Thursday, July 19, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Most indispensable player
Peyton Manning? Tom Brady? LaDainian Tomlinson? No!
Jeffery Chadiha thinks its Larry Johnson.
The Chiefs wouldn't win three games if Johnson wasn't available this season.
The Chiefs respect Chadiha's analysis so much, that they seem perfectly content in forcing Johnson to play under his rookie deal this year, even if the alternative is a holdout.
If the Chiefs were to start a replacement level back instead of Larry Johnson, Football Outsiders estimates that it would cost them about 42 points, or roughly 2.5 wins.
Michael Bennett is a better than replacement back, to the tune of 1.5 wins above replacement if he had seen the carries that Johnson saw last year.
2006 Kansas City: an 8-8 team without Larry Johnson. Jeffery Chadhia: a total moron.
He set an NFL record with 416 carries in 2006 and their offense seems to deteriorate a little more with each passing season.
And will likely deteriorate significantly this season because Larry Johnson did carry the ball more times last year than any player in NFL history. Ever. Johnson would have to be some freak of nature to get more than halfway into this season without breaking down a la Curtis Martin and Shaun Alexander the last two seasons.
Right now, Kansas City likely will have a first-time starter at quarterback (second-year veteran Brodie Croyle), a depleted offensive line that lost its two best players over the past two years (offensive tackle Willie Roaf and guard Will Shields) and a corps of wide receivers that ranks near the bottom of the NFL. In other words, the Chiefs had better give Johnson the new contract he covets if they want to have any optimism about their offense this coming season.
If the goal is to generate optimism, Chadiha might have a point. However, if I were to build a sports franchise, my goal would be to get the best players on the field I could. And while Johnson is a great runner, history suggests that hes doomed to injury or ineffectiveness this year. But, hey, thats nothing $56 million can't fix, right?
Jeffery Chadiha thinks its Larry Johnson.
The Chiefs wouldn't win three games if Johnson wasn't available this season.
The Chiefs respect Chadiha's analysis so much, that they seem perfectly content in forcing Johnson to play under his rookie deal this year, even if the alternative is a holdout.
If the Chiefs were to start a replacement level back instead of Larry Johnson, Football Outsiders estimates that it would cost them about 42 points, or roughly 2.5 wins.
Michael Bennett is a better than replacement back, to the tune of 1.5 wins above replacement if he had seen the carries that Johnson saw last year.
2006 Kansas City: an 8-8 team without Larry Johnson. Jeffery Chadhia: a total moron.
He set an NFL record with 416 carries in 2006 and their offense seems to deteriorate a little more with each passing season.
And will likely deteriorate significantly this season because Larry Johnson did carry the ball more times last year than any player in NFL history. Ever. Johnson would have to be some freak of nature to get more than halfway into this season without breaking down a la Curtis Martin and Shaun Alexander the last two seasons.
Right now, Kansas City likely will have a first-time starter at quarterback (second-year veteran Brodie Croyle), a depleted offensive line that lost its two best players over the past two years (offensive tackle Willie Roaf and guard Will Shields) and a corps of wide receivers that ranks near the bottom of the NFL. In other words, the Chiefs had better give Johnson the new contract he covets if they want to have any optimism about their offense this coming season.
If the goal is to generate optimism, Chadiha might have a point. However, if I were to build a sports franchise, my goal would be to get the best players on the field I could. And while Johnson is a great runner, history suggests that hes doomed to injury or ineffectiveness this year. But, hey, thats nothing $56 million can't fix, right?
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 SI.com. 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.
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 SI.com. 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.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Thats why they play the games, fool! (Version One of Many)
Paul Zimmerman is back!
Wonderful. I linked you as a reference to what I'm going to do, but before I start, let me make it loud and clear that no sane person should click that link. Trust me, I know less about football now than I did before I started reading that crap.
Anyway, Dr. Z spends a lot of time rambling, but his point can be reasonably inferred. Randy Moss should not be enshrined in Canton. Writes Zimmerman:
I promise you this, Gary. As long as I'm a selector, the Canton Highway will be a very difficult road for Moss. I don't care how many great years he gives the Patriots. The guy's a dog, and there are too many people who spent years of sacrifice without getting a sniff from the Hall.
Wonderful. Dr Z, if that is your real name, would you please tell us why you think his career with New England (i.e. the second half of his career) should have no barring on his HOF credentials. Why have you come to a decision so early? Any reason?
Also, Michael Irvin was perhaps the biggest "dog" in NFL History, and he got your vote year after year for HOF consideration.
Michael Irvin (159 Games):
750 Receptions
11904 Yards
Randy Moss (138 games adjusted proportionally to 159 games and rounded):
779 Receptions
12328 Yards
Randy Moss will likely play much longer than Michael Irvin did.
Look, my assessment of Moss is that he won't be anything insanely special in NE. He has diminishing physical skills and has proven over a large sample size that his effort level is determined by factors not attributable to Randy Moss.
But already, Moss has a very solid case for the HOF. If he exceeds expectations in New England, is there really anyway that you can not vote this guy in first ballot? I mean, Dr. Z thought Irvin should be in, so obviously citing Moss' character against him is a gianormous double standard of epic proportions.
Then again, this is the same guy who thinks that Art Monk, a man who retired as the most prolific receiver in NFL History (by the metric of receptions) should not be inducted into Canton. I can't stress this enough. A man who thinks that one of the greatest receivers ever to play should not be in the hall has a vote for the hall of fame. Old and senile doesn't quite describe this. Dustybakerdumb doesn't quite describe this. This is downright and utterly senseless.
And that, in a nutshell, is why they play the games. So dudes like Dr. Z come out looking completely and utterly clueless time and time again.
Actually, there are a bunch of other reasons the games are played, but honestly, is that not the most significant one?
Wonderful. I linked you as a reference to what I'm going to do, but before I start, let me make it loud and clear that no sane person should click that link. Trust me, I know less about football now than I did before I started reading that crap.
Anyway, Dr. Z spends a lot of time rambling, but his point can be reasonably inferred. Randy Moss should not be enshrined in Canton. Writes Zimmerman:
I promise you this, Gary. As long as I'm a selector, the Canton Highway will be a very difficult road for Moss. I don't care how many great years he gives the Patriots. The guy's a dog, and there are too many people who spent years of sacrifice without getting a sniff from the Hall.
Wonderful. Dr Z, if that is your real name, would you please tell us why you think his career with New England (i.e. the second half of his career) should have no barring on his HOF credentials. Why have you come to a decision so early? Any reason?
Also, Michael Irvin was perhaps the biggest "dog" in NFL History, and he got your vote year after year for HOF consideration.
Michael Irvin (159 Games):
750 Receptions
11904 Yards
Randy Moss (138 games adjusted proportionally to 159 games and rounded):
779 Receptions
12328 Yards
Randy Moss will likely play much longer than Michael Irvin did.
Look, my assessment of Moss is that he won't be anything insanely special in NE. He has diminishing physical skills and has proven over a large sample size that his effort level is determined by factors not attributable to Randy Moss.
But already, Moss has a very solid case for the HOF. If he exceeds expectations in New England, is there really anyway that you can not vote this guy in first ballot? I mean, Dr. Z thought Irvin should be in, so obviously citing Moss' character against him is a gianormous double standard of epic proportions.
Then again, this is the same guy who thinks that Art Monk, a man who retired as the most prolific receiver in NFL History (by the metric of receptions) should not be inducted into Canton. I can't stress this enough. A man who thinks that one of the greatest receivers ever to play should not be in the hall has a vote for the hall of fame. Old and senile doesn't quite describe this. Dustybakerdumb doesn't quite describe this. This is downright and utterly senseless.
And that, in a nutshell, is why they play the games. So dudes like Dr. Z come out looking completely and utterly clueless time and time again.
Actually, there are a bunch of other reasons the games are played, but honestly, is that not the most significant one?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
I don't know what to say about this
Consensus Draft Grades?
Lions got a 3.0 for taking another WR (C. Johnson) at no. 2 (because Charles Rogers worked out great) and a bad QB prospect (Stanton).
Eagles take a great QB prospect (Kolb), a great defensive end (Abiamiri), and a highly rated RB "steal" in Tony Hunt...and milk out a consensus 1.8 DPA (Draft Point Average).
Hey, if it's clear to us in the sabermetric football community that you have no idea how to evaluate a draft--maybe you are better off waiting the 3 years to actually get some feedback.
Lions got a 3.0 for taking another WR (C. Johnson) at no. 2 (because Charles Rogers worked out great) and a bad QB prospect (Stanton).
Eagles take a great QB prospect (Kolb), a great defensive end (Abiamiri), and a highly rated RB "steal" in Tony Hunt...and milk out a consensus 1.8 DPA (Draft Point Average).
Hey, if it's clear to us in the sabermetric football community that you have no idea how to evaluate a draft--maybe you are better off waiting the 3 years to actually get some feedback.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Former Browns Consultant Praises Russell Pick
Former Browns' consultant Vic Carrucci has attempted to write a rare post-draft puff piece on JaMarcus Russell. What he succeeded in doing is writing an NFL piece that I would expect from a middle-schooler. Read at your own peril.
This was a slam-dunk. This was a no-brainer. This was the sensible decision once all of the nonsensical speculation finally stopped.
The Oakland Raiders could not pass on a quarterback. Not after saying no to Matt Leinart a year ago. Not while lacking a legitimate starting quarterback this year. Not with Lane Kiffin, their rookie head coach, needing a centerpiece to the explosive, quick-striking offense he is looking to build.
It's not like the JaMarcus Russell pick was made because anyone in the world thought he was the best player available. Like him or hate him, he's going to be the Raiders best QB since Rich Gannon retired--unless Josh McCown beats him to the punch.
So while you have to respect the Raiders for making the move they needed to make based on the information they had, it's obvious that the Raiders' methods of QB evaluation--like most of the league--are flawed, and that 99% of the population will realize this before Vic Carruci does.
He's "special".
Furthermore, the Raiders could not pass on one of the most talented passers to emerge from the college ranks in many years.
#1) They did.
#2) As you alluded to one paragraph before, they've proven the ability to pass on a franchise QB before this year also.
They could not pass on a quarterback with JaMarcus Russell's ultra-powerful arm or his extraordinary athleticism for someone with a towering, 6-foot-5-plus, 256-pound frame.
What about Calvin Johnson? What about him? He is an incredibly talented wide receiver, but what good would that be with no one to throw him the ball.
For evidence on why a 6-5 256 lb frame means about as much to being a good QB as having a gigantic wang, see this post.
If you want evidence on why an ultra-powerful arm and overrated atleticism aren't very valuable, go read everything we've ever written, or just sit in the corner and let common sense set in.
I'm really sorry that I didn't get a chance to do more Calvin Johnson posting prior to the draft, but basically, receivers are improperly valued for a plethora of reasons, and Calvin Johnson will likely not do any "game redefining" during his NFL tenure.
What about Brady Quinn? What about him? He had an outstanding collegiate career, but he does not possess the same pure talent as Russell. No other quarterback in the 2007 college crop does. No quarterback currently in the league can match his arm strength.
Russell was the choice. Russell always was the choice.
I like the part where Vic Carruci writes of Quinn, "He had an outstading collegiate career" only to realize that this fact completely trumps all of his weak Russell points. He sheepishly tosses Quinn to the side of the road, and goes back to giving Russell a hummer.
Yes, he has some rough spots that were evident even during his most dominant moments at LSU. All rookies do. Kiffin and the rest of the Raiders' coaching staff are capable of smoothing them out.
It also helps when you have the tremendous foundation that Russell provides. He still will be able to do good things even before he learns what he needs to learn to become a consistently effective NFL quarterback.
Well, of course. In sabremetric football circles, and in MOST conventional circles, it's pretty much accepted--and evidenced--that no QB as a rookie will play anywhere near what he will be as a guy in his prime. Quinn is no more of an exception than Russell is.
The second statement is pretty much true also. I mean, sure Russell will only be a shell of his not so great potential, but just because he will be a complete "deer-in-the-headlights" rookie that has little chance of being replacement level does not mean that he won't rifle interceptions and take sacks with the utmost arm strength and falling force respectively.
I've heard the criticism that the importance of Russell's arm strength is overrated. It isn't.
Um, okay?
I've heard that the forecast for tomorrow for Chicago, Illinois will be 75 and sunny. But trust me, it won't be!
Your evidence?
No, he won't be throwing long passes on every down or on most downs. But the mere fact he poses a deep-ball threat is going to allow him to make an impact that Quinn and other rookie quarterbacks with less powerful arms aren't able to make. The respect opposing defenses must show Russell for his ability to make a game-breaking play with one flick of the wrist alters their coverage in ways that should allow the Raiders to run more effectively and/or make plays with short and intermediate passes.
This is not how football is played. Number one, no amount of respect for his arm will make up for a typical rookie QB performance. He will be costing the Raiders points. Quinn might be also, but he has a far better chance of being above replacement level. At least, thats what his projection tells me. Number two, you can not just assume that defenses will play JaMarcus Russell differently than any other crappy QB with a big arm.
Then again, after watching what his arm strength did to warp the minds of these draft analysts, defensive coordinators should be a bunch of sitting ducks, so long as he keeps his golden arm gleaming and polished.
I've heard criticism that the importance of Russell's standout performance in the Sugar Bowl is overrated. It isn't. Russell gave his best performance in the biggest game of his career, and that says plenty about him as a competitor and about what he can do at the next level. The fact he clearly overshadowed Quinn is equally important, because Quinn once held the distinction of being the best quarterback in the draft. Russell went a long way toward making him second best.
I think JaMarcus Russell proved clearly that he could do exactly to the Irish secondary what future NFL studs like Pat Cowan, Joe Dailey, John David Booty, Drew Stanton, Curtis Painter, and even Reggie Ball could do with superior offensive talent. All aboard the Reggie Ball man train!
Seriously, the notion that one "big" game against a weak opponent should be weighed any more greatly than any game Russell didn't play as well in is sick, twisted, disgusting, and perhaps the worst possible evaluation of a QB .
Russell isn't defined solely by his immense physical skills. He also has exceptional awareness in the pocket and his instincts are superb.
I think Carriuci's observation right here is more than a bit off. But don't take my word for it, how about we take the word of the guy who created the fucking QB projection system:
David Lewin writes, "An even bigger issue with Russell is that he is an atrocious decision maker. He consistently throws the ball into double and triple coverage. Like Favre he often gets away with it by making spectacular throws. Still, field vision is the single most important quality for a quarterback. You can get away with being average in this regard if you have superior arm strength and accuracy, but Russell still has a ways to go before he can be considered average at seeing the field."
Lewin's analysis is actually defended by real life "examples" and anecdotal evidence, which means it's "more accurate than" Carruci's baseless statement.
As the top overall pick of the draft, he must deliver in a big way. Every bit as big as his talent and physique says he can.
"Whether it's other people or myself, I set my standards very high and for the expectations that everybody has," Russell said. "But you know, you can only do what God has set for you to do. I'll be very pleased to go out there and work as hard as I can to make everything possible for the Raiders."
As the top overall draft pick, Russell will get a contract that is likely 2 years longer, and worth about 6 million more on a per season basis than Brady Quinn will after his draft day free fall.
Meanwhile, the Browns will build around their powerful offensive line and QB, and the Raiders will build around a weak QB and offense with what little cap room they have left. The Browns will become a perennial playoff contender, and the Raiders will not.
And the most ironic part in all of this is that Vic Carrucci got fired from his post as consultant to the Browns, allowing for this to happen.
This was a slam-dunk. This was a no-brainer. This was the sensible decision once all of the nonsensical speculation finally stopped.
The Oakland Raiders could not pass on a quarterback. Not after saying no to Matt Leinart a year ago. Not while lacking a legitimate starting quarterback this year. Not with Lane Kiffin, their rookie head coach, needing a centerpiece to the explosive, quick-striking offense he is looking to build.
It's not like the JaMarcus Russell pick was made because anyone in the world thought he was the best player available. Like him or hate him, he's going to be the Raiders best QB since Rich Gannon retired--unless Josh McCown beats him to the punch.
So while you have to respect the Raiders for making the move they needed to make based on the information they had, it's obvious that the Raiders' methods of QB evaluation--like most of the league--are flawed, and that 99% of the population will realize this before Vic Carruci does.
He's "special".
Furthermore, the Raiders could not pass on one of the most talented passers to emerge from the college ranks in many years.
#1) They did.
#2) As you alluded to one paragraph before, they've proven the ability to pass on a franchise QB before this year also.
They could not pass on a quarterback with JaMarcus Russell's ultra-powerful arm or his extraordinary athleticism for someone with a towering, 6-foot-5-plus, 256-pound frame.
What about Calvin Johnson? What about him? He is an incredibly talented wide receiver, but what good would that be with no one to throw him the ball.
For evidence on why a 6-5 256 lb frame means about as much to being a good QB as having a gigantic wang, see this post.
If you want evidence on why an ultra-powerful arm and overrated atleticism aren't very valuable, go read everything we've ever written, or just sit in the corner and let common sense set in.
I'm really sorry that I didn't get a chance to do more Calvin Johnson posting prior to the draft, but basically, receivers are improperly valued for a plethora of reasons, and Calvin Johnson will likely not do any "game redefining" during his NFL tenure.
What about Brady Quinn? What about him? He had an outstanding collegiate career, but he does not possess the same pure talent as Russell. No other quarterback in the 2007 college crop does. No quarterback currently in the league can match his arm strength.
Russell was the choice. Russell always was the choice.
I like the part where Vic Carruci writes of Quinn, "He had an outstading collegiate career" only to realize that this fact completely trumps all of his weak Russell points. He sheepishly tosses Quinn to the side of the road, and goes back to giving Russell a hummer.
Yes, he has some rough spots that were evident even during his most dominant moments at LSU. All rookies do. Kiffin and the rest of the Raiders' coaching staff are capable of smoothing them out.
It also helps when you have the tremendous foundation that Russell provides. He still will be able to do good things even before he learns what he needs to learn to become a consistently effective NFL quarterback.
Well, of course. In sabremetric football circles, and in MOST conventional circles, it's pretty much accepted--and evidenced--that no QB as a rookie will play anywhere near what he will be as a guy in his prime. Quinn is no more of an exception than Russell is.
The second statement is pretty much true also. I mean, sure Russell will only be a shell of his not so great potential, but just because he will be a complete "deer-in-the-headlights" rookie that has little chance of being replacement level does not mean that he won't rifle interceptions and take sacks with the utmost arm strength and falling force respectively.
I've heard the criticism that the importance of Russell's arm strength is overrated. It isn't.
Um, okay?
I've heard that the forecast for tomorrow for Chicago, Illinois will be 75 and sunny. But trust me, it won't be!
Your evidence?
No, he won't be throwing long passes on every down or on most downs. But the mere fact he poses a deep-ball threat is going to allow him to make an impact that Quinn and other rookie quarterbacks with less powerful arms aren't able to make. The respect opposing defenses must show Russell for his ability to make a game-breaking play with one flick of the wrist alters their coverage in ways that should allow the Raiders to run more effectively and/or make plays with short and intermediate passes.
This is not how football is played. Number one, no amount of respect for his arm will make up for a typical rookie QB performance. He will be costing the Raiders points. Quinn might be also, but he has a far better chance of being above replacement level. At least, thats what his projection tells me. Number two, you can not just assume that defenses will play JaMarcus Russell differently than any other crappy QB with a big arm.
Then again, after watching what his arm strength did to warp the minds of these draft analysts, defensive coordinators should be a bunch of sitting ducks, so long as he keeps his golden arm gleaming and polished.
I've heard criticism that the importance of Russell's standout performance in the Sugar Bowl is overrated. It isn't. Russell gave his best performance in the biggest game of his career, and that says plenty about him as a competitor and about what he can do at the next level. The fact he clearly overshadowed Quinn is equally important, because Quinn once held the distinction of being the best quarterback in the draft. Russell went a long way toward making him second best.
I think JaMarcus Russell proved clearly that he could do exactly to the Irish secondary what future NFL studs like Pat Cowan, Joe Dailey, John David Booty, Drew Stanton, Curtis Painter, and even Reggie Ball could do with superior offensive talent. All aboard the Reggie Ball man train!
Seriously, the notion that one "big" game against a weak opponent should be weighed any more greatly than any game Russell didn't play as well in is sick, twisted, disgusting, and perhaps the worst possible evaluation of a QB .
Russell isn't defined solely by his immense physical skills. He also has exceptional awareness in the pocket and his instincts are superb.
I think Carriuci's observation right here is more than a bit off. But don't take my word for it, how about we take the word of the guy who created the fucking QB projection system:
David Lewin writes, "An even bigger issue with Russell is that he is an atrocious decision maker. He consistently throws the ball into double and triple coverage. Like Favre he often gets away with it by making spectacular throws. Still, field vision is the single most important quality for a quarterback. You can get away with being average in this regard if you have superior arm strength and accuracy, but Russell still has a ways to go before he can be considered average at seeing the field."
Lewin's analysis is actually defended by real life "examples" and anecdotal evidence, which means it's "more accurate than" Carruci's baseless statement.
As the top overall pick of the draft, he must deliver in a big way. Every bit as big as his talent and physique says he can.
"Whether it's other people or myself, I set my standards very high and for the expectations that everybody has," Russell said. "But you know, you can only do what God has set for you to do. I'll be very pleased to go out there and work as hard as I can to make everything possible for the Raiders."
As the top overall draft pick, Russell will get a contract that is likely 2 years longer, and worth about 6 million more on a per season basis than Brady Quinn will after his draft day free fall.
Meanwhile, the Browns will build around their powerful offensive line and QB, and the Raiders will build around a weak QB and offense with what little cap room they have left. The Browns will become a perennial playoff contender, and the Raiders will not.
And the most ironic part in all of this is that Vic Carrucci got fired from his post as consultant to the Browns, allowing for this to happen.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Built to be a QB
Much has been made of Jamarcus Russell being as big as a lineman (and nearly as fast!). So much in fact that you might think, as some sources in the media have suggested that being amazingly huge will make you an amazingly good quarterback (here for instance). Now we've heard this about height for years, after all, Peyton Manning is the 6 foot 5 quarterback with the laser, rocket arm. This year, a big deal is being made out of weight as well. Now a normal person might think that a quarterback's ability is more affected by his ability than his height or weight. In fact, that's what's called a tautology.
However, seeing as the main stream sports media is above recognizing tautologies, let's test this bitch empirically. I'm going to fire up Stata and bust a regression on your dome. I'm going there, just because this talk is all so god damned stupid.
I'm only reporting the data for QB rating, because in spite of being a pretty shitty measure, it accounts for most forms of performance in a number that is decently spread out throughout the league. Rest assured I also regressed height and weight against tds, sacks, yds/game, comp%, and ints individually. The bottom line is that there is no correlation, 0, jack, zip.
Now, obviously, I excluded Quarterbacks without much playing time, this data consists of only QBs who had played six or more games and attempted more than about 15 passes per game. Since there is relatively little variation in height, compared to weight, I standardized the data first. The p-value for height is .330, the p-value for weight is .792!!! This means that it is 4 times as likely that weight has NO EFFECT on QB performance as it having an effect. The p-value for height is less than half as much, which may seem impressive, but generally the level of statistical significance is .05. Even more impressive, the coefficient for height is -2.1. NEGATIVE. That means that although the correlation is fairly likely to be a result of random variation, assuming that it isn't, taller quarterbacks actually perform WORSE.
Now you're probably reluctant to accept this, because the conventional wisdom is that height helps quarterbacks. However, this makes perfect sense. Unless a quarterback is about 4'11" it doesn't matter! And yet, coaches believe it matters so they tend to stick with subpar quarterbacks longer if they happen to be tall. It's just like deciding that the first man in your line up NEEDS to be fast, and then putting your worst hitter there. The physical attribute doesn't correlate strongly enough with performance to justify it. However, actual, statistical performance correlates perfectly with performance.
So basically, anyone who says that someone is "built" to be a quarterback, is WRONG--very, very wrong. Feel free to punch them.
However, seeing as the main stream sports media is above recognizing tautologies, let's test this bitch empirically. I'm going to fire up Stata and bust a regression on your dome. I'm going there, just because this talk is all so god damned stupid.
I'm only reporting the data for QB rating, because in spite of being a pretty shitty measure, it accounts for most forms of performance in a number that is decently spread out throughout the league. Rest assured I also regressed height and weight against tds, sacks, yds/game, comp%, and ints individually. The bottom line is that there is no correlation, 0, jack, zip.
Now, obviously, I excluded Quarterbacks without much playing time, this data consists of only QBs who had played six or more games and attempted more than about 15 passes per game. Since there is relatively little variation in height, compared to weight, I standardized the data first. The p-value for height is .330, the p-value for weight is .792!!! This means that it is 4 times as likely that weight has NO EFFECT on QB performance as it having an effect. The p-value for height is less than half as much, which may seem impressive, but generally the level of statistical significance is .05. Even more impressive, the coefficient for height is -2.1. NEGATIVE. That means that although the correlation is fairly likely to be a result of random variation, assuming that it isn't, taller quarterbacks actually perform WORSE.
Now you're probably reluctant to accept this, because the conventional wisdom is that height helps quarterbacks. However, this makes perfect sense. Unless a quarterback is about 4'11" it doesn't matter! And yet, coaches believe it matters so they tend to stick with subpar quarterbacks longer if they happen to be tall. It's just like deciding that the first man in your line up NEEDS to be fast, and then putting your worst hitter there. The physical attribute doesn't correlate strongly enough with performance to justify it. However, actual, statistical performance correlates perfectly with performance.
So basically, anyone who says that someone is "built" to be a quarterback, is WRONG--very, very wrong. Feel free to punch them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)