Unfortunately, the title is, "Time To Tempt The Football Gods." I am not pleased with any discussion of "football gods" in regards to the NFL. One ESPN writer talking about football gods is enough for me.
Back in Week 4, my top two teams were (gulp) Baltimore and (severe double-gulp) the New York Football Giants. Now? Different. To say the least.
Which is exactly why I have a tag that says, "power polls are useless" because they are useless. They are fun to put together, but don't end up meaning a whole lot in the end and a couple weeks down the road you regret doing it in the first place and feel stupid because you realize you are pathetic. Sort of like dating a college freshman when you are a senior in college just to say you dated a college freshman. Then after you quit seeing each other you find out she is friends with a new girl you want to date, but you can't date the new girl because she wouldn't want to date her friend's ex. You can't explain that it wasn't serious dating, you just wanted to date a freshman, but can't explain that because it makes you sound like an asshole and would ruin any chances you had with the new girl, so you give up completely.
Same thing with a power poll. A writer gets bored and puts one up early in the season with a team like the Broncos at #5 and then two months down the road you are making fun of the Broncos and someone points out you put them as the 5th best team in the NFL a couple months ago, so you are a dumbass. You can't explain the power poll meant nothing, you were just bored, but you can't because the it sounds like you are making excuses for putting the Broncos at #5 and your friends couldn't believe any of your predictions down the road. So you give up and swear never to do a power poll again.
First, the Cavs choke in the 2009 playoffs. Second, the best two starters on the 2008 Indians start Game 1 of the 2009 World Series for two teams not named "Cleveland."
This week a Cleveland Indians fan wrote into the Sports Illustrated letters section and bitterly wrote how it stunk to watch CC Sabathia post a 8.00+ ERA with Cleveland in the playoffs and then become an ace with the Yankees. It just reminded me of how incredibly brutal the World Series must have been for Indians fans this year. I forgive any bitterness the Cleveland fans may have.
30. St. Louis
E-mails you send as the 2009 Patriots' season is melting into bubbly acid on national TV: "Steven Jackson looks like Laurence Maroney. They wear the same number, similar bodies and dreads. They even have similar running styles, except for the part where Jackson holds on to the football and makes tacklers miss. What if we paid Jackson $10 million in January to borrow him for the 2009 playoffs in Maroney's place? Nobody would have to know. We'd just have to convince Maroney to go along with it, and Jackson would have to wear a dark face shield. This could work."
What a brilliant idea and they do look alike except for the fact Laurence Maroney is 5-foot-11 inches and 220 pounds, while Steven Jackson is 6-foot-2-inches and 236 pounds. Other than 16 pounds and three inches they are the same player. Sort of like how Steven Jackson and Randy Moss are the exact same player. The only difference is 2 inches and 26 pounds!
I guess the writer of this email thinks all minorities with dreadlocks look alike. He would have been really confused watching "The Wire."
26. Chicago
Would you rather not be a Bears fan, Panthers fan or Knicks fan right now?
I would rather be a Bears or a Panthers fan than a Knicks fan any day of the week. The Bears and the Panthers both have talent on their team right now and just need to make a few skill position adjustments and they will be fine.
No hope, no first-round pick, lots of season left … what do you do? And the answer is …
I have a feeling he is going to put one right in my wheel house.
25. Carolina
You would not want to be a Panthers fan. At least the Knicks can hold on to the thin hope of a LeBron era. At least Bears fans can talk themselves into comeback years for Cutler, Forte and Urlacher.
Translation: Let's choose the smaller market team because we know the teams from Chicago and New York will bounce back.
This is false. So Bill is basing this opinion on the fact LeBron may pull the Knicks up to a 41 win team? They still don't have much future prospects if they can't put anyone else around LeBron. I have no qualms with the Bears and I can see them bouncing back. The Panthers have a much, much brighter future than the New York Knicks. In the NBA, not having a 1st round choice is a much bigger deal than in the NFL because the NFL has more than 2 rounds in their draft. It's just different.
What do you do if you're a Panthers fan? What's keeping you sane?
I am glad Bill asked this.
What's keeping Panthers fans sane is a top 5 running back, a top 5 wide receiver (he needs a QB people), an offensive line where 4/5 of the line is under the age of 30 and under contract until 2011. A defense that is playing very well and currently only starting two players over the age of 30 years old. The entire problem with the current Panthers team is their quarterback. Just having an average quarterback would put this team at .500 and possibly right in the middle of the playoff hunt. That's an AVERAGE quarterback that would turn this team around and the defense is still pretty good, so I wouldn't say the Panthers are in a shit hole for the future necessarily. Look, I am just telling everyone this "average quarterback would make them a good team" fact because it's true. We'll see for sure if they ever find an average quarterback.
How do you handle it when John Clayton writes on Monday morning …
"[Jake] Delhomme threw four more picks to bring his season total to 18. The Panthers quarterback's career is at the crisis stage. He's 34 years old and his confidence is fragile."
… and you're thinking, "The crisis stage? THE CRISIS STAGE? THAT WAS 10 MONTHS AGO, CLAYTON!!!"
Absolutely incorrect. There was absolutely no way anyone could have known that Delhomme's career was going to nose dive this badly during this season. He has never been a great quarterback. but he has never had the problems he is having this year before. Knowing what we know now, yes last summer would have been a great time to get rid of Delhomme, but there was no way anyone could have known his career would nose dive as it has. There was a one game warning sign in the playoffs. If a bad playoff game was a warning sign for future suckiness the Packers would have gotten rid of Brett Favre 10 years before last season.
Even worse, you can't start talking yourself into the Locker/Bradford/Clausen era, because, again, you don't have a first-round pick. I would be going nuts.
Of course Bill would be going nuts. He is the type of fan who over reacts and makes everything his team does wrong be the most dramatic event in the history that franchise. He thinks the Patriots-Belichick era is drawing to a close and his teams are one wrong move from going in the shitter again. He is a complete panic case when it comes to his teams and thinks everyone else should be as well.
The Panthers and Bears currently have a much brighter future than the New York Knicks. The Knicks haven't been a competitive team in years and they aren't even close to being competitive now. I would rather be a Bears or Panthers fan at this point than a Knicks fan. Bill just takes a look at the Panthers quarterback situation and just blindly assumes the entire team is fucked, which isn't entirely true. I'm not being a blind homer, I am just telling it like I see it. I would love to bury the Panthers, but I know Knicks fans, and I would much, much rather be a Panthers fan.
(I could be just really over-optimistic at this point to the point of insanity. It's always a possibility, but I don't think this is true. I have a friend, he and his wife have season tickets to the Panthers games this year and I get to go to the game on Sunday because she doesn't want to waste energy while she is pregnant going to the game. They named their dog after Jake Delhomme...so there is a 10% chance I am the last one off this bandwagon.)
20. Houston
They're that useless. Either Gary Kubiak needs to go or Matt Schaub needs to go. You can't have your coach and your quarterback with dueling "Oh crap, it's gonna happen again; we're gonna mess this up, aren't we?" looks on their faces.
If it comes down to Kubiak or Matt Schaub, isn't that an easy decision. I proudly can say I had the Texans in the playoffs this year. I am not giving up quite yet, though it would be nice if they could win another game this year and Owen Daniels had not gotten injured. You don't give up a quarterback like Matt Schaub because the defense starts giving up points at the end of the game, that's on the defense and coaching staff. Sure, the offense could score again, but I don't see how the blame falls directly on Schaub and Kubiak.
What is up with the Texans? How come they can't win games when they are ahead? Are they completely incapable of running the ball and controlling the clock? I wish I could explain what is happening to them better, but I can't.
17. New York Giants
Glass-half-full Giants fan: "We lost to five playoff teams in our last six games. If we can beat Dallas and Philly at home, we have the Skins and Panthers, then we play Minnesota's backups in Week 17. We can still pull this off! It's like 2007 all over again! Regardless, I don't care because I am 10 times more excited about 'Jersey Shore' on MTV."
I picked the Giants to beat the Cowboys this week and I have no idea why I did this. There is no quality explanation from me. Perhaps this is why I am losing to both Peter King and Bill Simmons in the NFL Pick 'Em leagues. (If you notice, I am making a slight comeback right now against Bill, it's going to happen I can feel it, but I don't want to talk about it out of parenthesis.)
Speaking of "Jersey Shore," if there was a way to measure my excitement for this show, it would be in the negative numbers. I would put it as I am -35% looking forward to this show. Sadly, it will probably do well. I enjoyed drunken, irresponsible, self-centered, 'roided up early 20-somethings beating and screwing the shit out of each other the first 20 times I saw it on "The Real World," "Road Rules," and "Real World/Road Rules Challenge," so I am about done with any type of show that features the same thing every episode.
It's really going to be a boring show, we know what will happen on each episode. It's like "Full House" except in the place of love, caring and eventual understanding through parent-to-child heart-to-heart talks that never occur in a healthy household environment, we have anger, resentment, racism, screwing, and misunderstandings through the overconsumption of alcohol. I know I sound like an old man saying this, but it's predictable and boring, and causes me to think the world ending soon wouldn't be such a bad thing. Now get off my lawn!
(Here's the point: We might have a chance to wager against Alex Smith in a home playoff game. Keep your fingers crossed.)
I actually had a reasonable discussion yesterday about whether the Panthers would be better or worse off with Alex Smith at quarterback next year. At this point any person with football experience and an arm that can throw a ball further than 20 yards is being considered to replace Jake Delhomme. It's like having a really likeable and previously successful JaMarcus Russell on your team. You don't want to make too much fun of him because he is really nice, but he also really, really sucks.
Jaguars (6-5): The only reason they'd make for an interesting wild card? To see whether they could become the first NFL team to have a home playoff game blacked out.
I think Los Angeles is going to really enjoy having another NFL team. I just don't know how I feel about the name Los Angeles Jaguars. It sounds like an Arena League team.
Steelers (6-5): Favorable schedule (Oakland, at Cleveland, Green Bay, Baltimore, at Miami) coupled with a tough defense, a good coach, a solid running game and a proven quarterback. They have all the makings of "The Team That Might Peak At The Perfect Time." As a Pats fan, I do not want to see these guys coming to Foxborough in January as a 5-seed.
(Was that enough of a reverse jinx for you? Should I keep going? Screw it.)
Have I ever shared with everyone how much I hate reverse jinxes? Ok, I really hate reverse jinxes. The reason is the person making the reverse jinx can just say he/she was being serious about the prediction and be right...or he/she can say it was a reverse jinx and they have special, magical powers to reverse jinx teams. I am getting a headache just explaining my hatred for them.
9. New England
A few of my Pats friends reprimanded me for playing the "It's over!" card. As Aaron Schatz from Football Outsiders points out, the 2008 Cards were in a much lower place after their Thanksgiving shellacking in Philly than the Pats after Brees annihilated them … and the Cards nearly won the Super Bowl two months later.
What did I say earlier? Bill is a panic case when it comes to his teams. Every big loss means it is over and every big win is an epic victory that can only mean great things in the future. The Pats ran into a great New Orleans team, which if I am not wrong, has played every game at home so far this year. Ok, maybe not, but it just feels that way. Let's see the road/home games they have played or will play this year (not including division games):
Home games: New England, New York Giants, Dallas, Detroit, New York Jets
Road games: Philadelphia, Buffalo, St. Louis, Washington, Miami
Ok, maybe they have just had nearly every meaningful game played at home this year. Yes, I am on a "I hate the New Orleans Saints because they are so good" rampage this year and no one can stop me. It's not their fault they have played most of their tough non-division games at home, it just worked out that way, but it doesn't mean I can't bring it up.
Things swing fast in the NFL, and the Pats have a cream-puff schedule the rest of the way. Don't rule out the No. 2 seed for them. So let's just go with the "Wow, this does not look good right now!" card.
There is a little positivity from Bill. It won't last long.
How is Bill Belichick, the same guy who once figured out how to win a Super Bowl with Troy Brown as a nickelback, now completely ill-equipped to come up with any semblance of a game plan to stop good quarterbacks from throwing on him?
This is the part where Bill continues to over react and becomed a panic when it comes to the Patriots. The Patriots were beaten by Peyton Manning and Drew Brees lately. It's not like there are nobodies throwing for major yardage against the Patriots from week-to-week.
Sorry I have to go all-caps on you, but this is THE GREATEST DEFENSIVE MASTERMIND IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL. I knew the Belichick-Brady Gravy Train couldn't last forever, and I knew Belichick would get old eventually, but overnight?
Simmer. Down. Now.
(Just so you don't think I am overreacting,
I will still think Bill is overreacting no matter what he says next.
in the team-by-team updates section of Wednesday's USA Today, here's what they had for my beloved Patriots: "The Patriots allowed 480 yards on 50 plays Monday night in New Orleans, with 312 yards coming on eight plays. Said coach Bill Belichick, 'Anytime you give up that much yardage on a handful of plays, it's bad.'" It's bad? It's bad? YOU ARE THE GREATEST DEFENSIVE MASTERMIND IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL! Let's move on before I punch something.
I am sure Belichick was a little more stern with his team when discussing this issue. Again, it was one game and it was a game against a team that pulled out all the stops to score points.
Hey, here's an idea: Once you get a concussion, you can't play for eight quarters (not including overtime). If you get two concussions in one season, you're out for that season. Done and done. Any objections? I didn't think so. Why not just put that in the rule book starting today?
It's not a bad idea but I really think the harder the NFL cracks down on players with concussions, the more teams are going to try and cover up whether players have gotten a concussion or not. Maybe I sound like a crazy person and it may not happen the first couple of years as the NFL really pays attention to head injuries, but after a few years I can easily see concussion cover-ups happening.
5. Dallas
Last five games for the 8-3 Cowboys: at Giants, San Diego, at New Orleans, at Washington, Philly. Brutal. They have the biggest ceiling/basement of any 2009 team right now except for the Vikings. Too early to say where this goes.
Right now every Cowboys fan in the United States reading this just thought, "we'll probably hit the basement." Combine Tony Romo, Wade Phillips, and the Cowboys recent December history together and there is no way Cowboys fans aren't thinking the Cowboys will hit the basement. I have no proof of this and I don't speak for Cowboys fans, but it's an educated guess this is what they are thinking.
As I said earlier in the year, I think the Cowboys make the playoffs and win a playoff game this year. Call me an optimist but I am going with the ceiling here. The Cowboys will lose to the Giants and Saints, and beat San Diego, Washington, and Philly. They will end the year 11-5 and win a first round playoff game sending Cowboys fans in North Carolina into a frenzy and set the record for "most times a fan of a team out of the area he lives calls up a sports-talk radio station in his local area to not talk about his favorite team's next game, but to talk about how bad the local team sucks by bragging how well his team is doing."
4. San Diego
Interesting but true fact: The Chargers haven't yet played any of the other top-10 teams on this list.
I really think bad sportswriters share notes. Either Gregg Easterbrook or Peter King brought up earlier this week the point the Chargers haven't played any "good" teams yet this year.
Back to what we started in Green Bay's section: I hate to use the word "victim" with sports, because after all, it's just sports. It's the playground of life. But considering how much Favre meant to everyone in Wisconsin, what happened this season was borderline cruel. He's playing out of his mind. He's an MVP candidate. He's playing so well that I am getting impassioned e-mails from Packers fans pointing out that if an aging, past-his-prime, 40-year-old pitcher were suddenly 19-2 in late August with 225 K's (the baseball equivalent to what Favre has done so far), the HGH jokes and rumors would be flying, but with Favre, the consensus seems to be, "He's having fun out there!"
I hate to copy and paste everything Bill has written here, but I completely agree with what he is saying. I think he and I would really get along during a "Let's talk about how bad it must be to be a Packers fan with Favre doing so well" Summit. In fact, when Duke lost to Wisconsin on Wednesday, I almost didn't want to punch a wall because I knew the Wisconsin area needed some good victories right now. I didn't end up punching a wall but I was extremely disappointed to see Duke lose to a team with two players who had a mohawk and a flat top.
(Note: I don't agree with this. I think that Minnesota has just had an extraordinarily easy schedule and that Favre has more offensive weapons than he's ever had at any point in his career. But whatever.)
Just don't tell Peter King or any other Favre-loving sportswriter this is true. They will stab you in the heart just for suggesting it. Now my question/comment is this...Brett Favre switched teams this offseason after struggling a little bit last year with the Jets. He got an easier schedule and better teammates, so how the hell does this make him the MVP this year? Nothing has changed except he went to a weaker conference, a weaker divsion and got better teammates...and he deserves to be considered the Most Valuable Player for this?
2. Indianapolis
Could you even play horseshoes with the giant horseshoe that lives up the butt of the 2009 Colts? How would you even throw it? Teams play them and do the dumbest things at the worst possible times. The Colts get three officiating gifts per game. They get every bounce and every break.
The Colts have been getting a lot of breaks this year. Whether it is teams melting down the stretch of games, fishy official calls or several other breaks, they have been getting most of them. How are they doing this? Is it because they make their own luck and put themselves in position to take advantage of opponent's mistakes or are they really that lucky? I think it is a little of both, but I haven't seen this many teams melt down playing a certain team in a long while.
One more thing: Manning is my MVP pick through 12 weeks. Yes, I know Favre has a better statistical case. Yes, I know Brees has played at a consistently higher level. But let's say you switched any of those three guys with Schaub or Flacco. The Vikes would be 10-1 or 9-2 because of their schedule and playmakers... Where would the Colts be? Would they be 3-8? 4-7? 2-9?
Me agreeing with Bill Simmons is getting a bit old at this point, but yet again I agree with him. The Vikings were a good team without Favre last year and Brees has some good players around him. The Colts would be a mediocre team without Peyton Manning. I don't like to make blanket statements but how can anyone argue with this?
Here's a different thought: Put Peyton Manning on the Vikings or the Saints. I would say both teams are still perfect. Put Favre on the Saints or the Colts, I say the Saints are 9-2 right now and the Colts are 7-4 (no running game). Put Brees on the Colts or the Vikings right now and I think Brees would be 9-2 with the Colts and the Vikings would probably be perfect. How is Manning not the MVP?
You know what their biggest obstacle is? 19-0. We saw how that constant pressure and attention wore down a great Patriots team in 2007. Wouldn't that also happen to the Saints? Incredibly, it's Week 13, and we have two teams dealing with that pressure. How will this play out? What if they make it all the way to Miami with dueling 18-0 records?
If this happened and the Colts and Saints met in the Super Bowl with perfect records I don't think I could handle it. Here are the following storylines that would be rammed down our throats by the media:
Peyton Manning is a great quarterback.
Drew Brees is a great quarterback.
Reggie Bush is finally earning his standing as a #2 pick.
The Saints defense is underrated and finally showing it can stop teams.
Jeremy Shockey getting revenge on the Giants for trading him because he has matured.
Sean Payton is a genius play caller.
Gregg Williams should get a head coaching job somewhere (since it worked out well last time).
Peyton Manning is a great quarterback.
Who are these receivers for the Colts?
Who is this defense for the Colts?
The Colts are doing all of this without Bob Sanders!
Peyton Manning is a great quarterback.
Jim Caldwell is doing a great job in place of Tony Dungy. Who the hell is he?
(Speaking of Tony Dungy...he has coached two teams in the NFL. The Bucs and the Colts. He got fired/quit the Bucs in Winter 2002 and they went on to win the Super Bowl the next year. Dungy retired from the Colts last year and the Colts have started the year 11-0. I am not saying Dungy was overrated as a coach, I just think this is very interesting to think about. His teams have initially done very well after he left coaching each team.)
It would be incredibly tiresome and I don't know if I could handle it all. I think Peter King would have a heart attack from pure excitement. We would have hourly updates on what Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are doing, thinking, or eating from Peter. It would be horrible.
As a reminder, I have set up a College Bowl Pick 'Em league. If you care to join the league ID is: 3711 and the password is: "jamarcus."
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
11 comments A Busted List of Busts
Chris Chase has gotten together a list of the 10 biggest busts in the decade of the 2000's in the NFL Draft. In reality, this list is pretty easy to compile since there are a bunch of names that just leap off the tongue who were busts, like David Carr, Joey Harrington, Gerard Warren, David Terrell, Travis Taylor, Courtney Brown, etc. So off the bat, I want to give Chase props for going away a little bit from those names that may seem so obvious and doing a little thinking outside the box. Unfortunately, many times when a person starts thinking outside of the box in making a list, it means they run a greater risk of being wrong about some of the names on the list. That is the problem Chris Chase runs into here.
Compiling a list of the top 10 busts of all-time in the NFL is based purely on opinion, but the problem starts when the list contains players that aren't busts or weren't even close to being as big of a bust as another player. It's nice to think outside the box, but when listing the Top 10 busts for a decade it doesn't make sense to leave guys off the list who were bigger busts than those put on the list. Chris Chase limits this list to players drafted in the 2000's so I won't compare his list to players who weren't drafted in that decade (obviously), but I will use players drafted before the 2000 NFL Draft as examples when necessary.
What makes a draft bust?
If a player is drafted highly in the first round and that player turns out to be nowhere worthy of being drafted anywhere near that position in the draft. Cade McNown would be a great example of this.
Is draft position alone the determining factor? How much does one have to fail? Could a bust have an otherwise fine career, aside from the massive expectations that accompanied him into the league? What role do injuries play in the whole thing? Does bad luck equal bust?
No, draft position is alone not the determining factor, but it plays a major part in the determination.
A player has to fail to the point he is out of the league in a few years because he has no obvious talent that would make him useful to an NFL team. Vinny Testeverde was not a bust and really neither was a guy like Damione Lewis because he has proven a useful, but not a great player.
A bust should not be judged by the expectations others have put on him because of his draft position. For example, Darrius Heyward-Bey is not considered a huge bust by me because he wasn't expected to be drafted that high by the Raiders. I even hesitate to call Mike Mamula a bust (though I would) because he was drafted too high but not based on football talent. A player like Joey Harrington would be considered a bust because he played well in college and his performance there set the expectations for what he could do in the pros.
Injuries play a role in whether a player is a bust, but I don't think a player can be excused for being a bust due to injury. This can be easily debated though and it depends on each individual situation.
Bad luck really shouldn't have much to do with being a bust, but it does. Would a better situation for a player like Ryan Leaf have made a huge difference? Probably not. How about for a player like Heath Shuler? Who really knows? We should look at bad luck when it comes time to determine whether a player is a bust or not, but I don't think it should stop a player from being considered a bust.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions.
Yes, there are right answers. For example, a guy like Kerry Collins was not a bust. Simply because a player underachieved or didn't meet all the expectations he had set for him by the media or the fact his performance in the NFL isn't worthy of his draft position doesn't necessarily mean that player is a bust. I will get to this more later, but the right answer is to list a player who is actually a bust. Guys who perform well but didn't quite meet the expectation of their draft position should not be considered busts in my opinion.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions. You'll find complete flops next to guys who could play a decade in the league.
If a guy played an entire decade in the NFL then he is not a bust. I don't know how I can make that clearer other than to just say it. If the player was in the NFL for a decade (at a decently high level) or more then that means he got 2-3 contracts which means he had some value to an NFL team and should not be considered a bust.
And some of the names you don't see might be as surprising as those you do see. For instance, David Carr or Alex Smith on this list, even though their names frequently pop-up on such rankings.
I would actually agree with the David Carr assertion that he is not a major bust because he had very little chance to excel with some of those Texans teams and I semi-agree with the Alex Smith assertion because he hasn't shown himself to be completely incompetent at playing quarterback in the NFL, though he has come close. Players who are busts are players who are out of the NFL for one reason or another within a couple of years of being drafted.
For example, Cade McNown is a bust because he only stuck with the Bears for two years and no team wanted him after that. If Alex Smith got cut today, don't you think a team would take a chance of him after that and give him a realistic chance to start? It's very possible. Ryan Leaf is still a bust even though he was given second chances, but he was only given another chance because he was a high draft pick and not because of his on-the-field performance...while Alex Smith would be given a second chance because he hasn't been absolutely horrible in the NFL.
Now that I have thoroughly confused everyone as to the criteria I use, let's move on...
Just because they went No. 1 doesn't mean that, outside of a two-month stretch in the spring of the year they were drafted, most people ever thought they'd be great.
It's a little dangerous to use other people's expectations to judge some of these NFL busts. Simply because the media and other people hyped them up, does not mean that player is a bust if he didn't meet those expectations. I think we should base a player being a bust on draft position, performance in college as compared to the NFL (if a guy didn't play well in college and got drafted high, would it surprise anyone he didn't play well in the NFL? Probably not), and how long it took before that player was out of the NFL due to being a useless player.
10. Mike Williams, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 10, 2005
I agree with this choice. Williams was a player who played well in college, stunk in the pros, was out of the league quickly and never was a valuable receiver in the NFL. I wanted to point this out as a good example of a bust...Mike Williams very rightly should be #10 on this list.
Let's just use as a general rule that if a player comes out of college as a highly drafted wide receiver and at some point teams are looking to transition him into a tight end and he DOESN'T have to gain weight for this position switch, that player could be really close to being a bust. I think that is a good rule for wide receivers.
Mike Williams was the reason Dwayne Jarrett was drafted in the 2nd round in 2007. Of course Jarrett currently can't beat out a 36 year old possession receiver with bad hamstrings for the #2 wide receiver spot on a team where the #2 wide receiver ALWAYS faces single coverage...so he is pretty close to being a bust himself. The lesson learned? Don't draft USC wide receivers who are tall and don't have a lot of foot speed.
9. Robert Gallery, T, Oakland Raiders, No. 3, 2004
Absolutely not. While Gallery is not the left tackle that everyone thought he could be, he is still a solid and usable guard. There is no way that I would consider Gallery a bust large enough to be #9 of the 2000's. Maybe he is an underachiever, but not a bust. Just like Leonard Davis is not a bust, Robert Gallery is not a bust. Mike Williams should be placed far ahead of Robert Gallery if we are talking offensive linemen who were busts in the NFL. Otherwise DeWayne Robertson, Jerome McDougle or Reggie Williams would have been great choices in this spot.
Sports Illustrated called him "the best lineman to come out of college in years". He was supposed to dominate the left tackle position for "10 to 15 years".
So we are basing Gallery being a bust on high expectations that others unfairly put on him and not his actual performance in the NFL? That seems completely unfair. If Sports Illustrated says that Drew Bledsoe is going to be voted in the Hall of Fame unanimously when he retires and he only went on to have the career he ended up having in real life, does that mean he is a bust?
But he went from that marquee offensive line position to right tackle to left guard, on the Raiders no less. He's an adequate NFL player, but far from the "next Tony Boselli".
There should never be a guy who is an adequate NFL player put on a list of NFL busts when there are many other busts that can be chosen from the decade like Michael Huff or Ryan Sims.
7. LaVar Arrington, LB, Washington Redskins, No. 2, 2000
Injuries should be taken into account when determining whether a player is a bust or not, but this is just a simply retarded choice. LaVar Arrington made three Pro Bowls and only retired because of injuries. I don't put a whole heck of a lot of stock in Pro Bowl appearances by a player, but the fact Arrington was able to even sniff a Pro Bowl shows that he wasn't any type of bust.
Two Penn State defenders went with top two picks in the first draft of the decade. Neither have played in the league since 2006
To just make a blanket statement say Arrington hasn't played in the NFL since 2006 and that is what makes him a bust is completely unfair. Arrington ruptured his Achilles tendon after signing a huge contract with the New York Giants. After rehabbing that injury, and deciding whether to return to the NFL or not, he got in a serious motorcycle accident. Arrington is in NO WAY a bust and was in fact a very good defensive player who may not have earned his draft position, but would potentially be taken in the first round if the draft was done over again. He had proven he was a good NFL player before he got injured, so he's not a bust.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can label Arrington a bust. He was no worse than David Pollack, Jamal Reynolds, Ryan Sims or Wendell Bryant. In fact he was much better than those players.
5. Maurice Clarett, RB, Denver Broncos, No. 101, 2005
Raise your hand if anyone else thought Maurice Clarett was going to be a good NFL player.
(No one is raising their hand)
There is a reason that the Broncos were mocked for taking the obviously overweight Clarett in the 3rd round in 2005 and that reason is because he was never considered to be a good player for the NFL. There is no way Clarett is a bust because he was just an untalented, unmotivated guy who got drafted too high...in the 3rd round.
I would like to also mention Chris Chase just went from #7 to #5. His list doesn't have a #6, but two #5's. It's a very interesting way to count.
Not a bust in the traditional sense,
Or at all.
it was thought that Maurice Clarett could be a good gamble for the Broncos.
I am sure there was one person who thought this, but the overwhelming reaction was that Shanahan had reached for Clarett in the 3rd round (remember my questions about Shanahan's ability to evaluate talent a few weeks ago? Exhibit A is Maurice Clarett).
Gary Horton, Scouts Inc. on why a team would draft Clarett in the 3rd round when he was projected to be a late round pick:
Obviously Denver has had great success with RBs in the middle to late rounds, so it's hard to criticize them. But you certainly had the feeling Clarett was going to be there until the fifth or sixth...No question, it is a surprise pick, and a roll of the dice.
Randy Mueller on the same issue:
I'm very surprised, just from a character standpoint. You can't challenge Denver Coach Mike Shanahan, but I'm really surprised. I'll be shocked if Clarett steps in like the other guys. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. I thought he would be a sixth- or seventh-round pick, at best. The 40 times, the character issues, all those concerns. I just didn't see him going this early. This guy has issues.
So we have a guy who had no substantial track record of great performance in college, wasn't expected to go as high as he did, and then pretty much did exactly what many expected him to do in the NFL...sounds like a guy who isn't the 6th biggest bust of all-time.
5. Matt Leinart, QB, Arizona Cardinals, No. 10, 2006
Leinart is the 2nd highest quarterback bust on the so-called list of all-time busts. That would mean Chris Chase thinks Leinart is the 2nd biggest bust of the 2000's when it comes to quarterbacks. I would argue this is not true because David Carr, Joey Harrington, or even Kellen Clemens were bigger busts than Matt Leinart has been. We can't just limit these busts to first round quarterbacks. I am not trying to make excuses for Leinart, but he hasn't gotten a good opportunity to show what he can do in the NFL because he has been stuck behind the completely rejuvenated Kurt Warner.
How about Drew Stanton or John Beck, both of whom were high 2nd round draft choices who are not even good enough to be backup quarterbacks just three years after they got drafted? These are guys who are busts, quarterbacks who were drafted highly in the 2nd round and now are 3rd string quarterbacks.
Why Leinart and not Carr or Smith? Leinart was the USC golden boy, the Heisman Trophy winner who became the toast of L.A. and could have been the No. 1 pick in 2005 before coming back and getting his game nitpicked by scouts.
Here we go again with judging players based on other's expectations of them coming out of college and not necessarily basing it on reality. Simply because Leinart had more hype coming out of USC doesn't necessarily mean he is a bigger bust. Hype doesn't equal talent. Sure, Leinart played in a much more higher profile program than Harrington, Akili Smith or David Carr, but that doesn't mean he is a bigger bust because of that.
What kind of logic is that to use to say he won the Heisman Trophy and people at his college loved him, so that makes him a bigger bust? To reason that Leinart is a bigger bust because he was more celebrated than Smith or Carr coming out of college and completely ignoring how the players performed in the NFL is not reasonable. There is no way Matt Leinart is the 5th biggest bust of the 2000's.
4. Reggie Bush, RB, New Orleans Saints, No. 2, 2006
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Reggie Bush is in no way a bust. I have been hard on Reggie Bush in the past, but he is not now, nor does it ever appear he will be, a bust. Even if he were a bust, he wouldn't be the biggest running back bust for the decade of the 2000's, which is where Chris Chase has him on this list.
Check out Bush's numbers, compare them to another running back bust (William Green/Darren McFadden) and try to tell me I am wrong. Bush is a productive running back, maybe not a traditional back, but a productive back nonetheless.
All of the flaws that are readily apparent in Bush's game today weren't so obvious three years ago.
Unless you watched college football and noticed that LenDale White got most of the carries between the tackles and Bush was used as more of an outside runner. When he wasn't used as an outside runner exclusively and he did get the ball between the tackles, Bush would often get to the outside as quickly as he could. It was pretty obvious Bush was talented but he may not have had a future as a feature back in the NFL.
Bush is a fine NFL player, but far from the game-changing superstar he was anticipated to be.
Which means he isn't a game-changing player but doesn't make him the biggest bust in the history of the NFL when it comes to running backs...not even close. It's hard for me to take any list that has Reggie Bush as the 4th biggest bust for the 2000's seriously. He is a good change of pace back and a great receiver coming out of the backfield.
2. JaMarcus Russell, QB, Oakland Raiders, No. 1, 2007
This blog does have a tag that says, "JaMarcus Russell is the worst athlete in pro sports in out lifetime," so I would have to say I agree with this sentiment. I would be tempted to keep dumping on him and say he should be at #1 on this list, but I won't do that.
1. Charles Rogers, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 2, 2003
I have to agree with this choice because I personally thought Rogers was going to be a game-changing wide receiver. Then not only did he stink in Detroit but he also didn't have any value for all the other teams in the NFL due to drug, discipline and "he sucks so we don't want him on our team" problems. Nobody in the NFL even tried to give a crap about rehabbing him. Heck even Ryan Leaf got second and third chances. Rogers was out of the league so quickly, he probably has to be #1 on any list of busts from the 2000's.
I LOVED Charles Rogers coming out of college. The players I love coming out this year, so go ahead and put them down as busts, are Ndamukong Suh (saying I love him is an understatement, I think he should be considered for the Heisman and will be better than Warren Sapp...I really, really like him), Tony Pike, Golden Tate, and Jerry Hughes. I know these aren't novel guys to like, but are four of my favorite 1st/2nd round guys.
The players I really don't like at this point are Carlos Dunlap and Jevon Snead. I think both players are going to stink in the NFL. Dunlap seems to given an inconsistent effort and I don't trust Snead's decision making all that much. I have a feeling both will go higher than they probably should.
Some of the choices on Chris Chase's list are not horrible, but he lists players who are in no way busts in the NFL for the decade of the 2000's.
In fact, here is a list of players who could have appeared on this list over some of the players that Chris Chase did include:
Travis Taylor
Ron Dayne
Sylvester Morris
Gerard Warren
David Terrell
Jamal Reynolds
Willie Middlebrooks
Freddie Mitchell
Mike Williams
Ryan Sims
Wendell Bryant
William Green
DeWayne Robertson
Johnathan Sullivan
Jimmy Kennedy
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Reggie Williams
Kenechi Udeze
J.P. Losman
Troy Williamson
Travis Johnson
David Pollack (As commenter HH pointed out, it may be unfair to include Pollack since he had to retire due to a fluke neck injury. I will be fair and leave his name but say he never got a chance to show what he could do. Same thing for Matt Jones. If he wasn't coked up all the time, he could have been an average receiver.)
Erasmus James
Matt Jones
Michael Huff
Tye Hill
Jason Allen
Bobby Carpenter
Gaines Adams
Jamaal Anderson
Justin Harrell
Jarvis Moss
Buster Davis
Drew Stanton
John Beck
Darren McFadden
Vernon Gholston
Those guys, maybe excluding McFadden and Gholston because they haven't played in the NFL long enough to prove they are incredible busts or not, could have easily been on the list that Chris Chase made. Hence, they did not make the list and that is a shame. Many of these players would have been better choices than some of the players on Chase's bust list.
Compiling a list of the top 10 busts of all-time in the NFL is based purely on opinion, but the problem starts when the list contains players that aren't busts or weren't even close to being as big of a bust as another player. It's nice to think outside the box, but when listing the Top 10 busts for a decade it doesn't make sense to leave guys off the list who were bigger busts than those put on the list. Chris Chase limits this list to players drafted in the 2000's so I won't compare his list to players who weren't drafted in that decade (obviously), but I will use players drafted before the 2000 NFL Draft as examples when necessary.
What makes a draft bust?
If a player is drafted highly in the first round and that player turns out to be nowhere worthy of being drafted anywhere near that position in the draft. Cade McNown would be a great example of this.
Is draft position alone the determining factor? How much does one have to fail? Could a bust have an otherwise fine career, aside from the massive expectations that accompanied him into the league? What role do injuries play in the whole thing? Does bad luck equal bust?
No, draft position is alone not the determining factor, but it plays a major part in the determination.
A player has to fail to the point he is out of the league in a few years because he has no obvious talent that would make him useful to an NFL team. Vinny Testeverde was not a bust and really neither was a guy like Damione Lewis because he has proven a useful, but not a great player.
A bust should not be judged by the expectations others have put on him because of his draft position. For example, Darrius Heyward-Bey is not considered a huge bust by me because he wasn't expected to be drafted that high by the Raiders. I even hesitate to call Mike Mamula a bust (though I would) because he was drafted too high but not based on football talent. A player like Joey Harrington would be considered a bust because he played well in college and his performance there set the expectations for what he could do in the pros.
Injuries play a role in whether a player is a bust, but I don't think a player can be excused for being a bust due to injury. This can be easily debated though and it depends on each individual situation.
Bad luck really shouldn't have much to do with being a bust, but it does. Would a better situation for a player like Ryan Leaf have made a huge difference? Probably not. How about for a player like Heath Shuler? Who really knows? We should look at bad luck when it comes time to determine whether a player is a bust or not, but I don't think it should stop a player from being considered a bust.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions.
Yes, there are right answers. For example, a guy like Kerry Collins was not a bust. Simply because a player underachieved or didn't meet all the expectations he had set for him by the media or the fact his performance in the NFL isn't worthy of his draft position doesn't necessarily mean that player is a bust. I will get to this more later, but the right answer is to list a player who is actually a bust. Guys who perform well but didn't quite meet the expectation of their draft position should not be considered busts in my opinion.
There are no right answers, hence the following list fraught with contradictions. You'll find complete flops next to guys who could play a decade in the league.
If a guy played an entire decade in the NFL then he is not a bust. I don't know how I can make that clearer other than to just say it. If the player was in the NFL for a decade (at a decently high level) or more then that means he got 2-3 contracts which means he had some value to an NFL team and should not be considered a bust.
And some of the names you don't see might be as surprising as those you do see. For instance, David Carr or Alex Smith on this list, even though their names frequently pop-up on such rankings.
I would actually agree with the David Carr assertion that he is not a major bust because he had very little chance to excel with some of those Texans teams and I semi-agree with the Alex Smith assertion because he hasn't shown himself to be completely incompetent at playing quarterback in the NFL, though he has come close. Players who are busts are players who are out of the NFL for one reason or another within a couple of years of being drafted.
For example, Cade McNown is a bust because he only stuck with the Bears for two years and no team wanted him after that. If Alex Smith got cut today, don't you think a team would take a chance of him after that and give him a realistic chance to start? It's very possible. Ryan Leaf is still a bust even though he was given second chances, but he was only given another chance because he was a high draft pick and not because of his on-the-field performance...while Alex Smith would be given a second chance because he hasn't been absolutely horrible in the NFL.
Now that I have thoroughly confused everyone as to the criteria I use, let's move on...
Just because they went No. 1 doesn't mean that, outside of a two-month stretch in the spring of the year they were drafted, most people ever thought they'd be great.
It's a little dangerous to use other people's expectations to judge some of these NFL busts. Simply because the media and other people hyped them up, does not mean that player is a bust if he didn't meet those expectations. I think we should base a player being a bust on draft position, performance in college as compared to the NFL (if a guy didn't play well in college and got drafted high, would it surprise anyone he didn't play well in the NFL? Probably not), and how long it took before that player was out of the NFL due to being a useless player.
10. Mike Williams, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 10, 2005
I agree with this choice. Williams was a player who played well in college, stunk in the pros, was out of the league quickly and never was a valuable receiver in the NFL. I wanted to point this out as a good example of a bust...Mike Williams very rightly should be #10 on this list.
Let's just use as a general rule that if a player comes out of college as a highly drafted wide receiver and at some point teams are looking to transition him into a tight end and he DOESN'T have to gain weight for this position switch, that player could be really close to being a bust. I think that is a good rule for wide receivers.
Mike Williams was the reason Dwayne Jarrett was drafted in the 2nd round in 2007. Of course Jarrett currently can't beat out a 36 year old possession receiver with bad hamstrings for the #2 wide receiver spot on a team where the #2 wide receiver ALWAYS faces single coverage...so he is pretty close to being a bust himself. The lesson learned? Don't draft USC wide receivers who are tall and don't have a lot of foot speed.
9. Robert Gallery, T, Oakland Raiders, No. 3, 2004
Absolutely not. While Gallery is not the left tackle that everyone thought he could be, he is still a solid and usable guard. There is no way that I would consider Gallery a bust large enough to be #9 of the 2000's. Maybe he is an underachiever, but not a bust. Just like Leonard Davis is not a bust, Robert Gallery is not a bust. Mike Williams should be placed far ahead of Robert Gallery if we are talking offensive linemen who were busts in the NFL. Otherwise DeWayne Robertson, Jerome McDougle or Reggie Williams would have been great choices in this spot.
Sports Illustrated called him "the best lineman to come out of college in years". He was supposed to dominate the left tackle position for "10 to 15 years".
So we are basing Gallery being a bust on high expectations that others unfairly put on him and not his actual performance in the NFL? That seems completely unfair. If Sports Illustrated says that Drew Bledsoe is going to be voted in the Hall of Fame unanimously when he retires and he only went on to have the career he ended up having in real life, does that mean he is a bust?
But he went from that marquee offensive line position to right tackle to left guard, on the Raiders no less. He's an adequate NFL player, but far from the "next Tony Boselli".
There should never be a guy who is an adequate NFL player put on a list of NFL busts when there are many other busts that can be chosen from the decade like Michael Huff or Ryan Sims.
7. LaVar Arrington, LB, Washington Redskins, No. 2, 2000
Injuries should be taken into account when determining whether a player is a bust or not, but this is just a simply retarded choice. LaVar Arrington made three Pro Bowls and only retired because of injuries. I don't put a whole heck of a lot of stock in Pro Bowl appearances by a player, but the fact Arrington was able to even sniff a Pro Bowl shows that he wasn't any type of bust.
Two Penn State defenders went with top two picks in the first draft of the decade. Neither have played in the league since 2006
To just make a blanket statement say Arrington hasn't played in the NFL since 2006 and that is what makes him a bust is completely unfair. Arrington ruptured his Achilles tendon after signing a huge contract with the New York Giants. After rehabbing that injury, and deciding whether to return to the NFL or not, he got in a serious motorcycle accident. Arrington is in NO WAY a bust and was in fact a very good defensive player who may not have earned his draft position, but would potentially be taken in the first round if the draft was done over again. He had proven he was a good NFL player before he got injured, so he's not a bust.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can label Arrington a bust. He was no worse than David Pollack, Jamal Reynolds, Ryan Sims or Wendell Bryant. In fact he was much better than those players.
5. Maurice Clarett, RB, Denver Broncos, No. 101, 2005
Raise your hand if anyone else thought Maurice Clarett was going to be a good NFL player.
(No one is raising their hand)
There is a reason that the Broncos were mocked for taking the obviously overweight Clarett in the 3rd round in 2005 and that reason is because he was never considered to be a good player for the NFL. There is no way Clarett is a bust because he was just an untalented, unmotivated guy who got drafted too high...in the 3rd round.
I would like to also mention Chris Chase just went from #7 to #5. His list doesn't have a #6, but two #5's. It's a very interesting way to count.
Not a bust in the traditional sense,
Or at all.
it was thought that Maurice Clarett could be a good gamble for the Broncos.
I am sure there was one person who thought this, but the overwhelming reaction was that Shanahan had reached for Clarett in the 3rd round (remember my questions about Shanahan's ability to evaluate talent a few weeks ago? Exhibit A is Maurice Clarett).
Gary Horton, Scouts Inc. on why a team would draft Clarett in the 3rd round when he was projected to be a late round pick:
Obviously Denver has had great success with RBs in the middle to late rounds, so it's hard to criticize them. But you certainly had the feeling Clarett was going to be there until the fifth or sixth...No question, it is a surprise pick, and a roll of the dice.
Randy Mueller on the same issue:
I'm very surprised, just from a character standpoint. You can't challenge Denver Coach Mike Shanahan, but I'm really surprised. I'll be shocked if Clarett steps in like the other guys. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. I thought he would be a sixth- or seventh-round pick, at best. The 40 times, the character issues, all those concerns. I just didn't see him going this early. This guy has issues.
So we have a guy who had no substantial track record of great performance in college, wasn't expected to go as high as he did, and then pretty much did exactly what many expected him to do in the NFL...sounds like a guy who isn't the 6th biggest bust of all-time.
5. Matt Leinart, QB, Arizona Cardinals, No. 10, 2006
Leinart is the 2nd highest quarterback bust on the so-called list of all-time busts. That would mean Chris Chase thinks Leinart is the 2nd biggest bust of the 2000's when it comes to quarterbacks. I would argue this is not true because David Carr, Joey Harrington, or even Kellen Clemens were bigger busts than Matt Leinart has been. We can't just limit these busts to first round quarterbacks. I am not trying to make excuses for Leinart, but he hasn't gotten a good opportunity to show what he can do in the NFL because he has been stuck behind the completely rejuvenated Kurt Warner.
How about Drew Stanton or John Beck, both of whom were high 2nd round draft choices who are not even good enough to be backup quarterbacks just three years after they got drafted? These are guys who are busts, quarterbacks who were drafted highly in the 2nd round and now are 3rd string quarterbacks.
Why Leinart and not Carr or Smith? Leinart was the USC golden boy, the Heisman Trophy winner who became the toast of L.A. and could have been the No. 1 pick in 2005 before coming back and getting his game nitpicked by scouts.
Here we go again with judging players based on other's expectations of them coming out of college and not necessarily basing it on reality. Simply because Leinart had more hype coming out of USC doesn't necessarily mean he is a bigger bust. Hype doesn't equal talent. Sure, Leinart played in a much more higher profile program than Harrington, Akili Smith or David Carr, but that doesn't mean he is a bigger bust because of that.
What kind of logic is that to use to say he won the Heisman Trophy and people at his college loved him, so that makes him a bigger bust? To reason that Leinart is a bigger bust because he was more celebrated than Smith or Carr coming out of college and completely ignoring how the players performed in the NFL is not reasonable. There is no way Matt Leinart is the 5th biggest bust of the 2000's.
4. Reggie Bush, RB, New Orleans Saints, No. 2, 2006
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Reggie Bush is in no way a bust. I have been hard on Reggie Bush in the past, but he is not now, nor does it ever appear he will be, a bust. Even if he were a bust, he wouldn't be the biggest running back bust for the decade of the 2000's, which is where Chris Chase has him on this list.
Check out Bush's numbers, compare them to another running back bust (William Green/Darren McFadden) and try to tell me I am wrong. Bush is a productive running back, maybe not a traditional back, but a productive back nonetheless.
All of the flaws that are readily apparent in Bush's game today weren't so obvious three years ago.
Unless you watched college football and noticed that LenDale White got most of the carries between the tackles and Bush was used as more of an outside runner. When he wasn't used as an outside runner exclusively and he did get the ball between the tackles, Bush would often get to the outside as quickly as he could. It was pretty obvious Bush was talented but he may not have had a future as a feature back in the NFL.
Bush is a fine NFL player, but far from the game-changing superstar he was anticipated to be.
Which means he isn't a game-changing player but doesn't make him the biggest bust in the history of the NFL when it comes to running backs...not even close. It's hard for me to take any list that has Reggie Bush as the 4th biggest bust for the 2000's seriously. He is a good change of pace back and a great receiver coming out of the backfield.
2. JaMarcus Russell, QB, Oakland Raiders, No. 1, 2007
This blog does have a tag that says, "JaMarcus Russell is the worst athlete in pro sports in out lifetime," so I would have to say I agree with this sentiment. I would be tempted to keep dumping on him and say he should be at #1 on this list, but I won't do that.
1. Charles Rogers, WR, Detroit Lions, No. 2, 2003
I have to agree with this choice because I personally thought Rogers was going to be a game-changing wide receiver. Then not only did he stink in Detroit but he also didn't have any value for all the other teams in the NFL due to drug, discipline and "he sucks so we don't want him on our team" problems. Nobody in the NFL even tried to give a crap about rehabbing him. Heck even Ryan Leaf got second and third chances. Rogers was out of the league so quickly, he probably has to be #1 on any list of busts from the 2000's.
I LOVED Charles Rogers coming out of college. The players I love coming out this year, so go ahead and put them down as busts, are Ndamukong Suh (saying I love him is an understatement, I think he should be considered for the Heisman and will be better than Warren Sapp...I really, really like him), Tony Pike, Golden Tate, and Jerry Hughes. I know these aren't novel guys to like, but are four of my favorite 1st/2nd round guys.
The players I really don't like at this point are Carlos Dunlap and Jevon Snead. I think both players are going to stink in the NFL. Dunlap seems to given an inconsistent effort and I don't trust Snead's decision making all that much. I have a feeling both will go higher than they probably should.
Some of the choices on Chris Chase's list are not horrible, but he lists players who are in no way busts in the NFL for the decade of the 2000's.
In fact, here is a list of players who could have appeared on this list over some of the players that Chris Chase did include:
Travis Taylor
Ron Dayne
Sylvester Morris
Gerard Warren
David Terrell
Jamal Reynolds
Willie Middlebrooks
Freddie Mitchell
Mike Williams
Ryan Sims
Wendell Bryant
William Green
DeWayne Robertson
Johnathan Sullivan
Jimmy Kennedy
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Reggie Williams
Kenechi Udeze
J.P. Losman
Troy Williamson
Travis Johnson
David Pollack (As commenter HH pointed out, it may be unfair to include Pollack since he had to retire due to a fluke neck injury. I will be fair and leave his name but say he never got a chance to show what he could do. Same thing for Matt Jones. If he wasn't coked up all the time, he could have been an average receiver.)
Erasmus James
Matt Jones
Michael Huff
Tye Hill
Jason Allen
Bobby Carpenter
Gaines Adams
Jamaal Anderson
Justin Harrell
Jarvis Moss
Buster Davis
Drew Stanton
John Beck
Darren McFadden
Vernon Gholston
Those guys, maybe excluding McFadden and Gholston because they haven't played in the NFL long enough to prove they are incredible busts or not, could have easily been on the list that Chris Chase made. Hence, they did not make the list and that is a shame. Many of these players would have been better choices than some of the players on Chase's bust list.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
10 comments Jay Mariotti Can't Resist, Has To Do Hack Job On Tiger Woods
Just a reminder I have set up a College Bowl Pick 'Em league. If anyone cares to join the league id is: 3711 and the password is: jamarcus. Feel free to join.
I have been following Jay Mariotti's columns all week (don't worry, I have spared my eyesight and not read every single of one of his columns. I can't subject myself to that much bad journalism) because I have noticed he has been on the very edge of writing one of his typical hack job columns about Tiger Woods. Today we have gotten that column. There is an old adage that the media builds up people higher only to watch them fall further. It's not really an adage, it's the truth, and no columnist I know of enjoys doing this more than Jay Mariotti. Whenever he can get on his high horse and start preaching from the pulpit about how athletes should be held to a higher standard than every other human being, Jay Mariotti takes advantage of that opportunity. I am not here to defend Tiger Woods, but to demean Jay Mariotti.
We wanted to believe he was above the fraudulent fray, true to his family values, good and wholesome enough to help shape the world well into the future.
We want to believe this about nearly every single person and role model but that doesn't mean it is true. I remember last winter Jay Mariotti wrote an article hacking Michael Phelps to pieces (if anyone remembers it is the post that got an entire Apolo Ohno message board angry with me because I made fun of him and Julianne Hough) after he got caught smoking pot in South Carolina. Mariotti made it sound like Phelps would be ruined forever by this incident. Less than one year later......few people remember the Phelps incident and even fewer care.
The most famous and wealthy golfer in the world cheated on his wife with a series of women. If that shocks you then I am proud of your ability to be think the best of people, but am shocked at your ability to be naive. From a sexist, pig male point of view I don't even get why he cheated. It's not like any of the women he cheated with were an upgrade on his wife. If you are going to cheat and be a sleaze dog, at least aim a little higher. I digress...
That's what Tiger Woods was destined to do, according to his late father. "Tiger will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity," Earl Woods once said famously.
If we held every person, and more specifically sports-parent, to the expectations they have for their children then we are going to have a bunch of really disappointed parents in the world.
More than Buddha, he said. More than Gandhi, he said. More than Nelson Mandela, he said. "Because he has a larger forum than any of them,'' he theorized.
This is obviously loony talk. I don't think we can take anything a parent says about their child as fact. If a child plays the piano perfectly at the age of 10, then the parents of that child believe the child to be a prodigy and if a 7 year old kid plays basketball well, the parents will think that child is the next Michael Jordan.
Notice how Mariotti builds up Tiger Woods to a certain high level so he can tear him down? He's building Tiger up to a level he could never reach so what he did will seem that much worse.
Remember all the occasions at golfing majors when Tiger would credit his wife and family for his maturity, his equilibrium, his historic preeminence on the course? All of that was a lie, apparently.
It may not have been a lie. His wife and family could have done all of those things for him, but he still wanted to screw around. These are two mutually exclusive issues. No one would argue that Hillary Clinton didn't help Bill Clinton when he was President of the United States make some difficult decisions, but he still screwed around on her. It doesn't mean she never helped him with his job, it just means while she helped him with his job, his mind lusted for slightly overweight interns.
Thus began an affair that lasted more than 2 1/2 years and involved more than 300 text messages between them, some of which, if true, take sex texting to new levels of long-distance body heat.
And apparently Jay Mariotti knows the limits of sex-testing and long-distance body heat?
(Bengoodfella vomiting)
To hear the tale from US Weekly, formerly one of those tabloids we'd ignore at the newsstand while searching for sports magazines,
Jay Mariotti usually ignores this magazine, but because he wants to tear down Tiger Woods US Weekly will be his main source of information for this story. See, tabloids like this are only useful when it proves something Mariotti wants them to prove.
When I first heard the voice mail tape Wednesday morning on the magazine's Web site, I didn't want to believe it was him.
Now Mariotti is visiting this tabloid magazine's web site for information. I like how US Weekly used to be a tabloid in Mariotti's mind, but now that it has gotten this one story right Jay Mariotti gives it total credibility in matters of journalism. In today's sports journalism, it takes just one accurate story to give a magazine or writer credibility, which still doesn't explain why some people take Jay Mariotti seriously.
Considering the National Enquirer was the tabloid magazine that originally broke the story that Tiger was cheating on his wife, I wonder if Jay gives that magazine credibility now as well? If so, the police should worry less about Tiger Woods traffic accident and more about the alien wolf-boy that was just found in the desert of Egypt.
Like that, quicker than it takes to unzip a fly, the image of the world's biggest and richest athlete was tarnished forever. Suddenly, Woods was no different than Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Charles Barkley and other megastar athletes whose careers have been smudged to varying degrees by deceit in their personal lives.
Or Babe Ruth who ran around with whores and very well may have created the modern STD, or Wilt Chamberlain who bragged about all the women he slept with and passed on the legacy of Ruth and the modern STD, or Julius Erving who had a child that he completely denied the existence of until she had a good run at Wimbledon a few years ago. Or pretty much any other athlete in the history of sports who were also not the best role models for "the youth," but they never got caught doing all the things they did because there wasn't blanket media coverage at the time? How about all those people and their careers being smudged?
Guess what Jay Mariotti? Athletes are wealthy, in good shape, on the road lonely for days/weeks at a time, and have women who want to be around them. They cheat. It's not going to stop happening every time soon and pretty much every athlete does it. Except for Jake Delhomme, any pass he has ever made at a woman has been intercepted.
(Ba-da-I have lost all respect for myself)
In this age of performance-enhancement deception and infidelity, Tiger always carried himself as the one athlete who was faithful to his wife and had only one mistress:
As opposed to the other athletes who walk around with women in their bedroom and on their arm in full view of their wife and family. Jay Mariotti WANTED Tiger Woods to be different but that doesn't mean he is. I want Coach K to run a 2-1-2 zone that is working effectively in the first half of a game at least once in the second half of a game, but that doesn't mean he is going to do it. I want to believe the Panthers best LB was not using cocaine on a lake this past summer as a current lawsuit against him alleges, but that doesn't mean it is false.
Most likely, he'll be scalded by the fire.
Tiger Woods is going to be fine. Don't be dramatic. It's really a personal matter and if anyone cares to judge Tiger Woods for what he has done, they're hypocritical idiots. He screwed up over a long period of time and it makes him a sleazeball, but it doesn't make him a bad golfer and that is all people will care about in one year.
The fallout will be more devastating for Woods than the aforementioned sinners because we had so many hopes for him and held him to such a lofty standard as a person.
Again, we held him up to this standard so we are going to let him fall even harder because our expectations for him were so high. It's not exactly a fair way to judge which of these "sinners" are worse people. Should the fallout for Dennis Rodman be less devastating than the fallout for Tiger Woods because we expect Rodman to sleep with other men/women/animals, while we don't expect that from Tiger? I think it is funny our culture has no problem with people who are known assholes doing asshole things, we can accept this, but when someone is a nice person and is an asshole at some point, it's the end of the damn world and that person's career. Jay Mariotti is furthering this type of thought right here.
And let there be no doubt that Woods has been peddling an image. While his wife and children didn't appear in his ads, he was presenting the picture of a young family man every time he climbed into a Buick.
I am a little appalled that Jay Mariotti has just now figured out that athletes present an "image" to the public of how they want to be perceived. Does Jay really think "The NBA Cares?" Those NBA players are required to give certain amounts of time during the year to wonderful causes by their teams and the NBA, it's not optional. I am pretty sure it is in their contract or in some other form of legal writing that is binding that they do the nice things captured in the "NBA Cares" commercials. Really the commercials should have the tagline, "The NBA Requires It's Players To Care, So They Do With Slight Reluctance."
Athletes present an image to sell themselves and their products and Jay Mariotti knows this. He is just pretending as if he doesn't know this so he can act like the hurt little journalist and can dismiss Tiger actions as the very epitome of deceit on the American public. I guarantee you Jay Mariotti is not shocked by Tiger's actions. Mariotti knows if he was shocked by Tiger's transgressions then his actions would have been expected of him and he would fall in the Dennis Rodman category of athlete and Mariotti couldn't talk about what a horrible fall Tiger's reputation is going to take. So Mariotti has to pretend to be shocked so he can take Tiger to task for not being a perfect person.
Or the picture of class and honesty when he appeared in those Gillette ads with Derek Jeter, Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year and Roger Federer, another family man.
What was Tiger supposed to do in the ads, stab Federer in the back with a shiv, punch The Jeter in the face and march off the screen with a Playboy bunny on each arm? It's a fucking commercial, they are trying to sell a product so they want to present a fake picture of class and honestly...it's not real.
I hate to break this to Mariotti but that's not a real family in the AT&T Rollover Minutes commercial. I bet that lady isn't even those kid's real mother! This is deceit of the highest order!
And don't tell me that more than half the marriages fail in this country and that more than half the married men have affairs. Tiger Woods, by nature of his magnitude on the planet, was supposed to be an American hero. He is not.
Don't hit Jay Mariotti with actual facts! Let him cling to his ancient and unrealistic view of the world and the modern athlete.
Tiger Woods was supposed to be a hero on the golf course, not a role model for the world to base their family values upon. I am not making excuses for Tiger Woods, but he is freaking golf player, not a priest or any other type of religious figure who is judged for their piety. He is a sleazeball in regard to being faithful to his wife. He portrayed a more wholesome image of himself to the public to sell products, only the most naive person would think that public portrayal actually represented his private portrayal as well.
Tiger wasn't driving a Buick (it was a Cadillac) when he got in his accident and I don't think he wakes up in the morning and kids around with Thierry Henry, Derek Jeter, and Roger Federer after shaving. In fact, those four athletes weren't even in the same place when the commerical was shot, they use evil technology to trick the viewer into thinking they were there together by superimposing them all in the same shot together. What deceit on the part of Gillette! I thought Tiger, Roger, Derek and Thierry were all best friends!
If his apology was sincere, his arrogance took over again when he lashed out at media organizations who, despite their tawdry reputations and apparent checkbook journalism, were accurate in their reporting.
Because these media organizations were accurate this one time, all of their other transgressions in invading Tiger's life and the lives of other athletes with inaccurate stories and speculation is immediately forgiven by Jay Mariotti. While, because Tiger screwed up and was a sleazeball in this phase of his life, all of the other good things he has done is immediately forgotten by Jay who condemns him. There is a little irony in this.
But he is the one dumb enough to leave a texting and voice mail trail, so this really isn't the time for one of his arrogant commentaries about the intense scrutiny he deals with. He provided one anyway.
So because the private voicemails and text messages Tiger sent have been made public by the media, he shouldn't be able to rail against his private life and transgressions being made public by the media? I hope Jay realizes this doesn't make any sense. Basically if the media catches Tiger doing something wrong and publishes private voicemails and texts, he should not have a right to be angry that these types of correspondence were made public? I wonder how Jay would like it if his private conversations were made public?
This is the problem with a lot of the media today, they think as long as the story they are telling is accurate they have a right to tell the story and delve into details of a person's life as much as they want. Tiger Woods chose to be a public figure, but the media loves to hide behind one example of accuracy to excuse themselves for dozens of other inaccurate and privately invasive stories. Tiger Woods should expect to have his personal life and problems dissected because of who he is as a public figure, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have a semi-right to get pissy when incorrect (or even eventually partially correct) speculation is spewed about in the media.
But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.
I am a private person and I am not a public figure so I am not in the situation to disagree with this statement that Tiger has made. Obviously there should be the expectation that Tiger's personal sins are going to be made public, that's just a fact with the position he is in. That's not enough for Jay Mariotti and the media, they want blood.
Even blood is not enough for the media. They want to see a public apology so that they can call him insincere, they want to see Tiger cry with his wife beside him so they can judge her for standing by Tiger, they want to see his kids at the press conference so they can talk about what a screwed up and poor life moral life they are subjected to, and they want to hear Tiger say what EXACTLY it was he did so they can try and poke holes in his story and prove that he is still lying all while "coming clean." It may be smart for Tiger to publicly confess, but I can't blame him for not doing this.
The points he makes are well-taken but ill-timed. We need to hear complete humility from him, not the whine of someone who tried to fight his way through the rumors until he was too deep in doo-doo to avoid getting caught.
"We" don't need to hear complete humility from Tiger Woods because "we" aren't his wife or his family. Contrary to whatever bizarre belief Jay Mariotti has, Tiger Woods does not owe any of us an apology at all. He owes an apology to his wife and family. Tiger has in no way wronged the American public...hell, the American public has enjoyed this whole affair.
What's sad is that Tiger Woods, whose foundation is a powerhouse that has donated more than $30 million to communities via grants and scholarships, will take a bigger hit than any of the others.
That's not true. Every new sports scandal is always seen as worse than the last scandal and each time sportswriters will write that THIS is the hardest one for the sports figure involved in the scandal to recover from, it is proven incorrect. The media said it with A-Rod, Kobe, and many others and it never turned out to be true.
And Bryant? No one sells more NBA jerseys these days than a one-time womanizer who was charged with rape before acquitted. Why will Tiger take the biggest hit? His transgressions came completely out of the blue, meaning the shock value will linger for some time.
Kobe's transgressions came completely out of the blue. He was accused of freaking rape! Anyone who remembers the Kobe Bryant situation in Colorado was absolutely shocked by this. What happened? Kobe apologized, bought his wife a huge ring, got a new tattoo, changed his jersey number and moved on successfully with his life. Tiger will do the same no matter how much Jay Mariotti wants to lie and say it is not true.
The damage to his image is done. Now, how will his golf game be affected? Though his comeback from reconstructive knee surgery was successful and he won six times, he didn't win a major event in 2009.
He didn't win a major event? OMG, that's the end for Tiger Woods, pack up his clubs, and get the U-Haul, Tiger Woods is done as a professional golfer. Tiger came in second in the PGA Championship and easily could have won Master's this year. Elite athletes can throw themselves into their sport in times of crisis, Tiger has done this before, and I think he will do it again. He will be fine...not that Jay Mariotti really cares. He actually wants this incident to destroy Tiger Woods so he can get up on his high horse and talk about how Tiger ruined his private and professional life.
But everywhere he goes, Woods will hear whispers -- and maybe even taunters -- about Jaimee Grubbs.
Not taunters! Tiger can handle an angry wife but people taunting him is something he could probably never recover from.
He always has tried to cultivate friendships with other golfers, but perhaps now his rivals see a crack in the Woods fortress.
I am pretty sure other professional golfers won't stop from becoming friends with Tiger Woods because he is having a difficult time in his personal life.
If Jay Mariotti is trying to link other golfers seeing Tiger having trouble in his personal life and equating that to these same golfers gaining more confidence to beat Tiger in a tournament, I don't think I see this parallel.
Gandhi and Mandela, it seems, have nothing to worry about. Their places in history are secure, unthreatened by a golfer with a permanent smear on his name.
Because the natural parallel the entire world thought of when they heard the name "Tiger Woods" was of two historically peace loving and world changing world leaders. Again, we can't believe everything sports fathers say about their children...a lot of it is hyperbole and the product of a parent who thinks incredibly highly of his child.
With apologies to the late Earl Woods, Tiger has done more than any other man in history to change the course of infidelity, not humanity.
"He has done more than any other man in history to change the course of infidelity?" Really???????????????? There is absolutely no way this statement is even close to being correct in any fashion.
I don't know how Jay Mariotti still has a job. He is a classless person who takes every chance he can get to jump on an athlete for a transgression so he can lambast that athlete for not upholding the high standard that Mariotti sets for the world and he takes sick pleasure in seeing people's lives being nearly ruined. He is also a very, very bad sportswriter.
Apparently the "First Church of Tiger Woods" blog has closed because of Tiger's actions. While obviously the gentleman who runs the blog can do whatever he wants with the blog, I find it slightly ironic that a person who has created a fake church (worshipping false prophets anyone?) dedicated to an athlete is closing the site for morality reasons. Maybe it's not ironic and I am an idiot. The guy is a sleaze and an asshole but I can't help but be constantly amused when people pass judgment on others. Regardless, the man who runs the site John Ziegler seems to be a passionate conservative (no political discussion please) and for some reason it surprises me he would create a fake church to an athlete due to his political leanings. Either way, he is rid of Tiger Woods now that Woods has shown himself not to be Christ reborn.
Another part of this situation I find interesting is that everyone is feeling completely sorry for Elin Woods, which should definitely happen because she is a victim and it must destroy her emotionally to publicly learn about her husband's running around on her, but it's not like she doesn't know how to play the game too. Check out this link. I find the "renegotiation" to be pretty dumb in my mind. If she is going to leave him, she needs to get some self respect and not worry about the money and leave him. It's not like she has no reason to leave Tiger or won't get anything out of the divorce. So the "Church of Tiger" is closed, but the media's reaction continues to amuse me.
I have been following Jay Mariotti's columns all week (don't worry, I have spared my eyesight and not read every single of one of his columns. I can't subject myself to that much bad journalism) because I have noticed he has been on the very edge of writing one of his typical hack job columns about Tiger Woods. Today we have gotten that column. There is an old adage that the media builds up people higher only to watch them fall further. It's not really an adage, it's the truth, and no columnist I know of enjoys doing this more than Jay Mariotti. Whenever he can get on his high horse and start preaching from the pulpit about how athletes should be held to a higher standard than every other human being, Jay Mariotti takes advantage of that opportunity. I am not here to defend Tiger Woods, but to demean Jay Mariotti.
We wanted to believe he was above the fraudulent fray, true to his family values, good and wholesome enough to help shape the world well into the future.
We want to believe this about nearly every single person and role model but that doesn't mean it is true. I remember last winter Jay Mariotti wrote an article hacking Michael Phelps to pieces (if anyone remembers it is the post that got an entire Apolo Ohno message board angry with me because I made fun of him and Julianne Hough) after he got caught smoking pot in South Carolina. Mariotti made it sound like Phelps would be ruined forever by this incident. Less than one year later......few people remember the Phelps incident and even fewer care.
The most famous and wealthy golfer in the world cheated on his wife with a series of women. If that shocks you then I am proud of your ability to be think the best of people, but am shocked at your ability to be naive. From a sexist, pig male point of view I don't even get why he cheated. It's not like any of the women he cheated with were an upgrade on his wife. If you are going to cheat and be a sleaze dog, at least aim a little higher. I digress...
That's what Tiger Woods was destined to do, according to his late father. "Tiger will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity," Earl Woods once said famously.
If we held every person, and more specifically sports-parent, to the expectations they have for their children then we are going to have a bunch of really disappointed parents in the world.
More than Buddha, he said. More than Gandhi, he said. More than Nelson Mandela, he said. "Because he has a larger forum than any of them,'' he theorized.
This is obviously loony talk. I don't think we can take anything a parent says about their child as fact. If a child plays the piano perfectly at the age of 10, then the parents of that child believe the child to be a prodigy and if a 7 year old kid plays basketball well, the parents will think that child is the next Michael Jordan.
Notice how Mariotti builds up Tiger Woods to a certain high level so he can tear him down? He's building Tiger up to a level he could never reach so what he did will seem that much worse.
Remember all the occasions at golfing majors when Tiger would credit his wife and family for his maturity, his equilibrium, his historic preeminence on the course? All of that was a lie, apparently.
It may not have been a lie. His wife and family could have done all of those things for him, but he still wanted to screw around. These are two mutually exclusive issues. No one would argue that Hillary Clinton didn't help Bill Clinton when he was President of the United States make some difficult decisions, but he still screwed around on her. It doesn't mean she never helped him with his job, it just means while she helped him with his job, his mind lusted for slightly overweight interns.
Thus began an affair that lasted more than 2 1/2 years and involved more than 300 text messages between them, some of which, if true, take sex texting to new levels of long-distance body heat.
And apparently Jay Mariotti knows the limits of sex-testing and long-distance body heat?
(Bengoodfella vomiting)
To hear the tale from US Weekly, formerly one of those tabloids we'd ignore at the newsstand while searching for sports magazines,
Jay Mariotti usually ignores this magazine, but because he wants to tear down Tiger Woods US Weekly will be his main source of information for this story. See, tabloids like this are only useful when it proves something Mariotti wants them to prove.
When I first heard the voice mail tape Wednesday morning on the magazine's Web site, I didn't want to believe it was him.
Now Mariotti is visiting this tabloid magazine's web site for information. I like how US Weekly used to be a tabloid in Mariotti's mind, but now that it has gotten this one story right Jay Mariotti gives it total credibility in matters of journalism. In today's sports journalism, it takes just one accurate story to give a magazine or writer credibility, which still doesn't explain why some people take Jay Mariotti seriously.
Considering the National Enquirer was the tabloid magazine that originally broke the story that Tiger was cheating on his wife, I wonder if Jay gives that magazine credibility now as well? If so, the police should worry less about Tiger Woods traffic accident and more about the alien wolf-boy that was just found in the desert of Egypt.
Like that, quicker than it takes to unzip a fly, the image of the world's biggest and richest athlete was tarnished forever. Suddenly, Woods was no different than Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Charles Barkley and other megastar athletes whose careers have been smudged to varying degrees by deceit in their personal lives.
Or Babe Ruth who ran around with whores and very well may have created the modern STD, or Wilt Chamberlain who bragged about all the women he slept with and passed on the legacy of Ruth and the modern STD, or Julius Erving who had a child that he completely denied the existence of until she had a good run at Wimbledon a few years ago. Or pretty much any other athlete in the history of sports who were also not the best role models for "the youth," but they never got caught doing all the things they did because there wasn't blanket media coverage at the time? How about all those people and their careers being smudged?
Guess what Jay Mariotti? Athletes are wealthy, in good shape, on the road lonely for days/weeks at a time, and have women who want to be around them. They cheat. It's not going to stop happening every time soon and pretty much every athlete does it. Except for Jake Delhomme, any pass he has ever made at a woman has been intercepted.
(Ba-da-I have lost all respect for myself)
In this age of performance-enhancement deception and infidelity, Tiger always carried himself as the one athlete who was faithful to his wife and had only one mistress:
As opposed to the other athletes who walk around with women in their bedroom and on their arm in full view of their wife and family. Jay Mariotti WANTED Tiger Woods to be different but that doesn't mean he is. I want Coach K to run a 2-1-2 zone that is working effectively in the first half of a game at least once in the second half of a game, but that doesn't mean he is going to do it. I want to believe the Panthers best LB was not using cocaine on a lake this past summer as a current lawsuit against him alleges, but that doesn't mean it is false.
Most likely, he'll be scalded by the fire.
Tiger Woods is going to be fine. Don't be dramatic. It's really a personal matter and if anyone cares to judge Tiger Woods for what he has done, they're hypocritical idiots. He screwed up over a long period of time and it makes him a sleazeball, but it doesn't make him a bad golfer and that is all people will care about in one year.
The fallout will be more devastating for Woods than the aforementioned sinners because we had so many hopes for him and held him to such a lofty standard as a person.
Again, we held him up to this standard so we are going to let him fall even harder because our expectations for him were so high. It's not exactly a fair way to judge which of these "sinners" are worse people. Should the fallout for Dennis Rodman be less devastating than the fallout for Tiger Woods because we expect Rodman to sleep with other men/women/animals, while we don't expect that from Tiger? I think it is funny our culture has no problem with people who are known assholes doing asshole things, we can accept this, but when someone is a nice person and is an asshole at some point, it's the end of the damn world and that person's career. Jay Mariotti is furthering this type of thought right here.
And let there be no doubt that Woods has been peddling an image. While his wife and children didn't appear in his ads, he was presenting the picture of a young family man every time he climbed into a Buick.
I am a little appalled that Jay Mariotti has just now figured out that athletes present an "image" to the public of how they want to be perceived. Does Jay really think "The NBA Cares?" Those NBA players are required to give certain amounts of time during the year to wonderful causes by their teams and the NBA, it's not optional. I am pretty sure it is in their contract or in some other form of legal writing that is binding that they do the nice things captured in the "NBA Cares" commercials. Really the commercials should have the tagline, "The NBA Requires It's Players To Care, So They Do With Slight Reluctance."
Athletes present an image to sell themselves and their products and Jay Mariotti knows this. He is just pretending as if he doesn't know this so he can act like the hurt little journalist and can dismiss Tiger actions as the very epitome of deceit on the American public. I guarantee you Jay Mariotti is not shocked by Tiger's actions. Mariotti knows if he was shocked by Tiger's transgressions then his actions would have been expected of him and he would fall in the Dennis Rodman category of athlete and Mariotti couldn't talk about what a horrible fall Tiger's reputation is going to take. So Mariotti has to pretend to be shocked so he can take Tiger to task for not being a perfect person.
Or the picture of class and honesty when he appeared in those Gillette ads with Derek Jeter, Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year and Roger Federer, another family man.
What was Tiger supposed to do in the ads, stab Federer in the back with a shiv, punch The Jeter in the face and march off the screen with a Playboy bunny on each arm? It's a fucking commercial, they are trying to sell a product so they want to present a fake picture of class and honestly...it's not real.
I hate to break this to Mariotti but that's not a real family in the AT&T Rollover Minutes commercial. I bet that lady isn't even those kid's real mother! This is deceit of the highest order!
And don't tell me that more than half the marriages fail in this country and that more than half the married men have affairs. Tiger Woods, by nature of his magnitude on the planet, was supposed to be an American hero. He is not.
Don't hit Jay Mariotti with actual facts! Let him cling to his ancient and unrealistic view of the world and the modern athlete.
Tiger Woods was supposed to be a hero on the golf course, not a role model for the world to base their family values upon. I am not making excuses for Tiger Woods, but he is freaking golf player, not a priest or any other type of religious figure who is judged for their piety. He is a sleazeball in regard to being faithful to his wife. He portrayed a more wholesome image of himself to the public to sell products, only the most naive person would think that public portrayal actually represented his private portrayal as well.
Tiger wasn't driving a Buick (it was a Cadillac) when he got in his accident and I don't think he wakes up in the morning and kids around with Thierry Henry, Derek Jeter, and Roger Federer after shaving. In fact, those four athletes weren't even in the same place when the commerical was shot, they use evil technology to trick the viewer into thinking they were there together by superimposing them all in the same shot together. What deceit on the part of Gillette! I thought Tiger, Roger, Derek and Thierry were all best friends!
If his apology was sincere, his arrogance took over again when he lashed out at media organizations who, despite their tawdry reputations and apparent checkbook journalism, were accurate in their reporting.
Because these media organizations were accurate this one time, all of their other transgressions in invading Tiger's life and the lives of other athletes with inaccurate stories and speculation is immediately forgiven by Jay Mariotti. While, because Tiger screwed up and was a sleazeball in this phase of his life, all of the other good things he has done is immediately forgotten by Jay who condemns him. There is a little irony in this.
But he is the one dumb enough to leave a texting and voice mail trail, so this really isn't the time for one of his arrogant commentaries about the intense scrutiny he deals with. He provided one anyway.
So because the private voicemails and text messages Tiger sent have been made public by the media, he shouldn't be able to rail against his private life and transgressions being made public by the media? I hope Jay realizes this doesn't make any sense. Basically if the media catches Tiger doing something wrong and publishes private voicemails and texts, he should not have a right to be angry that these types of correspondence were made public? I wonder how Jay would like it if his private conversations were made public?
This is the problem with a lot of the media today, they think as long as the story they are telling is accurate they have a right to tell the story and delve into details of a person's life as much as they want. Tiger Woods chose to be a public figure, but the media loves to hide behind one example of accuracy to excuse themselves for dozens of other inaccurate and privately invasive stories. Tiger Woods should expect to have his personal life and problems dissected because of who he is as a public figure, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have a semi-right to get pissy when incorrect (or even eventually partially correct) speculation is spewed about in the media.
But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.
I am a private person and I am not a public figure so I am not in the situation to disagree with this statement that Tiger has made. Obviously there should be the expectation that Tiger's personal sins are going to be made public, that's just a fact with the position he is in. That's not enough for Jay Mariotti and the media, they want blood.
Even blood is not enough for the media. They want to see a public apology so that they can call him insincere, they want to see Tiger cry with his wife beside him so they can judge her for standing by Tiger, they want to see his kids at the press conference so they can talk about what a screwed up and poor life moral life they are subjected to, and they want to hear Tiger say what EXACTLY it was he did so they can try and poke holes in his story and prove that he is still lying all while "coming clean." It may be smart for Tiger to publicly confess, but I can't blame him for not doing this.
The points he makes are well-taken but ill-timed. We need to hear complete humility from him, not the whine of someone who tried to fight his way through the rumors until he was too deep in doo-doo to avoid getting caught.
"We" don't need to hear complete humility from Tiger Woods because "we" aren't his wife or his family. Contrary to whatever bizarre belief Jay Mariotti has, Tiger Woods does not owe any of us an apology at all. He owes an apology to his wife and family. Tiger has in no way wronged the American public...hell, the American public has enjoyed this whole affair.
What's sad is that Tiger Woods, whose foundation is a powerhouse that has donated more than $30 million to communities via grants and scholarships, will take a bigger hit than any of the others.
That's not true. Every new sports scandal is always seen as worse than the last scandal and each time sportswriters will write that THIS is the hardest one for the sports figure involved in the scandal to recover from, it is proven incorrect. The media said it with A-Rod, Kobe, and many others and it never turned out to be true.
And Bryant? No one sells more NBA jerseys these days than a one-time womanizer who was charged with rape before acquitted. Why will Tiger take the biggest hit? His transgressions came completely out of the blue, meaning the shock value will linger for some time.
Kobe's transgressions came completely out of the blue. He was accused of freaking rape! Anyone who remembers the Kobe Bryant situation in Colorado was absolutely shocked by this. What happened? Kobe apologized, bought his wife a huge ring, got a new tattoo, changed his jersey number and moved on successfully with his life. Tiger will do the same no matter how much Jay Mariotti wants to lie and say it is not true.
The damage to his image is done. Now, how will his golf game be affected? Though his comeback from reconstructive knee surgery was successful and he won six times, he didn't win a major event in 2009.
He didn't win a major event? OMG, that's the end for Tiger Woods, pack up his clubs, and get the U-Haul, Tiger Woods is done as a professional golfer. Tiger came in second in the PGA Championship and easily could have won Master's this year. Elite athletes can throw themselves into their sport in times of crisis, Tiger has done this before, and I think he will do it again. He will be fine...not that Jay Mariotti really cares. He actually wants this incident to destroy Tiger Woods so he can get up on his high horse and talk about how Tiger ruined his private and professional life.
But everywhere he goes, Woods will hear whispers -- and maybe even taunters -- about Jaimee Grubbs.
Not taunters! Tiger can handle an angry wife but people taunting him is something he could probably never recover from.
He always has tried to cultivate friendships with other golfers, but perhaps now his rivals see a crack in the Woods fortress.
I am pretty sure other professional golfers won't stop from becoming friends with Tiger Woods because he is having a difficult time in his personal life.
If Jay Mariotti is trying to link other golfers seeing Tiger having trouble in his personal life and equating that to these same golfers gaining more confidence to beat Tiger in a tournament, I don't think I see this parallel.
Gandhi and Mandela, it seems, have nothing to worry about. Their places in history are secure, unthreatened by a golfer with a permanent smear on his name.
Because the natural parallel the entire world thought of when they heard the name "Tiger Woods" was of two historically peace loving and world changing world leaders. Again, we can't believe everything sports fathers say about their children...a lot of it is hyperbole and the product of a parent who thinks incredibly highly of his child.
With apologies to the late Earl Woods, Tiger has done more than any other man in history to change the course of infidelity, not humanity.
"He has done more than any other man in history to change the course of infidelity?" Really???????????????? There is absolutely no way this statement is even close to being correct in any fashion.
I don't know how Jay Mariotti still has a job. He is a classless person who takes every chance he can get to jump on an athlete for a transgression so he can lambast that athlete for not upholding the high standard that Mariotti sets for the world and he takes sick pleasure in seeing people's lives being nearly ruined. He is also a very, very bad sportswriter.
Apparently the "First Church of Tiger Woods" blog has closed because of Tiger's actions. While obviously the gentleman who runs the blog can do whatever he wants with the blog, I find it slightly ironic that a person who has created a fake church (worshipping false prophets anyone?) dedicated to an athlete is closing the site for morality reasons. Maybe it's not ironic and I am an idiot. The guy is a sleaze and an asshole but I can't help but be constantly amused when people pass judgment on others. Regardless, the man who runs the site John Ziegler seems to be a passionate conservative (no political discussion please) and for some reason it surprises me he would create a fake church to an athlete due to his political leanings. Either way, he is rid of Tiger Woods now that Woods has shown himself not to be Christ reborn.
Another part of this situation I find interesting is that everyone is feeling completely sorry for Elin Woods, which should definitely happen because she is a victim and it must destroy her emotionally to publicly learn about her husband's running around on her, but it's not like she doesn't know how to play the game too. Check out this link. I find the "renegotiation" to be pretty dumb in my mind. If she is going to leave him, she needs to get some self respect and not worry about the money and leave him. It's not like she has no reason to leave Tiger or won't get anything out of the divorce. So the "Church of Tiger" is closed, but the media's reaction continues to amuse me.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
24 comments TMQ: There Is No Such Thing As Football Gods
Today, Gregg Easterbrook bases his TMQ on the Football Gods punishing the Patriots and rewarding the Saints. Obviously this is a wonderful template for a horrible TMQ. There are no such things as Football Gods, I believe this so sincerely I will quit capitalizing it. Maybe there is such a thing as karma, but football gods are completely fictional and Gregg Easterbrook sounds slightly insane talking about them. Enough introduction, let's just get to the disaster---I mean the column.
Mortal, didst thou doubt the existence of the football gods? Didst thou lack faith?
So apparently Gregg Easterbrook has such a high opinion of himself that he thinks he is the conduit for the football gods or he is a football minister. Either way, there is no such thing as football gods and if there is then Easterbrook is going to football gods Hell for impersonating a minister.
A week ago, the Patriots led the Jets 31-17 with 30 seconds remaining in the game. Bill Belichick had his starters still on the field; Tom Brady threw deep to Randy Moss -- Belichick was desperately trying to run up the score in order to taunt the Jets organization. The football gods exact vengeance for this sort of thing. Monday night in New Orleans, the Patriots were punished.
The football gods must not have cared that the Jets beat the Patriots the first time they played and then proceeded to talk major amounts of shit after that game. The Jets had a beat-down coming because they are trying the "we'll talk a good game and then try to back it up on the field" strategy. Sometimes this confidence backfires. It's called competition and the entire purpose of an NFL team is to win games. If you want teams to quit scoring on you, pull your guys off the field and put the backups in the game. The Jets did not do this. As long as the Jets are trying to score points, the Patriots should be able to as well.
The football gods are also a creative force: They brought us the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Has there ever been a team more fun to watch?
The 2007 Patriots, the 2000 Ravens (yes, I like defense), the early 2000's Rams, etc...and I could go on and on. The Saints are exciting, but there have been more exciting/as exciting teams in the NFL before they came along this year. The Saints were pretty fun to watch last year too, they just didn't win as many games.
Many athletes talk about having fun when they play but appear grim on the field -- the Saints look as though they are, in fact, having fun. Fun is good!
As I said one sentence ago, the Saints were just as fun to watch last year, they just did not win games, so fewer people talked about them. When a team is 11-0, it is really freaking easy to have fun. No matter what anyone says in the world of sports there is a super duper special equation sportswriters can't seem to remember. It relates to whether football players (or athletes in general) have fun on the field or not. Here it is:
Bad team chemistry + winning = Fun
Good team chemistry + losing = No Fun
Bad team chemistry + losing = No Fun
Good team chemistry + winning = Fun
Team fun to watch + winning= Fun
Team boring to watch + winning = Fun
Team boring to watch + losing = No Fun
Team fun to watch + losing = No Fun
OR:
Winning = Team having fun
Losing = Team not having fun
The Patriots appear to be experiencing wrenching angst as they perform.
They experienced this last night because they got their ass kicked. Hence they lost, which means they didn't have fun.
(Perhaps it's accumulated guilt from all those ethical shortcuts.)
Meanwhile the Saints are a team that is full of saints (no pun intended) and players who have never taken a shortcut, outside of the two players who (wink, wink) did not know they used a substance banned by the NFL. Other than that, the Saints are the team sent by God to win the Super Bowl and rid the league of cheaters like the Patriots. That's Gregg's view and I find it to be extremely stupid.
I kicked off this season by declaring on "The Brian Kenny Show" that I liked the Colts and Saints to meet in the Super Bowl. This prediction is faring so well, it's almost spooky.
The two best teams this time last year? Tennessee Titans and New York Giants. Combined they had zero playoff wins. That's why they play a full season in the NFL. Gregg shouldn't feel too good about his prediction quite yet.
As USC was trying to hang onto its lead against Texas -- sorry, I meant as Arizona tried to hang onto its lead against Tennessee -- Vince Young staged one of the great outhouse-to-penthouse moments in sports annals: an 18-play, 99-yard drive consisting of 17 Young passes and one Young scramble, leading to the winning touchdown on fourth-and-goal on the last snap.
"One of the great outhouse-to-penthouse moments in sports annals?" Are we sure Gregg isn't overstating this just a little bit...or a hell of a lot?
How about Matt Leinart not knowing until a few hours before kick-off that he was starting and then almost leading the Cardinals to a road win against the hottest team in the NFL. Why aren't we talking about that as a great moment in sports annals? Probably because the Cardinals lost and that's no fun to talk about compared to a player who won the game in dramatic fashion, which goes back to my equation:
Winning = Fun
Losing = No Fun
TMQ noted last week that Young's victories will raise Tebow's draft status, since Young is the NFL player most similar to Tebow.
I am getting a little irritated with all the Tim Tebow talk and how Vince Young is going to help Tebow go higher in the NFL Draft. All of these single-minded media members seem to believe that Tebow is the only quarterback who is going to benefit from Young doing well. Obviously I give Easterbrook a pass (sort of) because he is too stupid to actually know more than one college quarterback who can throw and run. Easterbrook barely knows a whole lot in-depth about the NFL, and he writes a long column about the NFL every week, so I wouldn't expect him to be up-to-date on any good college players other than Tim Tebow.
Don't we think that Young's performance is also helping Jake Locker and Dan LeFevour and their prospects to get taken highly in the NFL Draft? Everything is Tebow, Tebow, Tebow, Tebow in the world and it gets old. Both Locker and LeFevour are effective passing/running quarterbacks. I wouldn't expect Gregg to know any other quarterback considered to be second tier that currently plays college football, but sportswriters only referencing Tim Tebow annoys me.
Purists haven't seen Tebow perform in the pocket, and think big guys who look more like tight ends than quarterbacks can't win consistently in the NFL. Suddenly a big guy who looks more like a tight end than a quarterback is on a 9-0 tear in the NFL.
Eh, Vince Young is a little light for a tight end in the NFL these days at 233 pounds. Again, I would not expect Gregg Easterbrook to know this because he probably doesn't know how much tight ends in the NFL weigh. I have very low expectations for what Gregg Easterbrook should and should not know. That doesn't mean he doesn't disappoint me every single week with his lack of in-depth football knowledge.
If Young keeps winning, Tebow could rocket up to the top five picks in the 2010 draft. Tim -- send Vince a case of champagne!
The top 5 picks in the NFL Draft? That "could" happen but I don't know if he will even be one of the top 5 quarterbacks taken in the draft, especially if Jake Locker and Clausen jump into the draft. The 2010 draft is pretty loaded on defense (Suh, McCoy, Berry, Mays) I think it is going to be tough for Tebow to go in the Top 5 of the draft no matter how well Vince Young performs the rest of the year.
Stats of the Week No. 8: (Bonus college stat) Against Texas, Texas A&M gained 532 yards and lost. Against Montana, South Dakota State scored 48 points and lost.
Whatever happened to the idea that when two teams who have similar talent levels play each other there is not a lot of scoring? Doesn't Gregg love this theory? Rest assured, the next time there is an example of this Gregg will be the absolute first to point it out. In the meantime, he will skip over any examples where this theory is not right.
Stats of the Week No. 9: In the five games since Vince Young took over as starting quarterback, Chris Johnson has 800 yards rushing.
Let's re-write this sentence in Easterbrookian language:
In the past five games, Chris Johnson has over 800 yards rushing. Needless to say, the Titans and Vince Young are 5-0 in that stretch.
Sweet Unknowns of the Week: As Houston kicked a field goal to take a 17-0 lead over Indianapolis, Spenser, my 14-year-old, pronounced of the Texans, "They're doomed." And yea, verily, it came to pass.
As Jake Delhomme trotted on the field after the kick-off Sunday I saw he was still the quarterback for Carolina and pronounced, "We're doomed," and it came to pass. That makes me a fucking genius. Now, I am going to be like Gregg and leave out the other 100 times I made doomsday proclamations and was completely wrong.
Considering the Colts came back from 10 points (I think, it may have been more, but my point is that they have come back against the Texans before) down in Houston last year with 3 minutes to play and Peyton Manning is still the quarterback for the Colts this wasn't exactly a Nostradamus-type prediction.
With Bob Sanders and Marlin Jackson out for the season, and Dwight Freeney missing the contest with an injury, the Colts' defense started no one drafted higher than the third round.
Amazing. The fact the Colts have cheaper, lowly drafted players on defense could be because the Colts offense has most of the payroll tied up in expensive 1st round draft picks like Manning, Addai, Brown, Wayne, and Clark. All of whom are productive, good players.
Big plays were made by Colts defensive starters Gary Brackett, Daniel Muir, Melvin Bullitt and Jacob Lacey, all of whom were undrafted free agents. Pierre Garçon, out of Division III Mount Union, caught a touchdown pass.
Has anyone else noticed that Gregg Easterbrook uses the exact same examples every single week of great players who were lowly drafted or undrafted? Every single week he uses players on the Colts and he names the exact same players every week. Somehow this is supposed to convince everyone that undrafted free agents are the best players in the NFL. Gregg may be more convincing if he actually found other players on other teams who were undrafted and played well and didn't use the same examples week after week.
Robert Mathis, a low draft pick out of Division I-AA Alabama A&M, not only stripped Matt Schaub of the ball to set up the game-icing touchdown, he did so while being held by the Moo Cows' offensive line.
Robert Mathis has been widely known as a great defensive end in the NFL for a couple of years now. It's a bit too late into his career to be playing the "he was lowly drafted and therefore is an underdog" card as related to him.
I don't know what's in the water in Indiana, but it seems to turn unknowns into football players.
Yes, because all these undrafted Colts players didn't know how to play football until they got to Indianapolis. I bet that is exactly the case.
With the game tied at 7, Baltimore's Mark Clayton simply ran past Pittsburgh cornerback William Gay for a 54-yard reception; a touchdown and a 14-7 Ravens halftime lead followed. Not only did Gay ignore his man; and not only was Gay making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than covering his man;
Or Gay was playing zone defense and wasn't responsible for covering Clayton out of his "zone" and was hoping the safety was providing him help over the top. (Speaking of safeties, notice the Steelers lost again without Troy Polamalu?) If Gregg is going to write an NFL-related football column every week, he may as well familiarize himself with the NFL in regard to the different defensive schemes that are run so he does not sound like a total idiot.
The sad part is that there are people reading his TMQ who think, "hell yeah, that happens all the time" because these people let Gregg think for them and don't care to know that cornerbacks don't ALWAYS play man defense and are sometimes responsible for "zones" on defense...which means Gay may not have been responsible for this reception. I am not a football genius but before criticizing a football player, at least try to understand if that football player was responsible for the mistake or not.
there was 2:47 remaining until intermission, making a deep pass attempt likely.
I have no idea why a deep pass is more likely when there is less than 3 minutes remaining before halftime. It doesn't make sense. You would think a team would try and have a drive that ends right before halftime, as not to give the other team the ball back, so they would not be afraid to run the ball and throw intermediate pass patterns. I don't see how a deep pass is more likely than anything else in this situation since there is plenty of time left on the clock to do pretty much anything offensively.
Note: Football enthusiasts stopped following Redman's name after he was let go by the Ravens, Patriots and Titans, then entered exile with the Arena League Austin Wranglers. Redman now has 19 touchdown passes versus 10 interceptions in his NFL career, and will be a free agent in a few months.
I am glad Gregg knows exactly what football enthusiasts were following at all times. There is nothing more irritating than a sportswriter who claims to know what everyone was thinking about or following. If Redman is going to be a free agent then who wouldn't want a 32 year old QB with a career passer rating of 80.6 (actually not horrible, but not great) who needs 7 chances to throw a game winning touchdown pass? I fail to completely see how Redman having a good game against the Buccaneers will make him a valuable free agent.
(Actually, I wouldn't mind if he was the QB for my favorite team this year, but that bar is set so low now I would take pretty much anyone at this point)
The three top-performing quarterbacks this season -- Drew Brees, Brett Favre and Peyton Manning -- simply aren't getting hit, and all quarterbacks suddenly become more talented when the blocking is good.
Yet for some reason it is the quarterbacks who always get the credit for playing well, when in fact, the protection the quarterback receives allows him to be as great as he is.
Bear in mind, in his first couple seasons, Brees wasn't very accurate -- San Diego showed him the door after he threw 53 interceptions with the Chargers. Rather than get discouraged, Brees kept working to improve, and he now delivers the ball with near-perfect accuracy
Let's see how wrong Gregg Easterbrook is in making this statement. Brees completion percentage each season with the Chargers:
2001: 55.6%
2002: 60.8%
2003: 57.6%
2004: 65.5%
2005: 64.6%
That's seems like was pretty accurate with the Chargers. As far as his interception totals, the 53 interceptions was over 5 seasons and he had a TD:INT ratio of 80:53. Basically Brees has always been a fairly accurate quarterback but he has stepped it up since he was signed by the Saints.
Also, "showing him the door" is not at all how the Chargers treated Brees. He declined a contract offer from the Chargers and chose to become a free agent. The Chargers didn't raise their offer because they had Philip Rivers. It's as simple as that.
You got the feeling the defensive game plan included instructions to Wilhite to blitz the first time he saw an empty backfield.
I am sure that is exactly what the Patriots coaching staff told Wilhite to do. The first time he sees an empty backfield, no matter the defensive play call, Wilhite should blitz. I really doubt players on the Patriots defense are given that much leeway. Who cares if he was in man coverage with no safety over the top, if he sees an empty backfield he should blitz...that's not exactly what the Patriots wanted Wilhite to do. They wanted him to run the defensive play that was called.
This blitz was probably called by the coaching staff.
When a defensive back blitzes, the quarterback is supposed to throw to the side the blitz came from, which will be undermanned. The response can't work any better! Pats safety Brandon Meriweather was totally out of position,
Well obviously, since Wilhite was given permission to free-lance like this with an empty backfield according to Gregg Easterbrook.
Over on the New England side of the ball, the Patriots scored a touchdown on a fourth-and-1 rush from the New Orleans 4-yard line with an unusual blocking scheme
The Patriots went for it on fourth down? Fortune favors the bold! How come the Patriots didn't win the game then? Don't Gregg's theories ALWAYS work?
Belichick went for it -- New Orleans blitzed and cornerback Mike McKenzie broke up the quick out to Randy Moss, reading the play so well he seemed confident a quick out was coming.
Gregg Easterbrook fails to talk about how blitzing never works here...probably because the blitz actually worked. Everyone knows Gregg probably said, "Game over" when the Saints blitzed, but he won't mention that since the game didn't happen that way.
New England holds four second-round draft choices in 2010 and two first-round choices in 2011 -- maybe the Patriots should have focused more on reinforcing their 2009 roster, as opposed to stockpiling future picks.
I hate second guessing like this. Next year (or around draft time), Gregg Easterbrook will be complimenting the Patriots for having so many 2nd round draft picks, but he questions it now because they lost a game. As I have said over the past couple weeks, I hate second guessing where the person making the second guess changes his/her opinion based on the outcome.
Gregg then starts naming the football gods. I wish I was kidding.
Belicheat: god of stolen signals. Said to guard the underworld; this is best not spoken of.
It's just pure comedy gold.
Mini and Micro: twin sisters of great beauty, goddesses of cheerleading. They wear string bikinis rather than robes.
It's so sad to see Gregg Easterbrook exploiting the NFL cheerleaders by showing their pictures in his TMQ and not compensating them. Now he is mocking them with horrible "goddess" nicknames.
sorry, Arizona leading Tennessee -- the Cardinals ran a double safety blitz. "Hey, Tennessee might win," yours truly said while observing the mega-blitz begin: 10-yard completion to Kenny Britt. Tennessee facing third-and-5 on the Arizona 26 with 28 seconds remaining, Arizona coaches again called the double safety blitz. "Hey, Tennessee is going to win," yours truly said -- and behold, a 17-yard completion to Jared Cook. Had the defending NFC champion simply resisted the urge to big-blitz on the final Flaming Thumbtacks' drive, Arizona likely would have jogged up the tunnel victorious.
It's really likely the Cardinals would have won the game. This is based on absolutely no evidence this statement is true, which is the only kind of statement Gregg Easterbrook likes to make. I do know the one thing you don't want to do to (for?) Vince Young is to give him plenty of time in the pocket to make a decision. Gregg completely ignores the fact Young is great at scrambling and the Cardinals smartly decided to make him throw the ball to win the game instead of giving him a chance to use his legs to win the game. They lost the game, but I can't argue completely with the strategy of trying to rush Young into making a decision and trying to keep him in the pocket throwing the ball.
the Broncos came into their Thanksgiving game trying to throw down the middle. In the first quarter, it didn't work. Rather than panic -- TMQ's immutable Law of Composure holds, "Don't Panic, There Will Be Plenty of Time for That Later" -- Denver continued trying to throw down the middle. The result, on third-and-8 from the Jersey/A 17 early in the fourth quarter, was a down-the-middle touchdown pass to Brandon Stokley, securing a safe 23-6 lead.
As usual, Gregg doesn't explain the fact the Broncos were winning 16-6 before this touchdown pass was thrown...but of course this was the most important pass of the game because it proves some stupid theory TMQ has.
TMQ noted that Jersey/A is on a five-year run of rarely using high choices on blockers and asked, "Who's going to man the trenches?" On Thanksgiving night, the trenches weren't manned well.
I thought high draft choices were not good football players and undrafted players were the better players? I guess that rule is only true when Gregg wants it to be true so he can be right. When Gregg can't be proven right about how good lowly drafted players are then high draft choices are wonderful.
And great line play at Minnesota isn't just from brand-name athletes such as Kevin Williams and Steve Hutchinson. The undrafted Artis Hicks had a perfect pull block on Percy Harvin's 35-yard rush that set Minnesota's early tone against the Bears.
You mean Artis Hicks had one good block AND he was undrafted? That must mean he is the greatest player in the history of the NFL or at least better than many highly drafted and highly paid players who play the same position as him.
From earlier in the column:
(Pats wide receiver Wes Welker, who is 5-foot-9, was assigned several times to block middle linebacker Jonathan Vilma and did so very well.)
On Sunday at St. Louis, the Rams reached the Seahawks' 1 and lined up with speed receiver Donnie Avery wide right. Avery came in motion back toward formation and stopped in the fullback position; St. Louis ran a play-fake, and he ran back into the right flat, uncovered, for a touchdown. Attention Seattle defense: the 5-11, 183-pound Avery is not going to lead block!
Apparently Gregg doesn't think Donnie Avery who is 5-foot-11-inches will be the lead blocker but he finds it perfectly normal to have 5-foot-9-inch Wes Welker blocking a linebacker. The lesson? Pretty much any good wide receiver can block fairly well and defenses can't just assume that receiver isn't going to be a blocker on a given play.
Gregg is unable to learn this lesson, so he believes in the black and white rule that if a wide receiver lines up in the fullback position then it will automatically be a passing play. There is no need to even follow the running back, who by the way is Steven Jackson who also happens to be one of the best running backs in the NFL, just don't fall for the play fake EVER.
Buffalo's Fred Jackson, undrafted out of Division III Coe College -- an academics-oriented school with high admissions standards -- caught a pass or ran seven times, plus took a Wildcat snap, on a 75-yard touchdown drive against Miami that ended with a Jackson touchdown. Jackson has driven high-first-round-drafted, megabucks tailback Marshawn Lynch to the bench.
Gregg is absolutely lying here. I have Fred Jackson on a fantasy team. Marshawn Lynch missed the first 4 games of the season and at Game 5 of the NFL season Fred Jackson was benched in favor of Marshawn Lynch. The only reason Jackson played more this past Sunday is because Lynch had an injured shoulder...otherwise Fred Jackson would still be a backup or at least be sharing carries with Lynch. I can understand how a sportswriter giving his opinion can be wrong, but Gregg Easterbrook is just outright lying here. As soon as Lynch gets healthy, Jackson will probably be 2nd string again.
Bumbling former coach Dick "Cheerio, Chaps" Jauron thought Lynch should start because he was a high draft choice. Temporary Interim Provisional Coach Perry Fewell thinks Jackson should start because he performs.
Jauron started Fred Jackson and used him extensively for the first 4 games of this season. Lynch was going to start on Sunday for the new head coach if he did not have an injury. Another lie. Lynch and Jackson had the same amount of carries the week before under Fewell against the Jaguars.
In the game, Buffalo scored four touchdowns -- two from the undrafted Division III Jackson, one from undrafted Ryan Fitzpatrick of Division I-AA Harvard and one from thrice-waived Terrell Owens of Division I-AA Tennessee-Chattanooga.
Owens was never waived for his performance on the field, he was waived for his attitude and off-the-field and on-the-field distractions. Gregg can write such misleading sentences at times.
Mike McLaughlin of Spokane, Wash., writes, "This wasn't an isolated incident. When LSU played at Washington early this season, Miles had a Louisiana state trooper as his security. Not only is Seattle not in Louisiana, it's so far west it wasn't even part of the Louisiana Purchase!"
It wasn't even part of the Louisiana Purchase! Holy shit, doesn't Les Miles know the NCAA rule that he shouldn't take state troopers on an away game trip that is outside the boundaries of a 200 year old land purchase agreement by the United States? I think it's in the NCAA Rules and Regulations book.
I've proposed the Crabtree Curse and the Kern Kurse.
And we won't hear anything about the Crabtree Curse, because the 49ers won. Apparently the curse just took a week off and will be back next week...or when the 49ers lose again. Rest assured, we will hear about the curse at that point because Gregg picks and chooses when he brings up the Crabtree Curse.
Finally, Tracy Kennett of Wood River, Ill., provides this YouTube clip of 17 points scored in the final 47 seconds of a high school football game -- including a game-winning 80-yard touchdown pass on the last snap of the contest.
More reasoning why the Patriots were throwing deep against the Jets late in the game a few weeks ago.
Here's another indicator of the absurdity of college football. Reader Cliff Pannella of Atlanta notes that while trailing Florida 30-0, Florida State kicked a field goal from the Florida 3-yard line, abandoning any attempt to win but keeping a shutout off the Seminoles' record. How do we know avoiding a shutout was Bobby Bowden's motive? He said so!
I don't know why it is so absurd for a football team to try and score points late in a game to make the score closer. Would giving up and just walking off the field be much more preferable? This type criticism doesn't make any sense. Should Florida State have just tried not to score and down the ball? They tried to score to make the game closer, I really don't see a problem with that.
How long until Notre Dame wishes Weis were back and the Fighting Irish were, like this season, taking highly ranked teams down to the wire in exciting games?
I would say it will be either "never" or "negative 3 weeks" before the Fighting Irish wish they were average like they were this year.
Next Week: Chad Ochocinco demands his own personal football god.
There are no football gods.
Well that's one more week of TMQ and one more week of another black stain on modern sports journalism.
Mortal, didst thou doubt the existence of the football gods? Didst thou lack faith?
So apparently Gregg Easterbrook has such a high opinion of himself that he thinks he is the conduit for the football gods or he is a football minister. Either way, there is no such thing as football gods and if there is then Easterbrook is going to football gods Hell for impersonating a minister.
A week ago, the Patriots led the Jets 31-17 with 30 seconds remaining in the game. Bill Belichick had his starters still on the field; Tom Brady threw deep to Randy Moss -- Belichick was desperately trying to run up the score in order to taunt the Jets organization. The football gods exact vengeance for this sort of thing. Monday night in New Orleans, the Patriots were punished.
The football gods must not have cared that the Jets beat the Patriots the first time they played and then proceeded to talk major amounts of shit after that game. The Jets had a beat-down coming because they are trying the "we'll talk a good game and then try to back it up on the field" strategy. Sometimes this confidence backfires. It's called competition and the entire purpose of an NFL team is to win games. If you want teams to quit scoring on you, pull your guys off the field and put the backups in the game. The Jets did not do this. As long as the Jets are trying to score points, the Patriots should be able to as well.
The football gods are also a creative force: They brought us the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Has there ever been a team more fun to watch?
The 2007 Patriots, the 2000 Ravens (yes, I like defense), the early 2000's Rams, etc...and I could go on and on. The Saints are exciting, but there have been more exciting/as exciting teams in the NFL before they came along this year. The Saints were pretty fun to watch last year too, they just didn't win as many games.
Many athletes talk about having fun when they play but appear grim on the field -- the Saints look as though they are, in fact, having fun. Fun is good!
As I said one sentence ago, the Saints were just as fun to watch last year, they just did not win games, so fewer people talked about them. When a team is 11-0, it is really freaking easy to have fun. No matter what anyone says in the world of sports there is a super duper special equation sportswriters can't seem to remember. It relates to whether football players (or athletes in general) have fun on the field or not. Here it is:
Bad team chemistry + winning = Fun
Good team chemistry + losing = No Fun
Bad team chemistry + losing = No Fun
Good team chemistry + winning = Fun
Team fun to watch + winning= Fun
Team boring to watch + winning = Fun
Team boring to watch + losing = No Fun
Team fun to watch + losing = No Fun
OR:
Winning = Team having fun
Losing = Team not having fun
The Patriots appear to be experiencing wrenching angst as they perform.
They experienced this last night because they got their ass kicked. Hence they lost, which means they didn't have fun.
(Perhaps it's accumulated guilt from all those ethical shortcuts.)
Meanwhile the Saints are a team that is full of saints (no pun intended) and players who have never taken a shortcut, outside of the two players who (wink, wink) did not know they used a substance banned by the NFL. Other than that, the Saints are the team sent by God to win the Super Bowl and rid the league of cheaters like the Patriots. That's Gregg's view and I find it to be extremely stupid.
I kicked off this season by declaring on "The Brian Kenny Show" that I liked the Colts and Saints to meet in the Super Bowl. This prediction is faring so well, it's almost spooky.
The two best teams this time last year? Tennessee Titans and New York Giants. Combined they had zero playoff wins. That's why they play a full season in the NFL. Gregg shouldn't feel too good about his prediction quite yet.
As USC was trying to hang onto its lead against Texas -- sorry, I meant as Arizona tried to hang onto its lead against Tennessee -- Vince Young staged one of the great outhouse-to-penthouse moments in sports annals: an 18-play, 99-yard drive consisting of 17 Young passes and one Young scramble, leading to the winning touchdown on fourth-and-goal on the last snap.
"One of the great outhouse-to-penthouse moments in sports annals?" Are we sure Gregg isn't overstating this just a little bit...or a hell of a lot?
How about Matt Leinart not knowing until a few hours before kick-off that he was starting and then almost leading the Cardinals to a road win against the hottest team in the NFL. Why aren't we talking about that as a great moment in sports annals? Probably because the Cardinals lost and that's no fun to talk about compared to a player who won the game in dramatic fashion, which goes back to my equation:
Winning = Fun
Losing = No Fun
TMQ noted last week that Young's victories will raise Tebow's draft status, since Young is the NFL player most similar to Tebow.
I am getting a little irritated with all the Tim Tebow talk and how Vince Young is going to help Tebow go higher in the NFL Draft. All of these single-minded media members seem to believe that Tebow is the only quarterback who is going to benefit from Young doing well. Obviously I give Easterbrook a pass (sort of) because he is too stupid to actually know more than one college quarterback who can throw and run. Easterbrook barely knows a whole lot in-depth about the NFL, and he writes a long column about the NFL every week, so I wouldn't expect him to be up-to-date on any good college players other than Tim Tebow.
Don't we think that Young's performance is also helping Jake Locker and Dan LeFevour and their prospects to get taken highly in the NFL Draft? Everything is Tebow, Tebow, Tebow, Tebow in the world and it gets old. Both Locker and LeFevour are effective passing/running quarterbacks. I wouldn't expect Gregg to know any other quarterback considered to be second tier that currently plays college football, but sportswriters only referencing Tim Tebow annoys me.
Purists haven't seen Tebow perform in the pocket, and think big guys who look more like tight ends than quarterbacks can't win consistently in the NFL. Suddenly a big guy who looks more like a tight end than a quarterback is on a 9-0 tear in the NFL.
Eh, Vince Young is a little light for a tight end in the NFL these days at 233 pounds. Again, I would not expect Gregg Easterbrook to know this because he probably doesn't know how much tight ends in the NFL weigh. I have very low expectations for what Gregg Easterbrook should and should not know. That doesn't mean he doesn't disappoint me every single week with his lack of in-depth football knowledge.
If Young keeps winning, Tebow could rocket up to the top five picks in the 2010 draft. Tim -- send Vince a case of champagne!
The top 5 picks in the NFL Draft? That "could" happen but I don't know if he will even be one of the top 5 quarterbacks taken in the draft, especially if Jake Locker and Clausen jump into the draft. The 2010 draft is pretty loaded on defense (Suh, McCoy, Berry, Mays) I think it is going to be tough for Tebow to go in the Top 5 of the draft no matter how well Vince Young performs the rest of the year.
Stats of the Week No. 8: (Bonus college stat) Against Texas, Texas A&M gained 532 yards and lost. Against Montana, South Dakota State scored 48 points and lost.
Whatever happened to the idea that when two teams who have similar talent levels play each other there is not a lot of scoring? Doesn't Gregg love this theory? Rest assured, the next time there is an example of this Gregg will be the absolute first to point it out. In the meantime, he will skip over any examples where this theory is not right.
Stats of the Week No. 9: In the five games since Vince Young took over as starting quarterback, Chris Johnson has 800 yards rushing.
Let's re-write this sentence in Easterbrookian language:
In the past five games, Chris Johnson has over 800 yards rushing. Needless to say, the Titans and Vince Young are 5-0 in that stretch.
Sweet Unknowns of the Week: As Houston kicked a field goal to take a 17-0 lead over Indianapolis, Spenser, my 14-year-old, pronounced of the Texans, "They're doomed." And yea, verily, it came to pass.
As Jake Delhomme trotted on the field after the kick-off Sunday I saw he was still the quarterback for Carolina and pronounced, "We're doomed," and it came to pass. That makes me a fucking genius. Now, I am going to be like Gregg and leave out the other 100 times I made doomsday proclamations and was completely wrong.
Considering the Colts came back from 10 points (I think, it may have been more, but my point is that they have come back against the Texans before) down in Houston last year with 3 minutes to play and Peyton Manning is still the quarterback for the Colts this wasn't exactly a Nostradamus-type prediction.
With Bob Sanders and Marlin Jackson out for the season, and Dwight Freeney missing the contest with an injury, the Colts' defense started no one drafted higher than the third round.
Amazing. The fact the Colts have cheaper, lowly drafted players on defense could be because the Colts offense has most of the payroll tied up in expensive 1st round draft picks like Manning, Addai, Brown, Wayne, and Clark. All of whom are productive, good players.
Big plays were made by Colts defensive starters Gary Brackett, Daniel Muir, Melvin Bullitt and Jacob Lacey, all of whom were undrafted free agents. Pierre Garçon, out of Division III Mount Union, caught a touchdown pass.
Has anyone else noticed that Gregg Easterbrook uses the exact same examples every single week of great players who were lowly drafted or undrafted? Every single week he uses players on the Colts and he names the exact same players every week. Somehow this is supposed to convince everyone that undrafted free agents are the best players in the NFL. Gregg may be more convincing if he actually found other players on other teams who were undrafted and played well and didn't use the same examples week after week.
Robert Mathis, a low draft pick out of Division I-AA Alabama A&M, not only stripped Matt Schaub of the ball to set up the game-icing touchdown, he did so while being held by the Moo Cows' offensive line.
Robert Mathis has been widely known as a great defensive end in the NFL for a couple of years now. It's a bit too late into his career to be playing the "he was lowly drafted and therefore is an underdog" card as related to him.
I don't know what's in the water in Indiana, but it seems to turn unknowns into football players.
Yes, because all these undrafted Colts players didn't know how to play football until they got to Indianapolis. I bet that is exactly the case.
With the game tied at 7, Baltimore's Mark Clayton simply ran past Pittsburgh cornerback William Gay for a 54-yard reception; a touchdown and a 14-7 Ravens halftime lead followed. Not only did Gay ignore his man; and not only was Gay making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than covering his man;
Or Gay was playing zone defense and wasn't responsible for covering Clayton out of his "zone" and was hoping the safety was providing him help over the top. (Speaking of safeties, notice the Steelers lost again without Troy Polamalu?) If Gregg is going to write an NFL-related football column every week, he may as well familiarize himself with the NFL in regard to the different defensive schemes that are run so he does not sound like a total idiot.
The sad part is that there are people reading his TMQ who think, "hell yeah, that happens all the time" because these people let Gregg think for them and don't care to know that cornerbacks don't ALWAYS play man defense and are sometimes responsible for "zones" on defense...which means Gay may not have been responsible for this reception. I am not a football genius but before criticizing a football player, at least try to understand if that football player was responsible for the mistake or not.
there was 2:47 remaining until intermission, making a deep pass attempt likely.
I have no idea why a deep pass is more likely when there is less than 3 minutes remaining before halftime. It doesn't make sense. You would think a team would try and have a drive that ends right before halftime, as not to give the other team the ball back, so they would not be afraid to run the ball and throw intermediate pass patterns. I don't see how a deep pass is more likely than anything else in this situation since there is plenty of time left on the clock to do pretty much anything offensively.
Note: Football enthusiasts stopped following Redman's name after he was let go by the Ravens, Patriots and Titans, then entered exile with the Arena League Austin Wranglers. Redman now has 19 touchdown passes versus 10 interceptions in his NFL career, and will be a free agent in a few months.
I am glad Gregg knows exactly what football enthusiasts were following at all times. There is nothing more irritating than a sportswriter who claims to know what everyone was thinking about or following. If Redman is going to be a free agent then who wouldn't want a 32 year old QB with a career passer rating of 80.6 (actually not horrible, but not great) who needs 7 chances to throw a game winning touchdown pass? I fail to completely see how Redman having a good game against the Buccaneers will make him a valuable free agent.
(Actually, I wouldn't mind if he was the QB for my favorite team this year, but that bar is set so low now I would take pretty much anyone at this point)
The three top-performing quarterbacks this season -- Drew Brees, Brett Favre and Peyton Manning -- simply aren't getting hit, and all quarterbacks suddenly become more talented when the blocking is good.
Yet for some reason it is the quarterbacks who always get the credit for playing well, when in fact, the protection the quarterback receives allows him to be as great as he is.
Bear in mind, in his first couple seasons, Brees wasn't very accurate -- San Diego showed him the door after he threw 53 interceptions with the Chargers. Rather than get discouraged, Brees kept working to improve, and he now delivers the ball with near-perfect accuracy
Let's see how wrong Gregg Easterbrook is in making this statement. Brees completion percentage each season with the Chargers:
2001: 55.6%
2002: 60.8%
2003: 57.6%
2004: 65.5%
2005: 64.6%
That's seems like was pretty accurate with the Chargers. As far as his interception totals, the 53 interceptions was over 5 seasons and he had a TD:INT ratio of 80:53. Basically Brees has always been a fairly accurate quarterback but he has stepped it up since he was signed by the Saints.
Also, "showing him the door" is not at all how the Chargers treated Brees. He declined a contract offer from the Chargers and chose to become a free agent. The Chargers didn't raise their offer because they had Philip Rivers. It's as simple as that.
You got the feeling the defensive game plan included instructions to Wilhite to blitz the first time he saw an empty backfield.
I am sure that is exactly what the Patriots coaching staff told Wilhite to do. The first time he sees an empty backfield, no matter the defensive play call, Wilhite should blitz. I really doubt players on the Patriots defense are given that much leeway. Who cares if he was in man coverage with no safety over the top, if he sees an empty backfield he should blitz...that's not exactly what the Patriots wanted Wilhite to do. They wanted him to run the defensive play that was called.
This blitz was probably called by the coaching staff.
When a defensive back blitzes, the quarterback is supposed to throw to the side the blitz came from, which will be undermanned. The response can't work any better! Pats safety Brandon Meriweather was totally out of position,
Well obviously, since Wilhite was given permission to free-lance like this with an empty backfield according to Gregg Easterbrook.
Over on the New England side of the ball, the Patriots scored a touchdown on a fourth-and-1 rush from the New Orleans 4-yard line with an unusual blocking scheme
The Patriots went for it on fourth down? Fortune favors the bold! How come the Patriots didn't win the game then? Don't Gregg's theories ALWAYS work?
Belichick went for it -- New Orleans blitzed and cornerback Mike McKenzie broke up the quick out to Randy Moss, reading the play so well he seemed confident a quick out was coming.
Gregg Easterbrook fails to talk about how blitzing never works here...probably because the blitz actually worked. Everyone knows Gregg probably said, "Game over" when the Saints blitzed, but he won't mention that since the game didn't happen that way.
New England holds four second-round draft choices in 2010 and two first-round choices in 2011 -- maybe the Patriots should have focused more on reinforcing their 2009 roster, as opposed to stockpiling future picks.
I hate second guessing like this. Next year (or around draft time), Gregg Easterbrook will be complimenting the Patriots for having so many 2nd round draft picks, but he questions it now because they lost a game. As I have said over the past couple weeks, I hate second guessing where the person making the second guess changes his/her opinion based on the outcome.
Gregg then starts naming the football gods. I wish I was kidding.
Belicheat: god of stolen signals. Said to guard the underworld; this is best not spoken of.
It's just pure comedy gold.
Mini and Micro: twin sisters of great beauty, goddesses of cheerleading. They wear string bikinis rather than robes.
It's so sad to see Gregg Easterbrook exploiting the NFL cheerleaders by showing their pictures in his TMQ and not compensating them. Now he is mocking them with horrible "goddess" nicknames.
sorry, Arizona leading Tennessee -- the Cardinals ran a double safety blitz. "Hey, Tennessee might win," yours truly said while observing the mega-blitz begin: 10-yard completion to Kenny Britt. Tennessee facing third-and-5 on the Arizona 26 with 28 seconds remaining, Arizona coaches again called the double safety blitz. "Hey, Tennessee is going to win," yours truly said -- and behold, a 17-yard completion to Jared Cook. Had the defending NFC champion simply resisted the urge to big-blitz on the final Flaming Thumbtacks' drive, Arizona likely would have jogged up the tunnel victorious.
It's really likely the Cardinals would have won the game. This is based on absolutely no evidence this statement is true, which is the only kind of statement Gregg Easterbrook likes to make. I do know the one thing you don't want to do to (for?) Vince Young is to give him plenty of time in the pocket to make a decision. Gregg completely ignores the fact Young is great at scrambling and the Cardinals smartly decided to make him throw the ball to win the game instead of giving him a chance to use his legs to win the game. They lost the game, but I can't argue completely with the strategy of trying to rush Young into making a decision and trying to keep him in the pocket throwing the ball.
the Broncos came into their Thanksgiving game trying to throw down the middle. In the first quarter, it didn't work. Rather than panic -- TMQ's immutable Law of Composure holds, "Don't Panic, There Will Be Plenty of Time for That Later" -- Denver continued trying to throw down the middle. The result, on third-and-8 from the Jersey/A 17 early in the fourth quarter, was a down-the-middle touchdown pass to Brandon Stokley, securing a safe 23-6 lead.
As usual, Gregg doesn't explain the fact the Broncos were winning 16-6 before this touchdown pass was thrown...but of course this was the most important pass of the game because it proves some stupid theory TMQ has.
TMQ noted that Jersey/A is on a five-year run of rarely using high choices on blockers and asked, "Who's going to man the trenches?" On Thanksgiving night, the trenches weren't manned well.
I thought high draft choices were not good football players and undrafted players were the better players? I guess that rule is only true when Gregg wants it to be true so he can be right. When Gregg can't be proven right about how good lowly drafted players are then high draft choices are wonderful.
And great line play at Minnesota isn't just from brand-name athletes such as Kevin Williams and Steve Hutchinson. The undrafted Artis Hicks had a perfect pull block on Percy Harvin's 35-yard rush that set Minnesota's early tone against the Bears.
You mean Artis Hicks had one good block AND he was undrafted? That must mean he is the greatest player in the history of the NFL or at least better than many highly drafted and highly paid players who play the same position as him.
From earlier in the column:
(Pats wide receiver Wes Welker, who is 5-foot-9, was assigned several times to block middle linebacker Jonathan Vilma and did so very well.)
On Sunday at St. Louis, the Rams reached the Seahawks' 1 and lined up with speed receiver Donnie Avery wide right. Avery came in motion back toward formation and stopped in the fullback position; St. Louis ran a play-fake, and he ran back into the right flat, uncovered, for a touchdown. Attention Seattle defense: the 5-11, 183-pound Avery is not going to lead block!
Apparently Gregg doesn't think Donnie Avery who is 5-foot-11-inches will be the lead blocker but he finds it perfectly normal to have 5-foot-9-inch Wes Welker blocking a linebacker. The lesson? Pretty much any good wide receiver can block fairly well and defenses can't just assume that receiver isn't going to be a blocker on a given play.
Gregg is unable to learn this lesson, so he believes in the black and white rule that if a wide receiver lines up in the fullback position then it will automatically be a passing play. There is no need to even follow the running back, who by the way is Steven Jackson who also happens to be one of the best running backs in the NFL, just don't fall for the play fake EVER.
Buffalo's Fred Jackson, undrafted out of Division III Coe College -- an academics-oriented school with high admissions standards -- caught a pass or ran seven times, plus took a Wildcat snap, on a 75-yard touchdown drive against Miami that ended with a Jackson touchdown. Jackson has driven high-first-round-drafted, megabucks tailback Marshawn Lynch to the bench.
Gregg is absolutely lying here. I have Fred Jackson on a fantasy team. Marshawn Lynch missed the first 4 games of the season and at Game 5 of the NFL season Fred Jackson was benched in favor of Marshawn Lynch. The only reason Jackson played more this past Sunday is because Lynch had an injured shoulder...otherwise Fred Jackson would still be a backup or at least be sharing carries with Lynch. I can understand how a sportswriter giving his opinion can be wrong, but Gregg Easterbrook is just outright lying here. As soon as Lynch gets healthy, Jackson will probably be 2nd string again.
Bumbling former coach Dick "Cheerio, Chaps" Jauron thought Lynch should start because he was a high draft choice. Temporary Interim Provisional Coach Perry Fewell thinks Jackson should start because he performs.
Jauron started Fred Jackson and used him extensively for the first 4 games of this season. Lynch was going to start on Sunday for the new head coach if he did not have an injury. Another lie. Lynch and Jackson had the same amount of carries the week before under Fewell against the Jaguars.
In the game, Buffalo scored four touchdowns -- two from the undrafted Division III Jackson, one from undrafted Ryan Fitzpatrick of Division I-AA Harvard and one from thrice-waived Terrell Owens of Division I-AA Tennessee-Chattanooga.
Owens was never waived for his performance on the field, he was waived for his attitude and off-the-field and on-the-field distractions. Gregg can write such misleading sentences at times.
Mike McLaughlin of Spokane, Wash., writes, "This wasn't an isolated incident. When LSU played at Washington early this season, Miles had a Louisiana state trooper as his security. Not only is Seattle not in Louisiana, it's so far west it wasn't even part of the Louisiana Purchase!"
It wasn't even part of the Louisiana Purchase! Holy shit, doesn't Les Miles know the NCAA rule that he shouldn't take state troopers on an away game trip that is outside the boundaries of a 200 year old land purchase agreement by the United States? I think it's in the NCAA Rules and Regulations book.
I've proposed the Crabtree Curse and the Kern Kurse.
And we won't hear anything about the Crabtree Curse, because the 49ers won. Apparently the curse just took a week off and will be back next week...or when the 49ers lose again. Rest assured, we will hear about the curse at that point because Gregg picks and chooses when he brings up the Crabtree Curse.
Finally, Tracy Kennett of Wood River, Ill., provides this YouTube clip of 17 points scored in the final 47 seconds of a high school football game -- including a game-winning 80-yard touchdown pass on the last snap of the contest.
More reasoning why the Patriots were throwing deep against the Jets late in the game a few weeks ago.
Here's another indicator of the absurdity of college football. Reader Cliff Pannella of Atlanta notes that while trailing Florida 30-0, Florida State kicked a field goal from the Florida 3-yard line, abandoning any attempt to win but keeping a shutout off the Seminoles' record. How do we know avoiding a shutout was Bobby Bowden's motive? He said so!
I don't know why it is so absurd for a football team to try and score points late in a game to make the score closer. Would giving up and just walking off the field be much more preferable? This type criticism doesn't make any sense. Should Florida State have just tried not to score and down the ball? They tried to score to make the game closer, I really don't see a problem with that.
How long until Notre Dame wishes Weis were back and the Fighting Irish were, like this season, taking highly ranked teams down to the wire in exciting games?
I would say it will be either "never" or "negative 3 weeks" before the Fighting Irish wish they were average like they were this year.
Next Week: Chad Ochocinco demands his own personal football god.
There are no football gods.
Well that's one more week of TMQ and one more week of another black stain on modern sports journalism.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
8 comments Bert Blyleven Talks A Little Bit About Offseason Conditioning But Mostly Discusses Himself
When we last left Bert Blyleven he was telling us all that this offseason, unlike many of the past offseasons, teams are going to be looking for pitching. The time before that we learned a little bit about postseason pressure, but mostly we learned about Bert's accomplishments in the postseason. It turns out Bert's advice to A-Rod to just have fun in the postseason was spot-on. Of course it helped A-Rod's enjoyment that he had a terrific postseason and didn't get booed constantly by his home crowd, which was helped by the fact that he hit the ball well, which is what caused A-Rod to enjoy the postseason.
Today, Bert is back at it and discussing how offseason conditioning has changed through the years. We learn a little bit about modern offseason conditioning and what we learn even learn even more about is, wait for it, Bert Blyleven himself.
Much has been made this winter of the offseason training regimen of Pablo Sandoval, a budding star of the San Francisco Giants.
You mean the fact the Giants are attempting to get their 245 pound 23 year old third baseman to lose a little bit of weight. But why? Don't they want to exactly re-live the Kevin Mitchell experience where he literally grew out of playing third base?
(That Baseball-Reference page has Mitchell listed at 210 pounds. Apparently he stopped getting weighed when he hit 17 years of age.)
I would also like to take issue with the idea Sandoval is a "budding" star. He hit .330/.387/.556 for the Giants this past year with 5 triples (yeah...5 triples), 44 doubles, 25 homeruns and 90 RBI's. He is a star already.
Sandoval has loads of talent, but has caught plenty of heat for his portly physique. So he has dedicated himself to a difficult offseason program to get in shape and turn some of that fat into muscle.
Read that link again. Does it sound like Sandoval is "dedicated" to this program? The trainer called him a "poopy-pants" for God's sake.
It’s pretty rare for a player to undertake such a venture so early in the offseason,
Is it pretty rare for a player to undertake a venture this early in the offseason if he is trying to lose 10-15 pounds and gain muscle? I don't have access to player's training schedules but I am pretty sure Sandoval working out hardcore over a month and a half after his team's season has ended isn't that rare.
and really underscores how times have changed from when I played (1970-92).
There are the things I love about Bert Blyleven. A normal ex-player would just leave the sentence as it is, but Bert Blyleven includes a link to his Baseball-Reference page in case you need proof he played in MLB over those years. Or he includes the link to show us all how good of a pitcher he truly was.
What strikes me as funny is that the Baseball-Reference page has Bert listed at 207 pounds. I think Baseball-Reference needs to check on those weight measurements periodically. Does Bert look 207 to you in this picture? Eh, probably not. Of course Bert's weight can be deceiving because he has a special way of losing any air in his body. So after the game, he may have lost 10 pounds just in air.
The biggest reason things have changed over the years, of course, is money.
Yes, I am glad Bert realizes if a team pays a player $90 million dollars they are going to expect that player to attempt to stay in shape during the offseason.
I signed my first pro contract in 1969, and was invited to spring training in 1970. I made $500 a month after signing, and later about $1300 a month after being assigned to Triple-A. That obviously isn’t a lot, and you need to put food on the table.
I am glad we got the salary history concerning Bert Blyleven out of the way.
Bert Blyleven earned $1300/month in 1970 which is equivalent to about these amounts. That is obviously a lot in 1970 and is also a lot of money in 2009. Maybe I am missing something but I don't think the "food on the table" excuse in either era works when talking regarding that amount of monthly income.
Like a lot of players back then, I had to find work in the offseason to supplement my income, and couldn’t afford to do what Sandoval is doing this year.
I don't get this. $1,300 per month seems like a decent amount of money for 1970. Especially when you consider the fact players got money for meals and the like. Maybe I am overestimating how much $1,300 per month was in 1970.
Even when you make camp, like I did right off the bat,
I wonder if Bert Blyleven has ever pulled a muscle patting himself on the back?
you still only get meal money during that time.
What? You only get meal money from your employer during this time? What kind of harsh, work-camp like conditions were these teams running in the early 1970's?
I got a job pumping gas at a Texaco Station, and I would work out in my off hours.
Zzzzzzzzzz..........
Even as my career progressed and my salary increased, I still often worked in the offseason. One year I stayed up in Minnesota and sold pool tables. Other years I went on the Twins’ offseason caravan, where we would spend three months going to banquets, doing speaking engagements and making hospital visits, thanking fans in the outstate areas.
Bert Blyleven never needs to write an autobiography, that's what he has his NBC Sports column for!
And I was actually one of the lucky ones as I was called up to the majors in June 1970, my first season. There are so many minor leaguers who toil away and never make it to the big leagues, or take forever to get there.
I don't know if Bert Blyleven just writes his sentences suspiciously like he is bragging intentionally or not, but it just seems that way doesn't it?
"I am so lucky because I never had to spend much time in the minor leagues like other players who never become as good as I was."
When I was playing, many players would come into spring training maybe 60-70 percent ready, and use camp to get ready for the season.
Nice. I love to hear stories of the professionalism of baseball hitters and pitchers in the past. Hearing stories like this is what makes me feel better when I claim that pitchers like Walter Johnson could potentially just be an average pitcher in today's Major League Baseball. I know it is not respectful of the past to say this, but given Bert's comments on previous the previous generation of baseball player's work habits, I can't help but wonder how the old timers would have handled today's game.
I may be wrong, but a player that comes into camp overweight or out of shape is now the exception rather than the norm.
At the Twins facility in Fort Meyers, Fla., there are guys working out now, and many more will start showing up around the first of the year. And even established players like Joe Mauer will be there working out long before spring training arrives.
Being a baseball player is a year-round job, just like many other people in the world have a year-round job. Athletes are now treating sports as if it was a job, because it is, and they can afford to focus on that job for the entire year. This trend has been happening for a long time now. I think Bert is a few years late on the "offseason training is becoming popular" train.
It’s not that I think guys nowadays work harder,
They work harder at being in shape for the game of baseball. That's pretty much a fact. Players may be able to afford to avoid having a 2nd job, but they do work harder in the offseason at being a good baseball player.
All of these spring complexes are amazing, with four or five fields, plus a main field for games. You have six or seven batting cages, all of them covered so you can still hit when it rains.
What crazy technology these players have these days. They have multiple batting cages AND batting cages with covers on them? When will technology stop amazing me? I bet pretty soon they will even have stadiums with covers on them!
In 1970 we played at Tinker Field in Orlando.
I understand a writer using his playing experience to convey what it is like to be a baseball player to the audience, but Bert Blyleven takes it to another level. He talks about him and his playing days for about 35-40% of one of his articles.
You had 60 guys playing on one field and another half-field across the street. We had two hitting cages down the right field line. If it rained, you just went home.
If it rained, all the players just went home? No wonder everyone wanted to play for the Seattle Pilots.
And we didn’t have a weight room, just some dumbbells in the training room.
Well, it's good to see things haven't changed that much. There are still a bunch of dumbbells in a training room.
(Third grade joke alert!)
Nowadays guys get ready on the field, do all the workouts required as a team, then they go to the weight room. They put a lot more time into their bodies, thanks in part to the facilities.
But thanks mostly to the fact players want to put more time into their bodies so they can compete at the highest level of baseball. I am sure the facilities have something to do with it too, but players are a little less lazy now when it comes to the weight room. Also, I would like to mention that there were such thing as weights when Bert played, players and teams just didn't use them as often.
Players today are in better shape, as they have more money and time to focus on conditioning.
I don't know if players today have more time or not. The baseball season has actually gotten progressively longer since Bert's playing days and even players who don't make the playoffs still have other commitments to tend to in the offseason.
When I came to camp, I studied established pitchers like Jim Kaat and Jim Perry. Wherever they went, whatever they did, I tried to follow. If they ran 20 laps, I would try to run 22.
If they took 4 "greenies" a day, Bert would take 5 "greenies." If they spent $400 at the strip club, Bert would spend $425.
I grew up in Southern California so there were always guys available to play with in the offseason. I’d pitch against high school of college kids, in scout leagues, pretty much pitching year round.
I love how Bert Blyleven columns always have a similar structure:
"Here is what is happening in the game of baseball today, now let me tell you what used to happen, and more specifically let me tell you everything about myself and my accomplishments."
If you’re a young guy, you have to be 100 percent ready to go for camp. You want to make an impression right off the bat so if the team needs a player later they will think of calling you up.
Great advice even though, according to Bert, players use to never show up to camp in shape.
That happened to me in 1970. Twins manager Bill Rigney fell in love with me as I came to camp physically ready. I left a good impression, and when they needed a pitcher in June of that season, I got the call.
Except for Bert. He used to always show up in shape to camp. I am sure the manager fell in love with Bert because he was in shape and not because he was already a great pitcher. I am sure it had much more to do with the physical conditioning of Bert Blyleven than the pitching skill he had which caused Bill Rigney to fall in love with him.
You just know what you have to do. You might sacrifice going out with the buddies, or going out to parties. You know you have to get up early in the morning to run, your mindset is to get ready for spring.
The end.
It's pretty obvious Bert wasn't exactly sure how to end this column. I think it would have been more typical of Bert if he had just linked his Baseball-Reference page again and then just written, "Make me stop telling everyone how good I was and just put me in the Hall of Fame already."
Today, Bert is back at it and discussing how offseason conditioning has changed through the years. We learn a little bit about modern offseason conditioning and what we learn even learn even more about is, wait for it, Bert Blyleven himself.
Much has been made this winter of the offseason training regimen of Pablo Sandoval, a budding star of the San Francisco Giants.
You mean the fact the Giants are attempting to get their 245 pound 23 year old third baseman to lose a little bit of weight. But why? Don't they want to exactly re-live the Kevin Mitchell experience where he literally grew out of playing third base?
(That Baseball-Reference page has Mitchell listed at 210 pounds. Apparently he stopped getting weighed when he hit 17 years of age.)
I would also like to take issue with the idea Sandoval is a "budding" star. He hit .330/.387/.556 for the Giants this past year with 5 triples (yeah...5 triples), 44 doubles, 25 homeruns and 90 RBI's. He is a star already.
Sandoval has loads of talent, but has caught plenty of heat for his portly physique. So he has dedicated himself to a difficult offseason program to get in shape and turn some of that fat into muscle.
Read that link again. Does it sound like Sandoval is "dedicated" to this program? The trainer called him a "poopy-pants" for God's sake.
It’s pretty rare for a player to undertake such a venture so early in the offseason,
Is it pretty rare for a player to undertake a venture this early in the offseason if he is trying to lose 10-15 pounds and gain muscle? I don't have access to player's training schedules but I am pretty sure Sandoval working out hardcore over a month and a half after his team's season has ended isn't that rare.
and really underscores how times have changed from when I played (1970-92).
There are the things I love about Bert Blyleven. A normal ex-player would just leave the sentence as it is, but Bert Blyleven includes a link to his Baseball-Reference page in case you need proof he played in MLB over those years. Or he includes the link to show us all how good of a pitcher he truly was.
What strikes me as funny is that the Baseball-Reference page has Bert listed at 207 pounds. I think Baseball-Reference needs to check on those weight measurements periodically. Does Bert look 207 to you in this picture? Eh, probably not. Of course Bert's weight can be deceiving because he has a special way of losing any air in his body. So after the game, he may have lost 10 pounds just in air.
The biggest reason things have changed over the years, of course, is money.
Yes, I am glad Bert realizes if a team pays a player $90 million dollars they are going to expect that player to attempt to stay in shape during the offseason.
I signed my first pro contract in 1969, and was invited to spring training in 1970. I made $500 a month after signing, and later about $1300 a month after being assigned to Triple-A. That obviously isn’t a lot, and you need to put food on the table.
I am glad we got the salary history concerning Bert Blyleven out of the way.
Bert Blyleven earned $1300/month in 1970 which is equivalent to about these amounts. That is obviously a lot in 1970 and is also a lot of money in 2009. Maybe I am missing something but I don't think the "food on the table" excuse in either era works when talking regarding that amount of monthly income.
Like a lot of players back then, I had to find work in the offseason to supplement my income, and couldn’t afford to do what Sandoval is doing this year.
I don't get this. $1,300 per month seems like a decent amount of money for 1970. Especially when you consider the fact players got money for meals and the like. Maybe I am overestimating how much $1,300 per month was in 1970.
Even when you make camp, like I did right off the bat,
I wonder if Bert Blyleven has ever pulled a muscle patting himself on the back?
you still only get meal money during that time.
What? You only get meal money from your employer during this time? What kind of harsh, work-camp like conditions were these teams running in the early 1970's?
I got a job pumping gas at a Texaco Station, and I would work out in my off hours.
Zzzzzzzzzz..........
Even as my career progressed and my salary increased, I still often worked in the offseason. One year I stayed up in Minnesota and sold pool tables. Other years I went on the Twins’ offseason caravan, where we would spend three months going to banquets, doing speaking engagements and making hospital visits, thanking fans in the outstate areas.
Bert Blyleven never needs to write an autobiography, that's what he has his NBC Sports column for!
And I was actually one of the lucky ones as I was called up to the majors in June 1970, my first season. There are so many minor leaguers who toil away and never make it to the big leagues, or take forever to get there.
I don't know if Bert Blyleven just writes his sentences suspiciously like he is bragging intentionally or not, but it just seems that way doesn't it?
"I am so lucky because I never had to spend much time in the minor leagues like other players who never become as good as I was."
When I was playing, many players would come into spring training maybe 60-70 percent ready, and use camp to get ready for the season.
Nice. I love to hear stories of the professionalism of baseball hitters and pitchers in the past. Hearing stories like this is what makes me feel better when I claim that pitchers like Walter Johnson could potentially just be an average pitcher in today's Major League Baseball. I know it is not respectful of the past to say this, but given Bert's comments on previous the previous generation of baseball player's work habits, I can't help but wonder how the old timers would have handled today's game.
I may be wrong, but a player that comes into camp overweight or out of shape is now the exception rather than the norm.
At the Twins facility in Fort Meyers, Fla., there are guys working out now, and many more will start showing up around the first of the year. And even established players like Joe Mauer will be there working out long before spring training arrives.
Being a baseball player is a year-round job, just like many other people in the world have a year-round job. Athletes are now treating sports as if it was a job, because it is, and they can afford to focus on that job for the entire year. This trend has been happening for a long time now. I think Bert is a few years late on the "offseason training is becoming popular" train.
It’s not that I think guys nowadays work harder,
They work harder at being in shape for the game of baseball. That's pretty much a fact. Players may be able to afford to avoid having a 2nd job, but they do work harder in the offseason at being a good baseball player.
All of these spring complexes are amazing, with four or five fields, plus a main field for games. You have six or seven batting cages, all of them covered so you can still hit when it rains.
What crazy technology these players have these days. They have multiple batting cages AND batting cages with covers on them? When will technology stop amazing me? I bet pretty soon they will even have stadiums with covers on them!
In 1970 we played at Tinker Field in Orlando.
I understand a writer using his playing experience to convey what it is like to be a baseball player to the audience, but Bert Blyleven takes it to another level. He talks about him and his playing days for about 35-40% of one of his articles.
You had 60 guys playing on one field and another half-field across the street. We had two hitting cages down the right field line. If it rained, you just went home.
If it rained, all the players just went home? No wonder everyone wanted to play for the Seattle Pilots.
And we didn’t have a weight room, just some dumbbells in the training room.
Well, it's good to see things haven't changed that much. There are still a bunch of dumbbells in a training room.
(Third grade joke alert!)
Nowadays guys get ready on the field, do all the workouts required as a team, then they go to the weight room. They put a lot more time into their bodies, thanks in part to the facilities.
But thanks mostly to the fact players want to put more time into their bodies so they can compete at the highest level of baseball. I am sure the facilities have something to do with it too, but players are a little less lazy now when it comes to the weight room. Also, I would like to mention that there were such thing as weights when Bert played, players and teams just didn't use them as often.
Players today are in better shape, as they have more money and time to focus on conditioning.
I don't know if players today have more time or not. The baseball season has actually gotten progressively longer since Bert's playing days and even players who don't make the playoffs still have other commitments to tend to in the offseason.
When I came to camp, I studied established pitchers like Jim Kaat and Jim Perry. Wherever they went, whatever they did, I tried to follow. If they ran 20 laps, I would try to run 22.
If they took 4 "greenies" a day, Bert would take 5 "greenies." If they spent $400 at the strip club, Bert would spend $425.
I grew up in Southern California so there were always guys available to play with in the offseason. I’d pitch against high school of college kids, in scout leagues, pretty much pitching year round.
I love how Bert Blyleven columns always have a similar structure:
"Here is what is happening in the game of baseball today, now let me tell you what used to happen, and more specifically let me tell you everything about myself and my accomplishments."
If you’re a young guy, you have to be 100 percent ready to go for camp. You want to make an impression right off the bat so if the team needs a player later they will think of calling you up.
Great advice even though, according to Bert, players use to never show up to camp in shape.
That happened to me in 1970. Twins manager Bill Rigney fell in love with me as I came to camp physically ready. I left a good impression, and when they needed a pitcher in June of that season, I got the call.
Except for Bert. He used to always show up in shape to camp. I am sure the manager fell in love with Bert because he was in shape and not because he was already a great pitcher. I am sure it had much more to do with the physical conditioning of Bert Blyleven than the pitching skill he had which caused Bill Rigney to fall in love with him.
You just know what you have to do. You might sacrifice going out with the buddies, or going out to parties. You know you have to get up early in the morning to run, your mindset is to get ready for spring.
The end.
It's pretty obvious Bert wasn't exactly sure how to end this column. I think it would have been more typical of Bert if he had just linked his Baseball-Reference page again and then just written, "Make me stop telling everyone how good I was and just put me in the Hall of Fame already."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)