I was looking up stats on Washington QB Jake Locker, and I came across this beauty of a quote:
Schefter posted on his Twitter page that an anonymous NFL GM, in speaking with ESPN NFL analyst Chris Mortensen, told Mortensen that Locker is "a bigger, taller, right-handed version of Steve Young."
You know, when I go about comparing players, I try to come up with as many differences between the two as possible. And you wonder how Cleveland can go into a season with Seneca Delhomme at QB, and Buffalo can go with a three-headed monster (Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Brohm) equivalent to the center situation of the Chicago Bulls during their second three-peat (Longley, Wennington, Perdue).
Little known fact; half of the teams in the league are run by fucking idiots, and I don't say that lightly. Cleveland is horrific on offense; they use their top two picks on a corner and safety. Buffalo needs a QB in the worst way; they draft a situational RB and a nose tackle nobody's heard of (and hire Chan Gailey to coach these players, on top of all that). JaMarcus Russell somehow manages to underperform Ryan Leaf; Oakland refuses to cut him (I'm still hoping Al comes to his senses on that one, or someone pulls the plug on him so they can finally get rid of that fat fucking disgrace; I can't handle anymore 6-24 performances against UFL-level Kansas City).
This is how Dallas ends up with one of the three most talented players in the draft with the 24th pick. This is how Baltimore trades out of the first round, and still manages to acquire two good young players for their front seven (Sergio Kindle and Terrance Cody). This is how Carolina, without a first round pick, ends up with a potential starting QB at 48. Because teams like Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland and Kansas City are run absolutely horrifically. Kansas City has no nose tackle or pass rush; they draft a safety (a damn good one, but still a safety). And then in the 2nd round they come back with Dexter McCluster, who's not quite a WR or RB, and Javier Arenas, who's a nice nickel corner and potential return guy. These are nice picks if the team is loaded, but the Chiefs quite clearly are not. Russell Okung pushes Branden Albert to another position and kills two birds with one stone, but that would be smart. The two 2nd round picks that Baltimore made would have been great for Kansas City, but they went for situational players instead. Apparently they don't realize the only situations they'll be in next year are on the receiving end of blowout losses. And let's not forget that they're QB'ed by captain checkdown, Matt Cassel.
All I ask are that teams be run logically. I don't have to agree with every move, since I'm not perfect either. But at least let me see the logic in these moves. These teams (Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland, Kansas City) are completely illogical. Let's face it; the Raiders are only getting credit for drafting Rolando McClain because the expectations are so low for Oakland. Drafting anyone other than Usain Bolt was going to be seen as a success for them, after last year's disaster. But come on...8 is a bit high to be drafting a middle linebacker. Patrick Willis is the best MLB in football, and one of the best to come around in a long time, and he was drafted 12th overall I believe. Brian Urlacher went 9th once upon a time. Lofa Tatupu and Karlos Dansby were 2nd rounders; Jon Beason went in the last first. The point is, the top-10 is not good value for a MLB, but since Oakland's draft was such a resounding disaster last season, the fact that they drafted anyone close to value at 8 was seen as successful, but in actuality it speaks to how ineptly they're run. We expect so little of them that even when they do make a semi-questionable pick, it's okay because at least it wasn't a track star playing football.
The Bills didn't draft a QB until the 7th round. The Browns didn't draft one until the 3rd round, and the one they did draft has a noddle arm that should be a real treat to watch in the circling winds off of Lake Erie. You wonder how this can happen with millions of dollars, and people's careers, at stake and then you remember...oh yeah, these are the same people who compare Jake Locker to Steve Young by contrasting them in every way.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
An airball of an attempt to defend an MVP vote
I try not to write about the NBA here, as it's not really my cup of tea. But I had to pass along this article written by John Denton, a writer for orlandomagic.com, and someone who voted Dwight Howard MVP over LeBron James. I'm willing to listen to a defense of anything, even something as insane as Howard over LeBron, so let's get into it.
http://www.nba.com/magic/news/denton_howardmvpvote_050310.html
"I am here today to defend the Defensive Player of the Year, highlight the player usually left off SportsCenter’s highlights and say what those at ABC with their Cavs-Lakers pompons in the way won’t say:
It’s no slam dunk that LeBron James, as great of a player as he is, is absolutely, positively the best basketball player in the NBA."
I love, love, love the way he starts this out. Look at how defensive he is; can't you just hear the whiny tone? "The Cavs and Lakers are popular, whaa whaa whaa." Dwight Howard, of course, is popular in his own right, so this is a bogus assertion, but the real beauty is the last sentence. Realize for a second that he's voting for MVP, and he's basing his vote on the notion that maybe LeBron isn't the best player in the league. Uhh, Mr. Denton, what you need to prove is not that LeBron isn't the best player in the league, but that Dwight Howard is. Remember, you voted him for MVP.
"After all, Howard did something this season – lead the NBA in rebounds, blocked shots and field goal percentage – that no NBA player has done in the past 36 years."
Do you know why Howard has such a high field goal percentage? Because the only shots he takes are easy dunks and put-backs. He has a limited offensive game, therefore the only time he actually shoots the ball is when he's pretty much guaranteed to put it in. This is actually a point against Howard, in my opinion. If he was a true MVP he'd be taking more shots, as the Magic would run the offense through him. Instead he rebounds their missed 3s and puts down easy dunks. I'm not saying this a bad thing, I'm just saying you voted this guy freaking MVP for his high field goal percentage when it's only that high because of his own ineptitude.
Ahem...moving on.
"The NBA’s MVP is quickly becoming the Heisman Trophy of individual awards. In college football, quarterbacks and running backs are basically the only ones up for the award. And in the NBA, if you aren’t a high scoring wing player, you apparently have no shot at winning the top individual honor. Clearly, it’s defense by damned."
Again we get back to being defensive. I like the line, "if you aren't a high scoring wing player you can't win MVP." Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson...nope, no MVPs among them.
I was willing to listen to his defense of his vote, but he's such a whiny bitch that I can't hardly handle it anymore. Nobody would argue that Dwight Howard isn't a great defensive player; nobody would argue that he isn't the MVP of the Magic. However, we're talking the entire NBA here, and I think it's pretty clear who the best player in the NBA is. And you haven't even remotely convinced me otherwise. You know who else was a great defensive center? Dikembe Mutombo. That doesn't mean he was ever MVP of the NBA.
Okay, two more beauties:
"And unlike James, who took six games off down the stretch, Howard played all 82 games for a fifth time in his six-year career."
"And I know the award is based on this past season alone, but I do think it’s worth noting that it was Howard’s Magic -- and not James’ Cavs -- who emerged from the Eastern Conference last spring."
Yeah that's right...he's docking LeBron because he sat out 6 meaningless games at the end of the season. And I would love to know why it's worth noting what happened last season when the award is for this season.
-----
I'm a big fan of Hakeem Olajuwon, although I wasn't so much when he played (mainly because he knocked out Barkley's Suns two years in a row). But as big of a fan as I am of Olajuwon, I would never say he was a better player than Michael Jordan. And that's essentially what this guy is doing. When people say it's insane to vote Howard over LeBron, it isn't because nobody appreciates Howard's skills. Everybody recognizes what a great defensiver player he is, and what he means to the Magic. But LeBron is the modern-day Jordan, the best player in the league and probably by a wide margin. There's no shame in what Howard is doing, and if you want to vote him first team all-NBA...well, that's a no-brainer.
But the only MVP votes that Howard got were from media members close the Orlando Magic, and they should have their votes rescinded. Whenever a media member shows that level of obvious bias, they should be taken out of the voting. The fact that nobody else in the country had Howard as the league's MVP shows you the level of bias here.
http://www.nba.com/magic/news/denton_howardmvpvote_050310.html
"I am here today to defend the Defensive Player of the Year, highlight the player usually left off SportsCenter’s highlights and say what those at ABC with their Cavs-Lakers pompons in the way won’t say:
It’s no slam dunk that LeBron James, as great of a player as he is, is absolutely, positively the best basketball player in the NBA."
I love, love, love the way he starts this out. Look at how defensive he is; can't you just hear the whiny tone? "The Cavs and Lakers are popular, whaa whaa whaa." Dwight Howard, of course, is popular in his own right, so this is a bogus assertion, but the real beauty is the last sentence. Realize for a second that he's voting for MVP, and he's basing his vote on the notion that maybe LeBron isn't the best player in the league. Uhh, Mr. Denton, what you need to prove is not that LeBron isn't the best player in the league, but that Dwight Howard is. Remember, you voted him for MVP.
"After all, Howard did something this season – lead the NBA in rebounds, blocked shots and field goal percentage – that no NBA player has done in the past 36 years."
Do you know why Howard has such a high field goal percentage? Because the only shots he takes are easy dunks and put-backs. He has a limited offensive game, therefore the only time he actually shoots the ball is when he's pretty much guaranteed to put it in. This is actually a point against Howard, in my opinion. If he was a true MVP he'd be taking more shots, as the Magic would run the offense through him. Instead he rebounds their missed 3s and puts down easy dunks. I'm not saying this a bad thing, I'm just saying you voted this guy freaking MVP for his high field goal percentage when it's only that high because of his own ineptitude.
Ahem...moving on.
"The NBA’s MVP is quickly becoming the Heisman Trophy of individual awards. In college football, quarterbacks and running backs are basically the only ones up for the award. And in the NBA, if you aren’t a high scoring wing player, you apparently have no shot at winning the top individual honor. Clearly, it’s defense by damned."
Again we get back to being defensive. I like the line, "if you aren't a high scoring wing player you can't win MVP." Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson...nope, no MVPs among them.
I was willing to listen to his defense of his vote, but he's such a whiny bitch that I can't hardly handle it anymore. Nobody would argue that Dwight Howard isn't a great defensive player; nobody would argue that he isn't the MVP of the Magic. However, we're talking the entire NBA here, and I think it's pretty clear who the best player in the NBA is. And you haven't even remotely convinced me otherwise. You know who else was a great defensive center? Dikembe Mutombo. That doesn't mean he was ever MVP of the NBA.
Okay, two more beauties:
"And unlike James, who took six games off down the stretch, Howard played all 82 games for a fifth time in his six-year career."
"And I know the award is based on this past season alone, but I do think it’s worth noting that it was Howard’s Magic -- and not James’ Cavs -- who emerged from the Eastern Conference last spring."
Yeah that's right...he's docking LeBron because he sat out 6 meaningless games at the end of the season. And I would love to know why it's worth noting what happened last season when the award is for this season.
-----
I'm a big fan of Hakeem Olajuwon, although I wasn't so much when he played (mainly because he knocked out Barkley's Suns two years in a row). But as big of a fan as I am of Olajuwon, I would never say he was a better player than Michael Jordan. And that's essentially what this guy is doing. When people say it's insane to vote Howard over LeBron, it isn't because nobody appreciates Howard's skills. Everybody recognizes what a great defensiver player he is, and what he means to the Magic. But LeBron is the modern-day Jordan, the best player in the league and probably by a wide margin. There's no shame in what Howard is doing, and if you want to vote him first team all-NBA...well, that's a no-brainer.
But the only MVP votes that Howard got were from media members close the Orlando Magic, and they should have their votes rescinded. Whenever a media member shows that level of obvious bias, they should be taken out of the voting. The fact that nobody else in the country had Howard as the league's MVP shows you the level of bias here.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Just a reminder on how stupid NFL teams can be
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)