One thing that's been bothering me recently, with the draft coming up, is...how in the hell did Aaron Rodgers fall to the 24th pick in the 2005 draft? If you'll recall, Rodgers was the presumptive #1 pick for most of the offseason, until a week or two before the draft when all of a sudden Alex Smith became the #1 pick, and Rodgers tumbled all the way to 24th overall. It's worth noting, too, that that was a terrible draft, making it even more astonishing he fell that far.
Some of the teams that passed on Rodgers were the 49ers obviously, plus the Dolphins (Gus Frerotte? Sage?), Browns (Kelly Holcomb?), Chicago (sexy Rexy!), Tampa Bay (Gruden, who loved to collect QBs, didn't collect an actual good one), Tennessee (ancient Steve McNair, drafted Vince Young a year later), Washington (they ended up drafting Jason Campbell one pick after Rodgers), Carolina (Jake was still viable at this point, but man would that team be in good shape with Rodgers), and the Oakland Raiders (Rodgers played right down the road, but when you've got Kerry Collins and Marques Tuiasosopo you have no need). Just look at those names!
As far as I can tell, here's why Rodgers fell (and even at the time, these reasons seemed suspcious; now they're laughable to the point that all NFL personnel who bought into them should be fired); "Questions about Rodgers involve his throwing mechanics, ability to consistently deliver the long ball, and even his coaching. California coach Jeff Tedford has groomed a significant number of excellent college passers who have not always translated to the pros. Kyle Boller, his most recent draftee, has struggled early in his Baltimore Ravens career."
I can remember the questions about his throwing mechanics; the Packers have tweaked them a bit and it's not a problem (and never was). I can REALLY remember the Tedford stuff, which is really the reason he fell. Kyle Boller had just busted big-time in Baltimore, along with Tedford QBs like Joey Harrington and Akili Smith. Well, we all know that QBs who play under the same coach are all the same right? Phil Simms, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe, Tony Romo...all played under Parcells, all the same right? How fucking stupid. And yet that was big news at the time; "Rodgers is just another Tedford project." It's like the NFL was unwilling to admit they had been completely wrong on Harrington, Boller and Smith (the latter two never being worthy of their draft status), and instead projected their anger onto Jeff Tedford. "It's Jeff Tedford's fault that Kyle Boller sucks, not mine for ever believing Boller had talent in the first place." How fucking stupid.
I also love that his deep ball was a concern. Have you seen Aaron Rodgers throw the deep ball? It's pretty damn nice; Greg Jennings certainly wouldn't complain. But here's the amazing thing; Alex Smith couldn't throw the deep ball either. We have to remember that the 49ers chose Alex Smith instead of Rodgers, and every concern you might have about Rodgers, you should have had doubly over Alex Smith. Deep ball? Smith never threw the ball downfield at Utah. Coaching? Urban Meyer designed an offense specifically for Alex Smith's skillset that obviously wasn't going to translate to the NFL.
The reason I've been thinking about Aaron Rodgers recently (and I just love reliving this stuff; just look at how stupid those criticisms were) is because there's a very good chance Jimmy Clausen will free-fall tomorrow. Remember all of those mediocre QBs who nonetheless somehow forced their teams to pass on Rodgers? There's a good chance that's happening tomorrow, with Kansas City (Cassel), Seattle (Whitehurst/the walking corpse of Hasslebeck), Cleveland (Delhomme/Wallace), Oakland (Russell/Gradkowski), Buffalo (Fitzpatrick/Edwards), Jacksonville (Garrard), Denver (Orton/Quinn), and San Francisco (Alex Smith) all passing on Clausen and honestly walking into next season with that list of mediocre QBs starting for them. What Aaron Rodgers had is something that the NFL consistently underestimates, and that's touch and accuracy. Well guess what Clausen's strengths are as well. And the criticisms of Clausen are just as stupid as they were for Rodgers.
NFL teams are typically pretty smart. They scour the Earth to find guys like Tony Romo and Marques Colston. DeMarcus Ware and Osi Umenyiora played at Troy; Vishante Shiancoe played at something called Morgan St. So the NFL definitely does it's homework in searching for players. And yet every year it overthinks the obvious; namely that your QB situation is mediocre and should be upgraded. It's easy to talk yourself into thinking that Orton and Garrard are fine, and that you should focus on other positions instead. It's easy to come up with reasons not to draft somebody, and in the case of Rodgers and Clausen (probably; we'll see tomorrow) they found them. I just have a very strong feeling that in 5 years, much like with Rodgers, numerous NFL teams are going to be kicking themselves that they didn't see the obvious, and that's that their QB situation wasn't good and that Clausen can throw the football.
The Packers got lucky when Rodgers dropped as far as he did, and now I'm praying that Clausen falls far enough that Minnesota can get him. My god, he would be a perfect successor to Favre. In fact, if he falls past Buffalo at 9 (a near certainty; Chan Gailey doesn't like pocket passers, and I'm not kidding. Chan Gailey remains the only man in football who's been able to slow down Calvin Johnson, with his hand-picked Reggie Ball at QB) I want Minnesota to trade up and get him. The Vikings can use depth at corner, and along the offensive line, and probably at RB, but you know what? That can be figured out later. The opportunity for a good team to get a good young QB just doesn't happen often, so Minnesota needs to seize the moment if it happens. Be bold and get your QB of the future.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Who needs Jason Alexander when I can have Joey Lawrence?
Josh McDaniels has now officially disassembled a potent passing attack, trading Tony Scheffler to the Lions (who now have a dynamite two-TE set) for a 5th round pick. This was the final move in his bid to build the most inept passing game in the league. Kyle Orton throwing to Eddie Royal, Jabar Gaffney and Daniel Graham...are you scared yet?
What should be painfully obvious (at least it is to me) is that the 49ers severely overpaid to get Ted Ginn Jr. from the Dolphins. I know a 5th round pick isn't much, but the Steelers got a 5th round pick for Santonio Holmes and the Broncos got a 5th round pick for Scheffler. It should go without saying that Ginn is nowhere near as good as either of those players, so why the 49ers felt the need to trade a 5th rounder for a bum receiver and overrated returner, I'll never know. Let me put it this way...give me Tony Scheffler, and I can build a successful passing game. Give me Ted Ginn and I can build one of the worst passing games in the league.
But going back to the Broncos...at what point does Pat Bowlen cut the cord on this horrible experiment gone wrong? Is this really what he signed up for when he fired Shanahan and hired McDaniels, to get rid of all of his good young players? When McDaniels was hired, the issue with the Broncos was simple; their defense sucked and needed a huge infusion of talent and youth. Have they gotten that infusion of talent and youth? Not really, unless Robert Ayers and Alphonso Smith excite you (and they shouldn't). Instead they've gone about destroying the one aspect of their team that was any good, the passing game. Cutler throwing to Marshall and Scheffler was dynamic; now they're all gone. The Denver Broncos are my early favorite for "projected worst franchise of the next decade," and I'm not kidding. You don't win in this league by trading all of your good young players. What's the point of the draft if, when you actually hit on players, you just end up trading them?
At this point, I think it goes without saying that had McDaniels been the head of NBC back in the early '90s, he would have fired the cast of Seinfeld and replaced them with the cast of Blossom. yadda yadda yadda Josh McDaniels is a huge fuck-up. Whoa!
What should be painfully obvious (at least it is to me) is that the 49ers severely overpaid to get Ted Ginn Jr. from the Dolphins. I know a 5th round pick isn't much, but the Steelers got a 5th round pick for Santonio Holmes and the Broncos got a 5th round pick for Scheffler. It should go without saying that Ginn is nowhere near as good as either of those players, so why the 49ers felt the need to trade a 5th rounder for a bum receiver and overrated returner, I'll never know. Let me put it this way...give me Tony Scheffler, and I can build a successful passing game. Give me Ted Ginn and I can build one of the worst passing games in the league.
But going back to the Broncos...at what point does Pat Bowlen cut the cord on this horrible experiment gone wrong? Is this really what he signed up for when he fired Shanahan and hired McDaniels, to get rid of all of his good young players? When McDaniels was hired, the issue with the Broncos was simple; their defense sucked and needed a huge infusion of talent and youth. Have they gotten that infusion of talent and youth? Not really, unless Robert Ayers and Alphonso Smith excite you (and they shouldn't). Instead they've gone about destroying the one aspect of their team that was any good, the passing game. Cutler throwing to Marshall and Scheffler was dynamic; now they're all gone. The Denver Broncos are my early favorite for "projected worst franchise of the next decade," and I'm not kidding. You don't win in this league by trading all of your good young players. What's the point of the draft if, when you actually hit on players, you just end up trading them?
At this point, I think it goes without saying that had McDaniels been the head of NBC back in the early '90s, he would have fired the cast of Seinfeld and replaced them with the cast of Blossom. yadda yadda yadda Josh McDaniels is a huge fuck-up. Whoa!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Jimmy's gonna get you, Kramer! Jimmy holds grudges!
Okay, I think I've let people slander Jimmy Clausen for long enough. The narrative on Clausen has taken a complete 180, from him being a QB to him being some sort of mix between Ryan Leaf and Benito Mussoulini. Let's cut through the bullshit and get to the weed.
Clausen is an arrogant prick
This is the most popular narrative on Clausen. Everybody and their mother can't point out fast how Clausen "lacks intangibles." Every draft year we have to hear about intangibles, and every draft year I want to hurl. Do people not understand what intangibles are? Intangibles are immeasurable; therefore, you can't say someone has a lot of them, or has none of them. By definition, we don't know.
Of course, when people talk about intangibles, they're really talking about stuff that can be quantified to some degree. What they're usually talking about is someone's work ethic, how someone performs under pressure, things like that. Leadership also comes into play, but leadership is truly indefinable and besides, no veteran is going to follow a rookie anyways so it's irrelevant. Leadership is earned, not given.
So does Clausen have a poor work ethic? Not that I know of; last offseason, he flew Golden Tate, Michael Floyd and Kyle Rudolph to California to work out with him. It's very possible they actually did nothing except hit the bars every night, but this is the type of story the media seems to eat up when it fits the narrative, but since the narrative on Clausen doesn't fit this story, it gets no play whatsoever. Not that I care, but the double standard is palpable. Clausen also improved greatly from his freshman to sophomore season, then even moreso from his sophomore to junior season; that's not the hallmark of someone with a poor work ethic.
If you want to know how Clausen performed under pressure, well, I can't imagine there's any more pressure on a QB than knowing that your team's defense sucks (as Notre Dame's did last season) and knowing that you have score a lot of points to win. Any failed third down is a game changer; any turnover is potentially disastrous. There was literally zero margin for error for Clausen last season, with his defense consistently giving up 30 or more points. And God bless him, he damn-neared played a flawless season, throwing only 4 INTs (only two of which were truly his fault) and fumbling a couple times.
I'm also not a fan of 4th quarter comebacks (people act as if what happens in the first 3 quarters is irrelevant, which is ridiculous; Jake Plummer should not get credit because he screwed up early and dug his team into a hole), but Clausen led Notre Dame to 4th quarter wins against Michigan State and Boston College, and an OT win over Washington that included a 4th quarter comeback. He also led a 4th quarter comeback against Michigan that was negated by his shitty defense. Basically, this is the stuff that people jizz themselves over when it's Tebow, but with Clausen it's never mentioned.
Here's the deal; Clausen has that laid back California feel to him, which turns people off, but his play does not demonstrate that. This is a kid who got the shit beat out of him as a freshman playing behind an awful offensive line, and yet got up every time. This is a kid who suffered a painful foot injury in week 3 that required surgery after the season, and yet all he missed was 2 quarters of play the following week. Basically, this is a kid who lived the Tebow-Favre tough guy narrative only he gets none of the credit for it.
Clausen is not a leader
This is a criticism that makes me laugh. For one, it's too easy for psuedo-pyschologists to fall back on this. Leadership is such a nebulous idea that anyone can float it out there and not be proven right or wrong. And secondly...well, I mentioned a paragraph ago how Clausen missed two quarters of play last season. This was the 4th game against Purdue, and a week after he suffered the turf toe-like injury. He started against Purdue, but after a couple of drives Weis pulled him because he wasn't the same player. Weis was hoping to pull out a win with Dayne Crist and let Clausen rest up for the followiing week. However, Purdue came back and took the lead in the 4th quarter, so back in went Clausen. And, trailing by 4, he led a 70 yard TD drive that culminated with a 4th down TD pass to Rudolph. I'll be honest...this game earned my undying respect for Clausen. He was in a lot of pain, the foot was obviously bothering him, he couldn't play at 100%...and yet when push came to shove and the game was on the line, he went back in and led the game-winning drive.
What does this have to do with leadership? Well, any player that can't follow a QB like that shouldn't be playing football. Leadership is about action, not words. I don't know what Clausen says on the field, and I don't care. What I know is he played hurt last season, and he was particuarly in pain a week after suffering the injury, yet he still went out and led the game-winning drive. If you can't follow that, then you're in the wrong sport.
Just for the record; Sam Bradford injured his shoulder twice last season and barely played. Clausen injured his foot and missed all of 2 quarters. I'm not saying Bradford is injury-prone, but there's no proof that he isn't (awesome logic, I know, but I'm going with it). I know Clausen will play through pain...I don't even know if Bradford can get sacked.
Clausen's not a winner
Another laughable assertion. Put Clausen on Alabama last season, and he goes undefeated. The only thing that held Clausen back last season was his own shitty defense. He threw 5 TDs against Stanford...and they lost. Clausen was great last season, and if his team had been anywhere near his level, they'd have gone to a BCS bowl last season.
Anytime people start talking about a guy being a "winner," my bullshit radar goes off like crazy. It's like talking about someone being a leader; it's a platitude that psuedo-psychologists throw out to give someone extra credit. Assigned wins and losses to individual players in football is laughable; Clausen, or any other QB, has no control on his own defense, or special teams, or whether his receivers will catch the ball or his line will protect. All the QB can do is his job, and Clausen did a damn good job last season. He was too good for his own team, quite frankly.
With all of that said...
I don't necessarily view Clausen as an elite prospect. I think he's a very accurate QB with a good but not great arm, and decent mobility in the pocket but not someone who's going to run for a lot of yards. I should probably be more excited about his pro potential, but I just don't get a "potential top-5 QB" vibe from him. That, of course, doesn't matter because it's purely subjective. What I know is he has all of the tools to be a good NFL QB, and maybe a great one. Accuracy tends to be underestimated around draft time, and Clausen is very accurate. We're not talking about bubble screens and other bullshit, either (cough, Colt McCoy, cough). We're talking out routes, comebacks, posts and corners. He can make all of the throws, which is good enough. Okay, fine: if the Raiders draft him, he'll definitely finish 3rd to Russell and Boller in a "throwing the ball off your ass for distance" competition.
I definitely think Clausen is the best QB in this draft, though, with Sam Bradford undoubtedly going #1 overall but people ignoring obvious warning signs. Does anybody care that he got immaculate protection as a redshirt sophomore when he won the Heisman? His two tackles were Phil Loadholt (2nd round pick, NFL starter) and Trent Williams (first rounder come Thursday). As soon as he got hit as a junior, he got injured, and then injured again. This may seem obvious, but you have to play in order to be worth a #1 pick, and nobody can say with certainty that Bradford is at all durable. And everything that Bradford does well (namely, throw the ball accurately), Clausen does as well. The only difference, really, is that Clausen rubs people the wrong way (which, as I explained, is totally unfair) while Bradford just feels right.
In 5 years, it's very possible that Bradford, or Tebow, or McCoy, or some late-rounder we don't even know will be the best QB out of this draft. Clausen is by no means a perfect prospect. But if my job were on the line and millions of dollars were at stake (as it is for prospective NFL teams), Clausen is the one I'd be willing to bet on. I don't say this as a Notre Dame fan, either; I'm not one to blindly tout Notre Dame players (you don't see me bragging up Golden Tate here, do you?). I say this as someone who was greatly impressed by Clausen's play last season. I think Cleveland, Oakland and Buffalo will make big mistakes if they pass on him on Thursday. And if they do, I want the Minnesota Vikings to trade up for Clausen. Hell, do it anyways; he'd be a great successor to Favre.
Clausen is an arrogant prick
This is the most popular narrative on Clausen. Everybody and their mother can't point out fast how Clausen "lacks intangibles." Every draft year we have to hear about intangibles, and every draft year I want to hurl. Do people not understand what intangibles are? Intangibles are immeasurable; therefore, you can't say someone has a lot of them, or has none of them. By definition, we don't know.
Of course, when people talk about intangibles, they're really talking about stuff that can be quantified to some degree. What they're usually talking about is someone's work ethic, how someone performs under pressure, things like that. Leadership also comes into play, but leadership is truly indefinable and besides, no veteran is going to follow a rookie anyways so it's irrelevant. Leadership is earned, not given.
So does Clausen have a poor work ethic? Not that I know of; last offseason, he flew Golden Tate, Michael Floyd and Kyle Rudolph to California to work out with him. It's very possible they actually did nothing except hit the bars every night, but this is the type of story the media seems to eat up when it fits the narrative, but since the narrative on Clausen doesn't fit this story, it gets no play whatsoever. Not that I care, but the double standard is palpable. Clausen also improved greatly from his freshman to sophomore season, then even moreso from his sophomore to junior season; that's not the hallmark of someone with a poor work ethic.
If you want to know how Clausen performed under pressure, well, I can't imagine there's any more pressure on a QB than knowing that your team's defense sucks (as Notre Dame's did last season) and knowing that you have score a lot of points to win. Any failed third down is a game changer; any turnover is potentially disastrous. There was literally zero margin for error for Clausen last season, with his defense consistently giving up 30 or more points. And God bless him, he damn-neared played a flawless season, throwing only 4 INTs (only two of which were truly his fault) and fumbling a couple times.
I'm also not a fan of 4th quarter comebacks (people act as if what happens in the first 3 quarters is irrelevant, which is ridiculous; Jake Plummer should not get credit because he screwed up early and dug his team into a hole), but Clausen led Notre Dame to 4th quarter wins against Michigan State and Boston College, and an OT win over Washington that included a 4th quarter comeback. He also led a 4th quarter comeback against Michigan that was negated by his shitty defense. Basically, this is the stuff that people jizz themselves over when it's Tebow, but with Clausen it's never mentioned.
Here's the deal; Clausen has that laid back California feel to him, which turns people off, but his play does not demonstrate that. This is a kid who got the shit beat out of him as a freshman playing behind an awful offensive line, and yet got up every time. This is a kid who suffered a painful foot injury in week 3 that required surgery after the season, and yet all he missed was 2 quarters of play the following week. Basically, this is a kid who lived the Tebow-Favre tough guy narrative only he gets none of the credit for it.
Clausen is not a leader
This is a criticism that makes me laugh. For one, it's too easy for psuedo-pyschologists to fall back on this. Leadership is such a nebulous idea that anyone can float it out there and not be proven right or wrong. And secondly...well, I mentioned a paragraph ago how Clausen missed two quarters of play last season. This was the 4th game against Purdue, and a week after he suffered the turf toe-like injury. He started against Purdue, but after a couple of drives Weis pulled him because he wasn't the same player. Weis was hoping to pull out a win with Dayne Crist and let Clausen rest up for the followiing week. However, Purdue came back and took the lead in the 4th quarter, so back in went Clausen. And, trailing by 4, he led a 70 yard TD drive that culminated with a 4th down TD pass to Rudolph. I'll be honest...this game earned my undying respect for Clausen. He was in a lot of pain, the foot was obviously bothering him, he couldn't play at 100%...and yet when push came to shove and the game was on the line, he went back in and led the game-winning drive.
What does this have to do with leadership? Well, any player that can't follow a QB like that shouldn't be playing football. Leadership is about action, not words. I don't know what Clausen says on the field, and I don't care. What I know is he played hurt last season, and he was particuarly in pain a week after suffering the injury, yet he still went out and led the game-winning drive. If you can't follow that, then you're in the wrong sport.
Just for the record; Sam Bradford injured his shoulder twice last season and barely played. Clausen injured his foot and missed all of 2 quarters. I'm not saying Bradford is injury-prone, but there's no proof that he isn't (awesome logic, I know, but I'm going with it). I know Clausen will play through pain...I don't even know if Bradford can get sacked.
Clausen's not a winner
Another laughable assertion. Put Clausen on Alabama last season, and he goes undefeated. The only thing that held Clausen back last season was his own shitty defense. He threw 5 TDs against Stanford...and they lost. Clausen was great last season, and if his team had been anywhere near his level, they'd have gone to a BCS bowl last season.
Anytime people start talking about a guy being a "winner," my bullshit radar goes off like crazy. It's like talking about someone being a leader; it's a platitude that psuedo-psychologists throw out to give someone extra credit. Assigned wins and losses to individual players in football is laughable; Clausen, or any other QB, has no control on his own defense, or special teams, or whether his receivers will catch the ball or his line will protect. All the QB can do is his job, and Clausen did a damn good job last season. He was too good for his own team, quite frankly.
With all of that said...
I don't necessarily view Clausen as an elite prospect. I think he's a very accurate QB with a good but not great arm, and decent mobility in the pocket but not someone who's going to run for a lot of yards. I should probably be more excited about his pro potential, but I just don't get a "potential top-5 QB" vibe from him. That, of course, doesn't matter because it's purely subjective. What I know is he has all of the tools to be a good NFL QB, and maybe a great one. Accuracy tends to be underestimated around draft time, and Clausen is very accurate. We're not talking about bubble screens and other bullshit, either (cough, Colt McCoy, cough). We're talking out routes, comebacks, posts and corners. He can make all of the throws, which is good enough. Okay, fine: if the Raiders draft him, he'll definitely finish 3rd to Russell and Boller in a "throwing the ball off your ass for distance" competition.
I definitely think Clausen is the best QB in this draft, though, with Sam Bradford undoubtedly going #1 overall but people ignoring obvious warning signs. Does anybody care that he got immaculate protection as a redshirt sophomore when he won the Heisman? His two tackles were Phil Loadholt (2nd round pick, NFL starter) and Trent Williams (first rounder come Thursday). As soon as he got hit as a junior, he got injured, and then injured again. This may seem obvious, but you have to play in order to be worth a #1 pick, and nobody can say with certainty that Bradford is at all durable. And everything that Bradford does well (namely, throw the ball accurately), Clausen does as well. The only difference, really, is that Clausen rubs people the wrong way (which, as I explained, is totally unfair) while Bradford just feels right.
In 5 years, it's very possible that Bradford, or Tebow, or McCoy, or some late-rounder we don't even know will be the best QB out of this draft. Clausen is by no means a perfect prospect. But if my job were on the line and millions of dollars were at stake (as it is for prospective NFL teams), Clausen is the one I'd be willing to bet on. I don't say this as a Notre Dame fan, either; I'm not one to blindly tout Notre Dame players (you don't see me bragging up Golden Tate here, do you?). I say this as someone who was greatly impressed by Clausen's play last season. I think Cleveland, Oakland and Buffalo will make big mistakes if they pass on him on Thursday. And if they do, I want the Minnesota Vikings to trade up for Clausen. Hell, do it anyways; he'd be a great successor to Favre.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Why I weep for society
Let's take a look at the football outsider's comments section to get a sampling of what people think about the Brandon Marshall trade.
"The deals aren't rare. It's just that the team that gets the WR never gets the productivity they believe they're acquiring.
Deion Branch may be a bad example because only Seattle really thought he was a #1 - but regardless he was certainly a young guy who looked like his best days were ahead of him.
There's always Roy Williams, Keyshawn Johnson, Terry Glenn, etc. I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could come up with more names. But the history is that they never seem to live up to their billing."
Of course none of those receivers are as good as Marshall, but whatever.
"Have we done a background check on Josh McDaniels? Could he be an embedded Raider?"
This guy had the same thought I did. Bravo sir.
"Adding high profile jerks to your team most of the time does not make you that much better."
This comes from a self-professed Patriots fan. I love how Patriots fans think their team is just above reproach. Rodney Harrison, Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth...upstanding citizens, all of them.
"Remember though that the coach was Josh "I'm over-compensating for something" McDaniels."
Exactly. McDaniels' napoleon complex is like spotting a toupee.
"Why wasn't Ted Ginn part of this deal?"
Because Ted Ginn is a fucking bum. Next question...
"He's not really a deep threat ( which doesn't matter in Denver's offense, anyway ), aside from some good YAC numbers from year to year. Is he replacable? Yes, I think so, particulary in McD's offense. Getting two #2's is not bad for a guy everybody knew they didn't want to keep."
I like how this guy flippantly disregards Marshall's YAC numbers. Aside from being a big, physical receiver with good speed, good hands, plays the ball extremely well in the air, tough runner after the catch...besides all of that, Marshall sucks. I also like the justification "for a guy everybody knew they didn't want to keep." No consideration to the fact that maybe the Broncos are wrong for not wanting to keep Marshall.
"Homerism at its best.
McD's unique "Five Yard Bubble Screen Offense" will be humming without Marshall's pesky YAC."
Head, meet hammer.
"If you tried to draft a #1 WR with a 2nd round pick, how many tries would it take you to land a receiver of Marshall's caliber?"
This is a good point, but it's fair to mention that Marshall himself was a 4th round pick, so obviously players of that caliber can be found later. It just becomes exponentially harder the later into the draft you get.
I like 2nd round picks as much as anybody, but I think for Marshall you've got to get a first rounder. I know he has an attitude problem, but for fuck's sake, what does the coach get paid for exactly? If you can't manage a group of professional athletes, then Pat Bowlen should spend his millions on someone who can. I think this trade is potentially disastrous for Denver. They aren't a good team, which their 2-8 finish last season can attest to, and they shouldn't be trying to unload every good young player they have. Marshall's a bitch...big deal, deal with it.
If Pat Bowlen had just simply hired Leslie Frazier or someone else to be his head coach, he'd probably have Cutler and Marshall still on his roster, and a dynamic passing game. Instead, he'd better hope to god that McDaniels really is a maniacal genius rather than just a fucking maniac with a napoleon complex.
"The deals aren't rare. It's just that the team that gets the WR never gets the productivity they believe they're acquiring.
Deion Branch may be a bad example because only Seattle really thought he was a #1 - but regardless he was certainly a young guy who looked like his best days were ahead of him.
There's always Roy Williams, Keyshawn Johnson, Terry Glenn, etc. I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could come up with more names. But the history is that they never seem to live up to their billing."
Of course none of those receivers are as good as Marshall, but whatever.
"Have we done a background check on Josh McDaniels? Could he be an embedded Raider?"
This guy had the same thought I did. Bravo sir.
"Adding high profile jerks to your team most of the time does not make you that much better."
This comes from a self-professed Patriots fan. I love how Patriots fans think their team is just above reproach. Rodney Harrison, Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth...upstanding citizens, all of them.
"Remember though that the coach was Josh "I'm over-compensating for something" McDaniels."
Exactly. McDaniels' napoleon complex is like spotting a toupee.
"Why wasn't Ted Ginn part of this deal?"
Because Ted Ginn is a fucking bum. Next question...
"He's not really a deep threat ( which doesn't matter in Denver's offense, anyway ), aside from some good YAC numbers from year to year. Is he replacable? Yes, I think so, particulary in McD's offense. Getting two #2's is not bad for a guy everybody knew they didn't want to keep."
I like how this guy flippantly disregards Marshall's YAC numbers. Aside from being a big, physical receiver with good speed, good hands, plays the ball extremely well in the air, tough runner after the catch...besides all of that, Marshall sucks. I also like the justification "for a guy everybody knew they didn't want to keep." No consideration to the fact that maybe the Broncos are wrong for not wanting to keep Marshall.
"Homerism at its best.
McD's unique "Five Yard Bubble Screen Offense" will be humming without Marshall's pesky YAC."
Head, meet hammer.
"If you tried to draft a #1 WR with a 2nd round pick, how many tries would it take you to land a receiver of Marshall's caliber?"
This is a good point, but it's fair to mention that Marshall himself was a 4th round pick, so obviously players of that caliber can be found later. It just becomes exponentially harder the later into the draft you get.
I like 2nd round picks as much as anybody, but I think for Marshall you've got to get a first rounder. I know he has an attitude problem, but for fuck's sake, what does the coach get paid for exactly? If you can't manage a group of professional athletes, then Pat Bowlen should spend his millions on someone who can. I think this trade is potentially disastrous for Denver. They aren't a good team, which their 2-8 finish last season can attest to, and they shouldn't be trying to unload every good young player they have. Marshall's a bitch...big deal, deal with it.
If Pat Bowlen had just simply hired Leslie Frazier or someone else to be his head coach, he'd probably have Cutler and Marshall still on his roster, and a dynamic passing game. Instead, he'd better hope to god that McDaniels really is a maniacal genius rather than just a fucking maniac with a napoleon complex.
Kyle Orton throwing to smurfs...sign me up!
Okay, you caught me. My cover's blown. A year ago, Pat Bowlen hired me to be head coach of the Denver Broncos under the psuedonym "Josh McDaniels" which is obviously ficticious, with the sole intention of ruining the franchise so he could more easily move it to Los Angeles. I tried my best by trading my 26 year old rocket-armed QB for noted "game manager" Kyle Orton, filling my secondary with aging veterans, and drafting a RB 12th overall when it's well known you can find RBs in virtually any round. Damnit, I tried, but this team somehow pulled off a 6-0 start that made it look like we were heading to the playoffs, before we turned into the team we truly were and finished 8-8. 6-0 to 8-8 is bad, but it's not bad enough to absolutely cripple a franchise. This offseason I had to get rid of more talent, so today I traded Brandon Marshall, one of the best receivers in the NFL, to the Dolphins and didn't even get a first round pick in return.
See, here's the beauty of my plan; we have two 2nd round picks that are just late enough that we probably won't get Demaryius Thomas, Golden Tate or Arrelious Benn. And since I've now made it completely known that I'm running a tight ship (fans are such suckers for that), our fanbase won't even expect me to take the best receiver, and one of the best talents in the draft, Dez Bryant. So I'll end up taking Damian Williams out of USC or Eric Decker out of Minnesota, nice players but probably not game-changers at the next level. Do people realize my two leading receivers are Eddie Royal and Jabar Gaffney, who combined might be as tall as Brandon Marshall?
I gotta say, I've really outdone myself with this trade. In the span of two offseasons, I've completely broken up a great passing game, rather than building upon it by actually, you know, improving out shitty defense. All I had to do was make Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall look like bad guys, which was too easy. Cutler just naturally rubs people the wrong way, and Marshall is a black receiver so it's easy for people to assume he's unmanageable. People might say, "the NFL is a passing league," what with there being ten 4,000 yard passers this past season, but not in Denver it isn't fella!
My next move is to get rid of Tony Scheffler, who's a little too talented. Soft hands, speed to stretch the field...we don't need that circus shit. And then in the draft with our first round pick (did I mention we should have two 1st round picks, but I traded one of them a year ago for a 2nd round pick I used on a shrimp corner named Alphonso Smith, who you've never heard of before? I am a fucking maniacal genius at ruining franchises, let me tell you), I'm thinking of using it on a safety. Safeties generally have little impact on the game, so it's perfect in keeping our roster talent-hungry. Or maybe I'll use it on an interior offensive lineman. I don't know, but I'll tell you right now I'm not drafting Dez Bryant. "He's a locker room cancer." heh heh heh
I think we're perfectly set-up for a 4-12 season, which should continue to erode the fan's confidence in the franchise. Goodell wants a team in L.A. soon, so we've gotta hurry on this. Honestly, my only mistake was not trading Marshall a year ago. But hey...you can't let the fans know you're trying to sabotage their favorite team that easily.
See, here's the beauty of my plan; we have two 2nd round picks that are just late enough that we probably won't get Demaryius Thomas, Golden Tate or Arrelious Benn. And since I've now made it completely known that I'm running a tight ship (fans are such suckers for that), our fanbase won't even expect me to take the best receiver, and one of the best talents in the draft, Dez Bryant. So I'll end up taking Damian Williams out of USC or Eric Decker out of Minnesota, nice players but probably not game-changers at the next level. Do people realize my two leading receivers are Eddie Royal and Jabar Gaffney, who combined might be as tall as Brandon Marshall?
I gotta say, I've really outdone myself with this trade. In the span of two offseasons, I've completely broken up a great passing game, rather than building upon it by actually, you know, improving out shitty defense. All I had to do was make Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall look like bad guys, which was too easy. Cutler just naturally rubs people the wrong way, and Marshall is a black receiver so it's easy for people to assume he's unmanageable. People might say, "the NFL is a passing league," what with there being ten 4,000 yard passers this past season, but not in Denver it isn't fella!
My next move is to get rid of Tony Scheffler, who's a little too talented. Soft hands, speed to stretch the field...we don't need that circus shit. And then in the draft with our first round pick (did I mention we should have two 1st round picks, but I traded one of them a year ago for a 2nd round pick I used on a shrimp corner named Alphonso Smith, who you've never heard of before? I am a fucking maniacal genius at ruining franchises, let me tell you), I'm thinking of using it on a safety. Safeties generally have little impact on the game, so it's perfect in keeping our roster talent-hungry. Or maybe I'll use it on an interior offensive lineman. I don't know, but I'll tell you right now I'm not drafting Dez Bryant. "He's a locker room cancer." heh heh heh
I think we're perfectly set-up for a 4-12 season, which should continue to erode the fan's confidence in the franchise. Goodell wants a team in L.A. soon, so we've gotta hurry on this. Honestly, my only mistake was not trading Marshall a year ago. But hey...you can't let the fans know you're trying to sabotage their favorite team that easily.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Redskins flounder in open water; Eagles toss them a raft
I cannot believe that the Eagles decided to trade Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins. At what point do you decide to trade your starting QB to a division rival? And it's not like they're trading an obviously awful QB (say, Jake Delhomme) to a division rival in hopes that he'll sabotage that team instead of yours; McNabb is still a good player with at least a couple of good seasons left in him.
The Redskins came into the offseason with two major needs: an answer at QB, and offensive line help. They don't have a bad defense, with Brian Orakpo, Andre Carter and Albert Haynesworth in their front seven, and guys like Carlos Rogers, DeAngelo Hall and LaRon Landry in their secondy. I mean, hey it's not great (especially that secondary) but I think you can win with the players they have defensively. For instance, they gave up only 24 points total in two games against Dallas, and yet somehow lost both games.
So now they've found their answer at QB in McNabb (although that may only be a one year answer barring a contract extension), and now they can use their #4 pick on an offensive tackle. They were going to have a major quandary on their hands with that 4th pick, deciding whether to take a QB or OT. But now that they have McNabb, their free to take an OT and will have filled their two major offseason needs. Their offense should be miles better now, and it's all because the Eagles voluntarily gave them their starting QB. They have emerging receiving threats in Devin Thomas and Fred Davis, along with veterans Santana Moss and Chris Cooley. And yeah, this doesn't solve everything for Washington. Even with a new offensive tackle, their offensive line will still be lacking, and those RBs (Portis, Larry Johnson, Willie Parker) are ancient. But this brings them a hell of a lot closer to the playoffs than they would have been otherwise.
The Eagles got good value in return, with a high 2nd round pick and a 3rd or 4th rounder next year. But is it worth it to help out your division rival so greatly? I'm not going to predict it right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Redskins become a playoff team thanks to this trade. Their roster wasn't terrible to begin with (not your average 4-12 team), and they'll have filled their two biggest needs with a good QB and a high draft pick on the offensive line. You couldn't have asked for a better offseason for the Redskins.
As for the Eagles, they're putting all of their eggs in the Kevin Kolb basket, and I think that's a questionable basket. They're around him every day and they think he's ready; I get it. And the Eagles are a successful franchise, so it's tough to question them, but I'm going to go ahead and do it. You'll hear a lot about how Kolb threw for over 300 yards in each of his two starts last year, but the first was a blowout loss to the Saints in which he threw 3 INTs and padded his stats late (shades of Jeff George). And the second was against Kansas City, which barely counts as NFL competition. I don't know...I'm not going to say Kolb isn't ready, but I refuse to blindly accept it as fact. I think it's a hell of a limb to climb out on, for a team that was the 2nd seed in the NFC entering the final week of the season.
So yeah...I think this is a horribly dumb move by the Eagles. Not to trade McNabb necessarily (although he's not as replaceable as they believe), but to trade him within the division and help the Redskins kill two birds with one stone. I think it would be worth it to take a lesser offer from a team that's out of the division and out of the conference. Why would you voluntarily help a team you're in direct competition with? That boggles my mind.
As for other teams who were in the McNabb sweepstakes...yeah, you messed up. The Oakland Raiders could be like the Redskins, meaning a potential playoff team with better quarterbacking, but instead they'll continue with Russell and Gradkowski (good luck with aaaaaall that), and the Cardinals were the team that should have beaten the door down to get McNabb. I heard Adam Schefter on ESPN say that the Cardinals might not be interested because they added a QB...uhh no, Derek Anderson does not count as adding a QB. Derek Anderson should never stand between you picking up McNabb or not. The Cardinals rely on their passing game to lead the way, but Matt Leinart and Anderson are questionable options to trigger that attack. It made so much sense for Arizona to trade for McNabb that, of course, it didn't happen. The Carolina Panthers were another team that made sense for McNabb, but since they're paying Jake Delhomme $12M not to play for them, they'll be saving money this off-season. Hello Matt Moore and his sub-$1M yearly salary.
Good for the Redskins, though, who annually make horrible offseason decisions but are now in great shape to rebound next year. QB situation? Fixed, at least for a year. Offensive line? About to get serious help with the 4th pick. Out-of-his-league head coach? Replaced by the overrated, but still better than Jim Zorn, Mike Shanahan. The odds of the Redskins passing the Eagles in the standings went up exponentially today.
The Redskins came into the offseason with two major needs: an answer at QB, and offensive line help. They don't have a bad defense, with Brian Orakpo, Andre Carter and Albert Haynesworth in their front seven, and guys like Carlos Rogers, DeAngelo Hall and LaRon Landry in their secondy. I mean, hey it's not great (especially that secondary) but I think you can win with the players they have defensively. For instance, they gave up only 24 points total in two games against Dallas, and yet somehow lost both games.
So now they've found their answer at QB in McNabb (although that may only be a one year answer barring a contract extension), and now they can use their #4 pick on an offensive tackle. They were going to have a major quandary on their hands with that 4th pick, deciding whether to take a QB or OT. But now that they have McNabb, their free to take an OT and will have filled their two major offseason needs. Their offense should be miles better now, and it's all because the Eagles voluntarily gave them their starting QB. They have emerging receiving threats in Devin Thomas and Fred Davis, along with veterans Santana Moss and Chris Cooley. And yeah, this doesn't solve everything for Washington. Even with a new offensive tackle, their offensive line will still be lacking, and those RBs (Portis, Larry Johnson, Willie Parker) are ancient. But this brings them a hell of a lot closer to the playoffs than they would have been otherwise.
The Eagles got good value in return, with a high 2nd round pick and a 3rd or 4th rounder next year. But is it worth it to help out your division rival so greatly? I'm not going to predict it right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Redskins become a playoff team thanks to this trade. Their roster wasn't terrible to begin with (not your average 4-12 team), and they'll have filled their two biggest needs with a good QB and a high draft pick on the offensive line. You couldn't have asked for a better offseason for the Redskins.
As for the Eagles, they're putting all of their eggs in the Kevin Kolb basket, and I think that's a questionable basket. They're around him every day and they think he's ready; I get it. And the Eagles are a successful franchise, so it's tough to question them, but I'm going to go ahead and do it. You'll hear a lot about how Kolb threw for over 300 yards in each of his two starts last year, but the first was a blowout loss to the Saints in which he threw 3 INTs and padded his stats late (shades of Jeff George). And the second was against Kansas City, which barely counts as NFL competition. I don't know...I'm not going to say Kolb isn't ready, but I refuse to blindly accept it as fact. I think it's a hell of a limb to climb out on, for a team that was the 2nd seed in the NFC entering the final week of the season.
So yeah...I think this is a horribly dumb move by the Eagles. Not to trade McNabb necessarily (although he's not as replaceable as they believe), but to trade him within the division and help the Redskins kill two birds with one stone. I think it would be worth it to take a lesser offer from a team that's out of the division and out of the conference. Why would you voluntarily help a team you're in direct competition with? That boggles my mind.
As for other teams who were in the McNabb sweepstakes...yeah, you messed up. The Oakland Raiders could be like the Redskins, meaning a potential playoff team with better quarterbacking, but instead they'll continue with Russell and Gradkowski (good luck with aaaaaall that), and the Cardinals were the team that should have beaten the door down to get McNabb. I heard Adam Schefter on ESPN say that the Cardinals might not be interested because they added a QB...uhh no, Derek Anderson does not count as adding a QB. Derek Anderson should never stand between you picking up McNabb or not. The Cardinals rely on their passing game to lead the way, but Matt Leinart and Anderson are questionable options to trigger that attack. It made so much sense for Arizona to trade for McNabb that, of course, it didn't happen. The Carolina Panthers were another team that made sense for McNabb, but since they're paying Jake Delhomme $12M not to play for them, they'll be saving money this off-season. Hello Matt Moore and his sub-$1M yearly salary.
Good for the Redskins, though, who annually make horrible offseason decisions but are now in great shape to rebound next year. QB situation? Fixed, at least for a year. Offensive line? About to get serious help with the 4th pick. Out-of-his-league head coach? Replaced by the overrated, but still better than Jim Zorn, Mike Shanahan. The odds of the Redskins passing the Eagles in the standings went up exponentially today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)