Ross Tucker over at si.com seems like a generally decent writer. He occasionally provides anecdotes from his playing days, and he generally has a good grasp of what's going on in the NFL. But today he wrote an article about how the Broncos have their QB of the future on their roster, and it isn't Tim Tebow but Kyle Orton. So, fine, I mean I would definitely agree that Orton will be a better QB than Tebow over the next few years. But then we get this line:
In Orton, the Broncos already have a winning starter who has gone 29-19 during his career despite never really being "the guy" for either the Bears or the Broncos.
Here we go again (copyright, Whitesnake) with the "only QBs win games" stuff. Ugh, I can't believe I have to explain this.
Fact: Orton's teams do have a 29-19 record when he starts. Also a fact; Orton's 2005 Bears amassed a 10-5 record when he started. Also a fact; Orton completed 52% of his passes that season, with 9 TDs, 13 INTs and a 59 QB rating.
Is there anything in there that makes you believe Orton had anything to do with that 10-5 record? Orton was pretty clearly horrid that season (he was a rookie, after all), but that is the main season in which he amassed his won-loss record. Subtract that season and it drops to 19-14.
Ross Tucker is attempting to make you believe that only Orton affects the wins and losses of his team. Of course, that's not true. The Bears generally had a good defense every year he was in Chicago, although the 2008 unit wasn't that good, as evidenced by the fact that they missed the playoffs. The point is, it's ridiculous to attribute wins and losses to Kyle Orton. Orton is a winner when his defense is playing well and keeping scores reasonable (2005 Bears, first six games for the 2009 Broncos), but he all of a sudden stops winning when his defense crumbles (final ten games for the 2009 Broncos). Is that because Kyle Orton has a magical power to win and lose games by himself? No, it's because football is the ultimate team sport, and he needs a good team.
The main thesis of Tucker's article is fine, which is that Denver was stupid to draft Tebow when they already have a perfectly fine QB. And that's all Orton is, perfectly fine. He has the same problem that Jason Campbell has, which is that he's a league average starter and people don't like that. People either want a really good QB to get behind, or a really bad one to make fun of. Nobody likes having a league average starter that elicits no strong feelings either way.
But to call Kyle Orton a "winner" is to ignore the facts of his career. He had a rough rookie season, which is fine because he shouldn't have been playing and only was because Rex Grossman got injured in the preseason. He didn't become a full-time starter again until 2008, when he had an average season (79 rating) and the Bears finished 9-7 and out of the playoffs. Then last season he played above-average football (87 rating) while the Broncos collapsed from 6-0 to 8-8, unprecedented in the history of the NFL (the 2003 Vikings finished 9-7 after starting 6-0). He is not a "winner" with magic beans and pixie dust, he is a league-average starter capable of playing above-average football, and surrounded by a good team he can win. Surrounded by a mediocre or subpar team, however, Orton all of a sudden isn't such a winner.
I would also like the record to show it is also misleading to claim Orton has "never really been the guy" in either Chicago or Denver, when he was without question the starter for the '08 Bears and '09 Broncos, and will again be the unquestioned starter for the '10 Broncos. I suppose what Tucker means is that nobody has ever given him a big contract and long-term support, which is true, but the statement he uses is factually incorrect.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
What I said then/ What they're saying now
Fans in Arizona are currently freaking out over their QB situation, and rightfully so. They lost a potential Hall of Famer in Kurt Warner, and are replacing him with a couple of backup-level players. Here's what I wrote in March:
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.
So who was it who told the Cardinals to go into the season with these two as their QB options? It obviously wasn't me.
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.
So who was it who told the Cardinals to go into the season with these two as their QB options? It obviously wasn't me.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Things that no one is considering
The Vikings could perform at exactly the same level as last season, and would almost assuredly lose more games. Why? Because the schedule this season is much more difficult.
Last season, the Vikings played the AFC North and NFC West. The AFC North, outside of the Browns, is tough but the NFC West was the worst division in the NFL last season. This season, the Vikings play the AFC East and NFC East. The AFC East, outside of Buffalo, looks to be tough. The NFC East, outside of no one, also looks to be tough. This season, the Vikings will be replacing teams like Cleveland, Seattle and St. Louis with teams like Miami, Philadelphia and Washington. It's a world of difference in the level of competition there.
The Vikings rolled through all of their weak opponents last season, except for an overtime loss at Chicago. This season, the weak opponents are division rival Detroit and Buffalo. That's it. When the Vikings played tougher opponents last season, the results were mixed. They swept Green Bay and beat Baltimore, but lost to Pittsburgh, Arizona and Carolina.
What this means is the Vikings need to actually play better than last season in order to finish with the same 12-4 record. Outside of Detroit and Buffalo, there are no gimmes on the schedule. Last season, they had Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis in the first five weeks. This season, the first five weeks feature New Orleans, Miami and the Jets.
Of course, the season never does go as expected. Maybe the Jets will have a bad season, or the Eagles will fall off. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that those teams, at their worst, are as bad as Cleveland and St. Louis were last season.
------
Something else people seem to forget is that Favre got off to a slow start last season. He threw for about 120 yards in each of the first two games against Cleveland and Detroit, and the offense was not opened up until week 3. The Vikings could afford to do this because they were just that much better than Cleveland Detroit, but that is not the case this season. Favre missed all of training camp last year, and as a result the Vikings eased him into the season against weak opponents. That can't happen this season, as the Vikings open with New Orleans and Miami, and if Favre tries to ease into the season, they'll start 0-2. The Vikings' pass offense needs to come out guns blazing in order to beat New Orleans, and they can't just show up and beat Miami either.
Let me put it this way; I wouldn't be surprised if the storyline after week 2 is "Vikings' passing game struggles; maybe Favre shouldn't have skipped training camp." This schedule is no joke, and it starts in week one.
-----
Does this mean I'm pessimistic about the Vikings' prospects this season? No, I still think this is a talented roster that is quite capable of making a run at the Super Bowl. But I can see the potential pitfalls, and it all starts with the schedule. I mean, how do you like this five game run from October into November; Jets-Dallas-Green Bay-New England-Arizona. Find me a pushover in that group; you can't do it. The Vikings could play plenty good football and come out of that 2-3 or 3-2. The best bet are the final six games, featuring Washington, Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit. Washington and Chicago could be tough, but hoping for Buffalo and Detroit to suck isn't hoping for a miracle.
-----
Fun fact: including the playoffs, the Vikings were 9-0 at home and 4-5 on the road. It's true.
Last season, the Vikings played the AFC North and NFC West. The AFC North, outside of the Browns, is tough but the NFC West was the worst division in the NFL last season. This season, the Vikings play the AFC East and NFC East. The AFC East, outside of Buffalo, looks to be tough. The NFC East, outside of no one, also looks to be tough. This season, the Vikings will be replacing teams like Cleveland, Seattle and St. Louis with teams like Miami, Philadelphia and Washington. It's a world of difference in the level of competition there.
The Vikings rolled through all of their weak opponents last season, except for an overtime loss at Chicago. This season, the weak opponents are division rival Detroit and Buffalo. That's it. When the Vikings played tougher opponents last season, the results were mixed. They swept Green Bay and beat Baltimore, but lost to Pittsburgh, Arizona and Carolina.
What this means is the Vikings need to actually play better than last season in order to finish with the same 12-4 record. Outside of Detroit and Buffalo, there are no gimmes on the schedule. Last season, they had Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis in the first five weeks. This season, the first five weeks feature New Orleans, Miami and the Jets.
Of course, the season never does go as expected. Maybe the Jets will have a bad season, or the Eagles will fall off. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that those teams, at their worst, are as bad as Cleveland and St. Louis were last season.
------
Something else people seem to forget is that Favre got off to a slow start last season. He threw for about 120 yards in each of the first two games against Cleveland and Detroit, and the offense was not opened up until week 3. The Vikings could afford to do this because they were just that much better than Cleveland Detroit, but that is not the case this season. Favre missed all of training camp last year, and as a result the Vikings eased him into the season against weak opponents. That can't happen this season, as the Vikings open with New Orleans and Miami, and if Favre tries to ease into the season, they'll start 0-2. The Vikings' pass offense needs to come out guns blazing in order to beat New Orleans, and they can't just show up and beat Miami either.
Let me put it this way; I wouldn't be surprised if the storyline after week 2 is "Vikings' passing game struggles; maybe Favre shouldn't have skipped training camp." This schedule is no joke, and it starts in week one.
-----
Does this mean I'm pessimistic about the Vikings' prospects this season? No, I still think this is a talented roster that is quite capable of making a run at the Super Bowl. But I can see the potential pitfalls, and it all starts with the schedule. I mean, how do you like this five game run from October into November; Jets-Dallas-Green Bay-New England-Arizona. Find me a pushover in that group; you can't do it. The Vikings could play plenty good football and come out of that 2-3 or 3-2. The best bet are the final six games, featuring Washington, Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit. Washington and Chicago could be tough, but hoping for Buffalo and Detroit to suck isn't hoping for a miracle.
-----
Fun fact: including the playoffs, the Vikings were 9-0 at home and 4-5 on the road. It's true.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Peter King: Arbiter of all that is good and just in this world
I always get a kick out lines like this (from Peter King):
Not much has changed in that regard -- except Roethlisberger is off to a good start doing the right things.
Sportswriters like to use that term a lot; "the right things." As if there's a universal agreement on what's right and what's wrong. Well I'm sorry, but what exactly makes Peter King qualified to judge if Roethlisberger is "doing the right things" or not? Or any sportswriter, for that matter? And yet, you'll see that a lot. "So-and-so is doing the right things to repair his image." "So-and-so always says the right things to the media." What in the hell are the right things? To Peter King, donating money to Amnesty International could be "the right thing." To another person, giving to Amnesty International could be donating money to a radical organization. Who's to judge? Certainly not a sportswriter.
If you read King's article today, you can see what he thinks are the right things.
Roethlisberger used to avoid the local press or either talk down to them or give them nothing of himself; now he asks a couple of them for advice.
He never was much of a teacher on the field to the young receivers. "Now he's helping every one of them,'' said wideout Mike Wallace.
He used to avoid the never-ending autograph lines in camp; now, daily, he signs.
In other words, the right things include talking to the press, helping young wideouts and signing autographs. Of course, none of this precludes Roethlisberger from, say, sexual assaulting someone but I guess it's a start.
And here's an example of "the wrong thing," according to King.
Thirteen months ago, I convened five NFL quarterbacks in a room in Lake Tahoe to have a wide-ranging discussion for Sports Illustrated on the state of the position today. But it almost didn't happen the way I wanted it.
The day before we were to sit down in a restaurant overlooking a golf course, Ben Roethlisberger, who had won his second Super Bowl a few months earlier, told me he wasn't going to do it. Didn't want to. Was too busy. I told him he agreed to do it, and he had to keep his word -- months of planning and arm-twisting had gone into it. So Roethlisberger did it, but he wasn't happy about it. He big-dogged the photographer flown in for the occasion. Roethlisberger didn't give his best effort in the roundtable discussion; he was either texting or talking to one of the other quarterbacks or making calls a good third of the time. He left the room first when it was over, and a couple of us just looked at each other and said, in so many words, "What is wrong with that guy?''
Granted, this all makes Roethlisberger look like a humongous douchebag, but really, who gives a flying fuck about any of this except Peter King? Peter, it may be hard to believe, but the average person doesn't care if Roethlisberger gives you the time of day or not.
But here's what I really love about this story; notice how it's from 13 months ago, which was before last season. That means King buried this story for 13 months, only now pulling it out to make Roethlisberger look bad. I guess as long as he was winning Super Bowls, everything was fine and dandy and we could just bury any juicy tidbits about the guy. But as soon as he's accused of sexual assault, all of the stories about what a douchebag he is come out.
I just wish sportswriters would stay away from the moral judgements, and just stick to their supposed areas of expertise. I don't need Peter King telling me what "the right things" are. I don't need them delving into the psyches of certain players, as if they have even the slightest bit of qualification for it. Just report football news, please. Peter, I read your articles because you get inside access that few have and you'll drop nuggets that no one else will. I do not read your articles for your moral grandstanding. Leave that to the guy upstairs, please.
Not much has changed in that regard -- except Roethlisberger is off to a good start doing the right things.
Sportswriters like to use that term a lot; "the right things." As if there's a universal agreement on what's right and what's wrong. Well I'm sorry, but what exactly makes Peter King qualified to judge if Roethlisberger is "doing the right things" or not? Or any sportswriter, for that matter? And yet, you'll see that a lot. "So-and-so is doing the right things to repair his image." "So-and-so always says the right things to the media." What in the hell are the right things? To Peter King, donating money to Amnesty International could be "the right thing." To another person, giving to Amnesty International could be donating money to a radical organization. Who's to judge? Certainly not a sportswriter.
If you read King's article today, you can see what he thinks are the right things.
Roethlisberger used to avoid the local press or either talk down to them or give them nothing of himself; now he asks a couple of them for advice.
He never was much of a teacher on the field to the young receivers. "Now he's helping every one of them,'' said wideout Mike Wallace.
He used to avoid the never-ending autograph lines in camp; now, daily, he signs.
In other words, the right things include talking to the press, helping young wideouts and signing autographs. Of course, none of this precludes Roethlisberger from, say, sexual assaulting someone but I guess it's a start.
And here's an example of "the wrong thing," according to King.
Thirteen months ago, I convened five NFL quarterbacks in a room in Lake Tahoe to have a wide-ranging discussion for Sports Illustrated on the state of the position today. But it almost didn't happen the way I wanted it.
The day before we were to sit down in a restaurant overlooking a golf course, Ben Roethlisberger, who had won his second Super Bowl a few months earlier, told me he wasn't going to do it. Didn't want to. Was too busy. I told him he agreed to do it, and he had to keep his word -- months of planning and arm-twisting had gone into it. So Roethlisberger did it, but he wasn't happy about it. He big-dogged the photographer flown in for the occasion. Roethlisberger didn't give his best effort in the roundtable discussion; he was either texting or talking to one of the other quarterbacks or making calls a good third of the time. He left the room first when it was over, and a couple of us just looked at each other and said, in so many words, "What is wrong with that guy?''
Granted, this all makes Roethlisberger look like a humongous douchebag, but really, who gives a flying fuck about any of this except Peter King? Peter, it may be hard to believe, but the average person doesn't care if Roethlisberger gives you the time of day or not.
But here's what I really love about this story; notice how it's from 13 months ago, which was before last season. That means King buried this story for 13 months, only now pulling it out to make Roethlisberger look bad. I guess as long as he was winning Super Bowls, everything was fine and dandy and we could just bury any juicy tidbits about the guy. But as soon as he's accused of sexual assault, all of the stories about what a douchebag he is come out.
I just wish sportswriters would stay away from the moral judgements, and just stick to their supposed areas of expertise. I don't need Peter King telling me what "the right things" are. I don't need them delving into the psyches of certain players, as if they have even the slightest bit of qualification for it. Just report football news, please. Peter, I read your articles because you get inside access that few have and you'll drop nuggets that no one else will. I do not read your articles for your moral grandstanding. Leave that to the guy upstairs, please.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Something that continues to gnaw at me
The Cleveland Browns last season had the worst passing game in the NFL. So their off-season plans should have been pretty simple, right? Improve the passing game, improve our scoring, win more games.
Ahh, but see you're not a Mensa-level genius like Mike Holmgren. His first order of business was to make a change at QB. Pretty reasonable, since the passing game was worst in the league and the QB tends to be the most important part of the passing game. But, amazingly, Holmgren changed QBs and actually got worse. He traded Brady Quinn and let Derek Anderson walk, and then brought in Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. Delhomme will be the starter, which he earned by posting a 59 QB rating last season and throwing an astonishing 18 INTs against 8 TDs. Wallace posted decent numbers in backup duty in Seattle, but he's never been an NFL-quality QB and, frankly, his career probably would have been better served had he switched to WR right away.
Granted, Derek Anderson was pretty god-awful last season (competing with JaMarcus Russell all year for the title of worst starting QB), but Quinn at least showed a semblance of competence last season, and besides they're both young QBs who mostly just need a better supporting cast around them. So anyways, let's measure this all up. We'll forget about Anderson and Wallace, who never were or are going to be long-term starters, and focus on Delhomme and Quinn.
Delhomme is much older...he was the worse player last season...he played in a much better offense last season (his top receiver was Steve Smith, while Quinn has never started a game in which his top receiver wasn't either stone-hands Braylon Edwards or 2nd round rookie Mohammed Massaquoi)...he appears to have a mental block after melting down in a playoff game against Arizona over a year ago...and he's the one handed the starting job while Quinn is traded out of town. How does any of this make sense? If you're going to replace Quinn, fine, but actually upgrade over him please.
And then there's the supporting cast. As you may have guessed with the worst passing game in the league, they also have the worst collection of receivers in the league. Mohammed Massaquoi, Josh Cribbs, Chansi Stuckey, Mike Furrey...are you scared yet? Massaquoi actually does have some potential at this level, but he's severely miscast as a team's top receiver, and for a receiver Cribbs makes a hell of a special teamer. Stuckey and Furrey aren't even worth talking about.
This is all a joke, right? You're telling me the Cleveland Browns went into this offseason with the worst passing game in the league, downgraded their QB position and did nothing at receiver? Do they expect their passing game to improve through osmosis? I feel terrible for Cleveland fans right now. Not only did LeBron leave their basketball team and their baseball team is currently hopeless, but they also have to talk themselves into a Delhomme-to-Massaquoi combination.
Mike Holmgren, I know you've coached in three Super Bowls and you developed Brett Favre, but you sir are a fucking idiot. Why did you not go out and get a real QB and some actual receivers? Why are you subjecting your fans to another season of the worst passing game in the league? It's not often you have the worst passing game in the league (have I said that enough yet? I feel like that needs to sink in, because the Cleveland front office apparently doesn't realize it) and standing pat actually turns out to be a better option than what you actually did to improve it, but that certainly appears to be the case. Brady Quinn at least still has some potential (not to mention he actually was better than Delhomme last season), while Delhomme is on the downside of his career and, barring a miraculous late-career renaissance, is finished as an NFL QB.
It's pretty incredible what happened in Cleveland over this offseason. I don't mean LeBron leaving, but the complete ignorance of their passing game incompetence. You would think Holmgren, being a passing game guy, would be the first to recognize it, but instead he actually made things worse. It's not often a team is 32nd in the league in something and actually takes a step backwards, but that's what happened in Cleveland. If they win 4 games, I'll be shocked.
(Additional thought; the Browns actually do have pretty decent offensive line. The right side isn't much, but the other three are Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach and Alex Mack. Jerome Harrison really ran well late in the season, and they drafted Montario Hardesty to split carries with him. If this team had actually upgraded at QB and brought in another receiver to play with Massaquoi, this offense might not be half-bad. As it is, they're tapped out at about 17 points per game.)
Ahh, but see you're not a Mensa-level genius like Mike Holmgren. His first order of business was to make a change at QB. Pretty reasonable, since the passing game was worst in the league and the QB tends to be the most important part of the passing game. But, amazingly, Holmgren changed QBs and actually got worse. He traded Brady Quinn and let Derek Anderson walk, and then brought in Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. Delhomme will be the starter, which he earned by posting a 59 QB rating last season and throwing an astonishing 18 INTs against 8 TDs. Wallace posted decent numbers in backup duty in Seattle, but he's never been an NFL-quality QB and, frankly, his career probably would have been better served had he switched to WR right away.
Granted, Derek Anderson was pretty god-awful last season (competing with JaMarcus Russell all year for the title of worst starting QB), but Quinn at least showed a semblance of competence last season, and besides they're both young QBs who mostly just need a better supporting cast around them. So anyways, let's measure this all up. We'll forget about Anderson and Wallace, who never were or are going to be long-term starters, and focus on Delhomme and Quinn.
Delhomme is much older...he was the worse player last season...he played in a much better offense last season (his top receiver was Steve Smith, while Quinn has never started a game in which his top receiver wasn't either stone-hands Braylon Edwards or 2nd round rookie Mohammed Massaquoi)...he appears to have a mental block after melting down in a playoff game against Arizona over a year ago...and he's the one handed the starting job while Quinn is traded out of town. How does any of this make sense? If you're going to replace Quinn, fine, but actually upgrade over him please.
And then there's the supporting cast. As you may have guessed with the worst passing game in the league, they also have the worst collection of receivers in the league. Mohammed Massaquoi, Josh Cribbs, Chansi Stuckey, Mike Furrey...are you scared yet? Massaquoi actually does have some potential at this level, but he's severely miscast as a team's top receiver, and for a receiver Cribbs makes a hell of a special teamer. Stuckey and Furrey aren't even worth talking about.
This is all a joke, right? You're telling me the Cleveland Browns went into this offseason with the worst passing game in the league, downgraded their QB position and did nothing at receiver? Do they expect their passing game to improve through osmosis? I feel terrible for Cleveland fans right now. Not only did LeBron leave their basketball team and their baseball team is currently hopeless, but they also have to talk themselves into a Delhomme-to-Massaquoi combination.
Mike Holmgren, I know you've coached in three Super Bowls and you developed Brett Favre, but you sir are a fucking idiot. Why did you not go out and get a real QB and some actual receivers? Why are you subjecting your fans to another season of the worst passing game in the league? It's not often you have the worst passing game in the league (have I said that enough yet? I feel like that needs to sink in, because the Cleveland front office apparently doesn't realize it) and standing pat actually turns out to be a better option than what you actually did to improve it, but that certainly appears to be the case. Brady Quinn at least still has some potential (not to mention he actually was better than Delhomme last season), while Delhomme is on the downside of his career and, barring a miraculous late-career renaissance, is finished as an NFL QB.
It's pretty incredible what happened in Cleveland over this offseason. I don't mean LeBron leaving, but the complete ignorance of their passing game incompetence. You would think Holmgren, being a passing game guy, would be the first to recognize it, but instead he actually made things worse. It's not often a team is 32nd in the league in something and actually takes a step backwards, but that's what happened in Cleveland. If they win 4 games, I'll be shocked.
(Additional thought; the Browns actually do have pretty decent offensive line. The right side isn't much, but the other three are Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach and Alex Mack. Jerome Harrison really ran well late in the season, and they drafted Montario Hardesty to split carries with him. If this team had actually upgraded at QB and brought in another receiver to play with Massaquoi, this offense might not be half-bad. As it is, they're tapped out at about 17 points per game.)
Where I become convinced I should be an ESPN writer
ESPN's Elizabeth Merrill did a profile on Brad Childress, and here, in my opinion, is the money quote:
Crazy? Maybe. But in "Chilly's" world, it isn't. He's a risk taker hidden in a mathematician's body, a psychology major buried behind a pair of glasses and a clipboard.
What does that even mean? The only thing worse than bad writing is bad writing disguised as clever prose. At first blush, this all sounds poetic, but once you break down what she's actually saying, it makes no sense at all. These are just a bunch of words strapped together in a sentence; they have no meaning as a group. In other words, this is garbage.
And by the way, anyone who's watched Chilly coach knows he's pretty much the opposite of a risk taker. Back in 2007, he not once but twice punted on 4th and inches late in games, when a first down ends the game and the ball was on the other side of the 50. The only way the opponents (Chicago and Oakland, respectively) could win was by getting the ball back, and Childress willingly did just that.
-----
A question nobody is asking Childress, but I feel is pretty relevant; why exactly are you pinning your hopes on Tarvaris Jackson in the case that Favre doesn't come back? Childress either has a huge blind spot for Jackson, or he was so confident that Favre was coming back that he didn't bother to change the QB position. But either way, the Vikings are perilously close to opening the season with Jackson under center.
I think Jackson is fine as a backup QB, and there's no question he's better than most people realize (meaning, he's mediocre while most people feel he's UFL-quality), but that doesn't mean he should be QBing a team with Super Bowl aspirations. Jackson will never be starting quality because he'll never be accurate enough, and for that reason alone the Vikings should have done something at the QB position to at least secure it for the future, if not finding someone who could start this season in case Favre doesn't come back.
The window of opportunity for the Vikings is closing. Steve Hutchinson, Bryant McKinnie, Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, Kevin Williams and E.J. Henderson are all getting up in age, and they can't play forever. That means the Vikings probably have one more good run in them before these guys start retiring, and once they start retiring there's no guarantee they'll be replaced. And if the Vikings don't get good QB play, they probably won't be making that run.
That day in 2006 when they drafted Jackson may well end up being the day that the Vikings sacrified numerous runs at a Super Bowl. Because of Childress' blind loyalty to Jackson, and his inability to ever be an accurate passer, the Vikings have not done anything to secure their future at QB. They got lucky with Favre last year, but if he does, in fact, retire then the Vikings are right back to where they were, a potential playoff team hindered in its Super Bowl aspirations by a mediocre QB. A mediocre QB that Childress refuses to replace.
This apparently is the Vikings' continued destiny; to be good enough to make a Super Bowl, but never actually get there. They made four Super Bowls in the '70s and haven't been back, despite having very few actual bad seasons. The '80s Vikings had enough talent to go to the Super Bowl; they never did. The '90s Vikings amassed enough talent by the end of the decade to be a Super Bowl team; they never made it. And now in the late '00s the Vikings once again have enough talent to make a Super Bowl, but will probably never make it as well.
Crazy? Maybe. But in "Chilly's" world, it isn't. He's a risk taker hidden in a mathematician's body, a psychology major buried behind a pair of glasses and a clipboard.
What does that even mean? The only thing worse than bad writing is bad writing disguised as clever prose. At first blush, this all sounds poetic, but once you break down what she's actually saying, it makes no sense at all. These are just a bunch of words strapped together in a sentence; they have no meaning as a group. In other words, this is garbage.
And by the way, anyone who's watched Chilly coach knows he's pretty much the opposite of a risk taker. Back in 2007, he not once but twice punted on 4th and inches late in games, when a first down ends the game and the ball was on the other side of the 50. The only way the opponents (Chicago and Oakland, respectively) could win was by getting the ball back, and Childress willingly did just that.
-----
A question nobody is asking Childress, but I feel is pretty relevant; why exactly are you pinning your hopes on Tarvaris Jackson in the case that Favre doesn't come back? Childress either has a huge blind spot for Jackson, or he was so confident that Favre was coming back that he didn't bother to change the QB position. But either way, the Vikings are perilously close to opening the season with Jackson under center.
I think Jackson is fine as a backup QB, and there's no question he's better than most people realize (meaning, he's mediocre while most people feel he's UFL-quality), but that doesn't mean he should be QBing a team with Super Bowl aspirations. Jackson will never be starting quality because he'll never be accurate enough, and for that reason alone the Vikings should have done something at the QB position to at least secure it for the future, if not finding someone who could start this season in case Favre doesn't come back.
The window of opportunity for the Vikings is closing. Steve Hutchinson, Bryant McKinnie, Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, Kevin Williams and E.J. Henderson are all getting up in age, and they can't play forever. That means the Vikings probably have one more good run in them before these guys start retiring, and once they start retiring there's no guarantee they'll be replaced. And if the Vikings don't get good QB play, they probably won't be making that run.
That day in 2006 when they drafted Jackson may well end up being the day that the Vikings sacrified numerous runs at a Super Bowl. Because of Childress' blind loyalty to Jackson, and his inability to ever be an accurate passer, the Vikings have not done anything to secure their future at QB. They got lucky with Favre last year, but if he does, in fact, retire then the Vikings are right back to where they were, a potential playoff team hindered in its Super Bowl aspirations by a mediocre QB. A mediocre QB that Childress refuses to replace.
This apparently is the Vikings' continued destiny; to be good enough to make a Super Bowl, but never actually get there. They made four Super Bowls in the '70s and haven't been back, despite having very few actual bad seasons. The '80s Vikings had enough talent to go to the Super Bowl; they never did. The '90s Vikings amassed enough talent by the end of the decade to be a Super Bowl team; they never made it. And now in the late '00s the Vikings once again have enough talent to make a Super Bowl, but will probably never make it as well.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
In which I criticize Football Outsiders
I love Football Outsiders and all of the work they do, but they keep saying something that is a gross mischaracterization, and frankly is revisionist history. Here's what it is:
"Most quarterbacks in the league would lose their jobs to Kurt Warner," Barnwell said. "We think he'll be a lot better than people are projecting."
They're talking about Matt Leinart, and how he'll do replacing Kurt Warner this season. This quote makes it all seem pretty innocent, right? Leinart was good, but Warner was great so he got the job. Uhh, no, that's not the case at all. This is such a blatant lie that I'm ashamed these very smart people believe it.
Matt Leinart did not lose his job to Kurt Warner because Warner was so great (which he was). Leinart lost his job because he played poorly, and two years ago had such a horrific preseason game against the Oakland Raiders that the Cardinals could not, in good faith, give him the starting job.
You have to remember, Matt Leinart was a first round pick by the Cardinals, so they desperately wanted him to succeed. Teams give former first rounders an obscene amount of chances to succeed, and the Cardinals were no exception. In 2007, Kurt Warner posted a 89.8 QB rating, while Leinart had a 61.9 QB rating. And yet during the 2008 preseason, the Cardinals continued to try and give Leinart the starting job. It wasn't until he threw three picks in a preseason game against the Raiders (that's one half of play, mind you) that they finally gave the job to Warner.
Let's compare Matt Leinart to the oft-criticized Tarvaris Jackson. Do you suppose the guys at Football Outsiders would say, hey, anybody would lose his job to Brett Favre, we still think Jackson is a good player? Uhh, no, nobody would say that. And rightfully so, just as they shouldn't be saying that about Leinart. Career stats:
Leinart:
595 attempts, 57% completion percentage, 14 TDs, 20 INTs, 6.5 yards per attempt, 70.8 rating
Jackson:
545 attempts, 58% completion percentage, 21 TDs, 18 INTs, 6.7 yards per attempt, 77.9 rating
In no way, shape or form has Leinart been better than Jackson, who everyone thinks is a bum who doesn't belong in the NFL. Jackson has been slightly more accurate (let that sink in), more TDs, fewer INTs, better yards per attempt, and a better QB rating. And also keep in mind that Leinart posted those numbers throwing to Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, while Jackson posted most of his numbers throwing to guys like Bobby Wade and Troy Williamson.
This is not to say that Jackson is a viable NFL starter, because he isn't. What it is to say is that Leinart also is not a viable NFL starter, and on top of that it's irresponsible of Football Outsiders to tell people that Leinart lost his job simply because Warner was so good. That wasn't the case at all; he lost it because his play sucked.
Football Outsiders is a smart website, and these guys know better. They're blindly accepting Leinart's hype from college, which is the antithesis of what they preach. Frankly, I'm ashamed of them for doing this. They're supposed to be objective, and here they are quite clearly not being objective at all. Objectively speaking, Leinart has been worse than Tarvaris Jackson playing in a better offense.
"Most quarterbacks in the league would lose their jobs to Kurt Warner," Barnwell said. "We think he'll be a lot better than people are projecting."
They're talking about Matt Leinart, and how he'll do replacing Kurt Warner this season. This quote makes it all seem pretty innocent, right? Leinart was good, but Warner was great so he got the job. Uhh, no, that's not the case at all. This is such a blatant lie that I'm ashamed these very smart people believe it.
Matt Leinart did not lose his job to Kurt Warner because Warner was so great (which he was). Leinart lost his job because he played poorly, and two years ago had such a horrific preseason game against the Oakland Raiders that the Cardinals could not, in good faith, give him the starting job.
You have to remember, Matt Leinart was a first round pick by the Cardinals, so they desperately wanted him to succeed. Teams give former first rounders an obscene amount of chances to succeed, and the Cardinals were no exception. In 2007, Kurt Warner posted a 89.8 QB rating, while Leinart had a 61.9 QB rating. And yet during the 2008 preseason, the Cardinals continued to try and give Leinart the starting job. It wasn't until he threw three picks in a preseason game against the Raiders (that's one half of play, mind you) that they finally gave the job to Warner.
Let's compare Matt Leinart to the oft-criticized Tarvaris Jackson. Do you suppose the guys at Football Outsiders would say, hey, anybody would lose his job to Brett Favre, we still think Jackson is a good player? Uhh, no, nobody would say that. And rightfully so, just as they shouldn't be saying that about Leinart. Career stats:
Leinart:
595 attempts, 57% completion percentage, 14 TDs, 20 INTs, 6.5 yards per attempt, 70.8 rating
Jackson:
545 attempts, 58% completion percentage, 21 TDs, 18 INTs, 6.7 yards per attempt, 77.9 rating
In no way, shape or form has Leinart been better than Jackson, who everyone thinks is a bum who doesn't belong in the NFL. Jackson has been slightly more accurate (let that sink in), more TDs, fewer INTs, better yards per attempt, and a better QB rating. And also keep in mind that Leinart posted those numbers throwing to Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, while Jackson posted most of his numbers throwing to guys like Bobby Wade and Troy Williamson.
This is not to say that Jackson is a viable NFL starter, because he isn't. What it is to say is that Leinart also is not a viable NFL starter, and on top of that it's irresponsible of Football Outsiders to tell people that Leinart lost his job simply because Warner was so good. That wasn't the case at all; he lost it because his play sucked.
Football Outsiders is a smart website, and these guys know better. They're blindly accepting Leinart's hype from college, which is the antithesis of what they preach. Frankly, I'm ashamed of them for doing this. They're supposed to be objective, and here they are quite clearly not being objective at all. Objectively speaking, Leinart has been worse than Tarvaris Jackson playing in a better offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)