The Philadelphia 76ers have hired Sam Hinkie as their new president of basketball operations and general manager. They fired (wait, I'm sorry he resigned and is now an advisor to the team...so he completely wasn't fired nor was he going to be fired) Doug Collins, which really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who has paid attention to Collins' coaching history. Take a look at Collins' coaching record and you will notice two things. He's pretty good at turning teams around, but he doesn't stay long. The 76ers have hired a Stanford MBA graduate (that's Hinkie) as their new GM and Marcus Hayes is feeling very passive-aggressive about it. It's not that he doesn't like the hire, because he doesn't have quite the balls necessary to come out and say this, but he seems quite suspicious of whether this more analytical approach is going to work or not. It seems a Stanford MBA is very impressive unless you plan on getting a job in sports. Actually, it's fine to get a job playing sports and have a degree from Stanford (see: Andrew Luck, various other athletes who graduated from Stanford), the media loves that, but don't ever think of graduating from Stanford with an advanced degree and believe you can work in the front office of a professional team. Stanford degrees are only good for playing sports, not running a sports team.
Josh Harris acquired Twinkies and Hinkie in the same calendar year.
Either move could make the billionaire investor look like a Ding Dong.
What a gripping first sentence. I'm enraptured with this column already. Analytics are stupid. Long live measuring a player's ability through intangibles like how much heart the player has and clutchiness.
Harris' group of investment sharks, Apollo Global Management, in March bought a piece of Hostess out of bankruptcy.
Harris'
group of hoops hobbyists, the Philadelphia 76ers, last week hired
35-year-old Stanford MBA graduate Sam Hinkie to be the team's president
of basketball operations and general manager.
Making an attempt to purchase a company out of bankruptcy is being an "investment shark," while buying the 76ers is being a "hobbyist." I like how Hayes shades his comments. Basketball is just a hobby because Josh Harris clearly knows nothing about sports since he received an MBA from Stanford. Anyone who goes to Stanford for business can't know anything about sports. These types of people only understand numbers and how to run a business, and we all know running or managing a professional sports team doesn't require any knowledge on how to understand numbers nor is a sports team a business.
Twinkies have a timeless allure.
Hinkie is more the flavor of the month.
I see Hayes is going for the Bill Plaschke method of journalism in writing one sentence per paragraph. It's always fun to read an article written by a grown man that reads like a four year old's book about a boy and his lost dog.
"Billy woke up very sad."
"He couldn't find his dog, Sam. Where is Sam?"
"Billy went outside to look for Sam."
Considering the evolving nature of sports, Hinkie's profile and his
background might endear him to half of the Sixers' fan base and doom him
in the eyes of the rest.
Since sports are evolving towards more stats-oriented performance measurements and we all know any type of evolution is only a fad, clearly this is a good reason for Hinkie to be the flavor of the month. Who cares if the definition of "evolution" would indicate that something that is evolving isn't only doing so for a short period of time? Marcus likes that word and doesn't care if the use of the word in this sentence above contradicts his contention Hinkie is a flavor of the month.
Half a decade will pass before Hinkie's analytics-based approach can be fairly judged.
And outside of the 76ers winning a few NBA titles I don't think it will be fairly judged even at that point by Hayes.
Harris, whose investments also have included cruise lines, knows a bad
boat when he sees it. This 34-win ship is listing severely.
Oh, so Harris knows a bad boat simply because he owns a cruise line? What does Harris and his investment group know about a cruise line? He isn't a travel agent and he has never been the captain of a ship. You can't just plug numbers into a computer and this means guests on a cruise ship will have a great time. Harris probably hasn't ever been out of his mom's basement, much less been in the sun long enough to know how to run a cruise line. Yet he thinks he knows how to run a cruise line? There are real people who work on the ship, not just numbers that can be put in a calculation. You can't calculate fun!
(See how silly this type of criticism sounds when not applied to sports and applied to other types of businesses?)
Hinkie was part of the Rockets' retooling this past offseason that
landed James Harden, Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik. He worked under Houston
GM Daryl Morey, a new-age, big-picture man who runs his operation
without fear of ridicule.
He runs his operation without fear of ridicule mainly because there isn't a reason to ridicule him. Also, I can't believe Marcus Hayes just described an NBA GM as a "big-picture man." This just seems like a description that goes without saying. There are probably GM's who don't seemingly look at the big-picture, but it is a GM's job to look at the big-picture. It's incredibly necessary. This description should go without mention because it seems so obvious from the job description to be an NBA GM. It's sad he has to include this description because it means there are not big-picture GM's running NBA teams.
Hinkie will be given a sledgehammer and a smartphone by Harris, a fellow geek.
And there is nothing wrong with being given a sledgehammer to change a team Marcus Hayes describes as:
This 34-win ship is listing severely.
Also, a lot of people have a smartphone. It's not just for geeks. Putting a smartphone together with calling someone a geek simply displays your own ignorance and fear of technology. It's not a good look. Of course Marcus Hayes was responsible for this classic chat, so I guess all bets are off when he writes a column. I guess we are just lucky he isn't calling Josh Harris a racist.
Fortysomethings and their elders likely will roll their eyes and regard Hinkie as part of an overvalued wave of fantasy nerds
Of course Marcus would never think these same things about Hinkie. This last sentence is what everyone else thinks about the Hinkie hire and not Marcus Hayes' opinion. Not at all. He is just very good at describing how these fortysomethings and their elders feel.
who use probabilities as sacred texts and who forsake what their eyes and their hearts (and their scouts) tell them.
Very impressive. This is one of the least intelligent descriptions of those who use analytics to evaluate basketball players. It's hard to see how Marcus Hayes has a clue about what he is discussing or trying to prove when he writes shit like this. I'm betting Marcus really thinks the Houston Rockets don't even have scouts. They just have a huge computer and Daryl Morey sitting in a room making decisions on which players to sign or draft without ever watching these players play. Even if the Rockets had scouts they would simply ignore them and do what their spreadsheets and "sacred texts" tell them to do. I'm not even sure what the fuck a "sacred text" is, but it's clear Marcus Hayes is very afraid of statistics, but not afraid at all of sounding like an ignorant dumbass when discussing said statistics.
It never fails to amuse me how these sportswriters frame those who use analytics to evaluate players. These sportswriters frame these descriptions in a way that is chock-full of ignorance and an outright fear of any alternative method of evaluating a player.
The thirtysomethings and their Freakonomics legions likely will rejoice
that the Sixers have moved past sexagenarian Doug Collins, the crusty
coach who just quit.
I love the assumption the "Freakonomics legions" are as closed-minded as those who criticize the "Freakonomics legions" seem to be. It's not entirely true in my opinion. Marcus Hayes did refer to Collins' exit as like a Shakespeare tragedy of sorts, so I'm not even sure what to take from that.
Replacing Collins, of course, will be Hinkie's most urgent task.
Most NBA teams do need a head coach. It's always an important position to fill.
Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard was a panelist at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, where the ComicCon alumni
This is just weak. I think bashing nerds has become the new puff piece. If a columnist is looking for an easy writing assignment that won't require much thought and one in which he can basically just re-word previously written works, just write about nerds and use a few generic references to what nerds like (basements, computers, comic books, ComicCon, statistics). It's like Mad-Libs for sportswriters.
who now work in sports administration meet to plot their revenge against the jocks they employ.
Why would they want revenge? Because they got wedgies in the locker room after P.E.in middle school, that's why! This shitty article almost writes itself.
Hinkie was a candidate for the same job last year, but Collins' distaste
for applied analytics and his assumption of complete control of the
franchise would have clashed with Hinkie's religion.
Oh, so the coach who just resigned and helped built a 34 win team didn't like Hinkie and this is a strike against Hinkie? Of course no analytics-bashing column would be complete without a reference to analytics as a "religion," as if Collins' own distaste for applied analytics and wanting complete control of the franchise can't be perceived as a religion in its own right.
The Sixers opted instead to promote Tony DiLeo, a loyal soldier for more
than 2 decades – who, it should be noted, appreciates analytics in NBA
strategies. DiLeo is expected to be let go.
Just another strike against analytics, the religion of dorks. Applied analytics didn't work for one season so they clearly will never work.
And, lest anyone throw aside conventional wisdoms, consider this: The
Oakland A's, sport's pioneer into calculus-dependent franchise-building,
have made the playoffs just six times in Billy Beane's 15 seasons as
GM, and have won one playoff series.
Morons like Marcus Hayes don't even understand what they are criticizing. The A's don't claim to know everything. They play in a small market and don't feel they have a chance at making the playoffs at all if they don't look for overlooked players and inefficiencies in the market. That's what they are about, looking for inefficiencies in the market, not worshiping statistics.
How much credit should Hinkie get for Houston's qualified success? Who are his guys?
Fashionable, serviceable point guard Lin? Prized shooting guard Harden?
You can't really argue against the acquisition of James Harden. That was a great move.
Did Hinkie slam his red stapler on Morey's desk and threaten to burn down the building if Asik stayed in Chicago?
And we have a random "Office Space" reference. Let's brainstorm how this one came about. A character in "Office Space" loved his stapler, he was moved around the office a lot, had his office moved to the basement, and eventually burnt down the building. Nerds live in the basement. Hinkie is a nerd who lives in the basement so he obviously has a red stapler and is prone to burning buildings down. Brainstorm done. That's how we got to the random "Office Space" reference.
Of course, there are facets to running a team that cannot be graphed.
There are also facets of running a team that can't be seen through the eyes of a grizzled old scout.
How do you quantify chemistry?
That's easy. Bill Simmons says chemistry can be quantified by counting the number of high fives a team gives to each other.
What metric gauges the likelihood of, say, players eating chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse during games?
What's the likelihood eating chicken and beer in the clubhouse during a game will cause a team to lose quite a few games in a row?
Even if Hinkie is an eyes-on GM, an eager, tireless scout, does that mean he knows what he's seeing?
One would hope Hinkie understands and knows what he is seeing, though contrary to Marcus Hayes' opinion, the 76ers will still employ scouts that will give reports on what they see to Hinkie.
Harris has hired what he knows; what has worked for him in the past.
Dispassionate acquisition and manipulation of resources, inevitable
"reorganization" of "assets," resulted in a lack of humanism that helped
lead to the disastrous moves the Sixers made last year.
But you just said that Doug Collins wouldn't relinquish complete control of the 76ers team and that is why Hinkie wasn't considered for GM last year. You can't have it both ways. The 76ers can't have rejected Hinkie's methods while also adopting them and failing in the process. Don't blame Hinkie for another GM's failings simply because you are not informed enough to understand how applied analytics works in the NBA.
The questions about Bynum's toughness, professionalism and commitment
all turned out to be warranted. Any questions about Andre Iguodala's
value were not.
Marcus Hayes has a huge hard-on for Andre Iguodala. I would imagine he has spent quite a few nights outside of Iguodala's residence reciting poetry that extols Iguodala's virtues to all within ear shot. Iguodala is to Marcus Hayes as Brett Favre is to Peter King.
Still, teams implement everything they can to produce wins. Consider some of the better teams over the past few seasons.
After passive-aggressively bashing applied analytics, this is the part where Marcus Hayes desperately plays both sides and starts to acknowledge some of these methods could work. See, he is against and for the use of applied analytics. However it works out for the 76ers in the future, he will be right, and can write a column saying how he KNEW this is the outcome that would occur if the 76ers used/didn't use applied analytics to evaluate basketball players.
The Celtics, operating in the shadow of the sabergeeks at Fenway, hired
Harvard law grad Mike Zarren almost a decade ago, and he advanced to
assistant GM as the team acquired stars like Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen
– but also was bolstered by less-heralded veterans Jeff Green and
Brandon Bass.
I wouldn't say the acquisition of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen was an analytics decision any more than it was a decision to trade for two Hall of Fame players who wanted a championship ring.
Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is rabid about analytics. The Spurs, perhaps
the benchmark for professionalism, have used an analytics arm for years.
Heat coach Erik Spoelstra created the team's stats system when he was
Pat Riley's gofer, and Spoelstra uses the software to run simulations.
It's almost like when analytics are applied with the use of old-fashioned scouting, along with good coaching, they can help a team win playoff games be successful. Choosing to use analytics isn't necessarily an "either/or" situation when compared to the decision to use grizzled, old scouts. Marcus Hayes is very desperate to paint it as an "either/or" situation though.
15 NBA teams that have installed SportVU, the Stats, Inc. camera system
that tracks players and the ball and how they relate and interact.
SportVU is not, of course, the only such tool, nor is it universally
loved by analytic nuts. The Heat, for instance, does not have one.
Again, it is almost like all stats geeks aren't exactly alike. What a shock that is for Marcus since he much prefers placing any ideas or theories he doesn't like or understand into a little box and make generalized, universal assumptions about the people who believe or follow those ideas or theories.
The Sixers also hired Aaron Barzilai in November, long after he might
have analyzed a trade for a player such as, say, Andrew Bynum . . . an
unfortunate timing development, perhaps.
Barzilai's basketballvalue.com website computed players' values for the two seasons that preceded the end of the 2012 playoffs.
The website showed that, remarkably, Andre Iguodala was slightly more
valuable than Kevin Durant . . . and was worth considerably more than
Andrew Bynum.
Any measure that says Andre Iguodala is very, very valuable is a measure that Marcus Hayes can get behind. Maybe that's what this column was all about really, making sure the reader knew that trading Hayes' idol and BFF Andre Iguodala was a bad idea.
This column had zero "likes" on Facebook at the time I wrote this column. This shouldn't be a shock after all, only nerds use computers for such things like Facebook.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
2 comments Bleacher Report Makes a List of Lazy Minority Baseball Players
Okay, well maybe Bleacher Report didn't specifically attempt to make a list of lazy minority baseball players, but I figured the tabloid-ish title was appropriate when discussing a Bleacher Report article/column/slideshow. The author compiles a "Least Likely to Hustle" team and it has one white guy on the team, whose presence on the list is fiercely debated in the comments. You don't call David Wright lazy apparently. This team consists of players who are not going to hustle and work hard on the baseball field. Ironically the very idea of writing a slideshow on the laziest players in MLB is a very lazy column idea. In writing this slideshow I would place the author on a "Least Likely to Think Hard for a Column Idea" team.
A lot can be said about a player who runs his hardest every time he takes the field.
And most of what will be said is in the form of useless hyperbole followed by the regular use of synonyms for the word "gritty."
Some players simply don’t hustle around the bases; they usually takes their time, especially if they hit a routine ground ball to the shortstop.
Chipper Jones occasionally didn't hustle out ground balls to second base or to first base. He's not an active player and isn't on this list, but not surprisingly I've never heard him called lazy for failing to run these ground balls out. I mention this because one instance of not hustling got a couple of players included on this "not hustling" team, so I would think Chipper's periodic jogs to first base could have earned him a spot.
Want an example of a player who hustles? Bryce Harper. He arguably hustles more than any other player in baseball.
Want an article filled with hyperbole? Look no further than this column where the author says Bryce Harper "arguably" hustles more than any other player in baseball. It's good the "arguably" was included because there's no fucking way to determine which player actually hustles the most. Arguably, this is a dumb sentence.
If there were a team that wasn’t likely to hustle, here are the players who would be on it.
Let's start the slideshow! The team is broken down by position, so it's just like a real baseball team! Well, there are no relief pitchers represented, so it is broken down like a real baseball team from the early 1900's when starting pitchers always threw a complete game.
Carlos Santana, Cleveland Indians
Let's find out why Santana made this team...
Santana is much better known for his power from behind the plate. Because Santana hits a solid amount of home runs—55 over the course of his four-year career including four so far in the 2013 season—he gets to round the bases at his leisure.
So Sanchez is lazy because he hits a lot of home runs. Boy, Babe Ruth must have been really, really super lazy then.
A bunch of catchers could qualify for this position on this team, but Santana fits relatively well. Watching video of him, even just from this season, it’s obvious that he doesn’t round the bases as quickly as he could.
So video, unlinked in this column of course, show that Carlos Santana doesn't round the bases as quickly as he could? Maybe I will search for my own evidence.
This is the only video evidence I could find and I wouldn't call that being lazy, but being dumb about base-running. There was an incident on August 30, 2012 where Santana was benched for a lack of hustle, but that was one incident and he seemed contrite. I guess one incident of not hustling is enough to make this list. In fact, if you Google "Carlos Santana hustling" then the fourth link that comes up is this very article. This is the Bleacher Report dream. The article written about how Carlos Santana doesn't hustle can be cited as evidence he doesn't hustle when doing an internet search on the topic. Those algorithms really work!
So Carlos Santana doesn't hustle because one time he didn't hustle. Plus, there is a bunch of video out there proving this point is true. Go look for it because the author doesn't have the time or energy to link it as proof what he is saying is correct.
Carlos Lee, Free Agent
Carlos Lee is currently one of many players without a major or minor league contract, and we’re well past the offseason and spring training. Is there still a chance that he signs a deal? Sure, but teams may be concerned with his hustle.
Or they may be concerned he is 36 years old, not a good defensive player, and hit .264/.332/.365 last year. His salary demands could also be the reason.
Spoiler alert: the salary demands appear to be the reason Carlos Lee isn't signed. Yes it is true, the author wonders whether it is Lee's lack of hustle that wards teams off from signing him, then links an article where Lee's salary demands are stated as being the main reason he hasn't signed a deal with a team. So the author proves his own hypothesis wrong. Brilliant writing.
Although he can probably still hit, there’s still the perception that he lacks hustle, according to an April 2012 article on Fox Sports Houston (h/t YardBarker).
Why does the perception become a reality? From the article:
Often maligned for his real or perceived lack of hustle in the past it can not be denied that Lee can still hit the ball better than the average player.
This perception doesn't mean Lee lacks hustle. So why is he on the "Least Likely to Hustle" team?
So even with his five times on base and two RBIs his game on Tuesday was not flawless. He has brought leadership and yes, hustle, to the young Astros and so far is a role model to be followed.
So the article linked to provide evidence that Lee still lacks hustle actually goes out of its way to mention that Lee in fact DOES hustle. Again, brilliant writing. Bleacher Report has landed a great writer.
Maybe he sees that if he wants to change his mind and play more he needs to change perceptions. Astro fans know what those perceptions are. Carlos Lee can hit, but doesn't always (or often) hustle.
Again, it is a perception and the author is needlessly and foolishly buying into this perception by placing Lee on his team of players who don't hustle. Way to reinforce a perception that may or may not be true.
Also, I love the idea of Bleacher Report citing Yardbarker for a column link. It's like the "The National Enquirer" citing "US Weekly" about whether Jennifer Aniston is pregnant or not.
Lee is in actuality a happy go lucky guy who plays the percentages. He knows how fast he has to run to get to a ball and make a play. He knows when false hustle is just to make him look good, but really not productive. The problem is that when he measures his running effort it appears to be lack of hustle.
But again, reinforcing a perception with the only evidence this perception being true is the existence of a perception is ridiculously bad writing. The appearance of not hustling in the past doesn't serve as evidence that Lee doesn't hustle now. The author basically says, "There is a perception Lee doesn't hustle so that means he doesn't hustle and that's why he is on this list."
Ken Davidoff of the New York Post wrote in March that Lee hasn’t been willing to sign for a low-base salary.
So maybe the fact Lee doesn't want a low base salary is the reason he has not been signed yet? So why would the author believe it was Lee's lack of hustle when he cites a column specifically stating a very good reason why Lee hasn't been signed...that reason being he isn't willing to sign for a low base salary? I can't answer my overly-long question either.
Robinson Cano, New York Yankees
Robinson Cano might be one of the best players in baseball, but there’s no guarantee he’s going to leg out a double instead of taking it easy by stopping at first base. He has, however, hit at least 40 doubles in each of the last four seasons.
(Bengoodfella's brain explodes)
So let me get this straight. There is no guarantee that Robinson Cano is going to leg out a double instead of stopping at first base, but he has hit 40 doubles over the last four seasons. Isn't that the guarantee that Robinson Cano will try to leg out a double? What more would the author need? Cano obviously legs out doubles since he has hit at least 40 doubles over the last four seasons.
He was benched for a lapse in attention back in 2008.
Five years ago. He was benched for a lapse in attention five years ago. Five years ago is five years ago, and not considered recent.
Through 20 games this season, Cano is hitting .325/.378/.614 with six home runs and 14 RBI in a depleted New York Yankees lineup. It would be smart to assume that Cano might make more money on the open market this upcoming winter if he showed a little more effort this season.
It would be even smarter to assume a guy hitting .325 with an OPS of .992 is already expending a lot of effort. Of course asking a person who randomly says Robinson Cano doesn't hustle to be smart is probably asking too much.
David Wright, New York Mets
All it takes is one lapse for a player to end up on this list.
Unless you are Chipper Jones and then you would have permission to jog to first base as much as you want.
Well, back in 2009, he didn’t act professionally on one night.
You mean four years ago on one night David Wright didn't hustle!? One time out of over a thousand games he has played in the majors Wright didn't hustle and this means he is not likely to hustle. I guess one time is now a trend.
In a late-September game against the Florida Marlins—yes, they were still the Florida Marlins back in 2009—Wright was benched after a lack of hustle, according to Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post. Wright reportedly apologized to his teammates for not giving it his all.
“That’s just a mental mistake,” Wright said of the baserunning blunder—who took his time going home from third base on what was an easy play. “That’s my fault, and I take responsibility. It won’t happen again.”
Sorry, you just made the "Least Likely to Hustle" team because you didn't hustle one time four years ago. Hey, someone has to play third base in this terrible idea for a fictional baseball team.
In the comments when he was questioned about Wright as a selection to make this team the author said that he asked quite a few "FC's" and they named Wright as a third baseman who didn't hustle. "FC's" are "featured columnists" at Bleacher Report. So take that for what you think it is worth. Wright is the only non-Hispanic/African American player on this list. It's not racist, just interesting regarding what this could say about the perception of white athletes.
B.J. Upton, Atlanta Braves
Back in 2008, the center fielder was benched a pair of times by his former manager, Joe Maddon.
Again, this was five years ago. I'm sure a bunch of FC's named Upton as a member of this team though. FC's can't be wrong.
Upton told reporters that he thought that there were two outs and that’s why he didn’t put a ton of effort on the play. He also said he was “stunned” to get pulled from the game.
He's going to be even more stunned to be named to a team for players that don't hustle because he didn't hustle a couple of times as a 23 year old.
Alex Rios, Chicago White Sox
The Chicago White Sox used to be managed by Ozzie Guillen, who didn’t have the best relationship with outfielder Alex Rios. Guillen didn’t care for the way that Rios failed to hustle on plays. Now, Guillen isn’t the manager, but Rios still takes his time occasionally.
Oh, so he doesn't hustle on occasion even after Ozzie Guillen no longer manages the White Sox? Let's look at the evidence the author has for this...
Guillen benched Rios back in 2011 after he didn’t hustle on the basepaths.
But you...you said that Rios still takes his time occasionally now, even after Guillen is no longer the manager of the White Sox. The only evidence you use of Rios not hustling is from when Guillen was the manager. How are we to believe the author that Rios still doesn't hustle now if he can't cite evidence he is telling the truth about Rios not hustling now? Maybe the author just asked the FC's and they said Rios still doesn't hustle.
David Ortiz, Boston Red Sox
I'm guessing this is the reasoning for saying David Ortiz doesn't hustle.
But there is somewhat of a correlation between being a DH and putting 100 percent effort into running the bases.
But is there a correlation? I know the author says it, but is this a fact or an opinion? I'm betting this is an opinion. I don't know any FC's though, so my opinion doesn't count.
He frequently doesn’t run out ground balls to the infield because he knows there’s a slim chance he'll be able to beat the throw.
Ortiz has had injury issues lately, which could prevent him from hustling hard.
I don't see how an Achilles tendon injury on a 37 year old would in any way prevent him from running at full speed 100% of the time. Inconceivable.
But in all honesty, it’s ugly watching him try to score from second or turn a single into a double. He’s probably just going to get thrown out no matter how hard he runs.
(Bengoodfella's brain re-explodes)
So David Ortiz doesn't hustle, but mostly because he has injury issues, but even if he did hustle he would get thrown out anyway? Doesn't the author's acknowledgement that Ortiz tries to score from second or tries to turn a single into a double contradict his contention Ortiz doesn't hustle? I think I am using too much logic. I'll never completely understand this column by using logic.
Hyun-Jin Ryu, Los Angeles Dodgers
I’m not sure if pitchers have to hit or run the bases in Korea,
If only there were a thing called "the Internet" where such answers could easily be found. If only.
Ryu hit a ball weakly down the third-base line but barely even jogged to first base despite the ball being live. He was thrown out with ease, and the crowd gave him quite a few boos as he returned to the dugout.
It was a bad effort, but nearly every National League pitcher at some point barely runs down the first base line in an effort to not get hurt running. So there could be 50 pitchers in this spot, but the author chose a Korean pitcher who didn't hustle in his very first National League start, which was also his first start in the United States. Interesting.
This "team" didn't have a relief pitcher on it and there are certainly relief pitchers who have to bat or could be seen as lazy. I guess the author didn't want hustle to find any lazy relief pitchers.
A lot can be said about a player who runs his hardest every time he takes the field.
And most of what will be said is in the form of useless hyperbole followed by the regular use of synonyms for the word "gritty."
Some players simply don’t hustle around the bases; they usually takes their time, especially if they hit a routine ground ball to the shortstop.
Chipper Jones occasionally didn't hustle out ground balls to second base or to first base. He's not an active player and isn't on this list, but not surprisingly I've never heard him called lazy for failing to run these ground balls out. I mention this because one instance of not hustling got a couple of players included on this "not hustling" team, so I would think Chipper's periodic jogs to first base could have earned him a spot.
Want an example of a player who hustles? Bryce Harper. He arguably hustles more than any other player in baseball.
Want an article filled with hyperbole? Look no further than this column where the author says Bryce Harper "arguably" hustles more than any other player in baseball. It's good the "arguably" was included because there's no fucking way to determine which player actually hustles the most. Arguably, this is a dumb sentence.
If there were a team that wasn’t likely to hustle, here are the players who would be on it.
Let's start the slideshow! The team is broken down by position, so it's just like a real baseball team! Well, there are no relief pitchers represented, so it is broken down like a real baseball team from the early 1900's when starting pitchers always threw a complete game.
Carlos Santana, Cleveland Indians
Let's find out why Santana made this team...
Santana is much better known for his power from behind the plate. Because Santana hits a solid amount of home runs—55 over the course of his four-year career including four so far in the 2013 season—he gets to round the bases at his leisure.
So Sanchez is lazy because he hits a lot of home runs. Boy, Babe Ruth must have been really, really super lazy then.
A bunch of catchers could qualify for this position on this team, but Santana fits relatively well. Watching video of him, even just from this season, it’s obvious that he doesn’t round the bases as quickly as he could.
So video, unlinked in this column of course, show that Carlos Santana doesn't round the bases as quickly as he could? Maybe I will search for my own evidence.
This is the only video evidence I could find and I wouldn't call that being lazy, but being dumb about base-running. There was an incident on August 30, 2012 where Santana was benched for a lack of hustle, but that was one incident and he seemed contrite. I guess one incident of not hustling is enough to make this list. In fact, if you Google "Carlos Santana hustling" then the fourth link that comes up is this very article. This is the Bleacher Report dream. The article written about how Carlos Santana doesn't hustle can be cited as evidence he doesn't hustle when doing an internet search on the topic. Those algorithms really work!
So Carlos Santana doesn't hustle because one time he didn't hustle. Plus, there is a bunch of video out there proving this point is true. Go look for it because the author doesn't have the time or energy to link it as proof what he is saying is correct.
Carlos Lee, Free Agent
Carlos Lee is currently one of many players without a major or minor league contract, and we’re well past the offseason and spring training. Is there still a chance that he signs a deal? Sure, but teams may be concerned with his hustle.
Or they may be concerned he is 36 years old, not a good defensive player, and hit .264/.332/.365 last year. His salary demands could also be the reason.
Spoiler alert: the salary demands appear to be the reason Carlos Lee isn't signed. Yes it is true, the author wonders whether it is Lee's lack of hustle that wards teams off from signing him, then links an article where Lee's salary demands are stated as being the main reason he hasn't signed a deal with a team. So the author proves his own hypothesis wrong. Brilliant writing.
Although he can probably still hit, there’s still the perception that he lacks hustle, according to an April 2012 article on Fox Sports Houston (h/t YardBarker).
Why does the perception become a reality? From the article:
Often maligned for his real or perceived lack of hustle in the past it can not be denied that Lee can still hit the ball better than the average player.
This perception doesn't mean Lee lacks hustle. So why is he on the "Least Likely to Hustle" team?
So even with his five times on base and two RBIs his game on Tuesday was not flawless. He has brought leadership and yes, hustle, to the young Astros and so far is a role model to be followed.
So the article linked to provide evidence that Lee still lacks hustle actually goes out of its way to mention that Lee in fact DOES hustle. Again, brilliant writing. Bleacher Report has landed a great writer.
Maybe he sees that if he wants to change his mind and play more he needs to change perceptions. Astro fans know what those perceptions are. Carlos Lee can hit, but doesn't always (or often) hustle.
Again, it is a perception and the author is needlessly and foolishly buying into this perception by placing Lee on his team of players who don't hustle. Way to reinforce a perception that may or may not be true.
Also, I love the idea of Bleacher Report citing Yardbarker for a column link. It's like the "The National Enquirer" citing "US Weekly" about whether Jennifer Aniston is pregnant or not.
Lee is in actuality a happy go lucky guy who plays the percentages. He knows how fast he has to run to get to a ball and make a play. He knows when false hustle is just to make him look good, but really not productive. The problem is that when he measures his running effort it appears to be lack of hustle.
But again, reinforcing a perception with the only evidence this perception being true is the existence of a perception is ridiculously bad writing. The appearance of not hustling in the past doesn't serve as evidence that Lee doesn't hustle now. The author basically says, "There is a perception Lee doesn't hustle so that means he doesn't hustle and that's why he is on this list."
Ken Davidoff of the New York Post wrote in March that Lee hasn’t been willing to sign for a low-base salary.
So maybe the fact Lee doesn't want a low base salary is the reason he has not been signed yet? So why would the author believe it was Lee's lack of hustle when he cites a column specifically stating a very good reason why Lee hasn't been signed...that reason being he isn't willing to sign for a low base salary? I can't answer my overly-long question either.
Robinson Cano, New York Yankees
Robinson Cano might be one of the best players in baseball, but there’s no guarantee he’s going to leg out a double instead of taking it easy by stopping at first base. He has, however, hit at least 40 doubles in each of the last four seasons.
(Bengoodfella's brain explodes)
So let me get this straight. There is no guarantee that Robinson Cano is going to leg out a double instead of stopping at first base, but he has hit 40 doubles over the last four seasons. Isn't that the guarantee that Robinson Cano will try to leg out a double? What more would the author need? Cano obviously legs out doubles since he has hit at least 40 doubles over the last four seasons.
He was benched for a lapse in attention back in 2008.
Five years ago. He was benched for a lapse in attention five years ago. Five years ago is five years ago, and not considered recent.
Through 20 games this season, Cano is hitting .325/.378/.614 with six home runs and 14 RBI in a depleted New York Yankees lineup. It would be smart to assume that Cano might make more money on the open market this upcoming winter if he showed a little more effort this season.
It would be even smarter to assume a guy hitting .325 with an OPS of .992 is already expending a lot of effort. Of course asking a person who randomly says Robinson Cano doesn't hustle to be smart is probably asking too much.
David Wright, New York Mets
All it takes is one lapse for a player to end up on this list.
Unless you are Chipper Jones and then you would have permission to jog to first base as much as you want.
Well, back in 2009, he didn’t act professionally on one night.
You mean four years ago on one night David Wright didn't hustle!? One time out of over a thousand games he has played in the majors Wright didn't hustle and this means he is not likely to hustle. I guess one time is now a trend.
In a late-September game against the Florida Marlins—yes, they were still the Florida Marlins back in 2009—Wright was benched after a lack of hustle, according to Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post. Wright reportedly apologized to his teammates for not giving it his all.
“That’s just a mental mistake,” Wright said of the baserunning blunder—who took his time going home from third base on what was an easy play. “That’s my fault, and I take responsibility. It won’t happen again.”
Sorry, you just made the "Least Likely to Hustle" team because you didn't hustle one time four years ago. Hey, someone has to play third base in this terrible idea for a fictional baseball team.
In the comments when he was questioned about Wright as a selection to make this team the author said that he asked quite a few "FC's" and they named Wright as a third baseman who didn't hustle. "FC's" are "featured columnists" at Bleacher Report. So take that for what you think it is worth. Wright is the only non-Hispanic/African American player on this list. It's not racist, just interesting regarding what this could say about the perception of white athletes.
B.J. Upton, Atlanta Braves
Back in 2008, the center fielder was benched a pair of times by his former manager, Joe Maddon.
Again, this was five years ago. I'm sure a bunch of FC's named Upton as a member of this team though. FC's can't be wrong.
Upton told reporters that he thought that there were two outs and that’s why he didn’t put a ton of effort on the play. He also said he was “stunned” to get pulled from the game.
He's going to be even more stunned to be named to a team for players that don't hustle because he didn't hustle a couple of times as a 23 year old.
Alex Rios, Chicago White Sox
The Chicago White Sox used to be managed by Ozzie Guillen, who didn’t have the best relationship with outfielder Alex Rios. Guillen didn’t care for the way that Rios failed to hustle on plays. Now, Guillen isn’t the manager, but Rios still takes his time occasionally.
Oh, so he doesn't hustle on occasion even after Ozzie Guillen no longer manages the White Sox? Let's look at the evidence the author has for this...
Guillen benched Rios back in 2011 after he didn’t hustle on the basepaths.
But you...you said that Rios still takes his time occasionally now, even after Guillen is no longer the manager of the White Sox. The only evidence you use of Rios not hustling is from when Guillen was the manager. How are we to believe the author that Rios still doesn't hustle now if he can't cite evidence he is telling the truth about Rios not hustling now? Maybe the author just asked the FC's and they said Rios still doesn't hustle.
David Ortiz, Boston Red Sox
I'm guessing this is the reasoning for saying David Ortiz doesn't hustle.
But there is somewhat of a correlation between being a DH and putting 100 percent effort into running the bases.
But is there a correlation? I know the author says it, but is this a fact or an opinion? I'm betting this is an opinion. I don't know any FC's though, so my opinion doesn't count.
He frequently doesn’t run out ground balls to the infield because he knows there’s a slim chance he'll be able to beat the throw.
Ortiz has had injury issues lately, which could prevent him from hustling hard.
I don't see how an Achilles tendon injury on a 37 year old would in any way prevent him from running at full speed 100% of the time. Inconceivable.
But in all honesty, it’s ugly watching him try to score from second or turn a single into a double. He’s probably just going to get thrown out no matter how hard he runs.
(Bengoodfella's brain re-explodes)
So David Ortiz doesn't hustle, but mostly because he has injury issues, but even if he did hustle he would get thrown out anyway? Doesn't the author's acknowledgement that Ortiz tries to score from second or tries to turn a single into a double contradict his contention Ortiz doesn't hustle? I think I am using too much logic. I'll never completely understand this column by using logic.
Hyun-Jin Ryu, Los Angeles Dodgers
I’m not sure if pitchers have to hit or run the bases in Korea,
If only there were a thing called "the Internet" where such answers could easily be found. If only.
Ryu hit a ball weakly down the third-base line but barely even jogged to first base despite the ball being live. He was thrown out with ease, and the crowd gave him quite a few boos as he returned to the dugout.
It was a bad effort, but nearly every National League pitcher at some point barely runs down the first base line in an effort to not get hurt running. So there could be 50 pitchers in this spot, but the author chose a Korean pitcher who didn't hustle in his very first National League start, which was also his first start in the United States. Interesting.
This "team" didn't have a relief pitcher on it and there are certainly relief pitchers who have to bat or could be seen as lazy. I guess the author didn't want hustle to find any lazy relief pitchers.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
6 comments MMQB Review: Hopefully by August, Peter King Will Have Stopped Discussing the St. Louis Rams Draft Edition
Peter King mourned the pending release of Chris Kluwe last week in MMQB, as well as relayed more stories from the St. Louis Rams draft war room. They offer free food, so it's pretty much heaven for Peter. Swordfish and steak, does it get better than that? A young boy also threw up on Peter during a flight last week. Most likely this boy had smelled Peter's new cologne or got a peek at the erotic novel Peter is writing about he and Brett Favre's passion-filled nights together hanging out on the porch of Favre's farm in Mississippi. It's like "50 Shades of Grey" for sports fans. This week Peter talks about Manti Te'o (Te'o's name provides pageviews, so that's why Peter leads off his column discussing him), he is still talking about stories from the Rams draft war room, and Peter thrashes the Lions for taking a chance on Titus Young in the 2011 draft despite the fact he seems to have no issue with other NFL teams taking a chance on troubled players in the NFL draft. I guess Peter is fine with taking players who have a troubled history as long as he is able to determine in hindsight it was a good move. A troubled player is a great pick until he continues to show himself to be troubled.
So the early reviews on Manti Te'o are positive in San Diego, but what would they be, really, when the players aren't in pads and it's only the rookies out there?
So the early reviews on Manti Te'o are positive in San Diego, but what would they be, really, when the players aren't in pads and it's only the rookies out there?
Monday, May 13, 2013
0 comments Jason Collins Coming Out of the Closet Is Increasing the Unemployment Rate
David Steele wants us to know all about the conspiracy he knows about that goes on in professional sports. Well, he won't call it a conspiracy, but he finds it quite odd that after Jason Collins comes out of the closet an average-to-below-average punter and 36 year old linebacker with 251 career tackles are out of jobs. Steele thinks Collins' announcement is complicated because now NFL teams are releasing players who support gay rights. Well, Steele won't say he believes this, but otherwise he wouldn't have written this column if he wasn't a bit suspicious of why Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo don't have jobs with an NFL team right now. Obviously I can't speak directly to the motives of every NFL team, but there are other reasons outside of their outspoken nature why Kluwe and Ayanbadejo don't have NFL jobs.
Among the many issues raised last week when Jason Collins came out of the closet in a Sports Illustrated cover story, was how much impact the groundbreaking move would still have if Collins, a free agent this offseason, wasn’t an active NBA player next season.
Jason Collins has averaged 3.6 points, 3.8 rebounds, and 2.8 personal fouls for his career. He admits he is very good at committing personal fouls and being tall and that's about it. He averaged 1.1 points, 1.6 rebounds, and 2.2 fouls this year while shooting 31% from the field. It's not like we are talking about a highly productive player here. His main function is to be tall and commit fouls. Normally no one would question why a 34 year old who barely averages as many points and rebounds combined as he does personal fouls doesn't have an NBA job. If he doesn't get a job in the NBA next year it may not be specifically because he is gay. I'll grant David Steele that there may be some Tebow-aspect related to why Collins doesn't have a job next season. It comes back to his skill level more than his sexuality though. His skill level isn't worth the scrutiny the team would come under. It's unfortunate and I don't like it, but until more players come out of the closet, the team that signs Jason Collins will make national headlines.
There is a difference in not signing Collins because he is gay and not signing Collins because a team doesn't want to handle the media scrutiny that goes along with it. It's possibly a small difference, but there is a difference.
A week later, the sports world may have been provided a partial answer: Chris Kluwe was released by the Minnesota Vikings.
As I put in MMQB recently, these are Chris Kluwe's net punting and gross average rankings over the last six years.
2012: 17th, 22nd
2011: 22nd, 13th
2010: 10th, 21st
2009: 18th, 15th
2008: 21st, 4th
2007: 14th, 8th
He was scheduled to make 1.4 million this year, which puts him in the Top 15-highest paid punters in the NFL. He's not a Top 15 punter, especially since Blair Walsh does the kickoffs so well for the Vikings. You can't argue with the pro-Kluwe crowd though. Writers like Peter King use statistics that aren't measured relative to other NFL punters. Peter likes to throw out numbers like:
Kluwe has punted for eight years in the NFL, all of them with the Vikings. His 39.7-yard net average in 2012 was a career-best. His 45.0-yard gross average was the third-best in his career.
These numbers are impressive when not compared to other NFL punters, which is how Kluwe should be compared. Looking at these numbers relative to other NFL punters Kluwe's career-best net average was only good for 17th in the NFL. The best he ever performed in terms of net average made him 17th best in the NFL. Then Kluwe's third-best career gross average was only good for 22nd in the NFL. Even at his best, Kluwe wasn't an average punter last year. Plus, he was making $1.4 million for 2013, so this factor can't be ignored in conjunction with his performance.
I don't have an agenda, which is why I can be neutral as it pertains to Kluwe. I'm not caught up in whether I think his social opinion has a place in the NFL, I just want to watch football, and I am very happy an active athlete has come out of the closet. I think it is about time. It's funny how you can look at statistics from a neutral perspective when you don't have an agenda. Peter King has an agenda and doesn't compare Kluwe's statistics relative to other NFL punters.
The only active pro athlete as outspoken on behalf of gay rights as Kluwe was linebacker Brendan Ayanbadejo … who was released by the Baltimore Ravens a month ago, before Collins’ big acknowledgement.
The Ravens anticipated a player was going to come out of the closet soon and immediately released Brendan Ayanbadejo in retaliation for supporting the yet-to-be-named player coming out of the closet.
“I find it interesting that the timing is what it is,’’ said Dr. Mary McDonald, sports sociologist and kinesiology professor at Miami University of Ohio, whose specialties include gender issues and the history of activism.
You're an idiot who is engaging in pure speculation to create a story that doesn't exist. Brendon Ayanbadejo was a 36 year old linebacker who started three games last year (which the Ravens lost every game he started...not that there is a correlation, I'm not saying there is) and had 16 tackles in the games he played. Remember that beginning of the offseason when Ozzie Newsome and Steve Bisciotti said tough decisions concerning veterans were going to be made? Ayanbedejo was one of those decisions. He had a $1,073,333 cap hit for 2013 and this is money that could easily be spent on a younger, less expensive player who has yet to reach his ceiling. Don't create a story where there isn't one.
“There’s no conspiracy here,’’ she added, “but the timing is very interesting …
You're just repeating yourself now.
The question is, how does either advocacy about sexual orientation or coming out create unease around teams, work environments and sponsors?”
I guess we'll find out when a gay athlete who isn't 34 years old and generally useless for anything other than committing personal fouls comes out of the closet. Maybe we will also find out when a professional athlete who is an advocate for gay rights starts voicing his opinion and doesn't get cut. If only that would ever happen. Wait, it has happened! Not many of these players were as vocal as Kluwe and Ayanbedejo, but they are showing an example of the atmosphere that coming out creates around teams and work environments. But no, let's focus on the two players who were both mediocre NFL players and how they were released only because they advocated for gay rights. Let's ignore Ayanbedejo was released prior to Jason Collins ever coming out, and was only average before then. Kluwe was expensive and under-performing, so that's an excellent explanation for why he was cut.
The initial response from around sports, including from NFL active and retired players, was encouraging of the step forward.
But again, let's focus on the fate of two players who were probably going to be released anyway that were advocates for gay rights. Maybe the Vikings cut Kluwe because of his opinion. I doubt it, because his performance, salary and overall actions over the past few seasons (covering the patch on his uniform, releasing a profanity-laced response to Emmett Burns...the content of the letter was probably more of a headache for the Vikings than what he was advocating for) could be what motivated the Vikings to go in a different direction.
I also can't escape the irony that some of the same people who believe Chris Kluwe lost his punting job with the Vikings due to his social views also wanted Chris Broussard fired from ESPN for his opinion on homosexuality. I've said it before in this space, but if I became a strong advocate for a social issue, and this somehow bled into my employment in any way, then I would have no doubt my employer would tell me to tone it down. I don't think Kluwe was released for his advocacy regarding gay rights, because his performance as it relates to his salary probably would have done the trick otherwise.
“Just because we have one, that doesn’t mean the job is done,’’ said Hudson Taylor, the founder of Athlete Ally,
What? I thought Jason Collins successfully changed society and sports' view on homosexuality simply by coming out of the closet? I'm shocked.
“There’s never been a successful social change in a minority group without the help of the majority,’’ Taylor said. “If we’re going to make our locker rooms safe and inclusive places for everybody, we’re going to need active players who are ‘out’ and in those locker rooms and part of those teams.’’
This means more players who are gay should come out of the closet. 34 year olds who average 1 point and almost 2 rebounds per game don't always get a chance to get a new contract in the NBA. Jason Collins is tall, which is good for his ability to get signed, but he also is relatively untalented. I know he isn't demanding it, but it is sort of insensitive for Taylor to state other active gay players need to come out of the closet as if they are doing the movement a disservice by staying in the closet. Just because the time was right for Collins doesn't mean it is right for other active gay players.
That, then, would mean that Collins’ negotiations to either re-join the Wizards or sign elsewhere will take on tremendous weight.
Or it would mean another active athlete came out of the closet to help share the burden with Collins. There's always that option too. It has to be the right time for the player though.
“I think that if he isn’t picked up by any team, it’ll send the message, intended or not, that such players should stay in the closet,’’ said Sterling Washington, who heads the mayor’s office on LGBT affairs for Washington, D.C.
OR...it could send the message that Jason Collins doesn't provide much of a benefit to an NBA team anymore and no team wants to sign a 34 year old whose ability to foul is the biggest benefit he provides to a team. Let's not forget Jason Collins' twin brother (Jarron Collins) had to work on ten-day contracts with two teams before he eventually retired in 2011. I'm pretty sure he wasn't blackballed for being straight.
The aforementioned reactions came before Kluwe’s release. The fact that he, Ayanbadejo and the recently-retired Scott Fujita were the primary voices of support in the NFL—and are now all unemployed—has not gone unnoticed.
Fujita retired, Ayanbadejo was easily replaceable, and Chris Kluwe was under-performing as it relates to the salary he was being paid. There, I easily explained why these players are all unemployed. Also, excuse me if I don't feel terrible that a group of millionaires are now unemployed. It's not like they are going to have to work the streets to scrape up money to live on.
That also reflects the “intended or not” caveat, because, like the 34-year-old Collins, age and contract status are logical justification for Ayanbadejo’s and Fujita’s career uncertainty.
Exactly. Productive veterans are cut all the time in the NFL for salary reasons. Collins, again, isn't very good at basketball and his twin brother had trouble finding a job in the NBA back in 2011, while Scott Fujita retired. He retired. He chose to stop playing football. Stop creating issues where there aren't any.
But that other, looming factor can’t automatically be dismissed. Kluwe, the franchise’s all-time leader in punting average, is just 31 and was still effective last season.
No, he wasn't effective. He was below average and being paid like he was average. That's not being effective.
All things considered, McDonald said, Kluwe’s release “might be a little more complicated.
It could have to do with Kluwe being a pain in the ass on issues other than his opinion about social issues. It could also have to do with his salary and performance. Why is everyone ignoring Kluwe's below average performance last year?
“I think if you put the body of work and research to it, you can conclude that homophobia plays a role.’’
I've put the body of work and research into it and I can't say for sure homophobia played a role. Did Mary McDonald (the speaker here) look at Kluwe's body of work and do research? It doesn't sound like she did, or if she did, then she wanted to reach a certain conclusion. It seems presumptive to me to just say you can conclude homophobia played a role in this situation. Wanting to come to this conclusion doesn't make it a fact.
Kluwe himself has stayed silent, unlike Ayanbadejo, who initially pointed directly at his activism as the reason he was released (“My bark is bigger than my bite,’’ he told Newsday), then completely reversed his field the next day.
Ayanbadejo should reverse field. He was a 36 year old linebacker on a team that is looking to get younger and more productive at the linebacker spot. His release probably had very little to do with his bark and more to do with his skill level and his current age.
“Generally, what I’ll say is, there is an athletic culture that discourages athletic activism of any kind,’’ Taylor said.
This is fairly true for a lot of jobs. If I became famous for being active on social issues that were divisive or received media attention I'm pretty sure my employer would have a talk with me or try to separate themselves in some way from my statements. It's just how it works and it's not exclusive to athletics.
But Collins’ coming out isn’t changing it overnight—and the week that separated that from Kluwe being released only complicates things.
It only complicates things if you want it to complicate things. If you understand the NFL's salary cap, look at Kluwe's contract situation, and then look at his performance, then it might make sense for him to be released. It's impossible and even pointless to speculate exactly why Kluwe was released. His performance and salary dictated it could happen. I won't be crying tears for a millionaire simply because he agrees with me on some social issues. If you want to make the assumption Kluwe was released because of his opinion, that's your right, but it also reflects a lack of research on your part. It's impossible to pinpoint a reason Kluwe was released.
“It does make one wonder,’’ she said, “to what extent it will be an obstacle to overcome.’’
Well, it has been almost a month since Jason Collins came out of the closet. If the world's and the attitudes in sports can't change in month then I guess they will never change. It's not like change takes time or anything. It's infuriating to me how those who advocate for gay rights in sport and still have a job are being overlooked in this conversation by some people, while these same people focus on a 36 year old linebacker and a below average punter getting released as proof of retaliation for advocating for gay rights. Ignore the information that doesn't prove your point and focus only on the information you want to see as pertinent, that's what these people are doing.
Among the many issues raised last week when Jason Collins came out of the closet in a Sports Illustrated cover story, was how much impact the groundbreaking move would still have if Collins, a free agent this offseason, wasn’t an active NBA player next season.
Jason Collins has averaged 3.6 points, 3.8 rebounds, and 2.8 personal fouls for his career. He admits he is very good at committing personal fouls and being tall and that's about it. He averaged 1.1 points, 1.6 rebounds, and 2.2 fouls this year while shooting 31% from the field. It's not like we are talking about a highly productive player here. His main function is to be tall and commit fouls. Normally no one would question why a 34 year old who barely averages as many points and rebounds combined as he does personal fouls doesn't have an NBA job. If he doesn't get a job in the NBA next year it may not be specifically because he is gay. I'll grant David Steele that there may be some Tebow-aspect related to why Collins doesn't have a job next season. It comes back to his skill level more than his sexuality though. His skill level isn't worth the scrutiny the team would come under. It's unfortunate and I don't like it, but until more players come out of the closet, the team that signs Jason Collins will make national headlines.
There is a difference in not signing Collins because he is gay and not signing Collins because a team doesn't want to handle the media scrutiny that goes along with it. It's possibly a small difference, but there is a difference.
A week later, the sports world may have been provided a partial answer: Chris Kluwe was released by the Minnesota Vikings.
As I put in MMQB recently, these are Chris Kluwe's net punting and gross average rankings over the last six years.
2012: 17th, 22nd
2011: 22nd, 13th
2010: 10th, 21st
2009: 18th, 15th
2008: 21st, 4th
2007: 14th, 8th
He was scheduled to make 1.4 million this year, which puts him in the Top 15-highest paid punters in the NFL. He's not a Top 15 punter, especially since Blair Walsh does the kickoffs so well for the Vikings. You can't argue with the pro-Kluwe crowd though. Writers like Peter King use statistics that aren't measured relative to other NFL punters. Peter likes to throw out numbers like:
Kluwe has punted for eight years in the NFL, all of them with the Vikings. His 39.7-yard net average in 2012 was a career-best. His 45.0-yard gross average was the third-best in his career.
These numbers are impressive when not compared to other NFL punters, which is how Kluwe should be compared. Looking at these numbers relative to other NFL punters Kluwe's career-best net average was only good for 17th in the NFL. The best he ever performed in terms of net average made him 17th best in the NFL. Then Kluwe's third-best career gross average was only good for 22nd in the NFL. Even at his best, Kluwe wasn't an average punter last year. Plus, he was making $1.4 million for 2013, so this factor can't be ignored in conjunction with his performance.
I don't have an agenda, which is why I can be neutral as it pertains to Kluwe. I'm not caught up in whether I think his social opinion has a place in the NFL, I just want to watch football, and I am very happy an active athlete has come out of the closet. I think it is about time. It's funny how you can look at statistics from a neutral perspective when you don't have an agenda. Peter King has an agenda and doesn't compare Kluwe's statistics relative to other NFL punters.
The only active pro athlete as outspoken on behalf of gay rights as Kluwe was linebacker Brendan Ayanbadejo … who was released by the Baltimore Ravens a month ago, before Collins’ big acknowledgement.
The Ravens anticipated a player was going to come out of the closet soon and immediately released Brendan Ayanbadejo in retaliation for supporting the yet-to-be-named player coming out of the closet.
“I find it interesting that the timing is what it is,’’ said Dr. Mary McDonald, sports sociologist and kinesiology professor at Miami University of Ohio, whose specialties include gender issues and the history of activism.
You're an idiot who is engaging in pure speculation to create a story that doesn't exist. Brendon Ayanbadejo was a 36 year old linebacker who started three games last year (which the Ravens lost every game he started...not that there is a correlation, I'm not saying there is) and had 16 tackles in the games he played. Remember that beginning of the offseason when Ozzie Newsome and Steve Bisciotti said tough decisions concerning veterans were going to be made? Ayanbedejo was one of those decisions. He had a $1,073,333 cap hit for 2013 and this is money that could easily be spent on a younger, less expensive player who has yet to reach his ceiling. Don't create a story where there isn't one.
“There’s no conspiracy here,’’ she added, “but the timing is very interesting …
You're just repeating yourself now.
The question is, how does either advocacy about sexual orientation or coming out create unease around teams, work environments and sponsors?”
I guess we'll find out when a gay athlete who isn't 34 years old and generally useless for anything other than committing personal fouls comes out of the closet. Maybe we will also find out when a professional athlete who is an advocate for gay rights starts voicing his opinion and doesn't get cut. If only that would ever happen. Wait, it has happened! Not many of these players were as vocal as Kluwe and Ayanbedejo, but they are showing an example of the atmosphere that coming out creates around teams and work environments. But no, let's focus on the two players who were both mediocre NFL players and how they were released only because they advocated for gay rights. Let's ignore Ayanbedejo was released prior to Jason Collins ever coming out, and was only average before then. Kluwe was expensive and under-performing, so that's an excellent explanation for why he was cut.
The initial response from around sports, including from NFL active and retired players, was encouraging of the step forward.
But again, let's focus on the fate of two players who were probably going to be released anyway that were advocates for gay rights. Maybe the Vikings cut Kluwe because of his opinion. I doubt it, because his performance, salary and overall actions over the past few seasons (covering the patch on his uniform, releasing a profanity-laced response to Emmett Burns...the content of the letter was probably more of a headache for the Vikings than what he was advocating for) could be what motivated the Vikings to go in a different direction.
I also can't escape the irony that some of the same people who believe Chris Kluwe lost his punting job with the Vikings due to his social views also wanted Chris Broussard fired from ESPN for his opinion on homosexuality. I've said it before in this space, but if I became a strong advocate for a social issue, and this somehow bled into my employment in any way, then I would have no doubt my employer would tell me to tone it down. I don't think Kluwe was released for his advocacy regarding gay rights, because his performance as it relates to his salary probably would have done the trick otherwise.
“Just because we have one, that doesn’t mean the job is done,’’ said Hudson Taylor, the founder of Athlete Ally,
What? I thought Jason Collins successfully changed society and sports' view on homosexuality simply by coming out of the closet? I'm shocked.
“There’s never been a successful social change in a minority group without the help of the majority,’’ Taylor said. “If we’re going to make our locker rooms safe and inclusive places for everybody, we’re going to need active players who are ‘out’ and in those locker rooms and part of those teams.’’
This means more players who are gay should come out of the closet. 34 year olds who average 1 point and almost 2 rebounds per game don't always get a chance to get a new contract in the NBA. Jason Collins is tall, which is good for his ability to get signed, but he also is relatively untalented. I know he isn't demanding it, but it is sort of insensitive for Taylor to state other active gay players need to come out of the closet as if they are doing the movement a disservice by staying in the closet. Just because the time was right for Collins doesn't mean it is right for other active gay players.
That, then, would mean that Collins’ negotiations to either re-join the Wizards or sign elsewhere will take on tremendous weight.
Or it would mean another active athlete came out of the closet to help share the burden with Collins. There's always that option too. It has to be the right time for the player though.
“I think that if he isn’t picked up by any team, it’ll send the message, intended or not, that such players should stay in the closet,’’ said Sterling Washington, who heads the mayor’s office on LGBT affairs for Washington, D.C.
OR...it could send the message that Jason Collins doesn't provide much of a benefit to an NBA team anymore and no team wants to sign a 34 year old whose ability to foul is the biggest benefit he provides to a team. Let's not forget Jason Collins' twin brother (Jarron Collins) had to work on ten-day contracts with two teams before he eventually retired in 2011. I'm pretty sure he wasn't blackballed for being straight.
The aforementioned reactions came before Kluwe’s release. The fact that he, Ayanbadejo and the recently-retired Scott Fujita were the primary voices of support in the NFL—and are now all unemployed—has not gone unnoticed.
Fujita retired, Ayanbadejo was easily replaceable, and Chris Kluwe was under-performing as it relates to the salary he was being paid. There, I easily explained why these players are all unemployed. Also, excuse me if I don't feel terrible that a group of millionaires are now unemployed. It's not like they are going to have to work the streets to scrape up money to live on.
That also reflects the “intended or not” caveat, because, like the 34-year-old Collins, age and contract status are logical justification for Ayanbadejo’s and Fujita’s career uncertainty.
Exactly. Productive veterans are cut all the time in the NFL for salary reasons. Collins, again, isn't very good at basketball and his twin brother had trouble finding a job in the NBA back in 2011, while Scott Fujita retired. He retired. He chose to stop playing football. Stop creating issues where there aren't any.
But that other, looming factor can’t automatically be dismissed. Kluwe, the franchise’s all-time leader in punting average, is just 31 and was still effective last season.
No, he wasn't effective. He was below average and being paid like he was average. That's not being effective.
All things considered, McDonald said, Kluwe’s release “might be a little more complicated.
It could have to do with Kluwe being a pain in the ass on issues other than his opinion about social issues. It could also have to do with his salary and performance. Why is everyone ignoring Kluwe's below average performance last year?
“I think if you put the body of work and research to it, you can conclude that homophobia plays a role.’’
I've put the body of work and research into it and I can't say for sure homophobia played a role. Did Mary McDonald (the speaker here) look at Kluwe's body of work and do research? It doesn't sound like she did, or if she did, then she wanted to reach a certain conclusion. It seems presumptive to me to just say you can conclude homophobia played a role in this situation. Wanting to come to this conclusion doesn't make it a fact.
Kluwe himself has stayed silent, unlike Ayanbadejo, who initially pointed directly at his activism as the reason he was released (“My bark is bigger than my bite,’’ he told Newsday), then completely reversed his field the next day.
Ayanbadejo should reverse field. He was a 36 year old linebacker on a team that is looking to get younger and more productive at the linebacker spot. His release probably had very little to do with his bark and more to do with his skill level and his current age.
“Generally, what I’ll say is, there is an athletic culture that discourages athletic activism of any kind,’’ Taylor said.
This is fairly true for a lot of jobs. If I became famous for being active on social issues that were divisive or received media attention I'm pretty sure my employer would have a talk with me or try to separate themselves in some way from my statements. It's just how it works and it's not exclusive to athletics.
But Collins’ coming out isn’t changing it overnight—and the week that separated that from Kluwe being released only complicates things.
It only complicates things if you want it to complicate things. If you understand the NFL's salary cap, look at Kluwe's contract situation, and then look at his performance, then it might make sense for him to be released. It's impossible and even pointless to speculate exactly why Kluwe was released. His performance and salary dictated it could happen. I won't be crying tears for a millionaire simply because he agrees with me on some social issues. If you want to make the assumption Kluwe was released because of his opinion, that's your right, but it also reflects a lack of research on your part. It's impossible to pinpoint a reason Kluwe was released.
“It does make one wonder,’’ she said, “to what extent it will be an obstacle to overcome.’’
Well, it has been almost a month since Jason Collins came out of the closet. If the world's and the attitudes in sports can't change in month then I guess they will never change. It's not like change takes time or anything. It's infuriating to me how those who advocate for gay rights in sport and still have a job are being overlooked in this conversation by some people, while these same people focus on a 36 year old linebacker and a below average punter getting released as proof of retaliation for advocating for gay rights. Ignore the information that doesn't prove your point and focus only on the information you want to see as pertinent, that's what these people are doing.
Friday, May 10, 2013
3 comments 2013 NFL Draft Grades
Grading an NFL Draft immediately after that draft is probably stupid. I think it is more stupid to give out a bunch of "B's" and "C's" so that you show you aren't afraid to be wrong or right (I'm talking to you Mel Kiper). I usually do draft grades so I can look back in a few years and say how stupid/smart I was in giving out these draft grades. I enjoy giving them out, but I've done a lot of thinking and as much fun as I believe draft grades are to give out I think I am not going to do them this year. This year I am going to be reviewing the draft grades CNNSI.com has handed out, the ones Yahoo has handed out, and the grades the Sporting News handed out. That way we can compare what different "experts" thought about each team's draft and I will of course include my thoughts about their thoughts. You will find most of these "experts" give teams very similar grades. It seems they all love or hate the same drafts...except for Mel Kiper, who just gives every draft a "B" or a "C."
Arizona Cardinals (SI: B+, Yahoo: A, Sporting News: A-)
Either the Cardinals draft will be excellent in a few years or we have some major groupthink going on here. I wish the Cardinals had gone after Chance Warmack since I think he will be the best offensive lineman in this draft (fine, I think he's the best player in this draft). Jonathan Cooper is very versatile, so maybe that's why they passed up Warmack.
The headliner here is CB Tyrann Mathieu, but it’s actually what Arizona did elsewhere that made this a very solid draft.
This was an excellent draft in my opinion. I would lean closer to the A- than an A, because I prefer Warmack to Cooper. I'm still not sure what the Cardinals are going to do long-term at quarterback, but I like this team a lot more after the draft. I really like the two running backs they chose. I know running backs are overrated, blah, blah, blah, but I think Ellington/Taylor are two good picks.
Atlanta Falcons (SI: B, Yahoo: A-, Sporting News: B)
Again, it seems we have some groupthink here. I have a feeling we will see this a lot. It seems like all of the draft grades are similar, but how can it be that each "expert" likes each team's draft the exact same? It's weird to me.
If GM Thomas Dimitroff is one thing above all else, it’s realistic. He saw how the Falcons' defense got torched in the playoffs and dumped his aging cornerbacks and defensive end. He then used four of his top five picks on critical positions. He traded up to get Trufant, followed that with another corner and then picked up two defensive ends with projectable pass-rush ability.
The move for Trufant did cost them a third-rounder, which left them taking a shot on DE Malliciah Goodman in Round 4.
The Falcons did a good job of drafting cornerbacks to replace Grimes and Robinson. I don't want to be too hard on them, but I thought they needed a pass-rusher and I'm not sure taking on two defensive ends who are both inconsistent is the way to fill their pass rush needs. They did get a tight end in the late rounds, which is nice given the fact Tony Gonzalez is probably (who knows) going to retire after this year. I firmly believe the pass rush helps out the corners, so I am not sure I would double-down on cornerbacks and have gotten a pass-rusher in the second round. I think a "B" is a bit of a high grade.
Baltimore Ravens (SI: A-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B+)
If you have read one set of draft grades then you have read them all, huh? The comments differ, but the grades don't. The Ravens were able to re-load on defense. I thought the Ravens could draft Arthur Brown in the first round instead of taking Matt Elam, so I like that pick in the second round. Because I am me though, I don't know if I like that the Ravens didn't address the offensive line or receiving position until later in the draft. I realize the Ravens feel good about their offensive line, but I thought they should have taken a player earlier than they did. Plus, with Boldin gone I wish they had addressed the passing game a little earlier. It's a tough situation for them, as they needed to rebuild the defense but also provide their new franchise quarterback with protection and weapons on offense.
Buffalo Bills (SI: B-, Yahoo: B+, Sporting News: C)
Well, we have a little more diverging in the grades given for the Bills.
The Bills were all about going back to the drawing board with their passing game. The centerpiece is Florida State quarterback EJ Manuel, but coach Doug Marrone and his staff have their work cut out to turn him into a polished, athletic passer.
It's almost like the coaching staff of the Bills has to coach the players and work with them to be better football players. Who would have thought this could ever occur? How shocking to hear that Manuel will need coaching.
Offensively, there's a lot of potential but more shaky unknown.
These are quotes from the "C" grade given. So the Bills were knocked down because of the "unknown" aspect of the Bills draft. I'm guessing other teams drafted players who were more sure-fire stars? It's not as if there aren't 200 others players in this draft who are unknowns. The Bills got the quarterback they wanted, got an extra pick out of it, and drafted a guy I really, really like in Marquise Goodwin (he could thrive in the slot). Not to mention, I think Robert Woods was a victim of the USC disaster this year. I still like him. I don't care if it is a bunch of unknowns, the Bills drafted for their needs. Will it work out? Nobody knows. This isn't a "C" draft though.
Carolina Panthers (SI: C, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B-)
Again, very similar grades given. It seems these "experts" all have the same feelings on every draft. It was a boring draft for Carolina. Boring isn't always bad, especially with only having five picks and quite a few holes.
From there, it was a pretty nondescript effort, save for the head-scratcher pick of G Edmund Kugbila in Round 4. Also not sure how RB Kenjon Barner fits in a crowded backfield.
Let's think how would a running back who ran well in Oregon's offense would fit in well with a team that has some read-option plays in their playbook? Boy, that is tough to figure out. Not to mention Carolina's salary cap issues are well-known, so Barner being drafted could mean the Carolina backfield will be getting less crowded in the next year or two. DeAngelo Williams is probably going to be exiting stage-right soon. Anyone who saw Carolina play last year saw the terrible play at the defensive tackle position. Carolina had Star Lotulelei fall to them (players fall for a reason sometimes, so this may not be good news) but they also filled a huge need. I can accept a "B" grade for this draft. It wasn't great, but with five picks and a lot of holes it's hard to be great.
Chicago Bears (SI: B-, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: C)
Grades guys...those grades.
The problem is that Long took awhile to get back to football after a dalliance with baseball. Where some people see a guy who is stiff, others see a guy who is learning to react and project that once he gets it, he could even become a left tackle. Likewise, some people don’t see Bostic as very athletic, while others see him as way more explosive and talented than more highly regarded players such as Manti Te’o.
The Bears addressed a couple of needs, but did they get enough done here?
The Bears did go after needed offensive line help, but ended up with a couple of projects there, including their first-rounder, Oregon's Kyle Long. Long, however, might need to start out inside as he's still growing as a tackle.
I guess it is only acceptable to draft guys who are projects or are somewhat risky picks if the team that is selecting these players is already a contender. It's funny how an opinion changes regarding a team's draft depending on which team selected that draft. Projects are great if you are the 49ers or Falcons, but if you are the Bears then these projects aren't the right pick for your team. I attribute this to blinders on the eyes of these experts which make them believe a non-playoff team can't make risky picks with high reward, but a playoff team should be able to make risky picks because that team just made the playoffs. That playoff team doesn't "need" immediate contributors.
Cincinnati Bengals (SI: B+, Yahoo: B-, Sporting News: A-)
I'm not an offensive coordinator, but the double tight end set seems like a really good idea for the Bengals to further help control the middle of the field. It wasn't a need, but choosing the best player available isn't a terrible strategy. I don't really like Gio Bernard as much as everyone else does. I see him as a change-of-pace type back and not a guy who can carry the Bengals offense. Maybe they don't want him carrying the Bengals offense, but they did draft him in the second round, so it would be nice if he was a starting-caliber back. Plus, he has fumbles issues. Margus Hunt is a great example of experts liking a developmental pick if the team that makes the pick is a playoff team. I did enjoy the run on offensive linemen late in the draft, but I don't think I am as high on the rest of the draft. It's not a "B" draft to me.
Cleveland Browns (SI: D-, Yahoo: C, Sporting News: D)
Finally, some separation in these grades. It seems the Browns Chuded up this draft a little bit (I tend to use Rob Chudzinski's name in various ways just for fun). I thought the Browns would be a team that would try to collect more picks not trade away picks for next year, but building a good team is a process I guess. The Browns only had five picks, which didn't leave much room for an impact.
The biggest head-scratcher was the fact Browns officials, not all in on Brandon Weeden, didn't at least take a chance on one of the quarterback prospects after most of them slid.
So if Browns officials aren't all-in on Brandon Weeden then does that mean they should have used one of their five picks to grab a quarterback they also weren't all-in on? Would that make sense to follow up a bad pick with another bad pick? The quarterbacks slid for a reason and the Browns figure they can build a team around Weeden and choose a quarterback in a more quarterback-friendly draft. I don't like Barkevious Mingo. I watched a lot of LSU games this year and I think he was drafted for his potential more than anything I saw and liked about him. I'm a hater, but am not even sure I would give this draft a "D."
Dallas Cowboys (SI: C+, Yahoo: F, Sporting News: C)
Three of their first four picks are guys who might not play significantly this year. The consensus around the league is that Frederick was a reach.
Wow, "the consensus around the league" is that Frederick was a reach. What was the consensus around the league on Alfred Morris last year, Tom Brady in 2000, and Rob Gronkowski a few years ago? What was the league's consensus on Tony Romo coming out of college? I'm just wondering since the league's consensus means very little as to what a player can actually do. I don't like the value the Cowboys got for trading back, but they got a guy they obviously wanted at a position of need.
although San Diego State tight end Gavin Escobar and Baylor wide receiver Terrance Williams have bright futures, it was a case of the Cowboys adding to what they already had.
Notice how the Bengals get high marks for drafting what they already have in getting Tyler Eifert, but the Cowboys are just duplicating needlessly when they draft another tight end. Apparently only certain teams can choose to use the double tight-end set on offense and it be seen as acceptable. I also have no issue with the Cowboys choosing Terrance Williams after the rash of injuries that hit their receiving group last year. Not to mention, I think Joseph Randle could be a very good late round running back choice. I don't know if I like the specific move back the Cowboys made, but they had guys who they thought were at the top of their board and they chose these players. I'm not about to criticize them for drafting a wide receiver after Dallas struggled with injuries last year and Jason Witten can't play forever. This is a very solid "B" draft in my opinion.
Denver Broncos (SI: C+, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: C-)
It seems all of these sites were pretty lukewarm on the Broncos draft. I like Sylvester Williams, don't like Montee Ball really at all (I didn't mean to rhyme), and honestly don't know much about most of the other guys the Broncos had drafted. I know some scouts (specifically Josh Norris) love Zac Dysert, but this draft has a couple guys who are going to be developed while the Broncos make another run at a Super Bowl. Right now I would probably give this draft a low grade, but (like most drafts) this could change in three years if Smith comes back healthy and Montee Ball proves me wrong.
Detroit Lions (SI: B-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B)
I think it is very funny how these grades are so similar.
My favorite pick of Detroit’s draft: G Larry Warford in Round 3. He’s a monster and the Lions badly need a player like him up front. TE Michael Williams (Round 7) also will fit in nicely. The picks of DEs Ziggy Ansah and Devin Taylor and of CB Darius Slay could help, too, but all three have warts.
You mean there are college athletes who have warts and don't have a perfect game yet? Why didn't the Lions pick the more perfect draft choices available? The Lions had needs in this draft and they addressed them fairly well. Their grade got knocked down a bit by SI for drafting a punter, though if that was a need I don't see the problem. This could be a great haul for the Lions. Devin Taylor has been wrongly overshadowed by Clowney at USC-East and I know Larry Warford had a Round 2-grade on him from most teams. This could be an A+ draft in a few years.
Green Bay Packers (SI: A-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: A)
The Packers are one of those teams who are contenders so the draft experts tend to like due to the fact they are a playoff team. They have some "classic Ted Thompson picks," whatever exactly that means.
DE Datone Jones also has a perfect look for the Packers’ front. G/T David Bakhtiari gives the Packers another option along the O-line (as does J.C. Tretter),
Bakhitari gives the Packers "another option" along the offensive line. Wouldn't any offensive lineman drafted by the Packers give the Packers another option on the offensive line? What does "another option" even mean?
The real key to this draft could be the two offensive linemen Green Bay picked up in round 4 (Bakhtiari and Tretter). Both are classic Ted Thompson picks.
Classic Ted Thompson.
Jones is an interesting player who some people feel is going to be a great pass rusher.
It's always beneficial when the first round pass rusher a team chooses turns out to be a great pass rusher. I say the Packers did a great job. Classic Ted Thompson draft.
Houston Texans (SI: B, Yahoo: C, Sporting News: A-)
WR DeAndre Hopkins is just what the doctor ordered for this offense. Same goes for S D.J. Swearinger on the other side of the ball. Beyond that, we’ll see. Offensive linemen Brennan Williams and David Quessenberry and defensive ends Sam Montgomery and Trevardo Williams have potential, but they’ll have to work to crack the lineup.
Two good picks out of nine picks, that's a "B" class apparently. Yahoo thought something similar,
The rest of the draft wasn't anything too splashy, but GM Rick Smith is very good about drafting valuable players who can contribute even if they're not stars.
Not that the draft opinion of a team's draft is subjective or anything, but SI gave the draft a "B" while Yahoo gave it a "C." I probably lean more towards the "C" territory since I am of the opinion they should have doubled up on wide receiver or gotten a tight end. That's just my opinion though. I feel like they should have given Schaub almost too many options in the passing game.
Indianapolis Colts (SI: C, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B+)
The Colts probably either (a) didn't care to or (b) didn't have enough ammunition to trade up and get one of the top tackles on the board, but that would have been nice for Andrew Luck to have.
If you've watched GM Ryan Grigson over the span of his two drafts and two rounds of free agency, you see the pattern of a guy who understands the big picture. The Colts picked up really good value players who have strong work ethics and understated egos.
It's probably my fault, but I don't entirely love this draft. It seems Werner was a better 4-3 defensive end and they drafted Boyett based entirely on his 2011 season (he was injured last year). Khaled Holmes was a strong link in the weak USC offensive line, but I'm not sure how I feel about the Colts went about protecting Andrew Luck and they drafted a nose tackle who has had drug issues. I don't get this draft, so if you don't have anything nice to say...
Jacksonville Jaguars (SI: A, Yahoo: B-, Sporting News: A)
Let's see what Yahoo didn't like about this draft,
There's nothing at all wrong with this draft,
There's nothing wrong with the draft, it's just the Jaguars have historically not drafted well so we will just assume that continues and that's why the draft got a "B-" grade?
While some people would have liked to see first-year GM David Caldwell take a quarterback, Caldwell is going to let Gabbert get a full chance of regaining the starting job. Fact is, that's probably smart considering the depth at quarterback in next year's draft. It also allowed the Jags to get Cyprien, who should be a significant upgrade.
So there was nothing wrong with the draft and the author even thinks it was smart to not draft a quarterback...and yet the grade is a "B-." The Jaguars at least got some athletic playmakers in Sanders and Denard Robinson to help out Gabbert. I don't know what the Jaguars would have had to do get an "A" from all three experts. Perhaps if the Jaguars had made the playoffs last year they would have gotten a higher grade from Yahoo.
Kansas City Chiefs (SI: B, Yahoo: B-, Sporting News: C-)
Quite the variety of grades here. I don't know if I love this draft either. Every write-up about the Chiefs mentioned the pick of Knile Davis in the third round as being a bad one or the ultimate determination of how good the Chiefs draft is. That seems a bit dramatic considering the Chiefs had the #1 overall pick. They seemed to draft a few guys with personality or injury concerns, which I found odd considering I believe the Chiefs would want guys who had fewer red flags. It's an interesting draft and Nico Johnson may end up being the second best player in this draft. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.
Miami Dolphin: (SI: B+, Yahoo: A, Sporting News: B+)
What do you know? All three experts liked this draft for the Dolphins.
I’m very much on the Dion Jordan bandwagon, but he told me himself that he fit better on a 3-4 defense than at 4-3 end. So, either Miami needs to adjust or Jordan has to prove himself wrong to avoid the Dolphins busting out on their big Round 1 trade.
Well, that's not good news that Jordan thinks he is a better fit in a 3-4 than a 4-3. Maybe he will be proven wrong...about himself. I'm interested to see how the Dolphins use Mike Gillislee. If they don't use him in the right way, I think he will be sort of worthless to them. They have to get him in space.
They didn't find their left tackle, either, whether drafting him or trading for Kansas City's Branden Albert. But the Dolphins get a break for how much they upgraded their pass defense.
Oh, so the pass defense is going to help the Dolphins protect their starting quarterback better. That's an interesting way to go about building a team. I think the Dolphins did okay, but I am also a big fan of a team protecting their quarterback. Jordan is a bit of a risk and I would like to have seen the Dolphins grab a tackle (I am reading Dallas Thomas is more of a guard), but when Tannehill is under pressure from the blind side the Dolphins can always brag about their awesome pass rush and good cover corners. I'm thinking an "A" is too high.
Minnesota Vikings (SI: A-, Yahoo: A-, Sporting News: A-)
Boy, this is awkward. It's like three actresses wearing the same dress to an awards event.
They used them on three great examples of the "falling value" concept. Starting with Floyd, who was projected as a possible top-four pick, all three were guys who have star ability to go with some factor that drags them down the draft board.
Players fall for a reason though. It's not like all other NFL teams are morons and just let three guys fall in the first round because they don't know what the hell they are doing. Patterson is pretty damn raw, Floyd has short arms (I know, who cares?), and Xavier Rhodes may not be able to read because he went to Florida State. I kid...but my point is the Vikings did a seemingly great job filling their needs so they deserve the high grade, but let's wait a few weeks before we talk about how many will be superstars...which is what this evaluation followed this last sentence up by doing.
Also, picking a punter in the fifth round when you have Chris Kluwe around is a bit odd.
The media loves Chris Kluwe.
"He's a good writer and so outspoken on social issues!"
I have no problem with the Vikings picking a punter since Kluwe wasn't all that great last year. The bottom line for the Vikings is Patterson is considered raw, Floyd is somewhat in the same boat, and again, it's entirely possible Xavier Rhodes thinks Minnesota is in Canada and is worried because quite frankly he doesn't have a passport. Jokes aside, I like Rhodes the best. It's a good draft to meet the Vikings needs, but let's calm down a bit. They didn't draft guys without flaws.
New England Patriots (SI: C+, Yahoo: D, Sporting News: B-)
What is with all these low grades? Doesn't Yahoo know who Bill Belichick is? Haven't you seen his movies?
The Patriots need WR Aaron Dobson to be a weapon.
You mean the Patriots need a player they drafted to play well for them? No way.
The Patriots typically traded down to get quantity over quality and they seem to do okay to fit their needs. I don't know if the Patriots are a better team in April than they were in March, but that's probably not what Belichick was going for. If he wanted to get better now, then he wouldn't have traded out of the first round.
New Orleans Saints (SI: C, Yahoo: B+, Sporting News: B)
It's hard to do well in a draft with only five selections and I would have tempted to go all-defense in this draft, which the Saints didn't do. They don't really need defensive players with Rob Ryan as their defensive coordinator now. His genius will rub off on the Saints defense and they should be a Top 5 defense for the next decade.
The best of the rest might be DT John Jenkins, who’s faster than he looks.
He's faster than he looks because he looks like he weighs almost 350 pounds, which is about what he does weigh. I do like the Saints draft. I'm not sure given the lack of picks it will be a deeply impactful draft, but Jenkins is a real nose tackle for the 3-4, Kenny Stills is underrated, and if Kenny Vaccaro ends up not being able to tackle then no one will notice because the rest of the Saints defense can't either. I know it isn't popular, but this is close to an "A" draft for me. They met needs well with a few amount of picks.
New York Giants (SI: B, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B)
Syracuse first-rounder Justin Pugh is too smooth not to win a job at guard or tackle in '13.
Pugh is just like malt liquor, just too smooth not to have an impact on you in some way.
I feel like I am being too nice here, but I like what the Giants did. Ryan Nassib in the worst case scenario is better than David Carr (my respect for David Carr's QB abilities is non-existent) and I mocked Damontre Moore in the first round. I think he can/will be that good. I'm sort of "eh" about Pugh and Hankins, but I think the grades given above are probably about right. Who cares about the New York team that wins games and Super Bowls though, let's talk about the Jets.
New York Jets (SI: C, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: D)
Quite a variety in grades here.
DT Sheldon Richardson is kind of miscast in the Jets’ current defense, and CB Dee Milliner broke the rule that you don’t try to replace a player you just traded away by drafting someone at the same position.
I'm pretty sure that's not a rule and was just made up by the author. Besides, isn't Milliner considered the best corner in the draft? Rex Ryan (for better or worse) likes corners.
Their entire draft will ride on just how good West Virginia's Geno Smith will be as their starting quarterback, and there's reason to believe the pairing will be quite bumpy.
This is kind of silly. So if Sheldon Richardson and Dee Milliner are both stars, while Geno Smith busts then the Jets draft won't be considered having been very good? That doesn't make sense to me. The Jets need a quarterback, so they drafted one. If they had not touched a quarterback in the draft then these experts would be pointing out how the Jets passed over a need.
Oakland Raiders (SI: B-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: C-)
Then there’s the swing for the fences in Round 4: QB Tyler Wilson, who may put the heat on Matt Flynn.
I'm very confused how drafting a quarterback in the fourth round is "swinging for the fences." It sounds like the Raiders are looking to develop a backup and couldn't pass on Wilson's skill set. It's a smart pick, even if it doesn't work out.
I know these are the "new" Raiders, but their first two picks do have some risk about them. So maybe the "old" Raiders can still be found in the "new" Raiders. They probably should have addressed their need for defensive linemen before drafting a corner, but different strokes for different folks I guess.
Philadelphia Eagles (SI: B+, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: A)
Chip Kelly is a genius. I'm not exactly sure how he is a genius yet, but let's just start from there.
Until we know more about Chip Kelly’s plans, let’s just chalk the Matt Barkley pickup to finding a potential first-round QB at No. 98.
Barkley's reputation puts him in the first round, not his production and the results of his workouts. The IDEA of Matt Barkley seems to be very much more attractive than the actual player. They basically re-drafted Nick Foles in some ways. I'm not a big Lane Johnson fan (at least from what I have watched from him), but I am sure Chip Kelly has a plan for him. Zach Ertz seems to be a good pick, mostly because of the assumptions being made about what Kelly's offense will consist of. Now if only the Eagles could do something about that turnover-prone quarterback of theirs.
Pittsburgh Steelers (SI: B+, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: A)
More variety in grades here. Here is part of the review from Yahoo:
Just like Baltimore, the Steelers never panic, even if their fans sometimes go off the deep end. There was a story out of Steeltown recently decrying the fall of the team this offseason. Oh please. In this draft, the Steelers came up with a proven pass rusher in Jones and two nice parts for the offense in Bell and Wheaton.
Then he gave the draft a "C+." Yeah, I can't figure it out either. I got no need for Le'Veon Bell personally. There are three or four other running backs I probably would have drafted first. The Steelers are pretty good drafters so I may be wrong about this one pick, but I lean towards hating Bell. I think Jarvis Jones was a fantastic pick and Marcus Wheaton is going to be another solid wide receiver for the Steelers. It was a pretty good draft. I don't know how it can get a C+.
St. Louis Rams (SI: A, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B+)
Here I go hating again. I really don't mean to hate on the Rams.
It’s very unusual for such a small wide receiver (Austin is all of 5-foot-8) to go in the top 10 of a draft, but the Rams were selecting as much for need as for value. St. Louis jumped eight spots to get the speedy Austin, who has a chance to turn the Rams into the second coming of the Greatest Show on Turf. Yeah, I said it,
Austin and Bailey both played in a very wide-receiver friendly system at West Virginia. They were very productive, don't get me wrong, and I think Austin is going to be a slot receiver. It's just I don't think he is worth the #8 overall pick. I've been wrong before and I could be wrong again.
Jeff Fisher also got a speedy linebacker who can cover (Georgia's Alec Ogletree) and the slobber-knocking safety (USC's T.J. McDonald) he covets.
McDonald is overrated to me. He's another guy who I think has a bigger reputation than talent-level. Ogletree is talented, but he has personal issues and I think the whole "the locker room will take care of him" angle is overplayed. Sometimes a troublemaker is just that and can't be fixed. Maybe the Rams can have someone control his entire life like they did with Janoris Jenkins. I don't hate this draft, I just give it closer to a low "B-" rather than rave about it.
San Diego Chargers (SI: B, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B)
In OT D.J. Fluker, LB Manti Te’o and WR Keenan Allen, the Chargers added three starters.
Is that more a product of the lack of depth at each position or these players' talents? I think Fluker is just okay. He's be a slightly above average right tackle, I still can't get past Te'o's performance against the pro-style Alabama offensive line...but I do think Keenan Allen was a steal.
Playing next to rangy, big playmaker Donald Butler in their 3-4, there's less pressure on Te'o, who can focus on his strength as an instinctual upfield tackler.
I don't draft a guy in the second round who needs to have pressure taken off him and I still question whether he can survive in the NFL while seeming as naive as he comes off. Yeah, that has nothing to do with on-the-field play, but it does have something to do with how good this draft was for the Chargers. The Chargers are a better team now, so I think the "C+" is about right.
San Francisco 49ers (SI: A, Yahoo: A+, Sporting News: A)
Trent Baalke has the entire NFL salivating at his genius and demanding he immediately start dating their daughters. I tried to poke holes in this draft and I probably could criticize the trade-up for Eric Reid, but I would be nit-picking. I like the Marcus Lattimore pick a lot. He'll be back. I'm not sure why they drafted B.J. Daniels other than to give the practice squad a mobile quarterback to prepare against. I don't know if these picks will all pan out, but it was a pretty good effort.
Seattle Seahawks (SI: B-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B-)
Actually, the Seahawks’ best decisions came at 137 (DT Jesse Williams) and 138 (CB Tharold Simon). The Seahawks had a roster built to roll the dice a bit in the draft, and that’s just what they did with their first three picks.
These draft graders only like it when teams who are already successful take a risk with their picks. If the Jaguars had drafted Simon you could be sure it would get them criticized.
The Seahawks do have a pretty good team right now, so they were drafting to provide depth or replace guys who may leave for free agency in a year or two. I'm not sure I can rave about any of these picks, but not having a first round pick can do that to you. I'm not sure any of the guys drafted after the fifth round will even stick with the team, but that's a testament to how deep the Seahawks feel they are.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (SI: C, Yahoo: A-, Sporting News: C-)
A variety of grades for the Bucs draft.
While Glennon is a questionable pick in the third round,
Is Glennon a questionable pick in the third round though? Has anyone seen Josh Freeman's performance at times last year? The Bucs need to get some pressure on him to perform to his potential. Glennon could do that. This draft should be at least a "B" for no other reason than they drafted Jonathan Banks, which means Eric Wright won't be on the field much for them. Eric Wright is terrible. William Gholston was a somewhat underachiever at times at Michigan State, so it's hard to see this as an "A" draft. Either way, Freeman and Wright got competition, which is a wonderful thing.
Tennessee Titans (SI: A-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: C-)
I love this draft for the Titans. Chance Warmack was the best player in this draft in my opinion. He is going to be an All-Pro at least 6-7 times. I feel about him as others feel about Trent Baalke.
Let's start with the good. The Titans kept up their interior offensive line upgrade theme, adding Alabama guard Chance Warmack and California center Brian Schwenke to join free-agent addition Andy Levitre. But getting wide receiver Justin Hunter from Tennessee is a boom-bust proposition,
I think combining Justin Hunter with Britt and Kendall Wright was a great move. The Sporting News gave the Vikings an "A-" for drafting an even bigger risk in Cordarrelle Patterson during the first round, but in the second round Justin Hunter is just too big of a risk? I don't get it.
both Connecticut cornerback Blidi Wreh-Wilson and Missouri linebacker Zaviar Gooden need more polish to be impact players.
So their two third round picks aren't immediate starters and may have holes in their game? Fascinating.
Brian Schwenke may have a terrible picture, but he's a great pick in the fourth round. I like Lavar Edwards a lot for where they drafted him. I think this is an "A" draft.
Washington Redskins (SI: C+, Yahoo: B+, Sporting News: D)
The Redskins went into this draft without a first round pick, which put them behind the 8-ball.
Amerson is a guy who suffers from DeAngelo Hall Disease, which is the inordinate tendency to get beat deep despite having good speed.
There is another name for this, called "He looks like he should be better than he is" syndrome. Amerson was supposed to be great, but he never really was. I don't think Jordan Reed was a reach because he just needs to not have an average quarterback throwing him the football. He and Robert Griffin are going to be good friends and work well together. I predict great things for Reed. Otherwise, I'm not terribly motivated to get excited about this draft, though Chris Thompson may end up rushing for 2000 yards this year because Mike Shanahan knows how to pick running backs. The most exciting part of Bacarri Rambo for me might be his name.
Arizona Cardinals (SI: B+, Yahoo: A, Sporting News: A-)
Either the Cardinals draft will be excellent in a few years or we have some major groupthink going on here. I wish the Cardinals had gone after Chance Warmack since I think he will be the best offensive lineman in this draft (fine, I think he's the best player in this draft). Jonathan Cooper is very versatile, so maybe that's why they passed up Warmack.
The headliner here is CB Tyrann Mathieu, but it’s actually what Arizona did elsewhere that made this a very solid draft.
This was an excellent draft in my opinion. I would lean closer to the A- than an A, because I prefer Warmack to Cooper. I'm still not sure what the Cardinals are going to do long-term at quarterback, but I like this team a lot more after the draft. I really like the two running backs they chose. I know running backs are overrated, blah, blah, blah, but I think Ellington/Taylor are two good picks.
Atlanta Falcons (SI: B, Yahoo: A-, Sporting News: B)
Again, it seems we have some groupthink here. I have a feeling we will see this a lot. It seems like all of the draft grades are similar, but how can it be that each "expert" likes each team's draft the exact same? It's weird to me.
If GM Thomas Dimitroff is one thing above all else, it’s realistic. He saw how the Falcons' defense got torched in the playoffs and dumped his aging cornerbacks and defensive end. He then used four of his top five picks on critical positions. He traded up to get Trufant, followed that with another corner and then picked up two defensive ends with projectable pass-rush ability.
The move for Trufant did cost them a third-rounder, which left them taking a shot on DE Malliciah Goodman in Round 4.
The Falcons did a good job of drafting cornerbacks to replace Grimes and Robinson. I don't want to be too hard on them, but I thought they needed a pass-rusher and I'm not sure taking on two defensive ends who are both inconsistent is the way to fill their pass rush needs. They did get a tight end in the late rounds, which is nice given the fact Tony Gonzalez is probably (who knows) going to retire after this year. I firmly believe the pass rush helps out the corners, so I am not sure I would double-down on cornerbacks and have gotten a pass-rusher in the second round. I think a "B" is a bit of a high grade.
Baltimore Ravens (SI: A-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B+)
If you have read one set of draft grades then you have read them all, huh? The comments differ, but the grades don't. The Ravens were able to re-load on defense. I thought the Ravens could draft Arthur Brown in the first round instead of taking Matt Elam, so I like that pick in the second round. Because I am me though, I don't know if I like that the Ravens didn't address the offensive line or receiving position until later in the draft. I realize the Ravens feel good about their offensive line, but I thought they should have taken a player earlier than they did. Plus, with Boldin gone I wish they had addressed the passing game a little earlier. It's a tough situation for them, as they needed to rebuild the defense but also provide their new franchise quarterback with protection and weapons on offense.
Buffalo Bills (SI: B-, Yahoo: B+, Sporting News: C)
Well, we have a little more diverging in the grades given for the Bills.
The Bills were all about going back to the drawing board with their passing game. The centerpiece is Florida State quarterback EJ Manuel, but coach Doug Marrone and his staff have their work cut out to turn him into a polished, athletic passer.
It's almost like the coaching staff of the Bills has to coach the players and work with them to be better football players. Who would have thought this could ever occur? How shocking to hear that Manuel will need coaching.
Offensively, there's a lot of potential but more shaky unknown.
These are quotes from the "C" grade given. So the Bills were knocked down because of the "unknown" aspect of the Bills draft. I'm guessing other teams drafted players who were more sure-fire stars? It's not as if there aren't 200 others players in this draft who are unknowns. The Bills got the quarterback they wanted, got an extra pick out of it, and drafted a guy I really, really like in Marquise Goodwin (he could thrive in the slot). Not to mention, I think Robert Woods was a victim of the USC disaster this year. I still like him. I don't care if it is a bunch of unknowns, the Bills drafted for their needs. Will it work out? Nobody knows. This isn't a "C" draft though.
Carolina Panthers (SI: C, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B-)
Again, very similar grades given. It seems these "experts" all have the same feelings on every draft. It was a boring draft for Carolina. Boring isn't always bad, especially with only having five picks and quite a few holes.
From there, it was a pretty nondescript effort, save for the head-scratcher pick of G Edmund Kugbila in Round 4. Also not sure how RB Kenjon Barner fits in a crowded backfield.
Let's think how would a running back who ran well in Oregon's offense would fit in well with a team that has some read-option plays in their playbook? Boy, that is tough to figure out. Not to mention Carolina's salary cap issues are well-known, so Barner being drafted could mean the Carolina backfield will be getting less crowded in the next year or two. DeAngelo Williams is probably going to be exiting stage-right soon. Anyone who saw Carolina play last year saw the terrible play at the defensive tackle position. Carolina had Star Lotulelei fall to them (players fall for a reason sometimes, so this may not be good news) but they also filled a huge need. I can accept a "B" grade for this draft. It wasn't great, but with five picks and a lot of holes it's hard to be great.
Chicago Bears (SI: B-, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: C)
Grades guys...those grades.
The problem is that Long took awhile to get back to football after a dalliance with baseball. Where some people see a guy who is stiff, others see a guy who is learning to react and project that once he gets it, he could even become a left tackle. Likewise, some people don’t see Bostic as very athletic, while others see him as way more explosive and talented than more highly regarded players such as Manti Te’o.
The Bears addressed a couple of needs, but did they get enough done here?
The Bears did go after needed offensive line help, but ended up with a couple of projects there, including their first-rounder, Oregon's Kyle Long. Long, however, might need to start out inside as he's still growing as a tackle.
I guess it is only acceptable to draft guys who are projects or are somewhat risky picks if the team that is selecting these players is already a contender. It's funny how an opinion changes regarding a team's draft depending on which team selected that draft. Projects are great if you are the 49ers or Falcons, but if you are the Bears then these projects aren't the right pick for your team. I attribute this to blinders on the eyes of these experts which make them believe a non-playoff team can't make risky picks with high reward, but a playoff team should be able to make risky picks because that team just made the playoffs. That playoff team doesn't "need" immediate contributors.
Cincinnati Bengals (SI: B+, Yahoo: B-, Sporting News: A-)
I'm not an offensive coordinator, but the double tight end set seems like a really good idea for the Bengals to further help control the middle of the field. It wasn't a need, but choosing the best player available isn't a terrible strategy. I don't really like Gio Bernard as much as everyone else does. I see him as a change-of-pace type back and not a guy who can carry the Bengals offense. Maybe they don't want him carrying the Bengals offense, but they did draft him in the second round, so it would be nice if he was a starting-caliber back. Plus, he has fumbles issues. Margus Hunt is a great example of experts liking a developmental pick if the team that makes the pick is a playoff team. I did enjoy the run on offensive linemen late in the draft, but I don't think I am as high on the rest of the draft. It's not a "B" draft to me.
Cleveland Browns (SI: D-, Yahoo: C, Sporting News: D)
Finally, some separation in these grades. It seems the Browns Chuded up this draft a little bit (I tend to use Rob Chudzinski's name in various ways just for fun). I thought the Browns would be a team that would try to collect more picks not trade away picks for next year, but building a good team is a process I guess. The Browns only had five picks, which didn't leave much room for an impact.
The biggest head-scratcher was the fact Browns officials, not all in on Brandon Weeden, didn't at least take a chance on one of the quarterback prospects after most of them slid.
So if Browns officials aren't all-in on Brandon Weeden then does that mean they should have used one of their five picks to grab a quarterback they also weren't all-in on? Would that make sense to follow up a bad pick with another bad pick? The quarterbacks slid for a reason and the Browns figure they can build a team around Weeden and choose a quarterback in a more quarterback-friendly draft. I don't like Barkevious Mingo. I watched a lot of LSU games this year and I think he was drafted for his potential more than anything I saw and liked about him. I'm a hater, but am not even sure I would give this draft a "D."
Dallas Cowboys (SI: C+, Yahoo: F, Sporting News: C)
Three of their first four picks are guys who might not play significantly this year. The consensus around the league is that Frederick was a reach.
Wow, "the consensus around the league" is that Frederick was a reach. What was the consensus around the league on Alfred Morris last year, Tom Brady in 2000, and Rob Gronkowski a few years ago? What was the league's consensus on Tony Romo coming out of college? I'm just wondering since the league's consensus means very little as to what a player can actually do. I don't like the value the Cowboys got for trading back, but they got a guy they obviously wanted at a position of need.
although San Diego State tight end Gavin Escobar and Baylor wide receiver Terrance Williams have bright futures, it was a case of the Cowboys adding to what they already had.
Notice how the Bengals get high marks for drafting what they already have in getting Tyler Eifert, but the Cowboys are just duplicating needlessly when they draft another tight end. Apparently only certain teams can choose to use the double tight-end set on offense and it be seen as acceptable. I also have no issue with the Cowboys choosing Terrance Williams after the rash of injuries that hit their receiving group last year. Not to mention, I think Joseph Randle could be a very good late round running back choice. I don't know if I like the specific move back the Cowboys made, but they had guys who they thought were at the top of their board and they chose these players. I'm not about to criticize them for drafting a wide receiver after Dallas struggled with injuries last year and Jason Witten can't play forever. This is a very solid "B" draft in my opinion.
Denver Broncos (SI: C+, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: C-)
It seems all of these sites were pretty lukewarm on the Broncos draft. I like Sylvester Williams, don't like Montee Ball really at all (I didn't mean to rhyme), and honestly don't know much about most of the other guys the Broncos had drafted. I know some scouts (specifically Josh Norris) love Zac Dysert, but this draft has a couple guys who are going to be developed while the Broncos make another run at a Super Bowl. Right now I would probably give this draft a low grade, but (like most drafts) this could change in three years if Smith comes back healthy and Montee Ball proves me wrong.
Detroit Lions (SI: B-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B)
I think it is very funny how these grades are so similar.
My favorite pick of Detroit’s draft: G Larry Warford in Round 3. He’s a monster and the Lions badly need a player like him up front. TE Michael Williams (Round 7) also will fit in nicely. The picks of DEs Ziggy Ansah and Devin Taylor and of CB Darius Slay could help, too, but all three have warts.
You mean there are college athletes who have warts and don't have a perfect game yet? Why didn't the Lions pick the more perfect draft choices available? The Lions had needs in this draft and they addressed them fairly well. Their grade got knocked down a bit by SI for drafting a punter, though if that was a need I don't see the problem. This could be a great haul for the Lions. Devin Taylor has been wrongly overshadowed by Clowney at USC-East and I know Larry Warford had a Round 2-grade on him from most teams. This could be an A+ draft in a few years.
Green Bay Packers (SI: A-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: A)
The Packers are one of those teams who are contenders so the draft experts tend to like due to the fact they are a playoff team. They have some "classic Ted Thompson picks," whatever exactly that means.
DE Datone Jones also has a perfect look for the Packers’ front. G/T David Bakhtiari gives the Packers another option along the O-line (as does J.C. Tretter),
Bakhitari gives the Packers "another option" along the offensive line. Wouldn't any offensive lineman drafted by the Packers give the Packers another option on the offensive line? What does "another option" even mean?
The real key to this draft could be the two offensive linemen Green Bay picked up in round 4 (Bakhtiari and Tretter). Both are classic Ted Thompson picks.
Classic Ted Thompson.
Jones is an interesting player who some people feel is going to be a great pass rusher.
It's always beneficial when the first round pass rusher a team chooses turns out to be a great pass rusher. I say the Packers did a great job. Classic Ted Thompson draft.
Houston Texans (SI: B, Yahoo: C, Sporting News: A-)
WR DeAndre Hopkins is just what the doctor ordered for this offense. Same goes for S D.J. Swearinger on the other side of the ball. Beyond that, we’ll see. Offensive linemen Brennan Williams and David Quessenberry and defensive ends Sam Montgomery and Trevardo Williams have potential, but they’ll have to work to crack the lineup.
Two good picks out of nine picks, that's a "B" class apparently. Yahoo thought something similar,
The rest of the draft wasn't anything too splashy, but GM Rick Smith is very good about drafting valuable players who can contribute even if they're not stars.
Not that the draft opinion of a team's draft is subjective or anything, but SI gave the draft a "B" while Yahoo gave it a "C." I probably lean more towards the "C" territory since I am of the opinion they should have doubled up on wide receiver or gotten a tight end. That's just my opinion though. I feel like they should have given Schaub almost too many options in the passing game.
Indianapolis Colts (SI: C, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B+)
The Colts probably either (a) didn't care to or (b) didn't have enough ammunition to trade up and get one of the top tackles on the board, but that would have been nice for Andrew Luck to have.
If you've watched GM Ryan Grigson over the span of his two drafts and two rounds of free agency, you see the pattern of a guy who understands the big picture. The Colts picked up really good value players who have strong work ethics and understated egos.
It's probably my fault, but I don't entirely love this draft. It seems Werner was a better 4-3 defensive end and they drafted Boyett based entirely on his 2011 season (he was injured last year). Khaled Holmes was a strong link in the weak USC offensive line, but I'm not sure how I feel about the Colts went about protecting Andrew Luck and they drafted a nose tackle who has had drug issues. I don't get this draft, so if you don't have anything nice to say...
Jacksonville Jaguars (SI: A, Yahoo: B-, Sporting News: A)
Let's see what Yahoo didn't like about this draft,
There's nothing at all wrong with this draft,
There's nothing wrong with the draft, it's just the Jaguars have historically not drafted well so we will just assume that continues and that's why the draft got a "B-" grade?
While some people would have liked to see first-year GM David Caldwell take a quarterback, Caldwell is going to let Gabbert get a full chance of regaining the starting job. Fact is, that's probably smart considering the depth at quarterback in next year's draft. It also allowed the Jags to get Cyprien, who should be a significant upgrade.
So there was nothing wrong with the draft and the author even thinks it was smart to not draft a quarterback...and yet the grade is a "B-." The Jaguars at least got some athletic playmakers in Sanders and Denard Robinson to help out Gabbert. I don't know what the Jaguars would have had to do get an "A" from all three experts. Perhaps if the Jaguars had made the playoffs last year they would have gotten a higher grade from Yahoo.
Kansas City Chiefs (SI: B, Yahoo: B-, Sporting News: C-)
Quite the variety of grades here. I don't know if I love this draft either. Every write-up about the Chiefs mentioned the pick of Knile Davis in the third round as being a bad one or the ultimate determination of how good the Chiefs draft is. That seems a bit dramatic considering the Chiefs had the #1 overall pick. They seemed to draft a few guys with personality or injury concerns, which I found odd considering I believe the Chiefs would want guys who had fewer red flags. It's an interesting draft and Nico Johnson may end up being the second best player in this draft. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.
Miami Dolphin: (SI: B+, Yahoo: A, Sporting News: B+)
What do you know? All three experts liked this draft for the Dolphins.
I’m very much on the Dion Jordan bandwagon, but he told me himself that he fit better on a 3-4 defense than at 4-3 end. So, either Miami needs to adjust or Jordan has to prove himself wrong to avoid the Dolphins busting out on their big Round 1 trade.
Well, that's not good news that Jordan thinks he is a better fit in a 3-4 than a 4-3. Maybe he will be proven wrong...about himself. I'm interested to see how the Dolphins use Mike Gillislee. If they don't use him in the right way, I think he will be sort of worthless to them. They have to get him in space.
They didn't find their left tackle, either, whether drafting him or trading for Kansas City's Branden Albert. But the Dolphins get a break for how much they upgraded their pass defense.
Oh, so the pass defense is going to help the Dolphins protect their starting quarterback better. That's an interesting way to go about building a team. I think the Dolphins did okay, but I am also a big fan of a team protecting their quarterback. Jordan is a bit of a risk and I would like to have seen the Dolphins grab a tackle (I am reading Dallas Thomas is more of a guard), but when Tannehill is under pressure from the blind side the Dolphins can always brag about their awesome pass rush and good cover corners. I'm thinking an "A" is too high.
Minnesota Vikings (SI: A-, Yahoo: A-, Sporting News: A-)
Boy, this is awkward. It's like three actresses wearing the same dress to an awards event.
They used them on three great examples of the "falling value" concept. Starting with Floyd, who was projected as a possible top-four pick, all three were guys who have star ability to go with some factor that drags them down the draft board.
Players fall for a reason though. It's not like all other NFL teams are morons and just let three guys fall in the first round because they don't know what the hell they are doing. Patterson is pretty damn raw, Floyd has short arms (I know, who cares?), and Xavier Rhodes may not be able to read because he went to Florida State. I kid...but my point is the Vikings did a seemingly great job filling their needs so they deserve the high grade, but let's wait a few weeks before we talk about how many will be superstars...which is what this evaluation followed this last sentence up by doing.
Also, picking a punter in the fifth round when you have Chris Kluwe around is a bit odd.
The media loves Chris Kluwe.
"He's a good writer and so outspoken on social issues!"
I have no problem with the Vikings picking a punter since Kluwe wasn't all that great last year. The bottom line for the Vikings is Patterson is considered raw, Floyd is somewhat in the same boat, and again, it's entirely possible Xavier Rhodes thinks Minnesota is in Canada and is worried because quite frankly he doesn't have a passport. Jokes aside, I like Rhodes the best. It's a good draft to meet the Vikings needs, but let's calm down a bit. They didn't draft guys without flaws.
New England Patriots (SI: C+, Yahoo: D, Sporting News: B-)
What is with all these low grades? Doesn't Yahoo know who Bill Belichick is? Haven't you seen his movies?
The Patriots need WR Aaron Dobson to be a weapon.
You mean the Patriots need a player they drafted to play well for them? No way.
The Patriots typically traded down to get quantity over quality and they seem to do okay to fit their needs. I don't know if the Patriots are a better team in April than they were in March, but that's probably not what Belichick was going for. If he wanted to get better now, then he wouldn't have traded out of the first round.
New Orleans Saints (SI: C, Yahoo: B+, Sporting News: B)
It's hard to do well in a draft with only five selections and I would have tempted to go all-defense in this draft, which the Saints didn't do. They don't really need defensive players with Rob Ryan as their defensive coordinator now. His genius will rub off on the Saints defense and they should be a Top 5 defense for the next decade.
The best of the rest might be DT John Jenkins, who’s faster than he looks.
He's faster than he looks because he looks like he weighs almost 350 pounds, which is about what he does weigh. I do like the Saints draft. I'm not sure given the lack of picks it will be a deeply impactful draft, but Jenkins is a real nose tackle for the 3-4, Kenny Stills is underrated, and if Kenny Vaccaro ends up not being able to tackle then no one will notice because the rest of the Saints defense can't either. I know it isn't popular, but this is close to an "A" draft for me. They met needs well with a few amount of picks.
New York Giants (SI: B, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B)
Syracuse first-rounder Justin Pugh is too smooth not to win a job at guard or tackle in '13.
Pugh is just like malt liquor, just too smooth not to have an impact on you in some way.
I feel like I am being too nice here, but I like what the Giants did. Ryan Nassib in the worst case scenario is better than David Carr (my respect for David Carr's QB abilities is non-existent) and I mocked Damontre Moore in the first round. I think he can/will be that good. I'm sort of "eh" about Pugh and Hankins, but I think the grades given above are probably about right. Who cares about the New York team that wins games and Super Bowls though, let's talk about the Jets.
New York Jets (SI: C, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: D)
Quite a variety in grades here.
DT Sheldon Richardson is kind of miscast in the Jets’ current defense, and CB Dee Milliner broke the rule that you don’t try to replace a player you just traded away by drafting someone at the same position.
I'm pretty sure that's not a rule and was just made up by the author. Besides, isn't Milliner considered the best corner in the draft? Rex Ryan (for better or worse) likes corners.
Their entire draft will ride on just how good West Virginia's Geno Smith will be as their starting quarterback, and there's reason to believe the pairing will be quite bumpy.
This is kind of silly. So if Sheldon Richardson and Dee Milliner are both stars, while Geno Smith busts then the Jets draft won't be considered having been very good? That doesn't make sense to me. The Jets need a quarterback, so they drafted one. If they had not touched a quarterback in the draft then these experts would be pointing out how the Jets passed over a need.
Oakland Raiders (SI: B-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: C-)
Then there’s the swing for the fences in Round 4: QB Tyler Wilson, who may put the heat on Matt Flynn.
I'm very confused how drafting a quarterback in the fourth round is "swinging for the fences." It sounds like the Raiders are looking to develop a backup and couldn't pass on Wilson's skill set. It's a smart pick, even if it doesn't work out.
I know these are the "new" Raiders, but their first two picks do have some risk about them. So maybe the "old" Raiders can still be found in the "new" Raiders. They probably should have addressed their need for defensive linemen before drafting a corner, but different strokes for different folks I guess.
Philadelphia Eagles (SI: B+, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: A)
Chip Kelly is a genius. I'm not exactly sure how he is a genius yet, but let's just start from there.
Until we know more about Chip Kelly’s plans, let’s just chalk the Matt Barkley pickup to finding a potential first-round QB at No. 98.
Barkley's reputation puts him in the first round, not his production and the results of his workouts. The IDEA of Matt Barkley seems to be very much more attractive than the actual player. They basically re-drafted Nick Foles in some ways. I'm not a big Lane Johnson fan (at least from what I have watched from him), but I am sure Chip Kelly has a plan for him. Zach Ertz seems to be a good pick, mostly because of the assumptions being made about what Kelly's offense will consist of. Now if only the Eagles could do something about that turnover-prone quarterback of theirs.
Pittsburgh Steelers (SI: B+, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: A)
More variety in grades here. Here is part of the review from Yahoo:
Just like Baltimore, the Steelers never panic, even if their fans sometimes go off the deep end. There was a story out of Steeltown recently decrying the fall of the team this offseason. Oh please. In this draft, the Steelers came up with a proven pass rusher in Jones and two nice parts for the offense in Bell and Wheaton.
Then he gave the draft a "C+." Yeah, I can't figure it out either. I got no need for Le'Veon Bell personally. There are three or four other running backs I probably would have drafted first. The Steelers are pretty good drafters so I may be wrong about this one pick, but I lean towards hating Bell. I think Jarvis Jones was a fantastic pick and Marcus Wheaton is going to be another solid wide receiver for the Steelers. It was a pretty good draft. I don't know how it can get a C+.
St. Louis Rams (SI: A, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B+)
Here I go hating again. I really don't mean to hate on the Rams.
It’s very unusual for such a small wide receiver (Austin is all of 5-foot-8) to go in the top 10 of a draft, but the Rams were selecting as much for need as for value. St. Louis jumped eight spots to get the speedy Austin, who has a chance to turn the Rams into the second coming of the Greatest Show on Turf. Yeah, I said it,
Austin and Bailey both played in a very wide-receiver friendly system at West Virginia. They were very productive, don't get me wrong, and I think Austin is going to be a slot receiver. It's just I don't think he is worth the #8 overall pick. I've been wrong before and I could be wrong again.
Jeff Fisher also got a speedy linebacker who can cover (Georgia's Alec Ogletree) and the slobber-knocking safety (USC's T.J. McDonald) he covets.
McDonald is overrated to me. He's another guy who I think has a bigger reputation than talent-level. Ogletree is talented, but he has personal issues and I think the whole "the locker room will take care of him" angle is overplayed. Sometimes a troublemaker is just that and can't be fixed. Maybe the Rams can have someone control his entire life like they did with Janoris Jenkins. I don't hate this draft, I just give it closer to a low "B-" rather than rave about it.
San Diego Chargers (SI: B, Yahoo: C+, Sporting News: B)
In OT D.J. Fluker, LB Manti Te’o and WR Keenan Allen, the Chargers added three starters.
Is that more a product of the lack of depth at each position or these players' talents? I think Fluker is just okay. He's be a slightly above average right tackle, I still can't get past Te'o's performance against the pro-style Alabama offensive line...but I do think Keenan Allen was a steal.
Playing next to rangy, big playmaker Donald Butler in their 3-4, there's less pressure on Te'o, who can focus on his strength as an instinctual upfield tackler.
I don't draft a guy in the second round who needs to have pressure taken off him and I still question whether he can survive in the NFL while seeming as naive as he comes off. Yeah, that has nothing to do with on-the-field play, but it does have something to do with how good this draft was for the Chargers. The Chargers are a better team now, so I think the "C+" is about right.
San Francisco 49ers (SI: A, Yahoo: A+, Sporting News: A)
Trent Baalke has the entire NFL salivating at his genius and demanding he immediately start dating their daughters. I tried to poke holes in this draft and I probably could criticize the trade-up for Eric Reid, but I would be nit-picking. I like the Marcus Lattimore pick a lot. He'll be back. I'm not sure why they drafted B.J. Daniels other than to give the practice squad a mobile quarterback to prepare against. I don't know if these picks will all pan out, but it was a pretty good effort.
Seattle Seahawks (SI: B-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: B-)
Actually, the Seahawks’ best decisions came at 137 (DT Jesse Williams) and 138 (CB Tharold Simon). The Seahawks had a roster built to roll the dice a bit in the draft, and that’s just what they did with their first three picks.
These draft graders only like it when teams who are already successful take a risk with their picks. If the Jaguars had drafted Simon you could be sure it would get them criticized.
The Seahawks do have a pretty good team right now, so they were drafting to provide depth or replace guys who may leave for free agency in a year or two. I'm not sure I can rave about any of these picks, but not having a first round pick can do that to you. I'm not sure any of the guys drafted after the fifth round will even stick with the team, but that's a testament to how deep the Seahawks feel they are.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (SI: C, Yahoo: A-, Sporting News: C-)
A variety of grades for the Bucs draft.
While Glennon is a questionable pick in the third round,
Is Glennon a questionable pick in the third round though? Has anyone seen Josh Freeman's performance at times last year? The Bucs need to get some pressure on him to perform to his potential. Glennon could do that. This draft should be at least a "B" for no other reason than they drafted Jonathan Banks, which means Eric Wright won't be on the field much for them. Eric Wright is terrible. William Gholston was a somewhat underachiever at times at Michigan State, so it's hard to see this as an "A" draft. Either way, Freeman and Wright got competition, which is a wonderful thing.
Tennessee Titans (SI: A-, Yahoo: B, Sporting News: C-)
I love this draft for the Titans. Chance Warmack was the best player in this draft in my opinion. He is going to be an All-Pro at least 6-7 times. I feel about him as others feel about Trent Baalke.
Let's start with the good. The Titans kept up their interior offensive line upgrade theme, adding Alabama guard Chance Warmack and California center Brian Schwenke to join free-agent addition Andy Levitre. But getting wide receiver Justin Hunter from Tennessee is a boom-bust proposition,
I think combining Justin Hunter with Britt and Kendall Wright was a great move. The Sporting News gave the Vikings an "A-" for drafting an even bigger risk in Cordarrelle Patterson during the first round, but in the second round Justin Hunter is just too big of a risk? I don't get it.
both Connecticut cornerback Blidi Wreh-Wilson and Missouri linebacker Zaviar Gooden need more polish to be impact players.
So their two third round picks aren't immediate starters and may have holes in their game? Fascinating.
Brian Schwenke may have a terrible picture, but he's a great pick in the fourth round. I like Lavar Edwards a lot for where they drafted him. I think this is an "A" draft.
Washington Redskins (SI: C+, Yahoo: B+, Sporting News: D)
The Redskins went into this draft without a first round pick, which put them behind the 8-ball.
Amerson is a guy who suffers from DeAngelo Hall Disease, which is the inordinate tendency to get beat deep despite having good speed.
There is another name for this, called "He looks like he should be better than he is" syndrome. Amerson was supposed to be great, but he never really was. I don't think Jordan Reed was a reach because he just needs to not have an average quarterback throwing him the football. He and Robert Griffin are going to be good friends and work well together. I predict great things for Reed. Otherwise, I'm not terribly motivated to get excited about this draft, though Chris Thompson may end up rushing for 2000 yards this year because Mike Shanahan knows how to pick running backs. The most exciting part of Bacarri Rambo for me might be his name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)