I always love reading the idiocy on the internet. Let's see what's out there. This is from ESPN's NFC North blog.
"Anthony of Clinton Township, Mich. writes: There are numerous comments and rumors from Miami Dolphins fan sites stating that the Dolphins and Lions are in talks of some kind of trade. Names thrown around are Calvin Johnson, Cliff Avril, Ernie Sims, Ronnie Brown, and Ted Ginn Jr."
Calvin Johnson's name appearing here should automatically discount this so-called rumor. And they're going to trade him for a package highlighted by Ronnie Brown? Give me a freaking break. But then Kevin Seifert, who works for ESPN running this blog, says this: "I've heard nothing concrete on any such trade talk, although several readers wrote in to ask specifically about a Cliff Avril-Ted Ginn Jr. trade. If I'm the Lions, I take that deal."
A Cliff Avril-for-Ted Ginn Jr. trade would be a terrible, Matt Millen-esque trade for the Lions, and I can't believe someone who gets paid to write about the NFL would approve of it. Cliff Avril is a young pass rusher who had 5.5 sacks last season to lead the Lions. Ted Ginn is a complete bust of a receiver who was benched last year, and is strictly a returner at this point. "I know pass rushing defensive ends are a premium commodity, but if Avril is going to be a 5-sack per year player, I'd take my chances that Ginn could develop into a game-breaker." This is laughable. Ted Ginn has been in the NFL for 3 years and regressed if anything; he is what he is at this point, and that is a bad NFL receiver. Cliff Avril is a nice young pass rusher, the type of player the Lions absolutely should not trade unless they're getting a legitimately good player in return, which Ted Ginn most assuredly is not.
Okay, so we've figured a way to somehow make the Lions worse. What else is out there?
"Mupad3da of the Bay Area writes: I don't know if this has been mentioned or not in the midst of your thoughts about the other North teams and their RB situations, but what are your thoughts about either Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson going to Green Bay?"
Well, here's the deal Mupad3da; the Packers already have a good backup RB in Brandon Jackson. I know he isn't a big name, but he's a very capable backup who I think might be better than Ryan Grant; he's more explosive anyways. And I'll go ahead and let you in on a little secret, Mupad3da; Westbrook and Tomlinson are done. Westbrook can't stay healthy, and Tomlinson has hit the wall that most RBs hit after so many carries. Tomlinson's explosiveness isn't coming back.
By the way, I just looked it up and Brandon Jackson only had 37 carries last year, four less than Ahman Green. Are you freaking kidding me, Mike McCarthy? Ahman Green is an absolute nothing at this point; whatever he gains, you can figure a live NFL RB could probably gain 3 more yards than that. That is unbelievable to me; Brandon Jackson can play, and brings some explosiveness to the backfield.
"Derek of Baldwin, Wis., writes: I have to ask about Chester Taylor's situation. Why wouldn't the Vikings put the franchise tag on him to, at the very least, control where he goes and to get some sort of compensation for him WHEN, not if, he leaves them. I realize it is a $7-8 million risk, but what if they could negotiate a 2nd-round pick from some team and avoid him going to a rival?"
This is awesome. I wish I could live in a universe in which Chester Taylor nets the Vikings a 2nd round pick in a trade. I like Taylor, but he's more valuable to Minnesota than he is to other teams. Other teams can find RBs in the draft, or sign a cheaper, younger alternative. RBs are the most replaceable entity in football; if Taylor could net the Vikings a 2nd round pick they'd have absolutely tagged him and made that trade. In actuality, he'd maybe get the Vikings a 5th round pick, and I don't even know about that. And frankly, I can't believe I'd have to explain that.
"What does this mean? He is not athletic enough for LT? It seems NFL prefers the converted basketball or baseball player who is the all around athlete for LT."
Number of converted basketball or baseball players starting at LT in the NFL currently; zero.
And finally, one note on the NFL Draft (at some point, I'll probably post about Jimmy Clausen). One of the real joys for me is watching how certain narratives grow. Apparently since there are no games going on, we just have to talk about something, so these narratives develop and they start to become perceived as fact. For instance, the narrative developing about Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy is that Suh is the "better run stopper" while McCoy is "more disruptive" and allegedly the better pass rusher.
Suh last season had 24 tackles for loss and 12 sacks. McCoy had 15.5 tackles for loss and 6 sacks. Maybe last season was an abberation? The year before Suh had 16 tackles for loss and 7.5 sacks. McCoy had 11 tackles for loss and 6.5 sacks. I don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but at no point in his life has Gerald McCoy been a better football player than Ndamukong Suh. I hear this business of McCoy being more disruptive, and it's bogus. Suh has indisputably made more impact plays the past two years than McCoy. I think Gerald McCoy is a great prospect, but Suh is clearly the better player here. His performance against Texas sold me; that was the most dominating performance I've ever seen out of a collegiate DT, and he almost single-handedly won that game for Nebraska.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Revisiting the Jared Allen trade at espn.com
Okay Bill Williamson, AFC West blogger at espn.com, it's your job to spin the Jared Allen trade in Kansas City's favor. Now this is a tough sell. The trade, after the draft selections were made, became:
Kansas City receives: LT Branden Albert, RB Jamaal Charles, S DaJuan Morgan, some guy named Kevin Robinson
Minnesota receives: DE Jared Allen, C John Sullivan
Tremendously lopsided in Minnesota's favor, right? Essentially, the Chiefs got two starters in Albert and Charles, and the Vikings got two starters in Allen and Sullivan. The Vikings got by-far the best player in the trade in Jared Allen, so this is obviously Minnesota by a landslide. Or is it?
“Kansas City really can’t worry about what Allen is doing in Minnesota and that Sullivan is a starter,” Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. said.
Umm, okay. Why not?
“The Chiefs knew Allen was going to be good in Minnesota. But they didn’t want to pay him so they got very good value. That’s why the trade was good. It was a good trade because the value was good. Let’s see what Kansas City is going to do with it. It still can be a very good trade for the Chiefs.”
That's actually Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc., not Bill Williamson the AFC West blogger, but I found this quote to be quite insulting to my intelligence. They knew Allen was good, but they didn't want to pay for him. This is a legitimate excuse? To paraphrase Animal House, cheap is no way to go through life. And I like the "let's see what Kansas City does" line. We already know what Kansas City has done. They turned those draft picks into two starters.
Charles is the key player in the deal from the Chiefs’ perspective. If he can build upon his fantastic finish in 2009, this trade will be great for Kansas City.
Now we're back to Bill Williamson, and uhh no, this trade will never be great for Kansas City. You're telling me acquiring a good RB in exchange for a great DE is a great trade? I actually do like Jamaal Charles and thought he played really well for the Chiefs down the stretch (another strike against Kansas City; they waited until the 2nd half of the season to replace the glacial Larry Johnson with the much more explosive Charles), but he's not worth Jared Allen. (another strike against Kansas City; they paid Larry Johnson a boatload of money, but not Jared Allen. At least Carl Peterson had his priorities straight, and by the way, I'm not putting it out of the question that Peterson was the one who wrote this article)
Albert was expected to be the centerpiece of this trade because he was the No. 15 overall pick (the Chiefs swapped the No. 17 pick to Detroit), but he has been slow to get his career going.
Hmmm. A couple weeks ago I wrote that Stewart Mandel, in defending Tim Tebow, should not have mentioned Urban Meyer's track record with developing QBs for the NFL because it wasn't any good. Well, Bill Williamson should definitely not mention that Branden Albert has gotten off to a slow start, when he was the centerpiece of the trade for Kansas City. He goes on to mention that Albert is playing out of position, which I'll agree; he'd be much better at right tackle or one of the guard positions. But that just makes this worse for Kansas City. They traded Jared Allen for a first-round offensive lineman and didn't even get a left tackle. In fact, they may very well draft a left tackle in the first round this year to make up for their swing-and-a-foul-tip on Branden Albert.
...
Okay, so Carl Peterson got to guest-write an article for espn.com under Bill Williamson's name, and fine, somebody has to spin this trade in Kansas City's favor. But let's look at what this trade truly accomplished.
Minnesota got a great pass rusher that helped (emphasis on helped, because obviously Allen didn't do this alone) turn Minnesota from an average team (8-8 before he got there) into a great team (12-4 and NFC Championship Game appearance). They also got a starting center in John Sullivan, who isn't great but hey, he starts.
Kansas City got a good running back in Jamaal Charles, which really only helps to prove that running backs can be found and that they certainly could have acquired Charles or someone of similar quality without sacrificing Allen. They drafted an offensive lineman in the first round who is miscast as a left tackle and could be really good elsewhere on the line, but we don't know that for a fact. They drafted two other players who have yet to make an impact. And most importantly, their pass rush has sunk like a rock. They set an NFL-record low with 10 sacks the season immediately after Allen was traded (a fact that was conveniently left out of this article). They were bad during his final season, and they're still bad to this day.
The article mentions how Kansas City has switched to a 3-4 on defense, and that Allen wouldn't fit into a 3-4. True, but here's a novel idea; when you have a great player, you accomodate him, not the other way around. When you have a Jared Allen, you play a 4-3 whether you like it or not. Would you rather do that, or go to a 3-4 without Allen and struggle mightily to rush the passer?
The bottom line is that Kansas City blundered with this trade. They didn't want to pay Allen, and whether that was because of his alcohol problems (one strike away from a season-long suspension) or because they were just burned by the Larry Johnson contract (which would be dumb; Larry Johnson sucks while Allen is a legitimately good player), it doesn't matter. They acquired some good draft picks, but didn't really strike gold with them. Jamaal Charles was a 3rd round pick that could have been acquired regardless, and they could replace Albert with a lesser draft pick and probably not lose anything. And on top of all that, Kansas City has gotten definitely worse without Allen. They are terrible on defense, and lot of that is because they have no pass rush (Tamba Hali is their best pass rusher, and he's probably above-average).
Minnesota changed the dynamic of their team with this trade, and for the better. Allen completed a defensive line that already had great defensive tackles but not much of a pass rush from the defensive ends (Ray Edwards is much better in a complimentary role), and as soon as Minnesota added a passing game on offense, they became Super Bowl contenders. Even with Favre, they wouldn't be a 12-4 team without Allen. My favorite part of this trade, actually, is that Minnesota got a throw-away 6th round pick and turned that into a starting center. As if getting a stud pass rusher in the deal wasn't enough.
It was very nice of Bill Williamson to allow Carl Peterson to write on his blog and attempt to spin this trade in Kansas City's favor, but it was a pathetic attempt. The best you can say is they got Jamaal Charles, and they did not do that trade so they could add a running back. I look forward to his next blog post in which he defends the Larry Johnson contract. Now that would take some serious spinning.
EDIT
I can't believe I missed this quote. This is a real beauty.
“On paper, it was a good trade then for Kansas City and it still can be very good,” Horton said. “Allen was going to be a good player on a bad team. The Chiefs needed to get younger. They seem to be on the right track with this trade.”
They needed to get younger. Jared Allen was 26 when he got traded. In other words, he was entering the prime of his career. These people get paid by ESPN to work for Scouts Inc., and they're telling me Jared Allen was too old for Kansas City. They seem to be on the right track with this trade. 4-12 last year, 2-14 the year before, yeah I'd say they're on the right track. I wasn't going to be mean, but this line takes the cake. I could handle people defending this trade from Kansas City's perspective if they used solid logical reasoning, but telling me a team with 6 wins the past two seasons is on the right track is where I draw the line. Scouts Inc. people...YOU'RE FUCKING IDIOTS.
Kansas City receives: LT Branden Albert, RB Jamaal Charles, S DaJuan Morgan, some guy named Kevin Robinson
Minnesota receives: DE Jared Allen, C John Sullivan
Tremendously lopsided in Minnesota's favor, right? Essentially, the Chiefs got two starters in Albert and Charles, and the Vikings got two starters in Allen and Sullivan. The Vikings got by-far the best player in the trade in Jared Allen, so this is obviously Minnesota by a landslide. Or is it?
“Kansas City really can’t worry about what Allen is doing in Minnesota and that Sullivan is a starter,” Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. said.
Umm, okay. Why not?
“The Chiefs knew Allen was going to be good in Minnesota. But they didn’t want to pay him so they got very good value. That’s why the trade was good. It was a good trade because the value was good. Let’s see what Kansas City is going to do with it. It still can be a very good trade for the Chiefs.”
That's actually Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc., not Bill Williamson the AFC West blogger, but I found this quote to be quite insulting to my intelligence. They knew Allen was good, but they didn't want to pay for him. This is a legitimate excuse? To paraphrase Animal House, cheap is no way to go through life. And I like the "let's see what Kansas City does" line. We already know what Kansas City has done. They turned those draft picks into two starters.
Charles is the key player in the deal from the Chiefs’ perspective. If he can build upon his fantastic finish in 2009, this trade will be great for Kansas City.
Now we're back to Bill Williamson, and uhh no, this trade will never be great for Kansas City. You're telling me acquiring a good RB in exchange for a great DE is a great trade? I actually do like Jamaal Charles and thought he played really well for the Chiefs down the stretch (another strike against Kansas City; they waited until the 2nd half of the season to replace the glacial Larry Johnson with the much more explosive Charles), but he's not worth Jared Allen. (another strike against Kansas City; they paid Larry Johnson a boatload of money, but not Jared Allen. At least Carl Peterson had his priorities straight, and by the way, I'm not putting it out of the question that Peterson was the one who wrote this article)
Albert was expected to be the centerpiece of this trade because he was the No. 15 overall pick (the Chiefs swapped the No. 17 pick to Detroit), but he has been slow to get his career going.
Hmmm. A couple weeks ago I wrote that Stewart Mandel, in defending Tim Tebow, should not have mentioned Urban Meyer's track record with developing QBs for the NFL because it wasn't any good. Well, Bill Williamson should definitely not mention that Branden Albert has gotten off to a slow start, when he was the centerpiece of the trade for Kansas City. He goes on to mention that Albert is playing out of position, which I'll agree; he'd be much better at right tackle or one of the guard positions. But that just makes this worse for Kansas City. They traded Jared Allen for a first-round offensive lineman and didn't even get a left tackle. In fact, they may very well draft a left tackle in the first round this year to make up for their swing-and-a-foul-tip on Branden Albert.
...
Okay, so Carl Peterson got to guest-write an article for espn.com under Bill Williamson's name, and fine, somebody has to spin this trade in Kansas City's favor. But let's look at what this trade truly accomplished.
Minnesota got a great pass rusher that helped (emphasis on helped, because obviously Allen didn't do this alone) turn Minnesota from an average team (8-8 before he got there) into a great team (12-4 and NFC Championship Game appearance). They also got a starting center in John Sullivan, who isn't great but hey, he starts.
Kansas City got a good running back in Jamaal Charles, which really only helps to prove that running backs can be found and that they certainly could have acquired Charles or someone of similar quality without sacrificing Allen. They drafted an offensive lineman in the first round who is miscast as a left tackle and could be really good elsewhere on the line, but we don't know that for a fact. They drafted two other players who have yet to make an impact. And most importantly, their pass rush has sunk like a rock. They set an NFL-record low with 10 sacks the season immediately after Allen was traded (a fact that was conveniently left out of this article). They were bad during his final season, and they're still bad to this day.
The article mentions how Kansas City has switched to a 3-4 on defense, and that Allen wouldn't fit into a 3-4. True, but here's a novel idea; when you have a great player, you accomodate him, not the other way around. When you have a Jared Allen, you play a 4-3 whether you like it or not. Would you rather do that, or go to a 3-4 without Allen and struggle mightily to rush the passer?
The bottom line is that Kansas City blundered with this trade. They didn't want to pay Allen, and whether that was because of his alcohol problems (one strike away from a season-long suspension) or because they were just burned by the Larry Johnson contract (which would be dumb; Larry Johnson sucks while Allen is a legitimately good player), it doesn't matter. They acquired some good draft picks, but didn't really strike gold with them. Jamaal Charles was a 3rd round pick that could have been acquired regardless, and they could replace Albert with a lesser draft pick and probably not lose anything. And on top of all that, Kansas City has gotten definitely worse without Allen. They are terrible on defense, and lot of that is because they have no pass rush (Tamba Hali is their best pass rusher, and he's probably above-average).
Minnesota changed the dynamic of their team with this trade, and for the better. Allen completed a defensive line that already had great defensive tackles but not much of a pass rush from the defensive ends (Ray Edwards is much better in a complimentary role), and as soon as Minnesota added a passing game on offense, they became Super Bowl contenders. Even with Favre, they wouldn't be a 12-4 team without Allen. My favorite part of this trade, actually, is that Minnesota got a throw-away 6th round pick and turned that into a starting center. As if getting a stud pass rusher in the deal wasn't enough.
It was very nice of Bill Williamson to allow Carl Peterson to write on his blog and attempt to spin this trade in Kansas City's favor, but it was a pathetic attempt. The best you can say is they got Jamaal Charles, and they did not do that trade so they could add a running back. I look forward to his next blog post in which he defends the Larry Johnson contract. Now that would take some serious spinning.
EDIT
I can't believe I missed this quote. This is a real beauty.
“On paper, it was a good trade then for Kansas City and it still can be very good,” Horton said. “Allen was going to be a good player on a bad team. The Chiefs needed to get younger. They seem to be on the right track with this trade.”
They needed to get younger. Jared Allen was 26 when he got traded. In other words, he was entering the prime of his career. These people get paid by ESPN to work for Scouts Inc., and they're telling me Jared Allen was too old for Kansas City. They seem to be on the right track with this trade. 4-12 last year, 2-14 the year before, yeah I'd say they're on the right track. I wasn't going to be mean, but this line takes the cake. I could handle people defending this trade from Kansas City's perspective if they used solid logical reasoning, but telling me a team with 6 wins the past two seasons is on the right track is where I draw the line. Scouts Inc. people...YOU'RE FUCKING IDIOTS.
Friday, February 12, 2010
A couple NBA tidbits
I found these tidbits interesting from an NBA column at si.com.
"Prokhorov would reveal a fine grasp of the NBA if he were to retain Thorn, who, with GM Kiki Vandeweghe, has created a promising future of cap space and a high lottery pick to join a young core led by point guard Devin Harris and center Brook Lopez."
I mean, I know what he's saying. Future cap space, high draft pick, a couple of good young players, I get it. But at the same time, I don't know you can use the phrase "promising future" at all in connection with the New Jersey Nets. They have four wins. Four. I don't think retaining the person who created this mess would show a fine grasp of the NBA. The best thing you can say about the Nets is that they aren't held down by horrendous contracts.
"Only five insiders believe Bosh will re-sign with Toronto. Yet, I view this as a positive sign for Raptors, because those five votes offset widespread speculation that Bosh is certain to leave this summer. The Raptors can pay him close to $30 million more than other teams over the length of a six-year contract, compared to the five years with smaller annual raises he would receive elsewhere."
Chris Bosh will be a great test case for whether NBA teams have learned their lesson or not. Chris Bosh is not a max player; repeat, not a max player. He'd be a valuable player playing alongside another star player, but he's completely unacceptable as the top player on the team. Has anyone seen the Toronto Raptors while he's been there? Never been out of the first round, completely floundering right now. If you're Miami and you can keep Wade and sign Bosh, that would be pretty good. If you're the Knicks or Raptors and you sign Bosh to be your top guy, that would be very bad. How many max contracts have to go awry before teams learn only the best of the best (LeBron, Kobe, Duncan) deserve it.
"Boston Celtics. Until they prove otherwise, this team -- 9-13 since Christmas -- no longer belongs in any of the championship conversations."
Boston is a mess right now. Their star players are old, and Garnett looks like he's from the jurassic age. The signing of Rasheed Wallace has been nothing short of a disaster. They'd have been better served bringing back P.J. Brown from the grave; at least he's a player who knows his role. Outside of Rajon Rondo, the Celtics are severly lacking in athleticism. I don't think there's any way their beating Orlando or Atlanta in the playoffs.
"It's not like they're alone: The elderly Spurs are suffering through a similar melancholy."
Was I the one who told them to sign Richard Jefferson? No I was not. Richard Jefferson has always sucked, and he will suck forever. I wish we could strike the 2001-2004 New Jersey Nets from the record; they took advantage of an awful Eastern Conference and made people believe Jason Kidd was a top flight point guard, and that Richard Jefferson was a good player. Their only competition back then was Boston with Pierce, Walker and a bag of shit.
THOUGHTS ON THE SUPER BOWL
I haven't done an adventures in game management for the Colt's performance in the Super Bowl, and I don't think I will, but just know that their play-calling at the end of the first half was horseshit (running Mike Hart into the middle of the line on 3rd and short...ugh), and the decision to send Matt Stover out to kick a 51 yard field goal was ludicrous. There's a reason Baltimore willingly let Stover walk; it's because he can't kick long field goals. The Saints do thank you, though, for the short field that set up their winning TD.
(By the way, the reason I say the Colt's performance, and not Jim Caldwell's, is because it's not entirely clear that Caldwell actually makes decisions. I'm quite convinced that Petyon Manning coaches that team. Did you know Caldwell coached at Wake Forest in the 1990s and had a terrible record?)
"Prokhorov would reveal a fine grasp of the NBA if he were to retain Thorn, who, with GM Kiki Vandeweghe, has created a promising future of cap space and a high lottery pick to join a young core led by point guard Devin Harris and center Brook Lopez."
I mean, I know what he's saying. Future cap space, high draft pick, a couple of good young players, I get it. But at the same time, I don't know you can use the phrase "promising future" at all in connection with the New Jersey Nets. They have four wins. Four. I don't think retaining the person who created this mess would show a fine grasp of the NBA. The best thing you can say about the Nets is that they aren't held down by horrendous contracts.
"Only five insiders believe Bosh will re-sign with Toronto. Yet, I view this as a positive sign for Raptors, because those five votes offset widespread speculation that Bosh is certain to leave this summer. The Raptors can pay him close to $30 million more than other teams over the length of a six-year contract, compared to the five years with smaller annual raises he would receive elsewhere."
Chris Bosh will be a great test case for whether NBA teams have learned their lesson or not. Chris Bosh is not a max player; repeat, not a max player. He'd be a valuable player playing alongside another star player, but he's completely unacceptable as the top player on the team. Has anyone seen the Toronto Raptors while he's been there? Never been out of the first round, completely floundering right now. If you're Miami and you can keep Wade and sign Bosh, that would be pretty good. If you're the Knicks or Raptors and you sign Bosh to be your top guy, that would be very bad. How many max contracts have to go awry before teams learn only the best of the best (LeBron, Kobe, Duncan) deserve it.
"Boston Celtics. Until they prove otherwise, this team -- 9-13 since Christmas -- no longer belongs in any of the championship conversations."
Boston is a mess right now. Their star players are old, and Garnett looks like he's from the jurassic age. The signing of Rasheed Wallace has been nothing short of a disaster. They'd have been better served bringing back P.J. Brown from the grave; at least he's a player who knows his role. Outside of Rajon Rondo, the Celtics are severly lacking in athleticism. I don't think there's any way their beating Orlando or Atlanta in the playoffs.
"It's not like they're alone: The elderly Spurs are suffering through a similar melancholy."
Was I the one who told them to sign Richard Jefferson? No I was not. Richard Jefferson has always sucked, and he will suck forever. I wish we could strike the 2001-2004 New Jersey Nets from the record; they took advantage of an awful Eastern Conference and made people believe Jason Kidd was a top flight point guard, and that Richard Jefferson was a good player. Their only competition back then was Boston with Pierce, Walker and a bag of shit.
THOUGHTS ON THE SUPER BOWL
I haven't done an adventures in game management for the Colt's performance in the Super Bowl, and I don't think I will, but just know that their play-calling at the end of the first half was horseshit (running Mike Hart into the middle of the line on 3rd and short...ugh), and the decision to send Matt Stover out to kick a 51 yard field goal was ludicrous. There's a reason Baltimore willingly let Stover walk; it's because he can't kick long field goals. The Saints do thank you, though, for the short field that set up their winning TD.
(By the way, the reason I say the Colt's performance, and not Jim Caldwell's, is because it's not entirely clear that Caldwell actually makes decisions. I'm quite convinced that Petyon Manning coaches that team. Did you know Caldwell coached at Wake Forest in the 1990s and had a terrible record?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)