I've already dedicated one entry about the Redskins' draft choices but yesterday's breaking news that the Rams are determined to trade their number 2 pick begs me to put my thoughts on what my favorite team should do in the draft out there yet again.
The Redskins are certainly in the running for this pick because Shanahan and new Rams coach Jeff Fisher are long time friends. And the Skins definitely need a quarterback. And it appears that the Browns are in the market as well. So those are the reasons to trade. Now here are the much more compelling reasons to not.
First, don't let the hype fool you, all that glitters is not gold. RGIII is not a sure thing. For starters, his stats didn't become elite until this year. He NEVER played against elite competition. I'm sorry but the Big 12 has been an after thought these past few seasons. Yes, they have had BCS participants, but not a single legitimate title contender until this year (when Nick Saban's self-dealing kept OSU out of the title game). And in his one game against that elite team Griffin was less than impressive throwing more picks than TDs in a blowout loss (and OSU did not have an elite defense by any stretch of the imagination). So while this past season was incredible, and he deservingly won the Heisman, his body of work does not speak to automatic success in the NFL (the list of flash in the pan, one good season for a Heisman NFL flameouts is long and storied: Eric Crouch, Tim Couch, Ron Dayne, Jason White).
I also look at history of drafts with two QBs that out pace the class. Most notably, the 1998 draft where we had Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. Manning, clearly was a success. Leaf was a success, at picking up a pill problem. The only comparison I am drawing between Leaf and Griffin is that hype, desperation, competition pulled a QB with obvious flaws higher than he should have gone. 1998, like 2012 had what appeared to be a 1 and a 1A QB not necessarily because the talents were equatable, but because teams were drawn to the flash on the surface and the sense of those two then a serious drop off and talent. It lead to inflated evaluations. And the media helped because it became a good story: who will the Colts take Manning or Leaf. They have the same story today: Luck or Griffin.
Would I be mad if the Redskins drafted Griffin? Absolutely not, he has loads of talent. What will be infuriating, given the huge holes at other positions (like receiver which is not a quick fix, especially not in free agency), and the new CBA's cap on rookie salaries, would be if the Redskins revert back to their old habits of shipping draft picks out and mortgaging the future for a flashy splash that fills one hole by making two more. So, if the price is right, trade up, but a huge compensation is not worth it given the needs elsewhere, the cheap free agent market, and the ease at which an elite QB can be formed from a later round draft pick (see. Drew Brees, Tom Brady).
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Good To Be Back
No I'm not referring to the first week of spring semester law school. I'm referring to regularly scheduled programming. This week marked the official return of the network TV comedies you know and love (Although CBS had to bump it's Monday night line-up's return a week early because of some exhibition football game and Modern Family should probably have chucked it's episode last week).
Earlier in the fall I did a rundown of many of my favorite shows on their premiere, and this week has the same feel. But because of the previous piece (and having written a piece on the best comedy on TV a few weeks ago for another publication) I'm just going to focus on one return I found particularly satisfying: 30 Rock.
This could be because 30 Rock was in fact a true premiere. NBC pushed back 30 Rock's premiere for two reasons: the main was that Tina Fey had a baby. The second was it was trying to rescue Community (which deserves rescuing let this and this serve as an example) and promote Whitney (which rightfully has been relegated to the Wednesday death slot because the same "I hate relationships but I like relationships" joke can only be done about once, maybe).
Tonight's episode was a great return. It wasn't a great episode, but it was a great return. Sometimes a show doesn't have to blow your mind, or reach the zenith of comedy to be good (Parks and Rec is the master of this, even it's "bad" shows have a way of making you feel good). 30 Rock was just what it needed to be, 30 Rock. A goofy, satirical take on life on a TV show by Tina Fey. It was very familiar plotlines: Jenna and Tracy battling about fame, Kenneth being a crazy hillbilly. But there were some good twists tonight. For example John McEnroe being a happy-go-lucky celeb judge on a crappy singing contest.
I'm not quite sure what the Jack/Liddy plot confusing "mommy" with "money" was all about, except maybe to reinforce that Jack really is the perfect executive: money is what matters. But the last plot line was so good it made up for it. They've done the Liz Lemon tries to change/ be happy/ not stress over everyone else's selfishness before. But in the past she eventually collapses and Jack teaches her a lesson in management. This time he didn't get the best of her (even though he figured her out). What was even better was the mystery added to the end. It was definitely great to see her genuinely happy especially the hilarity that ensued at finding out what made her happy (and the tag was amazing).
So it was great to have you back TGS with Tracy Jordan. Your hijinx have been missed.
Earlier in the fall I did a rundown of many of my favorite shows on their premiere, and this week has the same feel. But because of the previous piece (and having written a piece on the best comedy on TV a few weeks ago for another publication) I'm just going to focus on one return I found particularly satisfying: 30 Rock.
This could be because 30 Rock was in fact a true premiere. NBC pushed back 30 Rock's premiere for two reasons: the main was that Tina Fey had a baby. The second was it was trying to rescue Community (which deserves rescuing let this and this serve as an example) and promote Whitney (which rightfully has been relegated to the Wednesday death slot because the same "I hate relationships but I like relationships" joke can only be done about once, maybe).
Tonight's episode was a great return. It wasn't a great episode, but it was a great return. Sometimes a show doesn't have to blow your mind, or reach the zenith of comedy to be good (Parks and Rec is the master of this, even it's "bad" shows have a way of making you feel good). 30 Rock was just what it needed to be, 30 Rock. A goofy, satirical take on life on a TV show by Tina Fey. It was very familiar plotlines: Jenna and Tracy battling about fame, Kenneth being a crazy hillbilly. But there were some good twists tonight. For example John McEnroe being a happy-go-lucky celeb judge on a crappy singing contest.
I'm not quite sure what the Jack/Liddy plot confusing "mommy" with "money" was all about, except maybe to reinforce that Jack really is the perfect executive: money is what matters. But the last plot line was so good it made up for it. They've done the Liz Lemon tries to change/ be happy/ not stress over everyone else's selfishness before. But in the past she eventually collapses and Jack teaches her a lesson in management. This time he didn't get the best of her (even though he figured her out). What was even better was the mystery added to the end. It was definitely great to see her genuinely happy especially the hilarity that ensued at finding out what made her happy (and the tag was amazing).
So it was great to have you back TGS with Tracy Jordan. Your hijinx have been missed.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
What the Redskins Need
Well another season of ineptitude has come and gone for my beloved Washington Redskins. Now it's time to think about the future, and the immediate future is the NFL draft. The Skins will be drafting Number 6. The question becomes what do they need: QB, WR, DB, OL are the concerns (ranked from most important).
Obviously a Quarterback is a must. You cannot win in today's NFL without solid QB play (see Brees, Drew, Rodgers, Aaron, even Stafford, Matthew). The Broncos are a prime example: Tebow manages the game they win; Tebow is wildly inaccurate and turns the ball over they lose. The Redskins have not had a manageable QB since Mark Brunell and haven't had a decent QB since Brad Johnson (although it's pretty clear they gave up on Jason Campbell too early and stupidly for an aging former superstar). Rex Grossman should never put on a Redskins jersey again as he single-handedly destroyed any hopes the Skins had of being competitive with his inability to simply manage the game: completion percentage under 60%, 20 INTs, 6 fumbles lost (26 turnovers and he didn't even play in 3 games!). So the most obvious need is a QB, which is good because this draft has a few promising talents to choose from.
The other area of huge concern is WR. Part of the reason Grossman was so inefficient is there were few weapons on offense. Santana Moss is one of my favorite Redskins of all time, but he cannot play forever and he's only 5'10 (at best). Jabar Gaffney should never be anyone's number one receiver. Ever. And Fred Davis and Chris Cooley are great threats when on the field, they are both tight ends who are not going to stretch the field.
The big concern is that this draft is not deep on WR especially since the conventional wisdom is that a great college receiver almost rarely translates into a great NFL one. The main problem is that there is very little press coverage in college because a great college team has one maybe two pro-level corners. So the WRs who tend to translate well can deal with the physical play of pro defensive backs. The smart thing to do is to not waste a high round pick on a receiver, especially since even the best tend to take a year to adjust.
That being said, with the depth at quarterback, and the lack of depth at wide receiver makes for an interesting situation. Of the teams in front of the Skins one can assume Indy will take Luck (or a near contender will mortgage its future to take the pick from the Colts, something the Redskins shouldn't even think of doing). The Rams, Vikings and Bucs all have young QBs they would be foolish to give up on. The Browns could go QB, but it remains to be seen if they are giving up on Colt McCoy (who was a second rounder, so not a huge loss to do that). So it appears the Redskins would have the pick of whatever QB they wanted. I'm not as sold on RG3 as everyone else, since it is only this past season where he found accuracy in a conference not known for defense. Likewise all the other big name QBs come from the Big 12, which I don't find a good bench mark for anything (Jason White, Heisman trophy winner, 0 passes attempted in the NFL).
The one QB that does get me excited in Kellen Moore. Most scouts probably kill him for his size and his competition. But every game I've watched him play, he is smart, accurate, careful, and picking apart vaunted programs like Virginia Tech and Georgia. Everyone said Drew Brees was too small; I'm not saying, I'm just saying. But Moore could be had in later rounds most likely.
An interesting thought for the Skins is to trade down a slot or two for either more picks and take one of the two receivers who look like they could make the jump to professional football the easiest: Justin Blackmon and Michael Floyd. Both are very good route runners and just get the ball into their hands no matter what. But the more important part is the maturity. Both have had off-field issues (DUIs) but both seem to have learned from it (if this doesn't make you believe in Blackmon as a person, you have no heart), and all reports about Floyd is that he took proactive steps to clean his life up (moving into the freshmen dorms to keep out of trouble), which takes a lot of maturity.
Those are three players I think the Redskins should look at carefully. Obviously the quarterback is the priority, but the Skins can always use more draft picks. Since there is one sure-thing QB and a bunch of really close to sure-things, I hope the Skins take their time and try to think creatively with this draft. A smart strategy is a must, and I'm sure the people working on it are working hard and are probably smarter than me (unless Snyder is in on it). The big point I want to make is there are alternatives to making an impulse choice with that 6th pick, if time is taken to look at what traits have made current QBs successful and what they looked like coming out of college.*
*Of the QBs in the playoffs the only 4 drafted in the top 10 are largely considered the worst: Manning, Ryan, Smith, and Stafford, while the best 4 the highest drafted, Roethlisberger (11th overall) is probably considered not as good as Brady (6th Rd) or Brees (2nd Rd.) and the man with the title belt, Rodgers, was 25th overall.
Obviously a Quarterback is a must. You cannot win in today's NFL without solid QB play (see Brees, Drew, Rodgers, Aaron, even Stafford, Matthew). The Broncos are a prime example: Tebow manages the game they win; Tebow is wildly inaccurate and turns the ball over they lose. The Redskins have not had a manageable QB since Mark Brunell and haven't had a decent QB since Brad Johnson (although it's pretty clear they gave up on Jason Campbell too early and stupidly for an aging former superstar). Rex Grossman should never put on a Redskins jersey again as he single-handedly destroyed any hopes the Skins had of being competitive with his inability to simply manage the game: completion percentage under 60%, 20 INTs, 6 fumbles lost (26 turnovers and he didn't even play in 3 games!). So the most obvious need is a QB, which is good because this draft has a few promising talents to choose from.
The other area of huge concern is WR. Part of the reason Grossman was so inefficient is there were few weapons on offense. Santana Moss is one of my favorite Redskins of all time, but he cannot play forever and he's only 5'10 (at best). Jabar Gaffney should never be anyone's number one receiver. Ever. And Fred Davis and Chris Cooley are great threats when on the field, they are both tight ends who are not going to stretch the field.
The big concern is that this draft is not deep on WR especially since the conventional wisdom is that a great college receiver almost rarely translates into a great NFL one. The main problem is that there is very little press coverage in college because a great college team has one maybe two pro-level corners. So the WRs who tend to translate well can deal with the physical play of pro defensive backs. The smart thing to do is to not waste a high round pick on a receiver, especially since even the best tend to take a year to adjust.
That being said, with the depth at quarterback, and the lack of depth at wide receiver makes for an interesting situation. Of the teams in front of the Skins one can assume Indy will take Luck (or a near contender will mortgage its future to take the pick from the Colts, something the Redskins shouldn't even think of doing). The Rams, Vikings and Bucs all have young QBs they would be foolish to give up on. The Browns could go QB, but it remains to be seen if they are giving up on Colt McCoy (who was a second rounder, so not a huge loss to do that). So it appears the Redskins would have the pick of whatever QB they wanted. I'm not as sold on RG3 as everyone else, since it is only this past season where he found accuracy in a conference not known for defense. Likewise all the other big name QBs come from the Big 12, which I don't find a good bench mark for anything (Jason White, Heisman trophy winner, 0 passes attempted in the NFL).
The one QB that does get me excited in Kellen Moore. Most scouts probably kill him for his size and his competition. But every game I've watched him play, he is smart, accurate, careful, and picking apart vaunted programs like Virginia Tech and Georgia. Everyone said Drew Brees was too small; I'm not saying, I'm just saying. But Moore could be had in later rounds most likely.
An interesting thought for the Skins is to trade down a slot or two for either more picks and take one of the two receivers who look like they could make the jump to professional football the easiest: Justin Blackmon and Michael Floyd. Both are very good route runners and just get the ball into their hands no matter what. But the more important part is the maturity. Both have had off-field issues (DUIs) but both seem to have learned from it (if this doesn't make you believe in Blackmon as a person, you have no heart), and all reports about Floyd is that he took proactive steps to clean his life up (moving into the freshmen dorms to keep out of trouble), which takes a lot of maturity.
Those are three players I think the Redskins should look at carefully. Obviously the quarterback is the priority, but the Skins can always use more draft picks. Since there is one sure-thing QB and a bunch of really close to sure-things, I hope the Skins take their time and try to think creatively with this draft. A smart strategy is a must, and I'm sure the people working on it are working hard and are probably smarter than me (unless Snyder is in on it). The big point I want to make is there are alternatives to making an impulse choice with that 6th pick, if time is taken to look at what traits have made current QBs successful and what they looked like coming out of college.*
*Of the QBs in the playoffs the only 4 drafted in the top 10 are largely considered the worst: Manning, Ryan, Smith, and Stafford, while the best 4 the highest drafted, Roethlisberger (11th overall) is probably considered not as good as Brady (6th Rd) or Brees (2nd Rd.) and the man with the title belt, Rodgers, was 25th overall.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Merry Blog-mas
Well it's that time of year. Exams are over. No responsibilities until January (kinda...shout out to the STC swimmers). It's Christmas vacation. Which means one thing: Christmas movies. What up Home Alone (1&2) and Elf. But I think I have a unique set of movies I consider Christmas movies: the 007 movies. I think it goes back to the combination of Spike TV and training trip. See once upon a time, before Spike got obsessed with getting as close to porn on standard cable as possible they used to have their annual 007 days of Christmas. This meant from early morning to late at night it was non-stop James Bond. Couple this with training trip where in between practices were spent as horizontal as possible and Christmas led me to watch a lot of MI6's most suave agent busting up SPECTRE plots and wooing the dames. Slowly Spike began to phase out this gift to America, so what did I do? Just got the box sets for Christmas. I now own every Bond save the most recent (which wasn't impressive, more on that in just a minute). So my last blog of the year (barring a huge sports/TV story), will be dedicated to a completely off the cuff, gut reaction ranking of the Bonds.
I'm going to cause a stir with this one but my dead last is Daniel Craig. Part of that is sample size, Casino Royale was pretty good, especially since it was going back to Bond's first mission as a Double-0 agent. Quantum of Solace was pretty much not a Bond movie. It was like a Tom Cruise action flick, not Bond. Craig is raw and gritty in both movies. Works for Bond on his first mission, because of course he would be clumsy. But there is no evolution between the two films, he's not making Bond into the suave, sophisticated wit he is in the other films. And there is also a total lack of cool gadgets, which is a shame because with technology these days that should be easy (or it could make it hard since nothing seems far-fetched or clever any more). Anywho, I am very disappointed with Craig as Bond, especially after his performance in Layer Cake.
My next worst is going to have to be the man most would put at the bottom, Timothy Dalton. Dalton played a very angry Bond. He almost comes off as an anti-hero at times. It kind of works though, because Bond would get jaded after years of service (especially after what they did to poor Felix!). But the same complaints about Craig are true for Dalton except to a lesser degree. He looks more the part, he's a little smoother, he's got a sharper tongue, and cooler gadgets. It's pretty close since Craig is a better overall actor, but Dalton does slightly better in the role.
The next level up is pretty close as well. Part of this is because they have relatively the same sample size. That being said I'm going to give Pierce Brosnan the edge over George Lazenby. Both have one shining role Goldeneye and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Goldeneye is pretty much the last true Bond films as far as I'm concerned. It is the last film to use the same textures, plot devices, and characters as the previous ones. Watch Goldeneye then any of the Connery Bond films and you will see what I mean. Brosnan got unlucky that his last three films were plagued by subpar (even for Bond standards) supporting actors, and horrendously shark jumpy plot lines (genetic transformation? Really?). I can't fault him for those movies because he just looks so damn Bond. You never see him sweat. He always has a good one liner handy. And Q gives him great toys. If Brosnan had signed on when he originally was cast people would look at him differently (we also wouldn't know who Timothy Dalton is, thanks a lot Remmington Steele).
Lazenby also does great work in his one lone Bond appearance. OHMSS is a fantastic Bond film. It involves SPECTRE and James actually falling in love. There are great action sequences and a great plot for world domination by our old favorite Ernst Stavro Blofeld centered around brainwashing lovely ladies. It's also the only Bond to break the fourth wall by directly addressing the fact that Lazenby is not Connery.
The last group is the pantheon: Sean Connery and Roger Moore. It really could be a toss up since they did most of the iconic films (even if they are ridiculous ahem Moonraker). Moore was a little wittier, but Connery was much more of the sleeping dragon: a smooth operator who could be violent, powerful and not sorry for any of it when the job needed it. I'm going to give Connery the edge because his first four Bond movies are probably in the top six if not the top four: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball (my personal favorite). He also starred in Kanye West's favorite Diamonds Are Forever (featuring proud Virginian and sausage maestro Jimmy Dean). Moore has some iconic movies: Live and Let Die (Thanks Paul McCartney!), The Man With the Golden Gun, A View to A Kill (with Christopher Walken as a steroid fuel East German genetics project gone wrong), and both films featuring everyone's favorite Jaws: The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. But Connery is Bond. He was the first, he set the standard. Each Bond had it easier and harder after the Scot. They had it easier because technology could make Bond cooler and the film making process easier (special effects especially). But they had it harder because Connery did so much with less. In most of his films they couldn't even film outside at night because of lighting problems. Yet (almost) everything is believable.
Connery set a high bar and the only one to approach consistently was Roger Moore. Moore is by no means equal to Connery, but he is close. What he lacked as an action star he made up for with his tongue. Moore was much wittier than Connery, even if he wasn't quite a Swiss Army knife like Connery. His talents as an actor were used quite well by the writers and as a result he will sit just beneath Connery in the Bond pantheon.
I'm going to cause a stir with this one but my dead last is Daniel Craig. Part of that is sample size, Casino Royale was pretty good, especially since it was going back to Bond's first mission as a Double-0 agent. Quantum of Solace was pretty much not a Bond movie. It was like a Tom Cruise action flick, not Bond. Craig is raw and gritty in both movies. Works for Bond on his first mission, because of course he would be clumsy. But there is no evolution between the two films, he's not making Bond into the suave, sophisticated wit he is in the other films. And there is also a total lack of cool gadgets, which is a shame because with technology these days that should be easy (or it could make it hard since nothing seems far-fetched or clever any more). Anywho, I am very disappointed with Craig as Bond, especially after his performance in Layer Cake.
My next worst is going to have to be the man most would put at the bottom, Timothy Dalton. Dalton played a very angry Bond. He almost comes off as an anti-hero at times. It kind of works though, because Bond would get jaded after years of service (especially after what they did to poor Felix!). But the same complaints about Craig are true for Dalton except to a lesser degree. He looks more the part, he's a little smoother, he's got a sharper tongue, and cooler gadgets. It's pretty close since Craig is a better overall actor, but Dalton does slightly better in the role.
The next level up is pretty close as well. Part of this is because they have relatively the same sample size. That being said I'm going to give Pierce Brosnan the edge over George Lazenby. Both have one shining role Goldeneye and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Goldeneye is pretty much the last true Bond films as far as I'm concerned. It is the last film to use the same textures, plot devices, and characters as the previous ones. Watch Goldeneye then any of the Connery Bond films and you will see what I mean. Brosnan got unlucky that his last three films were plagued by subpar (even for Bond standards) supporting actors, and horrendously shark jumpy plot lines (genetic transformation? Really?). I can't fault him for those movies because he just looks so damn Bond. You never see him sweat. He always has a good one liner handy. And Q gives him great toys. If Brosnan had signed on when he originally was cast people would look at him differently (we also wouldn't know who Timothy Dalton is, thanks a lot Remmington Steele).
Lazenby also does great work in his one lone Bond appearance. OHMSS is a fantastic Bond film. It involves SPECTRE and James actually falling in love. There are great action sequences and a great plot for world domination by our old favorite Ernst Stavro Blofeld centered around brainwashing lovely ladies. It's also the only Bond to break the fourth wall by directly addressing the fact that Lazenby is not Connery.
The last group is the pantheon: Sean Connery and Roger Moore. It really could be a toss up since they did most of the iconic films (even if they are ridiculous ahem Moonraker). Moore was a little wittier, but Connery was much more of the sleeping dragon: a smooth operator who could be violent, powerful and not sorry for any of it when the job needed it. I'm going to give Connery the edge because his first four Bond movies are probably in the top six if not the top four: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball (my personal favorite). He also starred in Kanye West's favorite Diamonds Are Forever (featuring proud Virginian and sausage maestro Jimmy Dean). Moore has some iconic movies: Live and Let Die (Thanks Paul McCartney!), The Man With the Golden Gun, A View to A Kill (with Christopher Walken as a steroid fuel East German genetics project gone wrong), and both films featuring everyone's favorite Jaws: The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. But Connery is Bond. He was the first, he set the standard. Each Bond had it easier and harder after the Scot. They had it easier because technology could make Bond cooler and the film making process easier (special effects especially). But they had it harder because Connery did so much with less. In most of his films they couldn't even film outside at night because of lighting problems. Yet (almost) everything is believable.
Connery set a high bar and the only one to approach consistently was Roger Moore. Moore is by no means equal to Connery, but he is close. What he lacked as an action star he made up for with his tongue. Moore was much wittier than Connery, even if he wasn't quite a Swiss Army knife like Connery. His talents as an actor were used quite well by the writers and as a result he will sit just beneath Connery in the Bond pantheon.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Brilliant
I will admit that I watch "Jersey Shore." In fact I haven't missed an episode. It renewed my faith in reality TV. And the creator, SallyAnn Salsano is a genius. Her newest project appears to be even better.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
Monday, November 14, 2011
My Last Nerve
I am a Washington Redskins fan. It has been mostly a painful experience, but since my first memory of watching pro football was watching the Redskins beat the Bills to win Super Bowl XXVI I have been a fan. I tried very hard to de-fan myself in the early 2000s when the outlook was bleak but I couldn't do it.
Well I am almost at that point now. One move could make me give up the Redskins for good: trading for Peyton Manning. This is the exact type of move that set the Skins back so many times, wasting valuable draft picks to get the immediate impact player, who is past their prime (see. Donovan McNabb, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle-El, Alber Haynesworth, I can keep going but I would run out of page length). But this trade would be devastating.
The Colts would never trade Manning right? Ask Joe Montana about that and he actually won multiple Super Bowls. Since it is no secret the Colts are actively trying to go 0-16 so they can land the top pick you have to assume they want Andrew Luck. With the salary structure, Manning's contract, his age, his health, the smart move for the Colts is to get someone to over-reach for Manning. They could get multiple draft picks and a quality player to fill many of their other holes that Manning was able to paper over.
Why would this be a bad thing for the Redskins? Besides the McNabb experiment as an example I give you this. The Redskins, when healthy this year looked like a decent team. There is no depth in the secondary, or the offensive line, and we still need a quarterback. If we were getting Peyton Manning from 3 years ago maybe this would be an excuse. But we wouldn't. The Redskins would be getting a 36 year old who has had 3 neck surgeries in 2 years. And behind that offensive line, there is no chance he would stay healthy.
The other reason this would be bad is because of the way the new CBA locks rookies into teams for much cheaper than they have in years past. This means the best way to build a team is through the draft. This is one lesson the Redskins have failed at under Snyder. It is why they brought in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan: they know that value comes in the draft because you build depth cheaply. To get Manning the Redskins would have to give up a lot of draft picks, which would set the team back on course to where it had been since 2000 when Snyder took over and began treating it like a fantasy football team.*
*This year's draft especially should have good depth in both the defensive backfield and offensive lines (two gaping holes), and there should be more than one QB (I'd like to see Kellen Moore as Drew Brees 2.0, undersized but smart, accurate, and a winner).
I can't go through that frustration again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results (thank you Albert Einstein). If the Redskins start doing the same thing they used to and expecting it to be different, they are insane to think I can keep rooting for them.
Well I am almost at that point now. One move could make me give up the Redskins for good: trading for Peyton Manning. This is the exact type of move that set the Skins back so many times, wasting valuable draft picks to get the immediate impact player, who is past their prime (see. Donovan McNabb, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle-El, Alber Haynesworth, I can keep going but I would run out of page length). But this trade would be devastating.
The Colts would never trade Manning right? Ask Joe Montana about that and he actually won multiple Super Bowls. Since it is no secret the Colts are actively trying to go 0-16 so they can land the top pick you have to assume they want Andrew Luck. With the salary structure, Manning's contract, his age, his health, the smart move for the Colts is to get someone to over-reach for Manning. They could get multiple draft picks and a quality player to fill many of their other holes that Manning was able to paper over.
Why would this be a bad thing for the Redskins? Besides the McNabb experiment as an example I give you this. The Redskins, when healthy this year looked like a decent team. There is no depth in the secondary, or the offensive line, and we still need a quarterback. If we were getting Peyton Manning from 3 years ago maybe this would be an excuse. But we wouldn't. The Redskins would be getting a 36 year old who has had 3 neck surgeries in 2 years. And behind that offensive line, there is no chance he would stay healthy.
The other reason this would be bad is because of the way the new CBA locks rookies into teams for much cheaper than they have in years past. This means the best way to build a team is through the draft. This is one lesson the Redskins have failed at under Snyder. It is why they brought in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan: they know that value comes in the draft because you build depth cheaply. To get Manning the Redskins would have to give up a lot of draft picks, which would set the team back on course to where it had been since 2000 when Snyder took over and began treating it like a fantasy football team.*
*This year's draft especially should have good depth in both the defensive backfield and offensive lines (two gaping holes), and there should be more than one QB (I'd like to see Kellen Moore as Drew Brees 2.0, undersized but smart, accurate, and a winner).
I can't go through that frustration again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results (thank you Albert Einstein). If the Redskins start doing the same thing they used to and expecting it to be different, they are insane to think I can keep rooting for them.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Trying to Understand Penn State
Everyone is quick to damn Joe Paterno. This makes no sense to me. Everyone loves Michael Jackson. It was the worst thing to ever happen when he died. His doctor deserved to rot in jail for his part in it. Everyone conveniently forgot that Mr. Jackson was the one touching the kids. Joe Paterno never once laid hands on any of the alleged victims here. In fact I would venture to say he probably doesn't even remember seeing them.
What is hard to stomach is that Joe Paterno was a coach dedicated to the true purpose of college football. His players graduated. His players didn't take money. His program was clean. The entire athletic department had never been found guilty of an NCAA violation. Yet coaches like Lane Kiffin, John Calipari, Nick Saban, Mack Brown they all get to keep their jobs despite putting winning before the rules and even worse academics. Those coaches chew their players up, get what they want out of them, tell them they will go pro so class doesn't matter (even though a majority won't), don't prepare them for life after sports. JoePa not only put his players first, but in doing so he was successful. That is not something you see in college sports today.
Today you win by buying the best junior college QB. You win by having someone take the SAT for your star recruit so he can remain eligible. You win by paying the mortgage of you running back's parents' house. Then you split town when as soon as trouble shows up leaving the school to pay for your crimes. Paterno not only played within the rules, but he did it with steadfast loyalty and success. And how did the Penn State trustees repay him: a phone call telling him he was fired. All as a knee jerk reaction to public misconception.
Judging from 90% of the statuses on Facebook, most people did not know the facts of this story. Most people believed that Joe was standing there watching as his defensive coordinator did unspeakable things to children. That simply is not true. Joe Paterno was told by an graduate assistant of suspicious behavior of a former employee. He did not witness anything. He is not the police. His job is to coach football. He told his superiors the information he was told. Those two men were the ones who failed to act. Those two men were the ones who decided to cover it up. Not Joe Paterno.
Can you make the case that Paterno should have done more? Yes, of course. It is easy to sit back almost 10 years later and say he made a mistake. And that is where the tragedy is: one mistake brings what should be considered a shining model of how to be a college coach crashing down as some sort of devil. One instance of not doing quite enough is enough to destroy a man's otherwise spotless legacy.
For 46 years Paterno did things the right way. That kind of loyalty and success is unprecedented. I am not saying that he should have kept his job, I am simply saying that he is being treated totally unfairly. If anything his resume earned him the benefit of the doubt to at least be told in person he was getting let go, if not let him finish the season out.
I guess Harvey Dent got it right: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
What is hard to stomach is that Joe Paterno was a coach dedicated to the true purpose of college football. His players graduated. His players didn't take money. His program was clean. The entire athletic department had never been found guilty of an NCAA violation. Yet coaches like Lane Kiffin, John Calipari, Nick Saban, Mack Brown they all get to keep their jobs despite putting winning before the rules and even worse academics. Those coaches chew their players up, get what they want out of them, tell them they will go pro so class doesn't matter (even though a majority won't), don't prepare them for life after sports. JoePa not only put his players first, but in doing so he was successful. That is not something you see in college sports today.
Today you win by buying the best junior college QB. You win by having someone take the SAT for your star recruit so he can remain eligible. You win by paying the mortgage of you running back's parents' house. Then you split town when as soon as trouble shows up leaving the school to pay for your crimes. Paterno not only played within the rules, but he did it with steadfast loyalty and success. And how did the Penn State trustees repay him: a phone call telling him he was fired. All as a knee jerk reaction to public misconception.
Judging from 90% of the statuses on Facebook, most people did not know the facts of this story. Most people believed that Joe was standing there watching as his defensive coordinator did unspeakable things to children. That simply is not true. Joe Paterno was told by an graduate assistant of suspicious behavior of a former employee. He did not witness anything. He is not the police. His job is to coach football. He told his superiors the information he was told. Those two men were the ones who failed to act. Those two men were the ones who decided to cover it up. Not Joe Paterno.
Can you make the case that Paterno should have done more? Yes, of course. It is easy to sit back almost 10 years later and say he made a mistake. And that is where the tragedy is: one mistake brings what should be considered a shining model of how to be a college coach crashing down as some sort of devil. One instance of not doing quite enough is enough to destroy a man's otherwise spotless legacy.
For 46 years Paterno did things the right way. That kind of loyalty and success is unprecedented. I am not saying that he should have kept his job, I am simply saying that he is being treated totally unfairly. If anything his resume earned him the benefit of the doubt to at least be told in person he was getting let go, if not let him finish the season out.
I guess Harvey Dent got it right: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
