There’s less than 2% of the 2007 MLB season remaining which means it’s the appropriate time to start predicting awards. For the most part the frontrunners are pretty straightforward. With one huge exception—NL MVP. Before I open that can of worms (has anyone actually ever SEEN a can of worms?) I’ll run down the other major awards.
Manager of the Year—
AL: Eric Wedge
Why? His team is going to win arguably the hardest division in the majors by 7 games. His two best hitters (Hafner and Sizemore) endured sub par years. His closer sports a 5+ ERA. Additionally, he has his team hitting on all cylinders at the right time
Runner-Up: Post All-Star Joe Torre. Getting the shaky staring pitching and bullpen to come around is the main key for the turnaround of the team.
NL: Bob Melvin.
Why? Melvin took the youngest team, with question marks all over the field and still was able to field a playoff team (despite the strangest run differential I’ve ever seen in a playoff team. It sits at -9 right now).
Runner-Up: Ned Yost. He’ll take a lot of heat but no one expected them to contend like this. Consider that their Ace spent most of the year on the shelf (comma) and their former innings eater led them to a 0-21 record in his last 21 appearances.
Rookie of the Year—
AL: Brian Bannister
Why? Unlike Manager of the Year and MVP, the rookie of the year should simply be the best rookie performance over the entire season. Bannister was a huge life preserver for the Royals. At 12-8 with a 3.46 ERA, he was the best rookie pitcher and could have won 17-20 games on a decent offensive club. Plus, the Royals need some love, right?
Runner Up: Anyone but Dice-K. I refuse to give my (imaginary) vote to someone from the Japanese League).
NL: Ryan Braun.
Why? Pence and Tulowitzki are good players, but Braun is having a ridiculous rookie year. His numbers over a full season project to .330 57HR 150RBI. Enough said.
Runner Up: Tulowitzki because he’s on a contender and plays stellar defense.
Cy Young:
AL: CC Sabathia
Why? He dominated the best pitcher in the league (Johan) 4 times in one season (Johan Santana) and is top 5 in wins, K’s WHIP, complete games, ERA, and IP AND his team made the playoffs.
NL: Jake Peavy
Why? He’s the best pitcher in his league and no one really debates that. Every night out this season was a chance at history. He stuck out 10 batters 9 times this year. Oh, and he’s first in W, K, WHIP, and ERA.
MVP:
AL: Alex Rodriguez
Why? Seriously? I have to answer that. There’s no debate.
Runner Up: Magglio Ordonez is having an MVP caliber year, if that year were any number other than 2007.
NL: Matt Holliday
Why? I don’t care what his home/road splits are. Most players hit better at home vs. on the road. That’s why it’s called “home-field advantage.” Besides, he plays his games as they are scheduled against the same major leaguers other teams face. His statistics are measured the same way as others, his production and impact should be valued similarly. He’s top 5 in BA HR, RBI, R, OPS, and Slugging. He’s carried his team down the stretch (September .356 12HR 27 RBI 27R) and through their current 11 game winning streak.
Runner Up: Jimmy Rollins. All due respect to Utley, Reyes, Fielder, Chipper (and no respect to David Wright—that dude can eat me) but Rollins has been the catalyst for the Phillies all season while Utley was hurt and Howard was swinging at everything in sight.
Polish Your Resume Award (worst manager of the year)
AL: Ozzie Guillen
Why? This team was incredibly talented and just 2 years shy of the World Series. Ozzie managed to run his pitchers into the ground and cause his entire lineup to slump with his endless prodding.
NL: Willie Randolph
Why? Because it’s funny to watch a team fall apart—unless you’re the manager. Randolph’s team should have put the finishing touches on the division a month ago but his inability to get his offense rolling and his bullpen together is going to cost them the division. And it’s been great!
He gets paid WHAT? (worst player of the year)
AL: J.D. Drew
Why? Can’t we just use “because he is J.D. Drew?” No? I won’t rehash his numbers but lets say they teach you how to count to his HR and RBI total in Kindergarten (despite the obvious advantages of hitting a) in Fenway and b) in the Red Sox lineup. If he’s found dead after watching strike three for the fourth time in game 6 of the playoffs, put out an APB for Bill Simmons
NL: Mike Hampton.
Why? He’s now qualified to write a book entitled “How to make $30 million in two years without doing a goddamn thing.”
I’m not bitter at all.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Thoughts on a hard fought loss
A couple of thoughts about the Falcons game (and telecast) while they're still fresh in my mind.
Why couldn't we see replays of any of the calls (facemasks, late hits, etc) until the second half? It seemed Fox was preoccupied with letting their announcers ramble rather than address the calls on the field.
On second thought, it's probably best the they didn't show some of the calls. This was one of the oddest officiated games I've ever witnessed. The refs couldn't decide whether to call everything (D. Halls hit to Smith's "head", the verbal sparring between the two) or to call nothing (Jenkins obliteration of Harrington that went uncalled). The unsportsmanlike conduct calls on both sides were ludicrous and at times it felt as though the referees wanted nothing more than a little face time. I sincerely hope the league reviews the calls and disciplines the officials accordingly.
On the bright side, Harrington looked much more poised and decisive and had a solid outing. He seemed more in command of the offense and not holding the ball eternally or looking immediately for the check down. Perhaps better route running by the WR aided him. Additionally, John Abraham must be looking for new endorsement deals because he played ridiculously well. The Cats were unable to keep him out of the backfield and he blew up several plays all on his own. Jamaal Anderson was quiet. Like studying in the library quiet. The O-Line played pretty well, good scheming kept Peppers from being a factor.
Kris Jenkins went out with his yearly injury.
Smith seemed to cramp, as always. He was held in check by Hall (other than one good PI call and two HORRIBLE other calls)
Delhomme's elbow got hurt without any contact. I call this the Mike Hampton.
Carr looked good in relief, handing off seamlessly to Foster repeatedly.
The real problem negatively was the linebacking corps. An incredibly fast group, they were constantly around the ball but unable to deliver the hits necessary to slow down, stop, or punish the ball carrier. Williams and Foster kept plowing through them as the game progressed. Brooking looked like a shell of his former self unable to bring down the ball carrier on multiple occasions. At this point maybe we should do him a favor and trade him to a team like the Colts who could use some help at LB (and get out from under his contract and get a decent draft pick in the process).
Our future QB did his part this weekend, putting up ridiculous numbers in a losing effort. 45-65 for 455 yds and a handful of TDs. As long as the Falcons keep losing, this might become a weekly segment--the Brian Brohm update. For the year he's at 68% completion, 1700 yds, 15td/3int and only sacked 4 times.
Oh, and Georgia heartbroke the Crimson Hefelumps. An incredible game, fought intensely on both sides. It was fun to watch and I felt pretty comfortable with Stafford getting the ball in OT (and having Coutu there to kick if needed).
Why couldn't we see replays of any of the calls (facemasks, late hits, etc) until the second half? It seemed Fox was preoccupied with letting their announcers ramble rather than address the calls on the field.
On second thought, it's probably best the they didn't show some of the calls. This was one of the oddest officiated games I've ever witnessed. The refs couldn't decide whether to call everything (D. Halls hit to Smith's "head", the verbal sparring between the two) or to call nothing (Jenkins obliteration of Harrington that went uncalled). The unsportsmanlike conduct calls on both sides were ludicrous and at times it felt as though the referees wanted nothing more than a little face time. I sincerely hope the league reviews the calls and disciplines the officials accordingly.
On the bright side, Harrington looked much more poised and decisive and had a solid outing. He seemed more in command of the offense and not holding the ball eternally or looking immediately for the check down. Perhaps better route running by the WR aided him. Additionally, John Abraham must be looking for new endorsement deals because he played ridiculously well. The Cats were unable to keep him out of the backfield and he blew up several plays all on his own. Jamaal Anderson was quiet. Like studying in the library quiet. The O-Line played pretty well, good scheming kept Peppers from being a factor.
Kris Jenkins went out with his yearly injury.
Smith seemed to cramp, as always. He was held in check by Hall (other than one good PI call and two HORRIBLE other calls)
Delhomme's elbow got hurt without any contact. I call this the Mike Hampton.
Carr looked good in relief, handing off seamlessly to Foster repeatedly.
The real problem negatively was the linebacking corps. An incredibly fast group, they were constantly around the ball but unable to deliver the hits necessary to slow down, stop, or punish the ball carrier. Williams and Foster kept plowing through them as the game progressed. Brooking looked like a shell of his former self unable to bring down the ball carrier on multiple occasions. At this point maybe we should do him a favor and trade him to a team like the Colts who could use some help at LB (and get out from under his contract and get a decent draft pick in the process).
Our future QB did his part this weekend, putting up ridiculous numbers in a losing effort. 45-65 for 455 yds and a handful of TDs. As long as the Falcons keep losing, this might become a weekly segment--the Brian Brohm update. For the year he's at 68% completion, 1700 yds, 15td/3int and only sacked 4 times.
Oh, and Georgia heartbroke the Crimson Hefelumps. An incredible game, fought intensely on both sides. It was fun to watch and I felt pretty comfortable with Stafford getting the ball in OT (and having Coutu there to kick if needed).
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Braves pumped to sprint towards a 3rd place finish
The Braves sure picked a strange time to start making a run. After the mediocre first 11 games dropped the Braves well out of any reasonable playoff scenarios, they've pulled it together and won 4 of 5. Including a one run win and an extra inning win (both situations where we faltered all season long). Meanwhile the Mets are flailing about, allowing the Braves to pull within 6 with 11 to play.
I'm betting we'll continue this hot streak through the end of the season and finish 4 games shy of the playoffs. Wouldn't that be appropriate for this years team? Almost good enough, but not quite when it counted.
On the positive side, Chipper is leading the league in hitting with Renteria close behind (and if Young Renteria, I mean Escobar, had enough ABs he'd be in the top 10 as well). And JoJo Reyes looked much better (albeit against a Marlins team that doesn't seem too interested in playing right now).
On the negative side, Andruw looks like he is starting to heat up (to be fair, anything above .230 with 1K/game is "hot" for him). I guess he finally listened to *someone about his hitting (that someone likely being Boras, I imagine. Gas for those 20 cars Andruw owns is expensive, you know). Rumor is the Braves plan is to offer him arbitration and PRAY that someone signs him. (This would ensure the Braves get 2 supplemental picks in the draft). If no one signs him, he'll get somewhere around $15 mil for 2008. At least there's grumbling about increased payroll in 2008 (to $100 million). It was weird being the only team that hadn't increased their spending at all since 1997. I miss Ted Turner.
Speaking of 1997, I would like to address one lingering concern that's haunted me since then. What happened to our ability to develop pitchers? The last pitcher that we developed that did anything with us was Milwood. And it seemed he developed in spite of our coaching (he notoriously hated Mazzone). Every big time prospect we've brought up has been the same pitcher: 88-91 mph fastball, decent change, developing curve/slider, and terrible control. Davies, Marquis, James, Horacio, Reyes, Bruce Chen, Odalis Perez, Damian Moss. And that's only the SP. When you think about it, really, aren't all these guys the same pitcher? I understand that 95 mph flamethrowers don't grow on trees and neither do control pitchers. But to not have ANY of EITHER over the past decade seems a bit strange. Part of the problem, I think, is that the Braves scouts have had incredible success at drafting/developing position players (at everywhere other than 1B). There isn't going to be turnover in the scouting department while they are successfully so incredibly in the positional department. I'm not asking for another Smoltz, Glavine, even Millwood. But maybe a Paul Byrd. Is that too much to ask?
I'm betting we'll continue this hot streak through the end of the season and finish 4 games shy of the playoffs. Wouldn't that be appropriate for this years team? Almost good enough, but not quite when it counted.
On the positive side, Chipper is leading the league in hitting with Renteria close behind (and if Young Renteria, I mean Escobar, had enough ABs he'd be in the top 10 as well). And JoJo Reyes looked much better (albeit against a Marlins team that doesn't seem too interested in playing right now).
On the negative side, Andruw looks like he is starting to heat up (to be fair, anything above .230 with 1K/game is "hot" for him). I guess he finally listened to *someone about his hitting (that someone likely being Boras, I imagine. Gas for those 20 cars Andruw owns is expensive, you know). Rumor is the Braves plan is to offer him arbitration and PRAY that someone signs him. (This would ensure the Braves get 2 supplemental picks in the draft). If no one signs him, he'll get somewhere around $15 mil for 2008. At least there's grumbling about increased payroll in 2008 (to $100 million). It was weird being the only team that hadn't increased their spending at all since 1997. I miss Ted Turner.
Speaking of 1997, I would like to address one lingering concern that's haunted me since then. What happened to our ability to develop pitchers? The last pitcher that we developed that did anything with us was Milwood. And it seemed he developed in spite of our coaching (he notoriously hated Mazzone). Every big time prospect we've brought up has been the same pitcher: 88-91 mph fastball, decent change, developing curve/slider, and terrible control. Davies, Marquis, James, Horacio, Reyes, Bruce Chen, Odalis Perez, Damian Moss. And that's only the SP. When you think about it, really, aren't all these guys the same pitcher? I understand that 95 mph flamethrowers don't grow on trees and neither do control pitchers. But to not have ANY of EITHER over the past decade seems a bit strange. Part of the problem, I think, is that the Braves scouts have had incredible success at drafting/developing position players (at everywhere other than 1B). There isn't going to be turnover in the scouting department while they are successfully so incredibly in the positional department. I'm not asking for another Smoltz, Glavine, even Millwood. But maybe a Paul Byrd. Is that too much to ask?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
This is probably redundant, but Jeff Schultz is an idiot.
"One simple rule of football: When a quarterback can't throw and a receiver can't catch and a coach seemingly can't see, it's amazing what knocking somebody on their butt will accomplish"--Jeff Schultz in today's blog on ajc.com. I'd link it, but I honestly think it's one of the most ridiculous pieces of self-promotion I've read in a long time. If you want to read it, find it yourself.
Schultz goes on to state that the "real" reason for the Dawgs loss to USC was not due to poor catching, tackling, missed blocks, or misreading the defense. No, it's because he lacks the verbal equivalent of a "forearm shiver."
Reading this makes it abundantly clear that Schultz must never have played organized sports, and makes me wonder if he remembers what it was like to be a 20 year old male. I've played, captained, and in some facet coached numerous players ranging in age from 18-30. Every season I ask for feedback on what I can improve upon to make the next season better. Every season a few players mention a time when I got particularly animated and they remind me that no one likes to be yelled at and it rarely makes them execute any better. So every season I work more and more at dulling my temper and trying to motivate them in other ways--for the team, for your pride, self-improvement. All of these garner better results in my experience. Yet Schultz seems to imply that a little "Bobby Knight" is necessary to get Mikey Morris to catch a pass.
By arguing this, Schultz is looking past one of the major differences between the professional game and the collegiate game: these are kids, they are new to the college life, and they are combining an educational calendar with grueling practices and playbook memorization. He is forgetting that these are young men. They need molding in ways other than just on the field. We hear it all the time, these young men look to their coaches as surrogate father figures. The players are pulled from their familial supports and placed in the difficult life of academics and athletics. Do they need discipline and leadership? Of course, but as the old saying goes "you'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar." That isn't to suggest coddling the players by any means. Simply, treat them as young men and respond accordingly to their behavior.
Richt is keenly aware of his role and the image he portrays for the university. "Because I'm the face of the program, I'm not usually screaming in anybody's ear very often," Richt said. "Sometimes I do. There are some choice times in the locker room or in practice that people don't normally see." That, to me, sounds like a coach who isn't going to berate some kid while the camera is on so that pundits like Schultz can say "see, there's a coach who cares!" He's going to manage his program in a way that develops the kids in more than just football.
Schultz seems to dismiss that a portion of success in any sport isn't due to just being talented or prepared, it has to do with being confident as well. Thinking that the coaches need to berate the players to improve their play doesn't just go against normal ideas of how to motivate people, it actually precludes the players from improving and playing better.
Schultz goes on to state that UGA lost despite being the better team because of this coaching "error." Nevermind the fact that their quarterback had 3 more years experience than ours, that their offensive and defensive lines weren't playing their 2nd games with new starters. It's not a coincidence that many prognosticators picked USC as an upset pick for the SEC East this year. It's because they saw experience on both sides of the ball, and that experience typically lends itself to a higher quality of play--especially early in the season when the young players on other teams are still getting acclimated to the league and to one another.
It's embarrasing that our local columnist can't recognize good coaching and even better leadership when he sees it. It's even more embarrasing when he goes on to extoll the virtues of yelling at players instead of treating them like young, developing men. Can a coach succeed without delivering that "forearm shiver"? No, says Jeff Schultz. I disagree and cite Tony Dungy, Jim Tressell, Mack Brown, Bobby Cox, and a host of other current and former coaches as my evidence.
Schultz goes on to state that the "real" reason for the Dawgs loss to USC was not due to poor catching, tackling, missed blocks, or misreading the defense. No, it's because he lacks the verbal equivalent of a "forearm shiver."
Reading this makes it abundantly clear that Schultz must never have played organized sports, and makes me wonder if he remembers what it was like to be a 20 year old male. I've played, captained, and in some facet coached numerous players ranging in age from 18-30. Every season I ask for feedback on what I can improve upon to make the next season better. Every season a few players mention a time when I got particularly animated and they remind me that no one likes to be yelled at and it rarely makes them execute any better. So every season I work more and more at dulling my temper and trying to motivate them in other ways--for the team, for your pride, self-improvement. All of these garner better results in my experience. Yet Schultz seems to imply that a little "Bobby Knight" is necessary to get Mikey Morris to catch a pass.
By arguing this, Schultz is looking past one of the major differences between the professional game and the collegiate game: these are kids, they are new to the college life, and they are combining an educational calendar with grueling practices and playbook memorization. He is forgetting that these are young men. They need molding in ways other than just on the field. We hear it all the time, these young men look to their coaches as surrogate father figures. The players are pulled from their familial supports and placed in the difficult life of academics and athletics. Do they need discipline and leadership? Of course, but as the old saying goes "you'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar." That isn't to suggest coddling the players by any means. Simply, treat them as young men and respond accordingly to their behavior.
Richt is keenly aware of his role and the image he portrays for the university. "Because I'm the face of the program, I'm not usually screaming in anybody's ear very often," Richt said. "Sometimes I do. There are some choice times in the locker room or in practice that people don't normally see." That, to me, sounds like a coach who isn't going to berate some kid while the camera is on so that pundits like Schultz can say "see, there's a coach who cares!" He's going to manage his program in a way that develops the kids in more than just football.
Schultz seems to dismiss that a portion of success in any sport isn't due to just being talented or prepared, it has to do with being confident as well. Thinking that the coaches need to berate the players to improve their play doesn't just go against normal ideas of how to motivate people, it actually precludes the players from improving and playing better.
Schultz goes on to state that UGA lost despite being the better team because of this coaching "error." Nevermind the fact that their quarterback had 3 more years experience than ours, that their offensive and defensive lines weren't playing their 2nd games with new starters. It's not a coincidence that many prognosticators picked USC as an upset pick for the SEC East this year. It's because they saw experience on both sides of the ball, and that experience typically lends itself to a higher quality of play--especially early in the season when the young players on other teams are still getting acclimated to the league and to one another.
It's embarrasing that our local columnist can't recognize good coaching and even better leadership when he sees it. It's even more embarrasing when he goes on to extoll the virtues of yelling at players instead of treating them like young, developing men. Can a coach succeed without delivering that "forearm shiver"? No, says Jeff Schultz. I disagree and cite Tony Dungy, Jim Tressell, Mack Brown, Bobby Cox, and a host of other current and former coaches as my evidence.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Braves Haikus
This season was toast
long before they cleated up
damn you, Mike Hampton!
Starts three, four, and five
each week are sold on Ebay.
At least, it looks it.
Harris remembered
that he is actually
just Willie Harris.
Frenchie takes a walk?
Too bad Andruw "hits" behind
One more left on base.
Hitting three fifty?
Diaz sits versus righties?
I got your platoon!
"Utility" means
Sucking all over the field
Thank you, Chris Woodward.
Bye, Renteria.
A younger version of you:
Yunel Escobar.
For Kelly Johnson
I have nothing bad to say,
pretty eyelashes.
Injuries slow Mac
Third year in a row, he is
Second-half monster.
A lot of vowels
Saltalamacchia gone,
Teixiera's a stud.
A full year of Chip?
No longer made of Balsa.
Still not quite enough.
Wickman's mouth too big
talked and ate his way off mound
And out of the south.
long before they cleated up
damn you, Mike Hampton!
Starts three, four, and five
each week are sold on Ebay.
At least, it looks it.
Harris remembered
that he is actually
just Willie Harris.
Frenchie takes a walk?
Too bad Andruw "hits" behind
One more left on base.
Hitting three fifty?
Diaz sits versus righties?
I got your platoon!
"Utility" means
Sucking all over the field
Thank you, Chris Woodward.
Bye, Renteria.
A younger version of you:
Yunel Escobar.
For Kelly Johnson
I have nothing bad to say,
pretty eyelashes.
Injuries slow Mac
Third year in a row, he is
Second-half monster.
A lot of vowels
Saltalamacchia gone,
Teixiera's a stud.
A full year of Chip?
No longer made of Balsa.
Still not quite enough.
Wickman's mouth too big
talked and ate his way off mound
And out of the south.
Crafting A Winner
I'm posting this now so I don't look like a revisionist historian later and before the national (and local) media jumps off the Harrington bandwagon (and on the Schaub train).
I don't care if we go 0-16, trading Matt Schaub was the right thing to do! I liked Matt Schaub. I think he'll be a decent starting QB. But I think we learned from the Vick draft pick trade that you always turn 1 unknown into 2 unknowns if you have the opportunity. Especially if there are suitable replacements for what you are giving up.
I can understand the rationale for keeping Schaub if there was going to be continuity in either leadership or scheme. Especially in regards to scheme. Part of why many scouts were high on Schaub was because how he "looked" in our "west coast" offense. He had been in this type of offense for 7 years (4 in college, 3 in the pros). This type offense suited his large frame (6'5") and his arm (accurate but not incredibly strong). He is a great fit for an offense looking to take a three step drop and pitch the ball 5-15 yards. However, Petrino's offense requires more shotgun, 5-7 step drops, deep throws, and even some mobility (to run stretch plays, rollouts, etc). Additionally, the new staff was going to have to teach Schaub this system. If you're going to have to teach someone new the position, why not bring in someone fresh and get assets for what you currently have (especially if that player would be leaving in a year anyway--or requiring a $40 million contract)?
This doesn't even take into account what the Falcons might have known regarding Vick and how tumultuous this season was going to be regardless of having Schaub. Really, isn't the difference for this year between Schaub and the guy replacing him (turns out to be Joey) arbitrary?
Here's the net result of the trade (and signing of Harrington which was a necessity of that trade)
Falcons lose: Matt Schaub (career 54% passing, 1/1 TD/INT ratio)
Falcons gain: Joey Harrington (career 55% passing, .94/1 TD/INT ratio)
Justin Blalock (future franchise LG)
approximate 45nd overall pick* (Sedrick Ellis DT USC, Jonathan Goff ILB Vandy,
Quentin Demps S UTEP)
a 2 spot upgrade in 07 draft. Allowing us to get Jamaal Anderson
(who reminds me of Jevon Kearse without all the injuries) $40,000,000 less of a risk put into one player.
In the end, we'll end up with a franchise LG, a starting S, and we'll end up with someone else at QB (Brohm? Brennan? Henne?). I like all of those options more than Schaub. I think the Chargers proved that 1 player is never *that* big of an upgrade over 2 top 50 picks. I'll gladly take the picks, one year of struggling, and move forward better equipped for the future.
* derived from my guess of where Houston will finish. This would put them at about 7-9 using last years final results.
I don't care if we go 0-16, trading Matt Schaub was the right thing to do! I liked Matt Schaub. I think he'll be a decent starting QB. But I think we learned from the Vick draft pick trade that you always turn 1 unknown into 2 unknowns if you have the opportunity. Especially if there are suitable replacements for what you are giving up.
I can understand the rationale for keeping Schaub if there was going to be continuity in either leadership or scheme. Especially in regards to scheme. Part of why many scouts were high on Schaub was because how he "looked" in our "west coast" offense. He had been in this type of offense for 7 years (4 in college, 3 in the pros). This type offense suited his large frame (6'5") and his arm (accurate but not incredibly strong). He is a great fit for an offense looking to take a three step drop and pitch the ball 5-15 yards. However, Petrino's offense requires more shotgun, 5-7 step drops, deep throws, and even some mobility (to run stretch plays, rollouts, etc). Additionally, the new staff was going to have to teach Schaub this system. If you're going to have to teach someone new the position, why not bring in someone fresh and get assets for what you currently have (especially if that player would be leaving in a year anyway--or requiring a $40 million contract)?
This doesn't even take into account what the Falcons might have known regarding Vick and how tumultuous this season was going to be regardless of having Schaub. Really, isn't the difference for this year between Schaub and the guy replacing him (turns out to be Joey) arbitrary?
Here's the net result of the trade (and signing of Harrington which was a necessity of that trade)
Falcons lose: Matt Schaub (career 54% passing, 1/1 TD/INT ratio)
Falcons gain: Joey Harrington (career 55% passing, .94/1 TD/INT ratio)
Justin Blalock (future franchise LG)
approximate 45nd overall pick* (Sedrick Ellis DT USC, Jonathan Goff ILB Vandy,
Quentin Demps S UTEP)
a 2 spot upgrade in 07 draft. Allowing us to get Jamaal Anderson
(who reminds me of Jevon Kearse without all the injuries) $40,000,000 less of a risk put into one player.
In the end, we'll end up with a franchise LG, a starting S, and we'll end up with someone else at QB (Brohm? Brennan? Henne?). I like all of those options more than Schaub. I think the Chargers proved that 1 player is never *that* big of an upgrade over 2 top 50 picks. I'll gladly take the picks, one year of struggling, and move forward better equipped for the future.
* derived from my guess of where Houston will finish. This would put them at about 7-9 using last years final results.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Put Me In, Coach! I'm Ready To Play!
Examples 1a. and 1b. were present this weekend in the form of Dawgs/Falcons vs. Cocks/Vikes.
Richt and Petrino both stubbornly decided to continue force feeding their veteran RBs coming off of injuries instead of trying something different--until it was too late. Thomas Brown (12/49) and Warrick Dunn (22/55) were bottled up, pushed back, strung out, and tripped all through the first half. So what do the coaches do? Keep plugging away. Only after both teams were behind by a TD or more do the coaches put in the young studs. And what do the studs do? Ramble for over 6 ypc each. (Moreno 14/104, Norwood 5/33). We heard all off-season about both young RBs and how much they had improved and that they'd see a bigger role on offense. Yet when game time comes, the vets are in there banging fruitlessly away while bigger talent pines on the pine.
I understand the desire for veteran leadership and a "been there, done that" trust. But at what point do teams that are admittedly developing (at best) turn to the future to enchance the skills of their players. I'll concede that it's different on a positional basis (as playing QB requires more maturity and study than, say, playing RB and hitting the hole) and that with some positions (like QB) there are inherent risks (confidence, injury) that could deter a coach, but if you're going to "put the team in the best position to win" shouldn't that necessitate putting the more skilled players on the field. Even if you risk mistakes, doesn't the reward outweigh that?
Similarly, if the argument is that you want players who are experienced, then why play the young players late in the game instead of early? Wouldn't it make more sense to play the vets in crunch time (once the defense has been loosened by the younger player)? What "experience" are the young players gaining by being out there in mop-up duty or trying to come from behind? I understand you have to earn the coaches trust, but at some point the talent outweighs the risk. Isn't that how Stafford ended up being starter? Let's hope the coaches see the same things that I saw this weekend and make some moves.
Richt and Petrino both stubbornly decided to continue force feeding their veteran RBs coming off of injuries instead of trying something different--until it was too late. Thomas Brown (12/49) and Warrick Dunn (22/55) were bottled up, pushed back, strung out, and tripped all through the first half. So what do the coaches do? Keep plugging away. Only after both teams were behind by a TD or more do the coaches put in the young studs. And what do the studs do? Ramble for over 6 ypc each. (Moreno 14/104, Norwood 5/33). We heard all off-season about both young RBs and how much they had improved and that they'd see a bigger role on offense. Yet when game time comes, the vets are in there banging fruitlessly away while bigger talent pines on the pine.
I understand the desire for veteran leadership and a "been there, done that" trust. But at what point do teams that are admittedly developing (at best) turn to the future to enchance the skills of their players. I'll concede that it's different on a positional basis (as playing QB requires more maturity and study than, say, playing RB and hitting the hole) and that with some positions (like QB) there are inherent risks (confidence, injury) that could deter a coach, but if you're going to "put the team in the best position to win" shouldn't that necessitate putting the more skilled players on the field. Even if you risk mistakes, doesn't the reward outweigh that?
Similarly, if the argument is that you want players who are experienced, then why play the young players late in the game instead of early? Wouldn't it make more sense to play the vets in crunch time (once the defense has been loosened by the younger player)? What "experience" are the young players gaining by being out there in mop-up duty or trying to come from behind? I understand you have to earn the coaches trust, but at some point the talent outweighs the risk. Isn't that how Stafford ended up being starter? Let's hope the coaches see the same things that I saw this weekend and make some moves.
The Beginning
I've been coaxed to post my rantings and thoughts on sports here.
My disclaimers:
(1) I'll stick to mostly Atlanta sports. I'm a fanatic of the Dawgs, Braves, Falcons, and Hawks.
(2) I'll post on other sports topics as I find them interesting.
(3) I'll be irreverent at times. I'll try not to be offensive--and I'll fail.
(4) I'll try to respond to comments. But only logical and intelligent ones.
(5) If you have a good idea of a topic for me to cover, let me know. If I find it interesting, I'll do it.
new posts to come soon, I think...
My disclaimers:
(1) I'll stick to mostly Atlanta sports. I'm a fanatic of the Dawgs, Braves, Falcons, and Hawks.
(2) I'll post on other sports topics as I find them interesting.
(3) I'll be irreverent at times. I'll try not to be offensive--and I'll fail.
(4) I'll try to respond to comments. But only logical and intelligent ones.
(5) If you have a good idea of a topic for me to cover, let me know. If I find it interesting, I'll do it.
new posts to come soon, I think...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
