So I was thinking about the Raiders' draft prospects...most people seem to think they'll draft an offensive tackle, and that would make sense since Khalif Barnes is slated to start at RT and he's not exactly a good option. However, I'm not so sure that will be the pick, and I'm not so sure that it should be.
For one thing, what about a defensive end? The Raiders traded for Kamerion Wimbley, but he'll be playing OLB (apparently the Raiders don't understand there's a difference between a 3-4 OLB and a 4-3 OLB, but whatever) and Matt Shaughnessy is slated to start at DE along with Richard Seymour. Is Matt Shaughnessy really so good that he couldn't be upgraded? They also have Trevor Scott, who they've moved around from DE to OLB (don't ask), but again, is he so good he couldn't be upgraded? I don't think so. When the Raiders' pick comes up, they'll probably have their choice of every DE in the draft, and I definitely think the Raiders need to improve their pass rush. However, they probably do believe internally that Shaughnessy, Scott and Wimbley will provide some pass rush along with Seymour.
So then I thought...why not Dez Bryant? Bryant allegedly has character issues, although I think those are overblown, and besides the Raiders don't care about character issues. Bryant is probably one of the 5 most talented players in this draft, so he would represent good value at #8, plus he'd fill a need for the Raiders (does anyone want to argue the Raiders receivers are a strength). But the answer to why they wouldn't draft Bryant is, of course obvious; they drafted a wide receiver with the #7 pick last year, and they don't want to do that two years in a row (that's a lot of money to invest in one position).
And then I thought...why not Jimmy Clausen? I'm not saying this as a Notre Dame fan, but rather from the standpoint that the Raiders' QBs are extremely weak and maybe the worst collection of QBs in the NFL (although Mike Holmgren's done a helluva job of competing for that title in Cleveland). So how come nobody thinks the Raiders should draft a QB #8 overall, and how come they seemingly aren't even considering it? Well, again, the answer is obvious; they just drafted a QB #1 overall three years ago and probably have no interest in enduring that debacle again.
So this brings me to my original question...at what point do you just give up on a player? For instance, I think it would be incredibly stupid for the Raiders to pass on Dez Bryant simply because of the presence of Darrius Heyward-Bey. See, another problem the Raiders have is that, because they drafted Heyward-Bey so high and he's only been around a year, they have to act as if he'll be a large part of their offense. But if they were to be completely honest about it, and were to do what is truly right for the franchise, they would demote Heyward-Bey to the bottom of the depth chart and not let his presence at all affect how they approach the draft. As it is, they've invested a lot of money and a high draft pick in the guy, and as a result, they have to play him at least one more year to try and recoup their investment.
This is why you can't make these type of mistakes in the top-10. Because of the investment costs, you can't draft a terrible player in the top-10 and get rid of him immediately like you can, say, a 7th round pick. And the ego involved also gets in the way; who wants to admit they made such a large mistake? There's also the fact that the top-10 pick, while playing terribly initially, probably has a substantial amount of physical talent that makes you not want to give up on him immediately.
And so what happens is one mistake prompts numerous others. You move ahead as if you've filled a hole, even though you haven't, and pass on free agents and draft picks who really could help your team. After a couple years you finally have to admit you made a mistake, and by virtue of not addressing that position because of that player's presence, you end up 3-4 years behind where your started.
So what should teams do? Teams should be completely honest with themselves over young players who look like busts. Some guys get off to slow starts, but eventually develop into good players, and nobody wants to give up on that player too early. However, I think a team that is completely honest with itself can differentiate between a guy off to a slow start but with real potential, and a guy that is a complete bust.
Just look at the Minnesota Vikings to see the difference. Troy Williamson was a complete bust, and to anybody completely honest with themselves (not me, unfortunately, as I lied to myself like everyone else did), you could see that. He had questionable hands, could not track the ball in the air, and displayed just overall questionable football skills. He was a track guy playing football, and that was obvious to anybody who wanted to admit it. On the other hand, Sidney Rice always looked like a football player. I can remember watching him as a rookie in the preseason, and seeing him display the skills that all natural receivers display; good hands, the ability to catch the ball at its highest point, and getting two feet in on the boundary. Rice's career got off to a slow start (his 2nd year was especially a disappointment), but it was always obvious he could be a good football player.
So let's go back to the Raiders...at what point do they just give up on Heyward-Bey and Russell? It's my opinion that they should give up on both players immediately, and move forward as if neither player will contribute anything next season. Heyward-Bey is just like Williamson (those guys aren't worth wasting time on, trust me), and Russell refuses to commit himself to being a good NFL player. The longer that the Raiders pretend that these guys will eventually contribute positively, the further behind they put their franchise, and in the process they pass on talented players who actually could help them.
By the same token, they should not give up on Darren McFadden yet, even though he also looks like a top-10 bust at ths point. McFadden actually looks like a football player out there, and injuries have slowed him down more than anything. He's worth waiting on, although there's no guarantee he'll come around. But at least he looks like a football player, while Heyward-Bey belongs in track and Russell in a hot dog eating contest.
---
One other thing I just wanted to mention; how funny is it that the Raiders reached for a speed guy (Heyward-Bey) in 2009, but in 2008 did not reach for another speed guy (Chris Johnson) who actually turned out to be the best RB in the NFL? I always think of that whenever the Raiders are stereotyped as only caring about speed. But...then how come they didn't draft Chris Johnson, one of the fastest players to ever run at the Combine? Chris Johnson, at the time, would have been a tremendous reach, but no more than Heyward-Bey was.
The 2008 draft was strong at RB (Jonathan Stewart, Mendenhall, Felix Jones, Chris Johnson), and the Raiders end up with the worst one so far. The 2009 draft was strong at WR (Crabtree, Maclin, Harvin, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks) and the Raiders end up with the worst one. Either they suck at drafting or they suck at developing players, because they keep drafting the first player from a deep position and end up with little to show for it.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Just in case...
Anybody thinks I'm railing against the NFL's (now former) overtime format because the Vikings lost the NFC Championship Game in overtime, here's what I wrote in December about the Titans:
"What really bothers me, though, is the idea that playing for overtime, as Fisher did, is "playing it safe." What in the hell is so safe about overtime? I personally hate overtime, and would avoid it at all costs. You aren't guaranteed a possession in overtime, and a freaking coin toss actually plays a role in deciding how the game is ended. A coin toss! And yet there are people who defend this insanity, including the NFL, which has done nothing to end the outrageousness of a coin toss deciding anything. So with that said, what is so safe about overtime? Nothing; you aren't guaranteed a damn thing in overtime. So coaches should do everything in their power to avoid it."
I've always hated this overtime format, and it still exists in the regular season, meaning teams should continue to avoid overtime at all costs, and should definitely go for 2 at the end of regulation, rather than kicking an extra point and going into OT. But in the playoffs, overtime is no longer such an unsavory option. Now you can legitimately play defense and have a chance to win. Again, if you allow a TD then nobody should pity you, but if you allow a dinky little drive that results in a field goal, no longer is your season over (unless you do that twice).
"What really bothers me, though, is the idea that playing for overtime, as Fisher did, is "playing it safe." What in the hell is so safe about overtime? I personally hate overtime, and would avoid it at all costs. You aren't guaranteed a possession in overtime, and a freaking coin toss actually plays a role in deciding how the game is ended. A coin toss! And yet there are people who defend this insanity, including the NFL, which has done nothing to end the outrageousness of a coin toss deciding anything. So with that said, what is so safe about overtime? Nothing; you aren't guaranteed a damn thing in overtime. So coaches should do everything in their power to avoid it."
I've always hated this overtime format, and it still exists in the regular season, meaning teams should continue to avoid overtime at all costs, and should definitely go for 2 at the end of regulation, rather than kicking an extra point and going into OT. But in the playoffs, overtime is no longer such an unsavory option. Now you can legitimately play defense and have a chance to win. Again, if you allow a TD then nobody should pity you, but if you allow a dinky little drive that results in a field goal, no longer is your season over (unless you do that twice).
Sean Payton and thoughts on overtime
Here's a quote from Sean Payton:
"I hate it," Payton, speaking from the annual NFC Coaches breakfast, told me on Sirius NFL Radio. "I'm not a big fan of the rule that was implemented. I'm probably going to have to spend a half-hour explaining it to my wife."
Well allow me to help, Sean. If you receive the ball first in OT and kick a field goal, the other team will have an opportunity to possess the ball. If you score a TD, or there's a defensive score, the game is over. And this only applies to the playoffs.
Wow, that was hard.
I can understand why coaches would be against changes to the overtime format. It opens up a whole new avenue of second-guessing and criticism, and coaches already put up with a ton of that. But this is a fantastic new overtime format that finally, THANKFULLY, devalues the coin flip.
I mean, honestly, how stupid is it that the flip of a coin can be such a determining factor? No other sport has this. In basketball, you get the opening tip and 5 minute OT session. In hockey, you have a faceoff. In baseball, each team bats in their half-inning. But in football we flip a coin, and if you lose, tough break, because you may not see the ball. What idiocy. It can still happen where a team loses the coin toss and never sees the ball, but that's only in the event they allow a TD, and I don't think anybody is going to cry for a team that allowed a TD in overtime.
But the manner in which the Saints won the NFC Championship Game was a disgrace, and I say that not as a Viking fan but as an NFL fan. The Saints put together a mighty 10 play, 40 yard drive that was heavily aided by a questionable (read: bullshit) pass interference call, they kicked a field goal and Minnesota never touched the ball. This new rule will finally incentivize teams to go for TDs in overtime, rather than settle for field goals. Frankly it's embarrassing how teams shut their offense down once they get in field goal range, but now that will no longer be a sensible option.
I've heard all of the arguments against changing the overtime format, and they suck. "Well you can still play defense." True, but if getting the ball first isn't an advantage, then why does everyone outside of Marty Morhninweg receive the ball when the win the coin toss? And even if you don't score in OT, you can still affect field position by, say, driving to the 50, punting the ball and downing it inside the 10. It's stupid that a coin toss should give one team such an advantage. "Not every OT game ends on the first possession, so don't fix what ain't broken." There are stats galore on how OT games end, and I'm not going to look them up now, but of course not EVERY overtime game ends the way the NFC Championship Game does. There are definitely games in which both teams possess the ball, sometimes numerous times. The point is not that the problems with the OT format were absolute; the problem was that the coin toss gave any team an advantage at all. Like I said, even if you didn't score you could affect field position. And if you win the coin toss, you're guaranteed at least an equal amount of possessions as your opponent, while your opponent is guaranteed nothing. All because of the flip of a coin.
I'm thankful that the NFL owners showed some foresight and eliminated the worst OT format in sports. I thought it would take a couple of years, and probably a Super Bowl to go to OT, before change would happen, but finally a team's season can't end because they lost a coin toss, gave up a 40 yard drive and then a field goal. No more getting into field goal range and shutting down your offense. Now we just need to implement this for the regular season, but I'm doubtful that will happen because the networks probably have no interest in elongated overtime sessions that run into their 3 o'clock games. Oh well; at least the playoffs were fixed, and those are the games that matter most.
"I hate it," Payton, speaking from the annual NFC Coaches breakfast, told me on Sirius NFL Radio. "I'm not a big fan of the rule that was implemented. I'm probably going to have to spend a half-hour explaining it to my wife."
Well allow me to help, Sean. If you receive the ball first in OT and kick a field goal, the other team will have an opportunity to possess the ball. If you score a TD, or there's a defensive score, the game is over. And this only applies to the playoffs.
Wow, that was hard.
I can understand why coaches would be against changes to the overtime format. It opens up a whole new avenue of second-guessing and criticism, and coaches already put up with a ton of that. But this is a fantastic new overtime format that finally, THANKFULLY, devalues the coin flip.
I mean, honestly, how stupid is it that the flip of a coin can be such a determining factor? No other sport has this. In basketball, you get the opening tip and 5 minute OT session. In hockey, you have a faceoff. In baseball, each team bats in their half-inning. But in football we flip a coin, and if you lose, tough break, because you may not see the ball. What idiocy. It can still happen where a team loses the coin toss and never sees the ball, but that's only in the event they allow a TD, and I don't think anybody is going to cry for a team that allowed a TD in overtime.
But the manner in which the Saints won the NFC Championship Game was a disgrace, and I say that not as a Viking fan but as an NFL fan. The Saints put together a mighty 10 play, 40 yard drive that was heavily aided by a questionable (read: bullshit) pass interference call, they kicked a field goal and Minnesota never touched the ball. This new rule will finally incentivize teams to go for TDs in overtime, rather than settle for field goals. Frankly it's embarrassing how teams shut their offense down once they get in field goal range, but now that will no longer be a sensible option.
I've heard all of the arguments against changing the overtime format, and they suck. "Well you can still play defense." True, but if getting the ball first isn't an advantage, then why does everyone outside of Marty Morhninweg receive the ball when the win the coin toss? And even if you don't score in OT, you can still affect field position by, say, driving to the 50, punting the ball and downing it inside the 10. It's stupid that a coin toss should give one team such an advantage. "Not every OT game ends on the first possession, so don't fix what ain't broken." There are stats galore on how OT games end, and I'm not going to look them up now, but of course not EVERY overtime game ends the way the NFC Championship Game does. There are definitely games in which both teams possess the ball, sometimes numerous times. The point is not that the problems with the OT format were absolute; the problem was that the coin toss gave any team an advantage at all. Like I said, even if you didn't score you could affect field position. And if you win the coin toss, you're guaranteed at least an equal amount of possessions as your opponent, while your opponent is guaranteed nothing. All because of the flip of a coin.
I'm thankful that the NFL owners showed some foresight and eliminated the worst OT format in sports. I thought it would take a couple of years, and probably a Super Bowl to go to OT, before change would happen, but finally a team's season can't end because they lost a coin toss, gave up a 40 yard drive and then a field goal. No more getting into field goal range and shutting down your offense. Now we just need to implement this for the regular season, but I'm doubtful that will happen because the networks probably have no interest in elongated overtime sessions that run into their 3 o'clock games. Oh well; at least the playoffs were fixed, and those are the games that matter most.
Monday, March 22, 2010
You're not going to believe this, but...
I found yet another article comparing white receivers to other white receivers. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Wide-receiver-class-has-question-marks.html
"Eric Decker is another wideout I really like and think has the makings of a solid No. 2-type possession guy in the NFL."
White receivers are almost always called possession receivers coming out of college. Some of the best possession receivers I ever saw, from Cris Carter to Herman Moore to even Jerry Rice, were all black, but it's the white guys who always get this label. Compare that to Brandon LaFell, LSU's receiver who ran a 4.58 40 at the Combine:
"Looking at LaFell as a whole, I like him. He’s a big, physical route runner who has the balance to cleanly separate on all levels of the field and showcases a second gear to run away from defenders when being chased. He’s definitely not someone who can be judged solely on his 40 time, but either way, it will likely keep him out of the first round."
I'm not going to say that any of this isn't true; LaFell doesn't play that slow, for instance. However, no white receiver would ever get this sort of benefit of the doubt. Any white receiver with a slow 40 is automatically a possession receiver, but Brandon LaFell runs a slow 40 and he still has a second gear to separate at all levels of the field.
"I get the Wes Welker comparisons with Jordan Shipley; I just don’t agree with them. Welker is an ultra-quick wideout who has the ability to change directions on a dime and accelerate away from corners off the line in either direction."
I'll actually give the guy credit here for dismissing comparisons between Jordan Shipley and Wes Welker, but then we get this:
"However, I see him more as a Brandon Stokley type who has a slight second gear down the field once he gets going but will rely more on his savvy and crispness as a route runner to separate at the next level."
Ahh, a Brandon Stokely-type. Of course. I actually agree, in that Stokely wasn't much of a receiver and I don't think Shipley will be either, but is there any reason this couldn't be, say, Greg Lewis or Sam Hurd? Oh yeah...they aren't white.
This is one of my favorite games of draft time, finding all of the comparisons of white players to other white players, no matter how dissimilar they are. Toby Gerhart will be a great test case; there hasn't been a white RB drafted high in a long time. In fact, the last white RB (not FB) who I can remember being drafted at all was a guy for the Bears who's name I can't remember. But who are they going to compare Gerhart to? It will have to be a black player, which just won't feel right. Maybe we can stretch for a Travis Jervey comparison.
I would be remiss here if I didn't mention my all-time favorite white-on-white comparison; when, during the Fiest Bowl between Notre Dame and Ohio State, Brent Musberger compared Jeff Samardzija to Ricky Proehl. Samardzija and Proehl had...absolutely nothing in common, but Musberger just couldn't help himself.
"Eric Decker is another wideout I really like and think has the makings of a solid No. 2-type possession guy in the NFL."
White receivers are almost always called possession receivers coming out of college. Some of the best possession receivers I ever saw, from Cris Carter to Herman Moore to even Jerry Rice, were all black, but it's the white guys who always get this label. Compare that to Brandon LaFell, LSU's receiver who ran a 4.58 40 at the Combine:
"Looking at LaFell as a whole, I like him. He’s a big, physical route runner who has the balance to cleanly separate on all levels of the field and showcases a second gear to run away from defenders when being chased. He’s definitely not someone who can be judged solely on his 40 time, but either way, it will likely keep him out of the first round."
I'm not going to say that any of this isn't true; LaFell doesn't play that slow, for instance. However, no white receiver would ever get this sort of benefit of the doubt. Any white receiver with a slow 40 is automatically a possession receiver, but Brandon LaFell runs a slow 40 and he still has a second gear to separate at all levels of the field.
"I get the Wes Welker comparisons with Jordan Shipley; I just don’t agree with them. Welker is an ultra-quick wideout who has the ability to change directions on a dime and accelerate away from corners off the line in either direction."
I'll actually give the guy credit here for dismissing comparisons between Jordan Shipley and Wes Welker, but then we get this:
"However, I see him more as a Brandon Stokley type who has a slight second gear down the field once he gets going but will rely more on his savvy and crispness as a route runner to separate at the next level."
Ahh, a Brandon Stokely-type. Of course. I actually agree, in that Stokely wasn't much of a receiver and I don't think Shipley will be either, but is there any reason this couldn't be, say, Greg Lewis or Sam Hurd? Oh yeah...they aren't white.
This is one of my favorite games of draft time, finding all of the comparisons of white players to other white players, no matter how dissimilar they are. Toby Gerhart will be a great test case; there hasn't been a white RB drafted high in a long time. In fact, the last white RB (not FB) who I can remember being drafted at all was a guy for the Bears who's name I can't remember. But who are they going to compare Gerhart to? It will have to be a black player, which just won't feel right. Maybe we can stretch for a Travis Jervey comparison.
I would be remiss here if I didn't mention my all-time favorite white-on-white comparison; when, during the Fiest Bowl between Notre Dame and Ohio State, Brent Musberger compared Jeff Samardzija to Ricky Proehl. Samardzija and Proehl had...absolutely nothing in common, but Musberger just couldn't help himself.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Arizona is in trouble / Seattle trades for Whitehurst
The Cardinals signed Derek Anderson as competition for Matt Leinart, and while I think it's good that they aren't just handing the position to Leinart (who has done nothing to earn it), I don't think Anderson is the right guy. I've documented on here before how bad Derek Anderson was last season; basically, he was neck-and-neck with JaMarcus Russell for worst starting QB in the league. Anderson is a great deep-ball thrower with sketchy accuracy and questionable decision-making abilities. Basically, he's the antithesis of what Arizona should be looking for in a QB.
Arizona is losing one of the greatest rhythm throwers of all-time in Kurt Warner, and replacing him with two guys who are not rhythm throwers at all. Leinart possesses a lot of the same weaknesses as Anderson, only to a lesser extent but with a worse deep ball. What made the Arizona passing game so great was the accuracy and timing in which Warner got rid of the football; both Leinart and Anderson are incapable of running an offense that way. Between these two, I would personally start Anderson since he at least has one strength while Leinart possesses a bunch of mediocre skills. But I think Arizona is making a big mistake going with these two at QB. The Cardinals don't need a strong arm at QB (Warner didn't have that strong of an arm); they need someone who can get the ball to those receivers in good position and good timing.
---
The Seahawks traded for Charlie Whitehurst from the Chargers to potentially unseat Matt Hasselbeck (Hasselbeck can't stay healthy, so even if he's the opening day starter Whitehurst will play at some point), and while I think it's good the Seahawks acquired a young QB, I'm not so sure Whitehurst is the right guy.
See, the great thing for Whitehurst is that he hasn't played. In an odd way, this makes him more attractive because teams haven't seen him fail yet. He hasn't thrown an INT or taken a bad sack or had a 10-30 day; he hasn't even thrown an NFL pass yet. So teams can still dream on him; we've seen Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn throw incompletions and interceptions but Whitehurst...who knows what he can do!
These type of moves (acquiring an untested young veteran to start) tend to be about 50-50; sometimes you get Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell or Matt Schaub, and sometimes you get Rob Johnson, Scott Mitchell or A.J. Feeley. I don't have anything personal against Whitehurst, although I didn't much care for him coming out of college. It just amazes me how a guy who's never played and was relegated to 3rd string is now all of a sudden starter material.
And let's just get this potential talking point out of the way (from the national football post): "I like the move, in part because the Chargers liked Whitehurst. They liked his work habits, his leadership skills, his arm, his toughness. He just never had an opportunity to display those skills while in San Diego."
Okay, Whitehurst was never going to play ahead of Philip Rivers, but you're telling me the Chargers liked him so much that they never moved him ahead of Billy Volek on the depth chart, and them traded him to the Seahawks? That's a funny way to show you really like a player. I like Volek just fine as a backup QB, and I would say he's one of the better backups in the league, but there's no way he would hold down a good young QB with starter potential.
Whitehurst probably hates that he's never had a chance to play yet, but it's actually worked out for him; a couple incompletions or an interception in limited work and all of a sudden the Seahawks and Cardinals aren't so interested.
Arizona is losing one of the greatest rhythm throwers of all-time in Kurt Warner, and replacing him with two guys who are not rhythm throwers at all. Leinart possesses a lot of the same weaknesses as Anderson, only to a lesser extent but with a worse deep ball. What made the Arizona passing game so great was the accuracy and timing in which Warner got rid of the football; both Leinart and Anderson are incapable of running an offense that way. Between these two, I would personally start Anderson since he at least has one strength while Leinart possesses a bunch of mediocre skills. But I think Arizona is making a big mistake going with these two at QB. The Cardinals don't need a strong arm at QB (Warner didn't have that strong of an arm); they need someone who can get the ball to those receivers in good position and good timing.
---
The Seahawks traded for Charlie Whitehurst from the Chargers to potentially unseat Matt Hasselbeck (Hasselbeck can't stay healthy, so even if he's the opening day starter Whitehurst will play at some point), and while I think it's good the Seahawks acquired a young QB, I'm not so sure Whitehurst is the right guy.
See, the great thing for Whitehurst is that he hasn't played. In an odd way, this makes him more attractive because teams haven't seen him fail yet. He hasn't thrown an INT or taken a bad sack or had a 10-30 day; he hasn't even thrown an NFL pass yet. So teams can still dream on him; we've seen Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn throw incompletions and interceptions but Whitehurst...who knows what he can do!
These type of moves (acquiring an untested young veteran to start) tend to be about 50-50; sometimes you get Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell or Matt Schaub, and sometimes you get Rob Johnson, Scott Mitchell or A.J. Feeley. I don't have anything personal against Whitehurst, although I didn't much care for him coming out of college. It just amazes me how a guy who's never played and was relegated to 3rd string is now all of a sudden starter material.
And let's just get this potential talking point out of the way (from the national football post): "I like the move, in part because the Chargers liked Whitehurst. They liked his work habits, his leadership skills, his arm, his toughness. He just never had an opportunity to display those skills while in San Diego."
Okay, Whitehurst was never going to play ahead of Philip Rivers, but you're telling me the Chargers liked him so much that they never moved him ahead of Billy Volek on the depth chart, and them traded him to the Seahawks? That's a funny way to show you really like a player. I like Volek just fine as a backup QB, and I would say he's one of the better backups in the league, but there's no way he would hold down a good young QB with starter potential.
Whitehurst probably hates that he's never had a chance to play yet, but it's actually worked out for him; a couple incompletions or an interception in limited work and all of a sudden the Seahawks and Cardinals aren't so interested.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The Browns are given three doors and somehow choose a fourth
Okay, so you're the Cleveland Browns (namely, Mike Holmgren). You've got decisions to make with the QB position. So let's go over your options:
Start Quinn/Wallace/Ratliff
The Browns acquired Seneca Wallace this past week, so after releasing Derek Anderson they had three QBs on the roster. Quinn was drafted by a previous regime, Wallace is a Holmgren guy from Seattle, while Ratliff is a Mangini favorite from the Jets. Brady Quinn has yet to be given a full opportunity to prove himself, but if you don't like him, then go with Wallace or Ratliff.
Draft a QB
If you don't like Quinn, this is probably the best option, because Wallace and Ratliff probably are not long-term options. The Browns are not in a position where they are only a QB away from contending; they need help at receiver and with their pass rush, for starters. Therefore adding a veteran doesn't make a lot of sense, as that type of player will probably be finished by the time the rest of the roster is up to par.
Trade for a QB
You don't like the options currently on your roster, and Wallace is purely a backup, so you go the trade route. Kyle Orton, Jason Campbell and Tarvaris Jackson are restricted free agents with starting experience that are available. A more unproven QB such as Brodie Croyle or Charlie Whitehurst could probably be had, while the Eagles would probably listen to the right deal for Kevin Kolb. These aren't great options, but these are QBs who have quite a few years left. It should be noted it would take a large offer to get Orton or Kolb, but if you really want them it's worth it to fill in the QB position.
Notice that "add a useless veteran" is not on the list, and yet that's exactly the route the Browns took by adding Jake Delhomme today. I can't think of one logical reason the Browns made this move. If they just want a stopgap starter while they develop someone, then there's no reason they couldn't go with Quinn/Wallace/Ratliff. Delhomme is coming off a horrible season, and the chances of him improving at this advanced stage of his career are slim. Delhomme, in my opinion, is finished as a starting QB in this league. He would be a good backup for, say, Green Bay or New Orleans, but he is not starting material. Quinn/Wallace/Ratliff may not be that attractive, but at least they offer some upside.
It should also be noted that Delhomme had that horrible season playing for a team that is considerably better than the Cleveland Browns. I feel like I've been shouting this from the mountaintops for a long time ago, but this team has the worst receiving corps in the NFL. It's a disgrace that they went through an NFL season with that group, and even traded the only viable option they had (Braylon Edwards). Brady Quinn played last season with Mohamed Massaquoi, Jamal Lewis (later Jerome Harrison, who played pretty well but in Mangini's infinite wisdom spent the first half of the season on the bench) and Robert Royal. Delhomme had Steve Smith, DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. And Delhomme was worse than Quinn by pretty much any measure, yet the Browns are basically signaling that they'd rather start Delhomme than Quinn.
You don't believe in Quinn, and don't want to start Wallace or Ratliff? Fine, then draft a QB, or trade for a young veteran with some upside. But a useless veteran near the end of his career should not be an option. You already have potential stopgaps on the roster; it's time for the Browns to find a long-term solution. Signing Jake Delhomme simply sets this franchise back. I thought hiring Mike Holmgren was a good move for the Browns, but if this is what he's going to do with the Browns, then he can go back into retirement. I have no idea how Delhomme even became an option for this franchise.
And on a final note; Get some fucking receivers please!
Start Quinn/Wallace/Ratliff
The Browns acquired Seneca Wallace this past week, so after releasing Derek Anderson they had three QBs on the roster. Quinn was drafted by a previous regime, Wallace is a Holmgren guy from Seattle, while Ratliff is a Mangini favorite from the Jets. Brady Quinn has yet to be given a full opportunity to prove himself, but if you don't like him, then go with Wallace or Ratliff.
Draft a QB
If you don't like Quinn, this is probably the best option, because Wallace and Ratliff probably are not long-term options. The Browns are not in a position where they are only a QB away from contending; they need help at receiver and with their pass rush, for starters. Therefore adding a veteran doesn't make a lot of sense, as that type of player will probably be finished by the time the rest of the roster is up to par.
Trade for a QB
You don't like the options currently on your roster, and Wallace is purely a backup, so you go the trade route. Kyle Orton, Jason Campbell and Tarvaris Jackson are restricted free agents with starting experience that are available. A more unproven QB such as Brodie Croyle or Charlie Whitehurst could probably be had, while the Eagles would probably listen to the right deal for Kevin Kolb. These aren't great options, but these are QBs who have quite a few years left. It should be noted it would take a large offer to get Orton or Kolb, but if you really want them it's worth it to fill in the QB position.
Notice that "add a useless veteran" is not on the list, and yet that's exactly the route the Browns took by adding Jake Delhomme today. I can't think of one logical reason the Browns made this move. If they just want a stopgap starter while they develop someone, then there's no reason they couldn't go with Quinn/Wallace/Ratliff. Delhomme is coming off a horrible season, and the chances of him improving at this advanced stage of his career are slim. Delhomme, in my opinion, is finished as a starting QB in this league. He would be a good backup for, say, Green Bay or New Orleans, but he is not starting material. Quinn/Wallace/Ratliff may not be that attractive, but at least they offer some upside.
It should also be noted that Delhomme had that horrible season playing for a team that is considerably better than the Cleveland Browns. I feel like I've been shouting this from the mountaintops for a long time ago, but this team has the worst receiving corps in the NFL. It's a disgrace that they went through an NFL season with that group, and even traded the only viable option they had (Braylon Edwards). Brady Quinn played last season with Mohamed Massaquoi, Jamal Lewis (later Jerome Harrison, who played pretty well but in Mangini's infinite wisdom spent the first half of the season on the bench) and Robert Royal. Delhomme had Steve Smith, DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. And Delhomme was worse than Quinn by pretty much any measure, yet the Browns are basically signaling that they'd rather start Delhomme than Quinn.
You don't believe in Quinn, and don't want to start Wallace or Ratliff? Fine, then draft a QB, or trade for a young veteran with some upside. But a useless veteran near the end of his career should not be an option. You already have potential stopgaps on the roster; it's time for the Browns to find a long-term solution. Signing Jake Delhomme simply sets this franchise back. I thought hiring Mike Holmgren was a good move for the Browns, but if this is what he's going to do with the Browns, then he can go back into retirement. I have no idea how Delhomme even became an option for this franchise.
And on a final note; Get some fucking receivers please!
It's too easy, but I don't care
I know commenting on things written on the internet is shooting fish in a barrel, but I just had to post this to show the level of idiocy we're dealing with.
(in a post about prospects the Seattle Seahawks should pass on)
" Clausen isn't a leader. I love Matt Hasselbeck because he is the face and leader of the offense. You won't get that from Clausen."
Anything that starts with the nebulous force of "leadership" automatically gets my spidey senses tingling. Talking about a college player's leadership qualities is beyond ridiculous, since leadership at the pro level is earned and not given, but okay go on.
"Clausen also throws side-armed; man it's going to be annoying when the ball gets batted down six to seven times a game. He really reminds me of David Carr...how's Carr's career going, anyways?"
Clausen doesn't throw that side-arm, but he does drop the ball down a little bit, so maybe this is a valid point. But what I really love is the David Carr comparison with nothing to back it up. They both throw a little side-arm...oh okay, I guess they're one in the same. No mention of arm strength, accuracy, field awareness...just their throwing motion. Beautiful.
"Clausen also didn't win in college. Yes, Notre Dame's defense was horrible, but college is a talent league. Manning didn't have much talent surrounding him but he won."
You may think I love this quote because it attributes winning to a single player in which 22 players, plus two kickers and numerous special teamers, all have a significant effect on the game...but no. You may think I love this quote because he readily admits what Notre Dame's biggest problem was, therein refuting his own argument. He's essentially saying that Notre Dame lacked talent on defense in a talent league (we'll ignore the fact that college football is not a league), which would seemingly be a point in Clausen's favor for carrying such a team, but to this guy it's a detriment. But no...that's not why I love it either.
I love this quote because of the final sentence. Apparently unaware that there are two Mannings currently starting at QB in the NFL today, he claims that Manning didn't have much surrounding talent but won anyways. I'm going to assume he means Peyton, but the fact that he's unaware of both of them really increases his crediblity. And just for the record, I looked up 1997 Tennessee's roster and they had plenty of talent. 3 first round picks including Manning, plus several others who played in the NFL.
"Also, Clausen's arm strength is suspect. I'll be honest, all things considered, Clausen is the best West Coast Offense QB in this year's draft. You will just never hear him say, "Give us the ball and we're gonna score.""
Just when I thought things couldn't get any better, he goes and gives me something like this. Clausen's arm strength is suspect...proof given, none. The fact that Clausen played for Charlie Weis, who's offense had West Coast elements but was not a pure West Coast offense...apparently meaningless.
Okay, I loved when he mentioned "Manning" without specifying which one, but this last sentence takes the cake. Do you know why? Because after Matt Hasselbeck told the referee "We'll take the ball and we're gonna score," oh man this is great, you see umm...he threw an interception that was returned for a TD and lost a playoff game. In other words, and I'm just going to go ahead and assume this gentleman doesn't have a functioning brain because this is definitely not a moment you want to point out when speaking of Hasselbeck's moxie, he's downgrading Clausen because he'll never say that and then throw an INT that loses a playoff game. Oh the horror!
---
Okay, I know, it was too easy, but sometimes you have to knock out a few softballs before taking on some breaking pitches. I will post about Clausen myself eventually, but I want to make sure I've got my thoughts all lined up, unlike this gentleman who rues the fact that Clausen won't say he'll take the ball and score, and subsuquently lose the game.
(in a post about prospects the Seattle Seahawks should pass on)
" Clausen isn't a leader. I love Matt Hasselbeck because he is the face and leader of the offense. You won't get that from Clausen."
Anything that starts with the nebulous force of "leadership" automatically gets my spidey senses tingling. Talking about a college player's leadership qualities is beyond ridiculous, since leadership at the pro level is earned and not given, but okay go on.
"Clausen also throws side-armed; man it's going to be annoying when the ball gets batted down six to seven times a game. He really reminds me of David Carr...how's Carr's career going, anyways?"
Clausen doesn't throw that side-arm, but he does drop the ball down a little bit, so maybe this is a valid point. But what I really love is the David Carr comparison with nothing to back it up. They both throw a little side-arm...oh okay, I guess they're one in the same. No mention of arm strength, accuracy, field awareness...just their throwing motion. Beautiful.
"Clausen also didn't win in college. Yes, Notre Dame's defense was horrible, but college is a talent league. Manning didn't have much talent surrounding him but he won."
You may think I love this quote because it attributes winning to a single player in which 22 players, plus two kickers and numerous special teamers, all have a significant effect on the game...but no. You may think I love this quote because he readily admits what Notre Dame's biggest problem was, therein refuting his own argument. He's essentially saying that Notre Dame lacked talent on defense in a talent league (we'll ignore the fact that college football is not a league), which would seemingly be a point in Clausen's favor for carrying such a team, but to this guy it's a detriment. But no...that's not why I love it either.
I love this quote because of the final sentence. Apparently unaware that there are two Mannings currently starting at QB in the NFL today, he claims that Manning didn't have much surrounding talent but won anyways. I'm going to assume he means Peyton, but the fact that he's unaware of both of them really increases his crediblity. And just for the record, I looked up 1997 Tennessee's roster and they had plenty of talent. 3 first round picks including Manning, plus several others who played in the NFL.
"Also, Clausen's arm strength is suspect. I'll be honest, all things considered, Clausen is the best West Coast Offense QB in this year's draft. You will just never hear him say, "Give us the ball and we're gonna score.""
Just when I thought things couldn't get any better, he goes and gives me something like this. Clausen's arm strength is suspect...proof given, none. The fact that Clausen played for Charlie Weis, who's offense had West Coast elements but was not a pure West Coast offense...apparently meaningless.
Okay, I loved when he mentioned "Manning" without specifying which one, but this last sentence takes the cake. Do you know why? Because after Matt Hasselbeck told the referee "We'll take the ball and we're gonna score," oh man this is great, you see umm...he threw an interception that was returned for a TD and lost a playoff game. In other words, and I'm just going to go ahead and assume this gentleman doesn't have a functioning brain because this is definitely not a moment you want to point out when speaking of Hasselbeck's moxie, he's downgrading Clausen because he'll never say that and then throw an INT that loses a playoff game. Oh the horror!
---
Okay, I know, it was too easy, but sometimes you have to knock out a few softballs before taking on some breaking pitches. I will post about Clausen myself eventually, but I want to make sure I've got my thoughts all lined up, unlike this gentleman who rues the fact that Clausen won't say he'll take the ball and score, and subsuquently lose the game.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Around the NFL
Jets trade for Antonio Cromartie
This is a move that at first makes you go "ooh" and "ahh" until you really think about it. Teams don't just trade good young corners; if the Chargers were so willing to trade Cromartie, that should really tell you something about the level he's been playing at. He was great two years ago, but has regressed ever since. Quentin Jammer is clearly their top corner, and I guess they feel like young players such as Antoine Cason are ready to step up. There will be a lot of "Jets have the best corner tandem in the league" stories, and there's no questioning Cromartie's talent, but just remember that the Chargers never, in a million years, would have traded Cromartie if they actually thought he was a good player.
Panthers cut Jake Delhomme
A necessary move that I was afraid wouldn't happen. It's funny to think that just 14 months ago or so, the Panthers thought they were fine at QB. They had just gone 12-4 and earned a first round bye in the playoffs. Then Delhomme imploded in the playoffs against Arizona, and had a terrible 2009 season. Delhomme is a worthy backup, and maybe a new team will clear his mind of whatever mental block came over him last January. I just hope the Panthers don't think Matt Moore is the be-all and end-all at QB. I think Moore is an okay player, and he played decently even two years ago as a rookie. But he doesn't have anything close to elite skills, so playing decently may be as good as it gets for him. The Panthers should definitely bring in some compeition.
Jason Campbell anybody?
The Redskins tendered Campbell at a first round level, which basically means that they're willing to trade him if they get the right offer. If they really wanted to keep Campbell, they would have tendered him at a first and third round level. It's time for the Redskins and Campbell to part, as that organization and fan base have no faith in him anymore. But that doesn't mean Campbell is a bad player; I tend to think he's been hindered more by the failing of the Redskins than anything else. The offensive line that Redskins assembled last season was, quite frankly, a joke. When they played Dallas in December, Campbell couldn't drop back more than 3 steps without somebody being in his face, which of course made throwing the ball anywhere near downfield impossible.
I think Campbell would be the best QB on a number of teams (including Washington, but as I said, that bridge has been burned), such as Oakland, Buffalo, Seattle (Hasslebeck is beyond finished), Kansas City (Matt Cassel sucks, and the sooner Kansas City realizes that, the further ahead they'll be), Denver (yeah I'm throwing Kyle Orton under the bus), San Fransisco (the fact that Alex Smith showed signs of life last season doesn't mean he's a good QB yet), Arizona (contrary to popular belief, Matt Leinart hasn't proven anything at the pro level, and has actually been a disappointment) and probably a few other teams I'm not thinking of. I'm not saying Campbell is a long-term answer necessarily, but if a team like Buffalo were to draft a QB and needed someone in the interim, Campbell would not be a bad option. He just needs somebody to give him a fair chance. I actually think Oakland should be the team to trade for Campbell (a 2nd round pick probably gets it done), but the la-la land of Al Davis still believes JaMarcus Russell has a future.
This is a move that at first makes you go "ooh" and "ahh" until you really think about it. Teams don't just trade good young corners; if the Chargers were so willing to trade Cromartie, that should really tell you something about the level he's been playing at. He was great two years ago, but has regressed ever since. Quentin Jammer is clearly their top corner, and I guess they feel like young players such as Antoine Cason are ready to step up. There will be a lot of "Jets have the best corner tandem in the league" stories, and there's no questioning Cromartie's talent, but just remember that the Chargers never, in a million years, would have traded Cromartie if they actually thought he was a good player.
Panthers cut Jake Delhomme
A necessary move that I was afraid wouldn't happen. It's funny to think that just 14 months ago or so, the Panthers thought they were fine at QB. They had just gone 12-4 and earned a first round bye in the playoffs. Then Delhomme imploded in the playoffs against Arizona, and had a terrible 2009 season. Delhomme is a worthy backup, and maybe a new team will clear his mind of whatever mental block came over him last January. I just hope the Panthers don't think Matt Moore is the be-all and end-all at QB. I think Moore is an okay player, and he played decently even two years ago as a rookie. But he doesn't have anything close to elite skills, so playing decently may be as good as it gets for him. The Panthers should definitely bring in some compeition.
Jason Campbell anybody?
The Redskins tendered Campbell at a first round level, which basically means that they're willing to trade him if they get the right offer. If they really wanted to keep Campbell, they would have tendered him at a first and third round level. It's time for the Redskins and Campbell to part, as that organization and fan base have no faith in him anymore. But that doesn't mean Campbell is a bad player; I tend to think he's been hindered more by the failing of the Redskins than anything else. The offensive line that Redskins assembled last season was, quite frankly, a joke. When they played Dallas in December, Campbell couldn't drop back more than 3 steps without somebody being in his face, which of course made throwing the ball anywhere near downfield impossible.
I think Campbell would be the best QB on a number of teams (including Washington, but as I said, that bridge has been burned), such as Oakland, Buffalo, Seattle (Hasslebeck is beyond finished), Kansas City (Matt Cassel sucks, and the sooner Kansas City realizes that, the further ahead they'll be), Denver (yeah I'm throwing Kyle Orton under the bus), San Fransisco (the fact that Alex Smith showed signs of life last season doesn't mean he's a good QB yet), Arizona (contrary to popular belief, Matt Leinart hasn't proven anything at the pro level, and has actually been a disappointment) and probably a few other teams I'm not thinking of. I'm not saying Campbell is a long-term answer necessarily, but if a team like Buffalo were to draft a QB and needed someone in the interim, Campbell would not be a bad option. He just needs somebody to give him a fair chance. I actually think Oakland should be the team to trade for Campbell (a 2nd round pick probably gets it done), but the la-la land of Al Davis still believes JaMarcus Russell has a future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)