Or Why Chuck Pagano will not coach the Colts in 2016.
The Colts season mercifully came to a close yesterday with a win over the on-the-clock Titans resulting in an 8-8 record. The Pagano-Grigson war has been waging all year, but at this point it appears the only question remaining is whether Grigson will follow Pagano out the door.
Boiled down to one point, Pagano's biggest failure as a coach is his "Run the ball, stop the run" mantra. This hasn't been true in the NFL for years and will very likely not be true again next year. The top 6 passing offenses in DVOA made the playoffs. 8 of the top 9 passing defenses made the playoffs. This is not a coincidence. True, the best teams are good at both, but if you are building a team, you absolutely must worry about the pass first.
For all his failings, I generally think he's done a good job. He got decent results with very little talent on defense, went 8-8 with garbage QB play this year and generally has his players' support. Time after time, they have acquired players to run/stop the run to fit his scheme. If Grigson also believes this, he needs to go too and I'll certain advocate that. Pagano was not taking the Colts to the promised land and they need to move on to a coach that might. Chances are it'll be someone who is more in tune to what wins in the NFL. That will make me happy. Or they'll hire Jon Gruden and I'll be forced to become a Texans fan.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Friday, January 4, 2013
What is wrong with the BBWAA
Time go to FJM style on this ridiculous Murray Chass article.
One and done.
I placed an X next to Jack Morris on my Hall of Fame ballot, and I was finished voting. If Morris is elected, I will most likely be finished voting period. If Morris is not elected this time, I will vote for him next year in his final year of eligibility and then be done.
Barring a change in my thinking, which I don’t expect, I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year (actually 50-year) member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election.
You mean you'll really stop? This is a great late Christmas present. I mean sure you are going to vote for about the 18th most qualified man on the ballot, but then go away? Thanks!
I offer two reasons for my decision.
Though I don’t believe there is a more qualified set of electors, certainly not the new-age stats guys who are envious of the writers and believe they should determine Hall of Famers, I don’t think reporters and columnists who cover and comment on baseball news should be making baseball news.
Only grizzled veteran writers are allowed to make news. What the hell does this even mean? How is a writer different than a columnist who covers baseball anyway? All reporters should stick to telling me what Yadier Molilna batting average is (.315 by the way).
The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.
Agreed. We don't know who cheated or not. Come to think of it, some people may have cheated in the past. Let's kick them out instead. Why do we even need a Hall of Fame. Let's just have a Hall of Jack Morris and call it done.
I have read and heard all sorts of explanations for voting or not voting for players listed on the ballot, the focus falling on players known to have used performance-enhancing substances (i.e. those who tested positive) or those who were suspected or having used them (especially those cases where circumstantial evidence e of use was strong).
There are the writers who say they will not vote for anyone who cheated. There are writers who say they will vote for players who established Hall of Fame credentials before they became cheaters.
There are writers who say they will ignore steroids use, even in obvious cases, and vote as if the stuff didn’t exist because it’s impossible to know for sure who used and who didn’t use. And anyway Major League Baseball ignored all of the cheating so why shouldn’t they, the last group argues.
A. Bartlett Giamatti, the late commissioner, used to say in applicable situations, “You could use a higher standard,” and that suggestion would apply here for the writers who throw up their hands and say, “How am I supposed to know who cheated and who didn’t?”
Steroids are bad. They shouldn't have used them. Baseball should have banned them before, but didn't. If you want to make this argument for Raffy or Manny Ramirez when he comes up, fine. They failed the drug test after it became illegal. I don't necessarily agree with even that, but I could buy that argument at least. I'm so glad the Hall of Jack Morris won't contain spitballers or players who used amphetamines before testing either.
It’s a perfectly good and fair question to ask, but it shouldn’t be answered by voting for known or suspected cheaters. The most logical answer is don’t vote. I have not made a study of the matter, but I noticed the other day a column on ESPN.com by T.J. Quinn, who declared an end to his voting. Good for him. Are there any other sensible writers in the house?
Don't vote. Unless it's for Jack Morris. Everyone may have cheated. Who knows? I heard one time Dale Murphy stole a sign while on second base. Even if you think his numbers stack up, how could you vote for such a cheating cheater? Better to just not let anyone in the Hall of Fame.
Now, you might ask and reasonably so, if I plan to stop voting, why did I vote this year? I voted in the hope that my vote would contribute to Morris’ election. I didn’t vote for anyone else because anyone I might have considered was a known or suspected cheater, and I didn’t want to aid and abet a cheater.
You are making such great points. Screw the Hall of Jack Morris idea. Let's have a Hall of Clean players instead. Has it been 5 years yet since Eckstein retired? Screw it, he's in anyway. Have you seen how small and scrappy he was? No way that dude used steroids.
I think I am safe in concluding that Morris did not cheat. I know the stats zealots don’t think Morris is a Hall of Famer because his rankings in their new-fangled ratings fall below their standards. But they don‘t have a formula for intestinal fortitude or determination.
Not true. Morris' intestinal fortitude was 35.7 for his career and determination was -10.4. I know. I was surprised too. His final season in Cleveland really brought down the latter number. Screw all these sciency proven type numbers like WARPFJAGNWER. They tell us nothing about Jack Morris or any other player. You know who should get to vote for the Hall of Fame? X-Ray machines. They know intestinal fortitude.
Morris willed the Minnesota Twins to win Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, refusing to leave as long as the game was scoreless.
Single game intestinal fortitude rating of 165.3 an all time high.
The stats zealots are tired of hearing about that game, but it is symbolic of the fatal flaw in their way of viewing players. Numbers simply don’t tell the whole story.
True. They tell a lot of the story though. I'm fine with using big moments or character issues as tie breakers, but numbers kind of tell you how good a player was at playing baseball. This seems like an important thing for determing how good someone was at playing baseball.
“They seem to have formed a band those fellows, and I don’t know if you’re ever going to change their mind,” Tom Kelly said in a telephone interview Wednesday evening. Kelly managed Morris with the Twins and managed against him when he played for Detroit and Toronto.
Dude, I love this band especially this song. Saw them live twice!
Coincidentally, Kelly had watched a replay of the 10-inning 1-0 Game 7 earlier in the day. “It was snowing and I sat there and flipped the channels,” he said. The game naturally brought back memories.
I was snowed in last week too. Watched several episodes of Breaking Bad. You know who belongs in the Hall of Fame? Walter White! His determination rating is off the charts.
“I remember saying to myself in the dugout I gotta find a way to get a run,” Kelly recalled. “I was starting to get concerned that I couldn’t help the boys get a run.”
Morris pitched all 10 innings. John Smoltz, the Atlanta starter, left in the eighth.
John Smoltz isn't on the ballot yet. Leaving in the 8th inning of one game is cause enough to not get my vote though.
“To me,” Kelly said, “the hardest part of the game for those two guys was their teams had opportunities to score and they didn’t. Other pitchers would have crumbled. Those two fellows kept going out there and being nasty.”
Like Roger Clemens. Definitely would've stumbled. Can you imagine pitching 10 innings without receiving a steroid injection by at least the 7th?
Morris, Kelly added, “did that quite often through the ‘80s and ‘90s. He shut down the other team. If he had the split-finger thing going you felt sorry for the other team. Through the ‘80s and ‘90s if you had a pitcher you had to pick out whom you didn’t want to face Morris had to be in the conversation.
The conversation:
Guy #1: Who is the pitcher whom you don't want to face in the 80's or 90's?
Guy #2: That's a random question to ask while at a funeral, but well ok. I guess Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Dwight Gooden off the top of my head.
Guy #1: What about Jack Morris?
Guy #2: He was pretty good, but no. Not really
Guy #1: Yeah me either. Sorry for your loss.
Yep in the conversation.
“People just don’t know what it was like to sit there and watch from either side of the field. I got to do both.”
My uncle once had seats to consecutive games on the 1st base AND 3rd base side of the field.
Lest anyone think Kelly was praising Morris because he managed him, I note that they were together only one year in Morris’ 18-year career.
“I sure hope it goes his way,” Kelly said. “It seems absurd that he’s not in. How many rings does he have? Three? I wish those young guys would look at that.”
A few players with six rings
Joe Collins
Jerry Coleman
Tommy Byrne
Charlie Silvera
I've never heard of any of them, but let's go ahead and give them 1.5 plaques in Cooperstown.
In case those “young guys” don’t know what Kelly is talking about, he was referring to the three World Series championship rings Morris won with three different teams. That was no accident or coincidence, Kelly would tell them. Morris was instrumental in the success the Tigers, the Twins and the Blue Jays had in their championship seasons.
I am too young to remember the Tigers championship so I suppose he's talking about me.
Other players instrumental to these championships
Kirk Gibson '84 Tigers .282/.363/.516
Shane Mack '91 Twins .310/.363/.529
Pat Hentgen '92 Jays 19-9 3.87 ERA
Who's to say the 6 games Tom Edens started for the Twins didn't propel them there either
Hall of Fame plaques for everyone!
For what it's worth Morris' stats in the 92 WS
0-2 8.44 ERA in 10.2 innings
[redacted long rambling diatribe about Gil Hodges]
Morris could be hurt or helped by how writers vote on the cheaters. If they go big for the big names, they will very likely not include Morris. If they choose to reject the cheaters, Morris figures to benefit. If Morris isn’t elected this time, he could face a problem next year because Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine will be on the ballot for the first time.
Having pitchers who were much better players than Jack Morris will hurt his case. No argument here.
Years ago, I introduced a motion at a national writers’ meeting that we withdraw from voting. Had the motion been voted on at that meeting, I think it would have had a good chance of passing. If it had passed, we wouldn’t be debating the steroids issue now. But a quick-thinking writer moved to table the vote until the entire national membership could vote by mail.
My motion easily lost so here we are today talking about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell among others.
This is so unfathomable stupid I don't think I can be snarky. Let's not do the one really important thing we are tasked to do.
I spoke to several writers about their ballots and found that two had voted for Biggio and two others hadn’t because of a suspicion in baseball circles that he used steroids. When Bagwell was eligible initially a couple of years ago, I voted for him, then was told he was a steroids guy. Trusting the information, I haven’t voted for him since.
I will paypal $50 to the first writer that emails Murray Chass telling him Jack Morris used steroids.
[redacted long bizarre rambling on Mike Piazza and back acne. Almost as long as the Jack Morris article itself]
TL:DR version
Murray Chass is voting for Jack Morris because of his internal organs
Steroids are confusing
Mike Piazza had back acne.
One and done.
I placed an X next to Jack Morris on my Hall of Fame ballot, and I was finished voting. If Morris is elected, I will most likely be finished voting period. If Morris is not elected this time, I will vote for him next year in his final year of eligibility and then be done.
Barring a change in my thinking, which I don’t expect, I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year (actually 50-year) member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election.
You mean you'll really stop? This is a great late Christmas present. I mean sure you are going to vote for about the 18th most qualified man on the ballot, but then go away? Thanks!
I offer two reasons for my decision.
Though I don’t believe there is a more qualified set of electors, certainly not the new-age stats guys who are envious of the writers and believe they should determine Hall of Famers, I don’t think reporters and columnists who cover and comment on baseball news should be making baseball news.
Only grizzled veteran writers are allowed to make news. What the hell does this even mean? How is a writer different than a columnist who covers baseball anyway? All reporters should stick to telling me what Yadier Molilna batting average is (.315 by the way).
The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.
Agreed. We don't know who cheated or not. Come to think of it, some people may have cheated in the past. Let's kick them out instead. Why do we even need a Hall of Fame. Let's just have a Hall of Jack Morris and call it done.
I have read and heard all sorts of explanations for voting or not voting for players listed on the ballot, the focus falling on players known to have used performance-enhancing substances (i.e. those who tested positive) or those who were suspected or having used them (especially those cases where circumstantial evidence e of use was strong).
There are the writers who say they will not vote for anyone who cheated. There are writers who say they will vote for players who established Hall of Fame credentials before they became cheaters.
There are writers who say they will ignore steroids use, even in obvious cases, and vote as if the stuff didn’t exist because it’s impossible to know for sure who used and who didn’t use. And anyway Major League Baseball ignored all of the cheating so why shouldn’t they, the last group argues.
A. Bartlett Giamatti, the late commissioner, used to say in applicable situations, “You could use a higher standard,” and that suggestion would apply here for the writers who throw up their hands and say, “How am I supposed to know who cheated and who didn’t?”
Steroids are bad. They shouldn't have used them. Baseball should have banned them before, but didn't. If you want to make this argument for Raffy or Manny Ramirez when he comes up, fine. They failed the drug test after it became illegal. I don't necessarily agree with even that, but I could buy that argument at least. I'm so glad the Hall of Jack Morris won't contain spitballers or players who used amphetamines before testing either.
It’s a perfectly good and fair question to ask, but it shouldn’t be answered by voting for known or suspected cheaters. The most logical answer is don’t vote. I have not made a study of the matter, but I noticed the other day a column on ESPN.com by T.J. Quinn, who declared an end to his voting. Good for him. Are there any other sensible writers in the house?
Don't vote. Unless it's for Jack Morris. Everyone may have cheated. Who knows? I heard one time Dale Murphy stole a sign while on second base. Even if you think his numbers stack up, how could you vote for such a cheating cheater? Better to just not let anyone in the Hall of Fame.
Now, you might ask and reasonably so, if I plan to stop voting, why did I vote this year? I voted in the hope that my vote would contribute to Morris’ election. I didn’t vote for anyone else because anyone I might have considered was a known or suspected cheater, and I didn’t want to aid and abet a cheater.
You are making such great points. Screw the Hall of Jack Morris idea. Let's have a Hall of Clean players instead. Has it been 5 years yet since Eckstein retired? Screw it, he's in anyway. Have you seen how small and scrappy he was? No way that dude used steroids.
I think I am safe in concluding that Morris did not cheat. I know the stats zealots don’t think Morris is a Hall of Famer because his rankings in their new-fangled ratings fall below their standards. But they don‘t have a formula for intestinal fortitude or determination.
Not true. Morris' intestinal fortitude was 35.7 for his career and determination was -10.4. I know. I was surprised too. His final season in Cleveland really brought down the latter number. Screw all these sciency proven type numbers like WARPFJAGNWER. They tell us nothing about Jack Morris or any other player. You know who should get to vote for the Hall of Fame? X-Ray machines. They know intestinal fortitude.
Morris willed the Minnesota Twins to win Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, refusing to leave as long as the game was scoreless.
Single game intestinal fortitude rating of 165.3 an all time high.
The stats zealots are tired of hearing about that game, but it is symbolic of the fatal flaw in their way of viewing players. Numbers simply don’t tell the whole story.
True. They tell a lot of the story though. I'm fine with using big moments or character issues as tie breakers, but numbers kind of tell you how good a player was at playing baseball. This seems like an important thing for determing how good someone was at playing baseball.
“They seem to have formed a band those fellows, and I don’t know if you’re ever going to change their mind,” Tom Kelly said in a telephone interview Wednesday evening. Kelly managed Morris with the Twins and managed against him when he played for Detroit and Toronto.
Dude, I love this band especially this song. Saw them live twice!
Coincidentally, Kelly had watched a replay of the 10-inning 1-0 Game 7 earlier in the day. “It was snowing and I sat there and flipped the channels,” he said. The game naturally brought back memories.
I was snowed in last week too. Watched several episodes of Breaking Bad. You know who belongs in the Hall of Fame? Walter White! His determination rating is off the charts.
“I remember saying to myself in the dugout I gotta find a way to get a run,” Kelly recalled. “I was starting to get concerned that I couldn’t help the boys get a run.”
Morris pitched all 10 innings. John Smoltz, the Atlanta starter, left in the eighth.
John Smoltz isn't on the ballot yet. Leaving in the 8th inning of one game is cause enough to not get my vote though.
“To me,” Kelly said, “the hardest part of the game for those two guys was their teams had opportunities to score and they didn’t. Other pitchers would have crumbled. Those two fellows kept going out there and being nasty.”
Like Roger Clemens. Definitely would've stumbled. Can you imagine pitching 10 innings without receiving a steroid injection by at least the 7th?
Morris, Kelly added, “did that quite often through the ‘80s and ‘90s. He shut down the other team. If he had the split-finger thing going you felt sorry for the other team. Through the ‘80s and ‘90s if you had a pitcher you had to pick out whom you didn’t want to face Morris had to be in the conversation.
The conversation:
Guy #1: Who is the pitcher whom you don't want to face in the 80's or 90's?
Guy #2: That's a random question to ask while at a funeral, but well ok. I guess Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Dwight Gooden off the top of my head.
Guy #1: What about Jack Morris?
Guy #2: He was pretty good, but no. Not really
Guy #1: Yeah me either. Sorry for your loss.
Yep in the conversation.
“People just don’t know what it was like to sit there and watch from either side of the field. I got to do both.”
My uncle once had seats to consecutive games on the 1st base AND 3rd base side of the field.
Lest anyone think Kelly was praising Morris because he managed him, I note that they were together only one year in Morris’ 18-year career.
“I sure hope it goes his way,” Kelly said. “It seems absurd that he’s not in. How many rings does he have? Three? I wish those young guys would look at that.”
A few players with six rings
Joe Collins
Jerry Coleman
Tommy Byrne
Charlie Silvera
I've never heard of any of them, but let's go ahead and give them 1.5 plaques in Cooperstown.
In case those “young guys” don’t know what Kelly is talking about, he was referring to the three World Series championship rings Morris won with three different teams. That was no accident or coincidence, Kelly would tell them. Morris was instrumental in the success the Tigers, the Twins and the Blue Jays had in their championship seasons.
I am too young to remember the Tigers championship so I suppose he's talking about me.
Other players instrumental to these championships
Kirk Gibson '84 Tigers .282/.363/.516
Shane Mack '91 Twins .310/.363/.529
Pat Hentgen '92 Jays 19-9 3.87 ERA
Who's to say the 6 games Tom Edens started for the Twins didn't propel them there either
Hall of Fame plaques for everyone!
For what it's worth Morris' stats in the 92 WS
0-2 8.44 ERA in 10.2 innings
[redacted long rambling diatribe about Gil Hodges]
Morris could be hurt or helped by how writers vote on the cheaters. If they go big for the big names, they will very likely not include Morris. If they choose to reject the cheaters, Morris figures to benefit. If Morris isn’t elected this time, he could face a problem next year because Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine will be on the ballot for the first time.
Having pitchers who were much better players than Jack Morris will hurt his case. No argument here.
Years ago, I introduced a motion at a national writers’ meeting that we withdraw from voting. Had the motion been voted on at that meeting, I think it would have had a good chance of passing. If it had passed, we wouldn’t be debating the steroids issue now. But a quick-thinking writer moved to table the vote until the entire national membership could vote by mail.
My motion easily lost so here we are today talking about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell among others.
This is so unfathomable stupid I don't think I can be snarky. Let's not do the one really important thing we are tasked to do.
I spoke to several writers about their ballots and found that two had voted for Biggio and two others hadn’t because of a suspicion in baseball circles that he used steroids. When Bagwell was eligible initially a couple of years ago, I voted for him, then was told he was a steroids guy. Trusting the information, I haven’t voted for him since.
I will paypal $50 to the first writer that emails Murray Chass telling him Jack Morris used steroids.
[redacted long bizarre rambling on Mike Piazza and back acne. Almost as long as the Jack Morris article itself]
TL:DR version
Murray Chass is voting for Jack Morris because of his internal organs
Steroids are confusing
Mike Piazza had back acne.
NFL playoff predictions
I'll start with what is soon to probably be wrong followed up by analysis of this weekend's matchups
Picks
HOU>CIN
GB>MIN
IND>BAL
SEA>WAS
Round 2
DEN>IND
NE>HOU
ATL>SEA
GB>SF
Conf Champ
DEN>NE
GB>ATL
Super Bowl
DEN>GB
Wild Card Round
Houston Texans vs. Cincinnati Bengals
Houston's late season collapse does bother me a bit, but I still think they are the better team overall and are playing at home. I don't really trust Schaub to carry a team, but I don't trust Andy Dalton either. If they can shut down AJ Green, they should be able to win an ugly one.
Green Bay Packers vs. Minnesota Vikings
The Vikings have surprised me with their play recently to win out and get to the playoffs. Adrian Peterson has been a beast in general and especially against the Packers this year, but Minnesota can't stop Aaron Rodgers either and last week he didn't even have all of his weapons. I think Peterson gets his yards, but the Vikings magic runs out. This game could be a blowout.
Indianapolis Colts vs. Baltimore Ravens
The Colts have obviously benefitted from an easy schedule and good luck in close games, but I still think advanced stats underrate them. You win in the playoffs with elite QB's. The Colts have one and Baltimore doesn't. I really think this game comes down to the play of Joe Flacco. If Flacco has a relatively good game, Baltimore will win. If not, the Colts do. Indy's defense is horrible, but if they don't face a QB capable of exploiting their weaknesses, they can win. Denver or NE in the next round scares the bejesus out of me. Baltimore does not although Ray Lewis retiring after the season doesn't help the good guys cause any. Barring a miracle, this will be his last home game, so I'm sure they'll be pumped up. I still see one more magic bullet left in Luck's gun.
Seattle Seahawks vs Washington Redskins
The battle of dynamic rookie QB's. When healthy, RGIII is definitely better than Wilson, but it's close. RGIII was definitely a step slower against Dallas last week so I doubt he'll be back up to 100% by Sunday. The deciding factor is Seattle's defense. Wilson's teammates on the whole are better than RGIII's. Despite what mainstream media wants you to believe, the other 52 players besides the QB's make a difference in the game too.
Picks
HOU>CIN
GB>MIN
IND>BAL
SEA>WAS
Round 2
DEN>IND
NE>HOU
ATL>SEA
GB>SF
Conf Champ
DEN>NE
GB>ATL
Super Bowl
DEN>GB
Wild Card Round
Houston Texans vs. Cincinnati Bengals
Houston's late season collapse does bother me a bit, but I still think they are the better team overall and are playing at home. I don't really trust Schaub to carry a team, but I don't trust Andy Dalton either. If they can shut down AJ Green, they should be able to win an ugly one.
Green Bay Packers vs. Minnesota Vikings
The Vikings have surprised me with their play recently to win out and get to the playoffs. Adrian Peterson has been a beast in general and especially against the Packers this year, but Minnesota can't stop Aaron Rodgers either and last week he didn't even have all of his weapons. I think Peterson gets his yards, but the Vikings magic runs out. This game could be a blowout.
Indianapolis Colts vs. Baltimore Ravens
The Colts have obviously benefitted from an easy schedule and good luck in close games, but I still think advanced stats underrate them. You win in the playoffs with elite QB's. The Colts have one and Baltimore doesn't. I really think this game comes down to the play of Joe Flacco. If Flacco has a relatively good game, Baltimore will win. If not, the Colts do. Indy's defense is horrible, but if they don't face a QB capable of exploiting their weaknesses, they can win. Denver or NE in the next round scares the bejesus out of me. Baltimore does not although Ray Lewis retiring after the season doesn't help the good guys cause any. Barring a miracle, this will be his last home game, so I'm sure they'll be pumped up. I still see one more magic bullet left in Luck's gun.
Seattle Seahawks vs Washington Redskins
The battle of dynamic rookie QB's. When healthy, RGIII is definitely better than Wilson, but it's close. RGIII was definitely a step slower against Dallas last week so I doubt he'll be back up to 100% by Sunday. The deciding factor is Seattle's defense. Wilson's teammates on the whole are better than RGIII's. Despite what mainstream media wants you to believe, the other 52 players besides the QB's make a difference in the game too.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Notes from Colts-Jags
After a long weekend of not getting enough sleep, I had one simple goal for yesterday. Do not leave the couch and consume lots of football. Lots of good stuff yesterday.
Colts-Jags breakdown:
I hate losing to the Sparkle Kitties. The only solace is this isn't a playoff team this year anyway. Getting Luck experience and starting to shape the roster is the most important part. That said, the roster can only do what the coaches allow it to do. After 3 weeks my opinion of Chuck Pagano is trending downwards. There's still time for him to learn, but after 2 horrifically coached 4th quarters, my expectations have been lowered.
You have the top pick from the draft, a QB who is the best prospect since your last #1 overall pick. Let the strengths of the team win the game. It infuriates me to no end when coaches play conservatively in the 4th quarter. No media is talking about how bad Pagano was yesterday, but they are all questioning Jim Schwartz. That's ludicrous. However you want to parse the odds for the Lions, it's questionable or a gamble at worst. Pagano's decisions did much more to harm the Colts chances of winning.
The Colts followed the usual game plan against Jacksonville for most of the game. Get some offense and grab the lead then let MJD gash them to tighten up the score.
Mistake #1 How the field goal team was not ready to kick is completely on the coaching staff. There were time outs left, and even if that happens sometimes, you can't just waste 5 yards. The initial kick would've been good had the delay of game not occurred and the outcome may have been very different.
Mistake #2 Playing for the field goal on the next possession. How many times over the years have we seen Peyton leave a magnificent drive only to have the other team come back and re-take the lead? It is absolutely unacceptable to stop trying and run the ball into the line 3 times and settle for a mid-range field goal to go up by a point. Again, you have Andrew Luck. He's good. You have Reggie Wayne. He's good. You have a bad defense. One first down probably wins this game. A touchdown forces Blaine freaking Gabbert to drive for a touchdown and you can play prevent knowing a field goal won't beat you. Making Andrew Luck hand the ball off 3 straight times is completely unacceptable. Not to mention Vinatieri made the field goal by the slimmest of margins.
Mistake #3 No deep safety. The last Jags TD was comically bad defense by the safety who spun around in circles covering no one, but why wasn't there a deep safety to prevent exactly the type of thing that happened? Sure they only needed a field goal (see Mistake #3), but you have to eliminate the home run. Crappy QB on the road with under a minute of clock left and no timeouts. Make him string together 3-4 completions while managing the clock if you need to. Don't give up an 80 yard touchdown from a 15 yard catch and long run.
Other good stuff:
-Andrew Luck played a great game. That pass to Hilton for the TD was simply amazing.
-Reggie Wayne continues to be a great security blanket for a rookie QB.
-Donald Brown had a good game. I don't get a lot of the vitrol towards him. I don't think he's elite, but he's a perfectly acceptable starting back who does some little things well. It's yard to boast a good YPC, when he's hit in the backfield every other time he gets the ball.
-Jerrell Freeman continues to play well.
-Some good returns on special teams
Other bad stuff:
-Offensive line is still shaky. Better than in previous weeks, but not much running room and Luck got hit a lot. At least they limited the sacks and really bad plays.
-Vontae Davis is about to nicknamed "Human Pass Interference Machine". Having trouble covering Brandon Marshall is one thing. Grabbing every Jags receiver near you is another.
-Officiating was brutal in this game. I mention this last simply because the Colts had other things that caused them to lose the game, but it did seem like an inordinate amount of calls went the Jags way. Missed PI's (especially on the long throw late in the game), phantom calls and yet more non-calls continue to be a problem. More on this in a general post later.
Colts-Jags breakdown:
I hate losing to the Sparkle Kitties. The only solace is this isn't a playoff team this year anyway. Getting Luck experience and starting to shape the roster is the most important part. That said, the roster can only do what the coaches allow it to do. After 3 weeks my opinion of Chuck Pagano is trending downwards. There's still time for him to learn, but after 2 horrifically coached 4th quarters, my expectations have been lowered.
You have the top pick from the draft, a QB who is the best prospect since your last #1 overall pick. Let the strengths of the team win the game. It infuriates me to no end when coaches play conservatively in the 4th quarter. No media is talking about how bad Pagano was yesterday, but they are all questioning Jim Schwartz. That's ludicrous. However you want to parse the odds for the Lions, it's questionable or a gamble at worst. Pagano's decisions did much more to harm the Colts chances of winning.
The Colts followed the usual game plan against Jacksonville for most of the game. Get some offense and grab the lead then let MJD gash them to tighten up the score.
Mistake #1 How the field goal team was not ready to kick is completely on the coaching staff. There were time outs left, and even if that happens sometimes, you can't just waste 5 yards. The initial kick would've been good had the delay of game not occurred and the outcome may have been very different.
Mistake #2 Playing for the field goal on the next possession. How many times over the years have we seen Peyton leave a magnificent drive only to have the other team come back and re-take the lead? It is absolutely unacceptable to stop trying and run the ball into the line 3 times and settle for a mid-range field goal to go up by a point. Again, you have Andrew Luck. He's good. You have Reggie Wayne. He's good. You have a bad defense. One first down probably wins this game. A touchdown forces Blaine freaking Gabbert to drive for a touchdown and you can play prevent knowing a field goal won't beat you. Making Andrew Luck hand the ball off 3 straight times is completely unacceptable. Not to mention Vinatieri made the field goal by the slimmest of margins.
Mistake #3 No deep safety. The last Jags TD was comically bad defense by the safety who spun around in circles covering no one, but why wasn't there a deep safety to prevent exactly the type of thing that happened? Sure they only needed a field goal (see Mistake #3), but you have to eliminate the home run. Crappy QB on the road with under a minute of clock left and no timeouts. Make him string together 3-4 completions while managing the clock if you need to. Don't give up an 80 yard touchdown from a 15 yard catch and long run.
Other good stuff:
-Andrew Luck played a great game. That pass to Hilton for the TD was simply amazing.
-Reggie Wayne continues to be a great security blanket for a rookie QB.
-Donald Brown had a good game. I don't get a lot of the vitrol towards him. I don't think he's elite, but he's a perfectly acceptable starting back who does some little things well. It's yard to boast a good YPC, when he's hit in the backfield every other time he gets the ball.
-Jerrell Freeman continues to play well.
-Some good returns on special teams
Other bad stuff:
-Offensive line is still shaky. Better than in previous weeks, but not much running room and Luck got hit a lot. At least they limited the sacks and really bad plays.
-Vontae Davis is about to nicknamed "Human Pass Interference Machine". Having trouble covering Brandon Marshall is one thing. Grabbing every Jags receiver near you is another.
-Officiating was brutal in this game. I mention this last simply because the Colts had other things that caused them to lose the game, but it did seem like an inordinate amount of calls went the Jags way. Missed PI's (especially on the long throw late in the game), phantom calls and yet more non-calls continue to be a problem. More on this in a general post later.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
What's the next baseball inefficiency
I watched Moneyball last weekend. It was a fair movie that I enjoyed based off a book written by Billy Beane about drafting only fat college players with high OBP's* Obviously Moneyball was written several years ago and people have caught onto the particular market inefficiency and it's been corrected. Teams keep striving for the next inefficiency. Young cost controlled pitching, defense, etc. have gone in vogue recently. What may some team do to get a leg up with so many other smart teams around.
*This statement has been approved by Joe Morgan.
While sabermaticians have got a lot of offense value stats pretty clear, there is a still a wide range of defensive stats that could be better. I want to look at some team building stuff on a deeper level. I'm sure most teams with smarter people than me already do this, it's just not widely reported.
The Cleveland Indians this off-season traded for Derek Lowe which makes them a very ground ball heavy staff. Now ground balls are much more likely to turn into singles and errors than fly balls, but they also can't leave the park and very rarely go for extra bases along with the added benefit of a possible double play. Cleveland's infield defense is pretty set and doesn't feature many elite defensive players, but the idea is still novel. Just as adding certain players is worth it more to teams at a certain point on the win curve, adding certain players seems to get more value out of them with the right supporting cast (teammates and ballpark).
Now imagine the Texas Rangers had traded for Lowe? They play in an offense first park that yields a lot of HR's and have an infield consisting of Adrian Beltre, Elvis Andrus and Ian Kinsler all amongst the best at their respective positions. This seems like a match made in heaven for a ground ball pitcher. Would anyone be really surprised if Lowe threw up something like a 3.50 ERA on the heels of a .245 BABIP with this crew? His true talent level isn't really that, but the supporting cast is already in place. From an added value perspective, he would seem to be pretty valuable. Similarly the Padres can take on fly ball pitchers and field a good outfield defense because nothing's leaving PETCO. They have an outsized impact because of their environment.
Let's change the variable. Let's say a team has a great outfield defense and a lot of left hand fly ball pitchers. Now theoretical team is also in need of a second baseman. Since lots of balls are going to be airborne and often to the left side, who cares how he fields because he'll be getting less chances than the average 2B. It would make a lot more sense for a team to sign a slugger with an iron glove because the offense added over an average 2B would be a lot less than the defense lost.
Billy Beane's theory was revolutionary and it worked for a while, but the industry caught on. You can't just sign fat players and walk your way to the playoffs every year. Teams have hired smart men who are always trying to one up the others. I am eagerly looking forward to the next market inefficiency and am hoping it's Theo and Jed that come up with it. They'd better capitalize quick though because it won't last long.
*This statement has been approved by Joe Morgan.
While sabermaticians have got a lot of offense value stats pretty clear, there is a still a wide range of defensive stats that could be better. I want to look at some team building stuff on a deeper level. I'm sure most teams with smarter people than me already do this, it's just not widely reported.
The Cleveland Indians this off-season traded for Derek Lowe which makes them a very ground ball heavy staff. Now ground balls are much more likely to turn into singles and errors than fly balls, but they also can't leave the park and very rarely go for extra bases along with the added benefit of a possible double play. Cleveland's infield defense is pretty set and doesn't feature many elite defensive players, but the idea is still novel. Just as adding certain players is worth it more to teams at a certain point on the win curve, adding certain players seems to get more value out of them with the right supporting cast (teammates and ballpark).
Now imagine the Texas Rangers had traded for Lowe? They play in an offense first park that yields a lot of HR's and have an infield consisting of Adrian Beltre, Elvis Andrus and Ian Kinsler all amongst the best at their respective positions. This seems like a match made in heaven for a ground ball pitcher. Would anyone be really surprised if Lowe threw up something like a 3.50 ERA on the heels of a .245 BABIP with this crew? His true talent level isn't really that, but the supporting cast is already in place. From an added value perspective, he would seem to be pretty valuable. Similarly the Padres can take on fly ball pitchers and field a good outfield defense because nothing's leaving PETCO. They have an outsized impact because of their environment.
Let's change the variable. Let's say a team has a great outfield defense and a lot of left hand fly ball pitchers. Now theoretical team is also in need of a second baseman. Since lots of balls are going to be airborne and often to the left side, who cares how he fields because he'll be getting less chances than the average 2B. It would make a lot more sense for a team to sign a slugger with an iron glove because the offense added over an average 2B would be a lot less than the defense lost.
Billy Beane's theory was revolutionary and it worked for a while, but the industry caught on. You can't just sign fat players and walk your way to the playoffs every year. Teams have hired smart men who are always trying to one up the others. I am eagerly looking forward to the next market inefficiency and am hoping it's Theo and Jed that come up with it. They'd better capitalize quick though because it won't last long.
Having a Bye week hurts top teams...unless it doesn't
Turn on any sports channel and you can hear about how the Giants defeated the mighty Packers on Sunday. The Packers were out of rhythm. They turned it over a lot, dropped passes and even Rodgers missed some open receivers. Obviously this came because they didn't have to play last week.
Look I even found an article that points this out.
Not to pick on this random blog too much, just the first hit I found.
Perhaps to be a contrarian, I'll point out all 3 other home teams won. The Pats crushed Denver. Granted they are a much better team, but even throwing that out.
I found this article detailing how the Ravens relished a week of rest to come in fresh to beat the Texans.
And also this article with similar thoughts on the 49er's bye week. In fact the 49er's won as home underdogs to a team who many thought was the NFC favorite and had the wonderful momentum of playing the week before.
It's a convenient crutch for mainsteam media. If a favored team loses, blame it on the bye week. If they win, pretend it didn't happen. This irritates me more as a Colts fan because I've had to hear for years about how the Colts byes always hurt them. Some years they lost as a top seed due to flaws or dumb luck well beyond this. Also they flat out quite trying in '09. Having a bye week didn't prevent them from crushing the Ravens and Jets on their way to the Super Bowl against another team that faltered and rested down the stretch.
Sometimes good teams lose and sometimes it's to teams that aren't as good as them. It happens just about every week which is why FO has a weekly Any Given Sunday article. It happens in the conference championship rounds when neither team has a bye the week before. Ask the '10 Saints or this year's Steelers how they enjoyed playing in the 1st round as heavy favorites to keep up their momentum. Having a bye is HUGE advantage. There was absolutely no way the 49er's were not going to advance to the divisional round this year. They had a 100% chance of making it. The Saints were maybe 65% or so.
Giving no weight to HFA or any other factors a team with a true talent level of winning of 50% and a bye will make the Super Bowl more often than a team with a 60% level that plays in the first round. Everyone in the playoffs (Denver excluded) is generally good. I'd sure rather have the sure thing advancement no matter how it hurts my momentum.
There are many memes football anouncers push. This is absolutely one that needs to stop. I now look forward to the Giants running the table the rest of the way to provide one data point for a counter argument. Lesson: Humanity is dumb.
Look I even found an article that points this out.
Not to pick on this random blog too much, just the first hit I found.
Perhaps to be a contrarian, I'll point out all 3 other home teams won. The Pats crushed Denver. Granted they are a much better team, but even throwing that out.
I found this article detailing how the Ravens relished a week of rest to come in fresh to beat the Texans.
And also this article with similar thoughts on the 49er's bye week. In fact the 49er's won as home underdogs to a team who many thought was the NFC favorite and had the wonderful momentum of playing the week before.
It's a convenient crutch for mainsteam media. If a favored team loses, blame it on the bye week. If they win, pretend it didn't happen. This irritates me more as a Colts fan because I've had to hear for years about how the Colts byes always hurt them. Some years they lost as a top seed due to flaws or dumb luck well beyond this. Also they flat out quite trying in '09. Having a bye week didn't prevent them from crushing the Ravens and Jets on their way to the Super Bowl against another team that faltered and rested down the stretch.
Sometimes good teams lose and sometimes it's to teams that aren't as good as them. It happens just about every week which is why FO has a weekly Any Given Sunday article. It happens in the conference championship rounds when neither team has a bye the week before. Ask the '10 Saints or this year's Steelers how they enjoyed playing in the 1st round as heavy favorites to keep up their momentum. Having a bye is HUGE advantage. There was absolutely no way the 49er's were not going to advance to the divisional round this year. They had a 100% chance of making it. The Saints were maybe 65% or so.
Giving no weight to HFA or any other factors a team with a true talent level of winning of 50% and a bye will make the Super Bowl more often than a team with a 60% level that plays in the first round. Everyone in the playoffs (Denver excluded) is generally good. I'd sure rather have the sure thing advancement no matter how it hurts my momentum.
There are many memes football anouncers push. This is absolutely one that needs to stop. I now look forward to the Giants running the table the rest of the way to provide one data point for a counter argument. Lesson: Humanity is dumb.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Is Eli Manning an elite QB?
Today I'll take a mostly totally subjective look at attacking this question. I've seen and am loyal to DVOA numbers from FO, but there is a little more nuance and working parts in football as compared to baseball so straight statistics don't always tell the whole story. I've heard this topic debated quite a bit by the on air personalities recently.
What defines elite? Before getting into things, I'll go ahead and say being a top 6 QB top 20% is around what we are looking for. Subjectively you want a guy who is going to be able to put a team on his back every once in a while if other facets of the game are struggling. Basically, is this guy capable of carrying your team to the Super Bowl? Also I want to look at who you'd want strictly for 2012 and then the best options for the next five years.
I think right now there is a definite elite that no one will argue with consisting of Rodgers, Brees and Brady. If Peyton Manning vintage 2010 returns, he'll add a 4th, but that topic is worthy of a whole new post, so any Peyton related thoughts are stricken from this article.
With all due respect to the following, we'll quickly gloss over them into the more interesting cases. Sorry to Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Matt Moore, Colt McCoy, Matt Hasselback/Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Matt Schaub/TJ Yates, Carson Palmer, Tim Tebow, Matt Cassell, Rex Grossman, Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Tavarias Jackson, Kevin Kolb/John Skelton, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith. Not saying none of these guys could ever win a Super Bowl (Smith has a good shot this year), but if they do, it'll be because other aspects of their teams are functioning at an elite level and they are playing well enough to be a good complmentary piece. In addition to the 3 givens above, I present the following list ranked from lowest to highest in my opinion and ask if Eli is better than them.
Andy Dalton
Nowhere near elite now, but showed good poise his rookie year and beat the teams he should. He'll never be the best QB in the league, but if things break right, I could see him being a significant contributor to a good squad. Better than Eli now? For the next 5 years? (No/No)
Joe Flacco
With Baltimore's defense, Flacco very well may win the Super Bowl. He's just not a great QB. Putrid performances in part helped them lose to the Sparkle Kitties on MNF. Flacco usually doesn't hurt them too much, but if the Ravens fall behind by 20 do you really think they are getting on Flacco's back and mounting a comeback? (No/No)
Michael Vick
Now we start getting into some QB's who can have an outsized impact on single games. Vick's ability is amazing. While not terribly accurate, he's improved himself enough to be adequate in that department and when do the other things he does, adequate can cut it as far as accuracy. He still throws up a stink bomb game from time to time and you'd better have a good backup QB for the 2-6 games Vick will miss annually. We're getting closer but still.... (No/No)
Matthew Stafford
Stafford's got a huge arm and thanks to a shootout with GB in Week 17 topped 5000 yards. Impressive, but he still has some accuracy issues as well and looks a better than he really is thanks to having a massive robot to throw passes to. When it doubt bomb it to Megatron. He will catch. I like the direction the Lions are going, but Stafford's not quite there yet. (No/No)
Matt Ryan
Now we have Mr. Consistency. The Falcons set a record for most consistant team ever in the FO database for 2011. Matt Ryan very rarely has a train wreck game and loses the game by himself, but he very rarely has a superhuman day and wins either. The Falcons beat the teams they should beat and lose to teams better than them. As they've noticed the past few seasons in the playoffs, most postseason teams are harder to beat than the Bucs. (No/No)
Philip Rivers
I've got to admit a bit of personal bias on this one. I've always wondered how Rivers succeeds with such awkward looking mechanics and he seems like kind of a jerk too. He had a down year this year, but is capable of slinging it around if need be. It'd be interesting to see what he could do if SD would ever hire a real coach. SD got a boatload of picks on the draft day swap, but still I'd rather have Eli. (No/No)
Jay Cutler
Cutler has all the talent in the world. He too can make some boneheaded plays and play poorly, but when he's on, he can take over the game. It'll be interesting to see if the new Bears OC will bother drawing up protection plans next year. They were 7-3 before Cutler and Forte went out and trending up. With the right supporting cast, they could be scary next year. (No/No)
Tony Romo
Romo gets way too much blame in the media. He's got a little Favre in him. He'll throw some dumb interceptions or have bad fumbles from time to time. He'll also shred defenses and go out and win a game with scrub receivers and broken ribs against one of the best teams in the conference. We're getting closer to Eli's value now. Romo's a pretty good comparison as far as strengths and weaknesses, but falls just short. (No/No)
Cam Newton
The real wild card of this list. Did you see the dude this year? Probably not because it's the Panthers and they apparently thought this season was defense optional. He's Randall Cunningham Tecmo Bowl good right now and still learning. He's Vick, only bigger (hopefully leading to more durability) and more accurate. While I don't think he's elite right now, I put him this high based off where I think he'll be in the next few years. Rookies aren't supposed to be this good. If his game evolves at all, he'll be elite. (No/Probably Yes)
Ben Roethlisberger
Probably the toughest call. He's a "Proven winner" i.e. his defense is usually good. I'd probably call it too close to say right now, but in the long term, his style of play and already existing injuries will mount. There's no way I'd take him over Eli for the next 5 years. (Even/No)
Tom Brady will be 35 to start next season. I'd rather have Brady for next year, but over 5 I'll take Eli. Either way I look at it, Eli is a top 5 QB which I would define as elite. Also in compiling this list, I noticed lots of the QBs hail from the NFC. With the Pats/Steelers/Ravens/Colts all aging, the NFC could easily regain dominant conference status over the next few years which means the Giants will be in dogfights almost every year. With Eli Manning at the helm, they'll likely come on top on most of them.
What defines elite? Before getting into things, I'll go ahead and say being a top 6 QB top 20% is around what we are looking for. Subjectively you want a guy who is going to be able to put a team on his back every once in a while if other facets of the game are struggling. Basically, is this guy capable of carrying your team to the Super Bowl? Also I want to look at who you'd want strictly for 2012 and then the best options for the next five years.
I think right now there is a definite elite that no one will argue with consisting of Rodgers, Brees and Brady. If Peyton Manning vintage 2010 returns, he'll add a 4th, but that topic is worthy of a whole new post, so any Peyton related thoughts are stricken from this article.
With all due respect to the following, we'll quickly gloss over them into the more interesting cases. Sorry to Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Matt Moore, Colt McCoy, Matt Hasselback/Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Matt Schaub/TJ Yates, Carson Palmer, Tim Tebow, Matt Cassell, Rex Grossman, Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Tavarias Jackson, Kevin Kolb/John Skelton, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith. Not saying none of these guys could ever win a Super Bowl (Smith has a good shot this year), but if they do, it'll be because other aspects of their teams are functioning at an elite level and they are playing well enough to be a good complmentary piece. In addition to the 3 givens above, I present the following list ranked from lowest to highest in my opinion and ask if Eli is better than them.
Andy Dalton
Nowhere near elite now, but showed good poise his rookie year and beat the teams he should. He'll never be the best QB in the league, but if things break right, I could see him being a significant contributor to a good squad. Better than Eli now? For the next 5 years? (No/No)
Joe Flacco
With Baltimore's defense, Flacco very well may win the Super Bowl. He's just not a great QB. Putrid performances in part helped them lose to the Sparkle Kitties on MNF. Flacco usually doesn't hurt them too much, but if the Ravens fall behind by 20 do you really think they are getting on Flacco's back and mounting a comeback? (No/No)
Michael Vick
Now we start getting into some QB's who can have an outsized impact on single games. Vick's ability is amazing. While not terribly accurate, he's improved himself enough to be adequate in that department and when do the other things he does, adequate can cut it as far as accuracy. He still throws up a stink bomb game from time to time and you'd better have a good backup QB for the 2-6 games Vick will miss annually. We're getting closer but still.... (No/No)
Matthew Stafford
Stafford's got a huge arm and thanks to a shootout with GB in Week 17 topped 5000 yards. Impressive, but he still has some accuracy issues as well and looks a better than he really is thanks to having a massive robot to throw passes to. When it doubt bomb it to Megatron. He will catch. I like the direction the Lions are going, but Stafford's not quite there yet. (No/No)
Matt Ryan
Now we have Mr. Consistency. The Falcons set a record for most consistant team ever in the FO database for 2011. Matt Ryan very rarely has a train wreck game and loses the game by himself, but he very rarely has a superhuman day and wins either. The Falcons beat the teams they should beat and lose to teams better than them. As they've noticed the past few seasons in the playoffs, most postseason teams are harder to beat than the Bucs. (No/No)
Philip Rivers
I've got to admit a bit of personal bias on this one. I've always wondered how Rivers succeeds with such awkward looking mechanics and he seems like kind of a jerk too. He had a down year this year, but is capable of slinging it around if need be. It'd be interesting to see what he could do if SD would ever hire a real coach. SD got a boatload of picks on the draft day swap, but still I'd rather have Eli. (No/No)
Jay Cutler
Cutler has all the talent in the world. He too can make some boneheaded plays and play poorly, but when he's on, he can take over the game. It'll be interesting to see if the new Bears OC will bother drawing up protection plans next year. They were 7-3 before Cutler and Forte went out and trending up. With the right supporting cast, they could be scary next year. (No/No)
Tony Romo
Romo gets way too much blame in the media. He's got a little Favre in him. He'll throw some dumb interceptions or have bad fumbles from time to time. He'll also shred defenses and go out and win a game with scrub receivers and broken ribs against one of the best teams in the conference. We're getting closer to Eli's value now. Romo's a pretty good comparison as far as strengths and weaknesses, but falls just short. (No/No)
Cam Newton
The real wild card of this list. Did you see the dude this year? Probably not because it's the Panthers and they apparently thought this season was defense optional. He's Randall Cunningham Tecmo Bowl good right now and still learning. He's Vick, only bigger (hopefully leading to more durability) and more accurate. While I don't think he's elite right now, I put him this high based off where I think he'll be in the next few years. Rookies aren't supposed to be this good. If his game evolves at all, he'll be elite. (No/Probably Yes)
Ben Roethlisberger
Probably the toughest call. He's a "Proven winner" i.e. his defense is usually good. I'd probably call it too close to say right now, but in the long term, his style of play and already existing injuries will mount. There's no way I'd take him over Eli for the next 5 years. (Even/No)
Tom Brady will be 35 to start next season. I'd rather have Brady for next year, but over 5 I'll take Eli. Either way I look at it, Eli is a top 5 QB which I would define as elite. Also in compiling this list, I noticed lots of the QBs hail from the NFC. With the Pats/Steelers/Ravens/Colts all aging, the NFC could easily regain dominant conference status over the next few years which means the Giants will be in dogfights almost every year. With Eli Manning at the helm, they'll likely come on top on most of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)