Saturday, May 26, 2007

What's the deal with Dr. Z's Editor?

Somebody needs to be fired.

Just the gems:

This one is actually a caption under a picture of Redskins RB Clinton Portis: Clinton Portis (above) showed his true colors by downplaying Michael Vick's reported connections to dog fighting.

Well, there it is! The fact that Portis has been a model citizen in this league for five seasons was just a cover-up for the true nitty gritty evil colors that Clinton Portis stands for, BURGUNDY AND GOLD!

What you didn't know is that Portis actually used to have a close relationship with Paul Zimmerman and the two were good friends. That was until one fateful night when Zimmerman was hiding in the bushes outside the Portis residence and he overheard a conversation between Portis' girlfriend and a mutual friend who oddly enough were discussing the state of moral issues in the NFL. It was then that Zimmerman learned that Clinton Portis not only steals from the Salvation Army collection pot, but also eats babies and condones dog fighting! Zimmmerman and Portis never spoke again despite constant attempts by Portis to contact Zimmerman to explain himself.

Or maybe I complely bullshitted that anecdote, and he is just an obviously biased prick. This is where the editor comes in and says "Hey, Paul! You can't caption a photo like that and put it on It makes you look like a 7 year old boy (going on 8)."

In all seriousness, Portis' statements were as ignorant as they were harmless. But come on, who among us would be shocked to learn that Dr. Z's summer home is actually a bush in a greater man's (i.e. Linda Zimmerman's) yard?

Olufemi of Marysville, Wash.,"a sailor currently deployed in Iraq," wants to know if the Redskins' LaRon Landry-Sean Taylor safety tandem will be among the NFL's top 10 pairs. Well, Olufemi, I know things are tough enough over there, and I don't want to make them any tougher for you, but in all fairness I can't say yes. Taylor, to me, is the classic case of a guy who occasionally messes up his coverage because he's trying so hard to make the big hit. And Landry hasn't played a down yet, so how do we know anything?

Although he sounds like a guy who only knows football from an NFL Live point of view (poor editorial work once again), Dr. Z does have a generally correct assessment of Sean Taylors strength and weaknesses. He justs oversimplifies the analysis so he sounds like a moron.

The real think I take issue with here is the last sentence. Anyone who writes this. or something similar to this is not only stupid and ignorant, but also very lazy. Dr. Z has far more access to LSU game film and Landry's college numbers than I do. The key is knowing what to look for. History has shown that the college players that make the best pro prospects are the ones who take more from their college games than they give to their teams. Essentially, this is to say that a player who is incredibly physically dominant at the college level and creates many points for his team because of it is far more likely to underachieve his expectations at the next level than a guy who played a lot of college snaps and underwent steady and trackable improvement. Film study shows you much about Landry's intangibles, while his college starts and statistical improvements/dominance speak for themselves. We know that Landry projects well to the NFL. Granted, we have no clue just how well, but remember that Dentist Zim's claim is that we can't possibly know anything about him.

Q: Can the Redskins be the 2006 Saints this year?

A: No, because I don't think they have the offensive players nor scheme. But don't go by me. I'm always wrong about this team, as brother Snyder is always quick to point out.

First of all, I don't think the Redskins have any reason to attempt the Saints' formula for success, so this is a dumb question right off the bat. But this answer by Dentist Zim is about as unhelpful as one could possibly dream of, and quite possibly as ignorant.

Jason Campbell's 3rd year projection: 4.5 DPAR/G
Drew Brees' 6th year projection: 3.9 DPAR/G

Clinton Portis career Y/C: 4.7
Ladell Betts career Y/C: 4.3

Deuce McAllister career Y/C: 4.3
Reggie Bush 2006 (career) Y/C: 3.6

I won't even have to run the stats to make a claim that Santana Moss and Chris Cooley are both better than any receiving option the 2006 Saints had going in. And up front its not even a debate.

So although it would be highly unlikely that this Redskins offensive group posts numbers better than the 2006 Saints did, they have more talent than this Saints team did it with. Granted, that Saints team was just really, really fortunate and even more efficient, but Z is just dead wrong on the personell comment.

As far as schemes go, its a complete moot point. The best system caters to the strengths of its players. While Sean Payton's system certainly did this last year, what makes Zimmerman think that this is repeatable number one, and number two, better than Saunders system.

Jim of Lincoln, Neb., asks this tough one: Given Donovan McNabb's recent problems, "do you think Rush Limbaugh has received a certain form of vindication regarding his comments that led to his ESPN firing?" No vindication and no mercy for that creep. His point was that the writers were copping out for McNabb because he was a black QB, acting as if this were a truly remarkable phenomenon in the NFL. Time had passed him by. He made a personal issue out of a silly non-issue, just to get people stirred up, Imus-style. Vindication? Hell no!

I could go on and on about how Dr. Z is completely and utterly retarded and senile at this point in his career, but essentially, this would just become a blog-style pissing match. That said, the man is entited to an opinion so long as he doesn't deliever it in a soapbox-rant and ignorant-laden manner, as he does here.

But the real travesty I have with this is that the editor lets it slide. This is completely unacceptable. This isn't even remotely close to sports journalism. This is a man who has apparently had his head in the sand for the past 4 years and the editor must have been right along there with him.

The ONLY even remote similarity between the Imus situation and Limbaugh's comments were the way in which idiots in the media (such as Zimmerman) reacted. Limbaugh's comments were opinion based on conjecture and observational evidence. Imus' comments were loose-tounged references to people who the media deemed to be different than him, and were highly insensitive in an ignorant manner.

Anyway, here are the DPAR/G rate stats for McNabb's career before and after Limbaugh's remarks (with college projections in parenthesses):

2000-1.9 (3.09)
2001-1.25 (3.14)
2002-2.13 (3.74)

2003-2.31 (4.14)
2004-7.65 (4.44)
2005-2.58 (4.64)
2006-5.7 (4.74)

While the projection might have been a bit high, he certainly had seasons that justify the lofty projection, which expects him to be at Culpepper level circa Minnesota. In reality, this projection is pretty much in line with what Donovan's reputation is. If we agree that the projection sets a baseline for about what the hype surrounding McNabb would make you think of him as a player, then by definition, McNabb is very overrated (as are most "great winners").

The other half of Limbaugh's theory (that race caused this player to be overrated by the media) is a clear oversimplification, a likely misguided one, of a bigger problem: the propensity of the media to fall in love with physical tools. McNabb has them all and makes astonishing plays, but the consistency is lacking at times, and is demonstrated in the bottom line.

It is not my place nor my capacity to speculate as to whether or not Rush Limbaugh feels any justification from calling that one correctly. But I have every reason to believe he knows more about football than Paul Zimmerman.

No comments: