The Steve Keim Scorecard
by John Morgan on Dec 21, 2009 4:50 PM PST
92 comments
Adam Schefter reports that Steve Keim is among Seattle's ten general manager candidates. This is a quick and dirty attempt to review his performance in Arizona.
Organization: Arizona Cardinals
Position(s): Player Personnel Director (May 2008), College Scouting Director (June 2006), Regional Scout (1999)
Curious that perhaps the most defamed team in the NFC, bad from when the Lions and Rams were good, is now auditioning personnel for promotion to other teams. Thus is the fickle world of the NFL. I don't like it, and I don't like Keim's boss Rod Graves. Graves has served with Arizona since 1997, and few franchises in any sport can claim a longer period of losing, instability and apathy from their fans. But, by all means, let's break off a piece of that talent factory.
Keim scouted the east for Arizona, and, undoubtedly, the southeast specifically. Let us first look at the players we can be most confident Keim had a hand in scouting. I singled out picks made from Keim's particular scouting area, and listed the round, overall pick, name and college.
2000
1) 7 Thomas Jones RB Virginia
2) 41 Raynoch Thompson OLB Tennessee
3) 71 Darwin Walker DT Tennessee
Jones is still around but was a huge bust for Arizona. He split time with Michael Pittman, never averaged more than 3.7 yards per carry and was traded before the end of his rookie contract.
Raynoch Thompson sort of speaks for himself: Who is Raynoch Thompson? He was an undersized Vol linebacker that was out of the league by 2004. He is still only 32, meaning he was cut in his prime.
Darwin Walker played for that same undefeated Tennessee team as Thompson. He didn't play for the Cardinals, who cut him before a single start and after only one regular season game. Walker was claimed by the Eagles off waivers and became a productive five-year starter for some stout Eagles defenses.
2001
2) 54 Michael Stone DB Memphis
3) 64 Adrian Wilson DB North Carolina State
4) 98 Bill Gramatica K South Florida
4) 123 Marcus Bell DT Memphis
Stone never broke through with the Cardinals and is now out of the league.
Adrian Wilson is an unconditional success. Wilson and Keim share an alma mater. He is now considered among the best safeties in the NFL. This is exploiting a hometown connection to pick an absolute steal in the third. Too bad, I guess, that NC State is hardly a talent factory.
Kicker in the fourth. Kicker in the fourth. Kicker in the fourth.
Marcus Bell is out of the league after three seasons with Arizona and three seasons with Detroit.
2002
2) 49 Levar Fisher LB North Carolina State
Fisher is the only member of the 2002 class we can be pretty sure Keim had a significant say in drafting. Fisher was a standout at NC State, but lost his career to knee injuries. Fisher has knee problems in college, so this failure falls on Keim.
2003
1) 17 Bryant Johnson WR Penn State
1) 18 Calvin Pace DE Wake Forest
2) 54 Anquan Boldin WR Florida State
Johnson has been a disappointment since entering the league. He was surpassed by Boldin in their respective rookie seasons and is now a minor player for the Detroit Lions.
Arizona selected Pace with its next pick and he was a bust before Ken Whisenhunt switched him to outside linebacker in 2007. No credit is given Keim.
Boldin was a win for all involved, if, perhaps, a crapshoot win. Boldin was a quarterback and wide receiver at Florida State that suffered serious knee injuries in college and then ran a 4.71 forty. I respect Keim for seeing the potential in Boldin, but I do not think anyone expected Boldin to be so good. His health has never improved and he still regularly misses time because of injury.
2004
2) 33 Karlos Dansby OLB Auburn
3) 64 Darnell Dockett DT Florida State
Maybe this is Keim picking up speed and proving his potential. Dansby has been solid since being signed and still starts for Arizona. Of course, that's to be expected from a linebacker selected with the first pick of the second round.
Dockett has been a starter since his rookie season and a lynchpin on the Cardinals ever-in-flux defensive line. Over the past three seasons, he's been one of the best defensive linemen in football. He was considered a first-round talent, but also an underachiever and a major risk because of his battles with coaches, troubles with the law, and, specifically, his conviction for misdemeanor theft.
2005
1) 8 Antrel Rolle DB Miami (Florida)
3) 75 Eric Green DB Virginia Tech
3) 95 Darryl Blackstock LB Virginia
4) 111 Elton Brown G Virginia
Rolle is a corner bust since shifted to safety. He has played decent at safety, but credit for that goes to the person who made the move: Whisenhunt.
Green was an intermittent starter, mostly between injuries, that is now out of the league.
Blackstock is now out of the league. He played sparingly for Arizona before being signed by the Bengals -- another well run organization.
Brown was a seldom starter for the often very bad Cardinals offensive line that is now playing in the USFL.
2006
3) 72 Leonard Pope TE Georgia
6) 177 Jonathan Lewis DT Virginia Tech
Pope is a situational tight end and among the worst players at his position in the NFL.
Lewis participated in four games in 2006 and never again played in the NFL.
At this point, Keim was promoted to Director of College Scouting and can be debited or credited for the Cardinals entire draft class.
2007
1 5 Levi Brown OT Penn State
2 33 Alan Branch DT Michigan
3 69 Buster Davis LB Florida State
5 142 Steve Breaston WR Michigan
7 215 Ben Patrick TE Delaware
Brown is a middling power right tackle that isn't significantly better than Ray Willis. Bust.
Branch is a pretty typical Keim pick: Highly touted prospect, thought of as a top ten pick before a nasty run of belligerence and bad effort knocked him off most draft boards. Branch is three years into his professional career, still every bit the monster he was in college, and still a rotational player buried on the Cardinals depth chart.
Buster Davis was a terrible pick when made. Davis was an undersized, see: 5'9", linebacker completely unfit for Whisenhunt's preferred 3-4 alignment. He was cut before his rookie season, has since bounced around and is now out of the league.
Breaston was a return monster at Michigan State that has developed into a very good slot receiver. Keim must be credited for, first, securing a good returner in the sixth, and moreover, seeing that Breaston was turning the corner as a receiver. A big win for Keim, on a pick I was very skeptical about.
Patrick is the Cardinals starting tight end, but largely an afterthought in the team's offense. Patrick was a toolsy sleeper that's produced some, but is mostly a starter by default, and still more H-back than tight end.
2008
1) 16 Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie CB Tennessee State
2) 50 Calais Campbell DE Miami (Fla.)
3) 81 Early Doucet WR Louisiana State
4) 116 Kenny Iwebema DE Iowa
5) 149 Tim Hightower RB Richmond
6) 185 Chris Harrington LB Texas A&M
7) 225 Brandon Keith T Northern Iowa
This is the draft that made Keim a general manager candidate and his fingerprints are all over it. DRC was a tools messiah that shot up boards during the pre-draft process. He never faced top competition in college, and many, including myself, questioned his ability to cover NFL talent. Well, that question is yet unanswered. Cromartie certainly looks amazing-sometimes, but he is also regularly criticized for being out of position, burned and, well, not being able to cover NFL talent. The Cardinals, noteworthy in this case, are the second worst team in the NFL at defending #1 receivers and were 27th in 2008. DRC is the unchallenged #1 corner in Arizona. He is only 23, and cover skills are slow to grow. Best to give this pick an "Incomplete". It's possible DRC puts it together and taps into his tremendous talent, and it's possible his flashy play hides a bad player.
Campbell was a slamdunk and is proving so in his second season. He is toolsy, growing into those tools, scheme correct and straight beastly.
I liked the Doucet pick at the time and still think he has a bright future. It's tough to measure his performance because he is buried on the Cardinals depth chart. Doucet suffered a lot of injuries in college and that might have sapped his speed.
Iwebama has proven to be a solid member of a good defensive line rotation. He was, and this will shock everyone that's read this far, a toolsy player that was knocked down boards because injury and off-field problems. His performance declined his senior season, something that hurt Campbell and Doucet's stock, too.
Hightower has proven himself a valuable receiver, but, then, who defends Tim Hightower when Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston are on the field. He has since been de-emphasized in favor of Chris Wells. Hightower is a modest success.
Harrington is now a Jaguar.
Keith is still on Arizona's roster and has played in one game this season.
It's a little too early to make much of the 2009 draft, but it further supports the basic Keim profile. In brief: His preferred scouting area is the American South East. He likes toolsy players and does not bat a lash at character concerns. Keim swings for the fences and has a high whiff rate. The 2008 draft has produced solid players, but let's be clear: The Cardinals are finishing their third decade of terrible football. They made the Super Bowl last season, but were only 9-7 in the regular season. The team changed when it signed Ken Whisenhunt, and its recent success has been built off smart leadership, a weak division, years and years of early round picks, and Kurt Warner. Warner has recovered from a mid-career funk to make a case for the Hall of Fame. That's mighty lucky. Warner joined the Cardinals in 2005 and I do not see how Keim could be credited with his signing.
Maybe he interviews well. Maybe his most recent drafts, his most successful drafts, speak more clearly of his own abilities and potential, but I don't like his method, I am not impressed with his results and I don't want to sign a person that's been an integral part of one of the worst run franchises in sports history. For every one diamond in the rough, there's acres and acres more rough. And, right or wrong, executives must be judged both by the decisions they make and the company they keep.
0 recs |
92 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Great analysis, as always John
Nice to know we have some detailed background info on the folks who’ll be in charge of finding our future Hawks shudder
Thanks for this.
Answered some questions and corroborated some doubts, that I didn’t fully realize I had. Not to this extent. I just knew I felt pretty reserved and skeptical of Keim. Very convincing.
Sounds like it.
Some risks on guys with questionable character and guys from small schools. Seems like Keim looks for guys that drop because of these issues, where as Ruskell looks for guys that dropped because they might have been buried on the elite unit of a college powerhouse.
That could work though.
It seems like we have decent consistency from the players Ruskell drafted. We needs a few stars. If this guy can find them, then I say we at least give him a shot. Hopefully he will have learned from his mistakes.
by Hawkhammer19 on Dec 21, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions
And what if this guy swings and misses two drafts in a row...
then where will we be?!?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 21, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
Jones, Pace, Rolle.
I don’t understand your shifting of credit. All Keim can do is draft a guy. It’s up to the coach to utilize him correctly. Why give the coach credit if he uses him correctly, and take away credit from Keim? Seems a bit arbitrary since we don’t know if Keim wanted Rolle at S.
Keim drafted Rolle at corner and Pace at defensive end
And the two were terrible at those positions. Why would we credit him for the coach making something decent out of a bust? It’s illogical.
Jones was a bust. Keim deserves no credit for his later success.
Well I don't remember Rolle's situation, but for this past year for example,
if we had drafted Malcolm Jenkins as a CB and he didn’t pan out so we switched him to S, I don’t think that would necessarily be a fault of Ruskell since the Safety question mark was already out there.
If Seattle selected Jenkins at four, and drafted him as and played him as a corner for the first few years of his career
and he utterly failed, then I would consider him a bust.
Is it fair to say, though, that modest, built-in value with Rolle
was that he could transition to safety if CB didn’t work out, because of his size? I seem to remember that being touted during the draft.
by jacobstevens on Dec 22, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
Also, a wording question, when you say Calais Campbell was a slam dunk,
do you mean he was a great pick, or an easy and obvious pick to make?
this came up while I was typing
so I’ll give a quick response. I’ll guess John meant that Campbell was a great pick. He really like Campbell during that draft.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
well, let's see how the market plays out
we have to hire someone. keim seems like a pound of ground beef. you’ll take it if the alternative is spam. if your alternative is the beef wellington, well not so much…
to change metaphors mid-stream… guys who swing and miss but hit with power are most likely to end up on the open market. so it’ll be interesting to see how keim and his approach compare to the other candidates we interview.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Cardinals are only good because of Whisenhunt
and a lot of failure resulting in high draft picks. I’m skeptical of getting anybody from the cardinals. Too bad we didn’t just go after Whisenhunt last year.
Thank you for this analysis!
I didn’t know what to make of his body of work, and looking at what you wrote, I think I’ll pass.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
I'd grade Holmgren's GM work over this
Those were some atrocious picks. I would not be a huge fan of this one.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Dec 21, 2009 6:28 PM PST reply actions
Good write up, although I thought it smacked of bias quite a bit
It kind of felt like anything bad he did was presented as such, but anything good he did was qualified or diminished.
Regardless, I think you make a good point when you said:
The 2008 draft has produced solid players, but let’s be clear: The Cardinals are finishing their third decade of terrible football. The team changed when it signed Ken Whisenhunt, and its recent success has been built off smart leadership, a weak division, years and years of early round picks, and Kurt Warner.
Regardless of how you or I feel about his process or results, it can’t be ignored that the Cardinals really haven’t historically been a model organization, to put it nicely. Since 2005, I’d consider their management to be about average overall, but average will win the division in the NFC West. I don’t think he’d be a horrible choice, but I’m certain he’s not the best candidate out there.
I think he realizes that, because he qualifies it in his next sentence.
I had similar concerns, which is why I asked about Rolle and Pace.
I think another thing to look out for is that it seems like sometimes it’s hard to remember the expected rate of success. If only ~40% of 1st round picks are expected to start for 7 seasons, and only ~25% of second rounders are expected to start for 7 seasons, it looks better. I think sometimes it’s tough to forget just how much of a crapshoot the draft can be sometimes. And this doesn’t even include picks like Thomas Jones who would be a ‘success’, just not for the Cardinals (unless they got something back in return for him that was worth something).
Also I believe the biased comments are directed towards things like
the Rolle and Boldin comments.
Boldin was a win for all involved, if, perhaps, a crapshoot win. Boldin was a quarterback and wide receiver at Florida State that suffered serious knee injuries in college and then ran a 4.71 forty. I respect Keim for seeing the potential in Boldin, but I do not think anyone expected Boldin to be so good. His health has never improved and he still regularly misses time because of injury.
I’m not sure I’d call him a crapshoot win. Boldin is injury-prone, but he’s still played in 75% of his games and was an immediate success (200 yards in his first game I believe).
Which isn't even remotely biased
I’m not sure if you guys don’t know what that word means or are just attempting to get under my skin.
Bias: A particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
So, what prejudice do I have, pray tell, and how did I evidence it in the above post?
I have no clue, but couldn't one use the same argument and call Tatupu luck as well?
He wasn’t recruited by USC initially. He was short and slow. He had knee surgery at some point. It’s not an argument I would use, but I think everyone drafted in the 2nd round or later has a risk like that involved, which is why they’re drafted in the 2nd round.
I don't see how that applies.
A guy is drafted in the second round. There are some things that lots of people don’t like about him. He turns out to be a success. Is it a crapshoot win, or is it just a good job of scouting?
It's clearly a good job of scouting because not only did Ruskell draft him but he spent resources to move up in the draft to take him
He identified talent and made sure he acquired it.
That's assuming he had to trade up to acquire Tatupu.
Also, is it a worse job of scouting if you can stand pat and still get the player you want?
This is what I wrote about Boldin
Boldin was a win for all involved, if, perhaps, a crapshoot win. Boldin was a quarterback and wide receiver at Florida State that suffered serious knee injuries in college and then ran a 4.71 forty. I respect Keim for seeing the potential in Boldin, but I do not think anyone expected Boldin to be so good. His health has never improved and he still regularly misses time because of injury.
Keim took a big gamble and it paid off more than I think anyone could have imagined. That is no dig at him at all. It further points to him being a high-risk, high-reward GM.
My point is explicit
It was a high risk pick that succeeded beyond any reasonable expectations. It’s especially noteworthy that it succeeded despite Boldin never overcoming his health problems.
I misread it then.
I read it as more of a stupidly taken undeserved unnecessary risk. Not high risk high reward. My mistake.
No, one couldn't
because it’s nonsense to compare Boldin to Tatupu. Tatupu was a decorated MLB that played for a championship defense. Boldin was a split wide receiver-quarterback with devastating knee injuries and a terrible forty.
You said Tatupu wasn't a good comparison with Boldin.
So I’m asking if Hines Ward would be a similar comparison? A QB in college, uncertain WR skills. Taken relatively high.
Not trying to get under your skin at all,
but here’s what Kearly said
It kind of felt like anything bad he did was presented as such, but anything good he did was qualified or diminished.
That's not evidence
It’s a further claim of bias. And it’s completely untrue.
Adrian Wilson is an unconditional success. Wilson and Keim share an alma mater. He is now considered among the best safeties in the NFL. This is exploiting a hometown connection to pick an absolute steal in the third. Too bad, I guess, that NC State is hardly a talent factory.
Dockett has been a starter since his rookie season and a lynchpin on the Cardinals ever-in-flux defensive line. Over the past three seasons, he’s been one of the best defensive linemen in football. He was considered a first-round talent, but also an underachiever and a major risk because of his battles with coaches, troubles with the law, and, specifically, his conviction for misdemeanor theft.
Campbell was a slamdunk and is proving so in his second season. He is toolsy, growing into those tools, scheme correct and straight beastly.
First, let me say that I don't think that you are incorrect in your assesment.
But the write up read as though you were trying to support the narrative that Keim must be a below average evaluator since after all the Cardinals have not been a model franchise. It came across this way because you seemed to diminish or qualify many of his better evaluations without qualifying or sugar-coating some of his tough luck picks.
For example:
This one is pretty minor: Thomas Jones was a bust in Arizona, but he’s had a pretty successful rebound elsewhere. A scout’s job is to evaluate talent, right? Jones may not have worked in his first gig, but shouldn’t Keim get at least a tiny bit of kudos for correctly identifying a talented RB even if he waited til his 2nd team to succeed? I’m not saying he should get full credit, but to me a balanced evaluation of this move should award Keim at least a little positive mention.
Calling Boldin lucky, etc. Maybe it is lucky, but on that same token, shouldn’t some of picks, like say Brown, be considered unlucky? Brown would probably be one of the top 10 OL prospects of the decade at the time of the draft. My point is not that you should have praised the Brown pick, but simply that luck is an implied factor in every draft pick, and it seems a little out place to go out of your way to diminish a pick because of luck.
Now I’m not saying you are a biased person. I think you are remarkably impartial most of the time (for example: your stance on Steve Vallos), maybe that’s why those traces of bias really stood out to me. If you disagree and feel it is just your form of criticism, then feel free to ignore my feelings. But that is how it read to me.
One more thing
I hold true to my beliefs, and while I was harsh and direct before, it wasn’t my intention to offend or insult you. I have a lot of respect for your work. I think you are the brightest Seahawks contributor on the blogosphere and its not even close. I’ve taken a few black eyes on other sites trying to spread your influence and link your articles. I hope that some day, your objectivist style will be commonplace among Seahawks fans- at least on the internet.
But if I feel something needs to be said, I’ll say it. I’m not afraid to express myself, even if it means sometimes I’m wrong. In this case, perhaps its because I hold you to a high standard, I felt I had to express what I saw, because I knew if I didn’t, no one else probably would.
Anyway, if what I said bothered you, I apologize.
I don't think you should apologize
Sorry John. I know I don’t comment on here a lot, but I read religiously. And I think you’re taking this personally, when it’s justifiable criticism.
by somethingwitty on Dec 22, 2009 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree.
Giving an educated opinion and supporting it with facts does not inherently show bias. He’s doing analysis, not convincing us to support this GM.
An accusation of bias is an ad hominem attack
Fundamentally, you are saying that my analysis is compromised because I am pushing an agenda. It’s no more fair or less abusive argument for me to excuse your accusation of bias by countering that you are only arguing for sake of recognition. You know you’re wrong, but you find it gratifying to be cheered on for challenging me. When your flimsy arguments are shot down, you twist or flee or appeal to sympathy.
See: No name calling. No bad language, but I attacked your character. The above is rhetoric; meaningless. It’s not tolerated on Field Gulls, and I hope it’s very obvious why.
There’s nothing biased about putting moves in their proper context.
Thomas Jones was the 7th overall pick in the 2000 draft. That’s a gigantic investment. He couldn’t beat out incumbent Michael Pittman, and later Marcel Shipp, and was traded to Tampa for Marquise Walker, a former third round pick and essentially a nobody.
That’s a huge bust. To spin it any other way is ridiculous. A scout’s job is to attain talent for his team, and after spending the 7th overall pick on Thomas Jones, Arizona got three years of back-up running back play and Marquise Walker.
This is a fact based argument, free of bias. It’s the research I do before I write my posts. If I laid out every detail that factored into my decision, the post would be hopelessly long, horrendously overwrought and ponderous, and no on would read it. So I encapsulate my opinions.
The weight of argument lies on the critic. If you want to accuse me of bias again, fully support it. Otherwise understand that I will consider it a personal attack.
For what little it's worth,
It did not strike me that Kearly was intending to impugn your motives or character, John. Bracketing, for a moment, the question of whether it’s reasonable to read bias in your analysis, I don’t know that it follows that the implication of Kearly’s statement is that you were intentionally pushing an agenda. Lost in the wash in this debate, too, is that Kearly’s original comment contained much praise, that he generally agreed with your analysis, and that even his criticism was couched with qualifiers such as, “it kind of felt like…”. I can see how, after all the effort you put into your analysis, charges of bias could piss you off, but it doesn’t strike me that Kearly’s own intentions were uncivil or untoward. I’ll try to adumbrate a plausible defense for his interpretation, below:
While I thought your analysis was very fair and well presented, it must be seen as of a piece with the photo caption and introduction. I don’t think it is unreasonable that Kearly or others might read some of your prefatory remarks and the accompanying photo caption and come away with the idea that your disposition towards the Cardinals’ FO might be other than dispassionate:
Seattle Seahawks fans are unused to repeat failure. Perhaps a Cardinals suit can make them more familiar with the feeling.
Curious that perhaps the most defamed team in the NFC, bad from when the Lions and Rams were good, is now auditioning personnel for promotion to other teams. Thus is the fickle world of the NFL. I don’t like it, and I don’t like Keim’s boss Rod Graves. Graves has served with Arizona since 1997, and few franchises in any sport can claim a longer period of losing, instability and apathy from their fans.
Taken in the light of your well-documented (and, I believe, justified) position that coaches and front-office personnel ought to be judged at least partly on the basis of the quality of their underlings (viz. recent discussions about Jim Mora’s incompetence as a negative reflection on Tim Ruskell), a reasonable, thinking person might come away with the idea that you may see Keim as one of the blemishes on Graves’ resume. It’s possible, without one’s being daft or uncharitable, to interpret those statements as indicative of bias (conscious or not).
I love your style and wouldn’t want you to trade it in for milquetoast just-the-stats-ma’am delivery. But those rhetorical flourishes in your preamble can have consequences for how the following analysis is read by your (admiring) readers. Have confidence that Kearly, I, and the rest of us really appreciate what you’re doing on this site, and maybe quibbles like K’s won’t be so upsetting.
Do you understand that you can be nice and offensive at the same time?
Sugarcoating a personal attack still makes it a personal attack. Calling someone biased, and basically calling their work into question, is that sort of personal attack.
I don’t understand why this is so complicated.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
Yes. I understand.
Did you read past my first paragraph or just decide to bite my ankle because it looked tasty? Not every critique is an attack. (And apparently, personal attacks leveled on John’s behalf aren’t attacks either.)
I spent 90 minutes crafting the above response because I really care about this site and the great work that John does AND his professional development as a writer and analyst. Because John has clearly stated this is his career ambition, a little exposure to criticism (even irrational stuff) will be good preparation for him. Now, I know we aim for a different standard at Field Gulls, and I think that’s good, but I also don’t think anyone was meaning to flame John here; thus my intervention. As my comment indicated, it looked to me like John’s use of humor and style in the article’s opening salvo made for a plausible reading of the following analysis as being biased. I myself began the article thinking John was going to really lay into Keim; I was pleasantly surprised to find the subsequent analysis to be balanced.
Again, I think it’s great that Field Gulls holds itself to a high standard of civil discourse (except when discussing Steve Kelley, TV sports commentators, TNT readers, Seahawk Addicts, other NFL teams, washed-up current and former Seahawks talent, and lesser cities). Does it not apply both ways, though? John’s perfectly right to protest criticism that he thinks is unfair, but I don’t know that the reflexive gang-tackling of his (mild) critics by other readers is the most constructive approach to producing more light than heat.
Goodness, man, seriously?
I don’t care how long it took you to craft your thoughts, you were still wrong, and writing me off as a “yes-man” to JM is incorrect. I’ve disagreed with JM PLENTY. Go back to the draft last year for my take on Aaron Curry (though I never rose to the vaunted level of Fearless).
I’m saying that you are wrong. I’m not calling you stupid, I’m not calling you (insert expletive here), I’m simply saying that your statement on bias is incorrect. It’s one thing to disagree with JM’s analysis, it’s another to call his integrity into question, which is what the bias argument is. Yes, to me that is an easy statement to understand, but JM can take it from here. I’ve said my piece.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
Where is the Cardinal sin?
Am I wrong because:
(a) there is no reasonable way to interpret JM’s statements as suggesting the possibility of bias;
(b) use of the term “bias” is inherently inflammatory, always implies intent and by extension a character/integrity deficit, and ipso facto constitutes an ad hominem attack (ie an impugning of one’s character);
© Kearly’s phrase “smacked of bias quite a bit” is stronger than mere use of the word “bias” and has to be interpreted as a slap in the face, and I failed to account for that;
(d) Kearly was employing a specialized meaning of the word “bias” that signaled an attribution of intent/agenda;
(e) I write like a stuck-up priss;
(f) some combination of (a) through (e);
or (g) something else?
All you’re doing is suggesting, repeatedly, that I’m wrong and lack understanding.
Sports writing, most of the time, is not journalism. A fan blog is inherently subjective. John obviously takes a great deal of pride in the analysis he does, but he switches modes in sometimes sly ways that I think can leave people of good will wondering when it’s cool to cheer along with John during a “Fuck yeah, we’re the mother-fucking Seahawks!” moment, and when it’s Verboten to suggest he’s playing favorites. Especially when the very article we’re talking about begins with multiple references to the Cardinals’ FO being sucky (viz. my two examples above), I don’t know that one has to be a rat bastard to think they detect an anti-Cardinals-FO bias in the article. Even if Kearly’s wrong (and I indicated that I thought JM’s analysis was fair, ie NOT biased), why is it beyond the pale that Kearly should think it is and say it out loud? Is it the thought itself that is out of bounds, or its verbalized expression, or the way he phrased it, or what? What?
I think everyone should stop talking about it. You're all giving me a headache.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 24, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
I didn't mean to offend, and had I known you would have taken a quible in the presentation so deathly seriously, I would have kept silent
I wasn’t going to respond to this, but I wanted to clear a few things.
First, I gain no satisfaction “from being cheered on” for challenging you. And besides, being a challenger usually results in rebuke more than praise. So it really wouldn’t make sense if I wanted to challenge you just to hear people say nice things about me.
Second, I wasn’t assailing your character. Whatever you think, that wasn’t my intention. I just didn’t think it was completely evenhanded appraisal, and I think it would have been even better if it had been. Other than that, everything else I said about your write up was glowing. I think you make the correct conclusion, and you did a great job researching it. I really appreciate it.
As far as providing examples, you are right that I should have presented them in the first response without having to make you ask for them. My bad.
Do I dare ask what this was about?
When your flimsy arguments are shot down, you twist or flee or appeal to sympathy.
Where did I appeal to sympathy? And when you wrote that, no one had yet shot down my arguments, nor did I twist or flee from them.
I agree that bias and context are different things. But from how it read, you seemed to be adding context to the good picks and not the bad ones.
As far as Thomas Jones, all I’m saying is that while the pick didn’t work out, Keim at least correctly identified the talent. It goes against his record since that the pick didn’t work out for his team, but how much of that was truly under his control? Should the guy who drafted Kevin Mawae not get at least some credit for identifying OL talent? Same thing with Keim. That’s all I’m saying. He should get a smidgen of credit to counter balance the swollen black eye he gets for that pick. It would have been adding context to a negative thing, which I think this review could have used a little more of.
Oh and I definitely don’t think you are pushing an agenda. However, it is clear that at times you have an axe to grind, not that anything is wrong with that. I think that makes you interesting, and sometimes in the comments section I’ve praised your more pointed and honest commentary (Hasselbeck, etc).
No cheering from me up here in the nosebleed section of FG,
just to be clear, in case my comments are the ones you’re referencing with that statement. I just don’t see your original statement as having been an attack, and, ironically, it looked like some of the responses to your observation were themselves OTT.
I still think Eric DeCosta should be the front-runner
if he’s interested. The man can be a great GM for years to come. He’s a mastermind when it comes to NFL Drafts and scouting players.
DeCosta seems a little like Keim to me
In that all the buzz seems to be centered around his most recent draft, and simply the fact that he’s young. I admit to not knowing the guy’s full bio, but when you look at the Ravens drafts over the years, they’re underwhelming IMO. A few hits in the top rounds, but not much in the later rounds. And until they got Flacco & Rice, almost nothing ever on the O side of the ball. And the Ravens aren’t really what I’d consider a consistent contender, either. They’re an up-down team – one playoff season followed by 2 years of .500 or <.500.
Of the names that have leaked from the supposed interest list, the one that intrigues me the most so far is Heckert with the Eagles. Reid has ‘final say" of the roster, but you get the impression Heckert does most the legwork. therefore I think he has some experience with all aspects of a GM job – not just scouting, but trades, FA etc. The Eagles drafts are consistently strong and have good hits on both O and D. So he strikes me as more well rounded. And Philly seems to do a good job of re-tooling on the fly. Only dipping below .500 one season since Heckert’s been there. Lots of playoff appearances while being in a tough division. And heckert’s still relatively young – only about 5 years older than DeCosta.
the downside to heckert is that I get a bit of the “cronyism” vibe off of him – son of a former coach, hung around til the team gave him a job, and then kept being recommended. I don’t know how much of his success is merit, or simply being well-connected.
Like John’s posted before – I’m looking for an inspired hire. Like Z was for the M’s. A guy with a solid background in scouting, but also someone who’s shown they can embrace new ways of thinking, is adaptable, and able to set trends in the NFL, not just follow them.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Here's the problem.
All the numbers guys were freaking out over the GMZ hiring because he looked like a guy who was old school. Nobody knew how open he was to all the new school stuff until he started bringing people in left and right.
And then Z hired Tony Blengino and dumped the advanced scouts in favor of a baseball research department.
He really is what the Mariners blogosphere had been calling for, someone willing to blend traditional and advanced metric analysis.
Oh ya I agree.
I’m just saying that it was impossible for anyone to know that he would bring in Tony Blengino right off the bat and do what he did. He looked old school, even though he wasn’t purely old school.
GM hires are kind of like draft picks
You spend tons of time researching to make the most educated choice possible, but at the end of the day, there is still a strong element of luck involved. Nobody in their wildest dreams thought that Jack Z would be the GM he turned out to be. Similarly, Bill Bavasi wasn’t a star hiring, but he ended up being a far worse GM than people expected.
totally agree with both you guys.
I remember when Z was hired, my gut reaction was ‘sigh, they don’t realize Bavasi’s methods were the problem, they’re just trying to find a better version of him" Then Z immediately starts transforming us into one of the more modern FO’s in MLB.
It’s so hard to tell – not like there’s film of these guys in action. All we fans really have to look at are prior drafts and the occasional glowing bio that shows up on the team website. Hard to tell what methods they’re using. Like I said – Heckert’s record looks good on paper, but how responsible he is for it and how much is just the result of the situation he’s been in? In the same vein, Ruston Webster looks like Ruskell 2.0, but for all we know, he could just be waiting for his chance to run things on his own and bring in all these advanced methods.
That’s why I’m glad the search process is going on. I trust Leiweke – he played a big part in setting up the Trail Blazer and Sounders FC, and those look like model FO’s for their respective leagues. So I have hope that he can do the same for us.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Also, Heckert should know the 4-3
So if we are going to stick with it, but move away from the Tampa 2 (please God yes) he should potentially be skilled in evaluating appropriate talent.
But, I would also love an innovative pick. How spectacular would it be for Seattle to pioneer a new wave of football?
I think he'd do well
But isn’t he a defensive oriented drafter? I’d want someone who could work on rebuilding our offense. The defense worries me much less.
Didn't John Already run him down earlier this season?
I think he said something like ‘Decosta doesn’t have a good body of work to draw from’ or something like that. I’m probably not remembering totally right.
Keim just exudes "douche bag."
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
Blaming Steve Keim for three decades of AZ football?
Keim has worked for AZ for only one decade. The Cards are not finishing “their third decade of terrible football”, they are finishing their first decade of learning how to build a successful team. This success is due at least in part to Steve Keim.
Keim appears to have done a better job than most personnel guys in the NFL. Every GM has hits and misses, for which they deserve some of the blame, the coaches deserve some blame, and those players themselves deserve much of the blame. I think the GM has become the whipping boy of fans searching for someone to blame.
Tim Ruskell did not singlehandedly bring down the Seahawks, and Steve Keim did not single-handedly build the Cardinals. The fact remains that these Cardinals are now among the NFC’s perennial playoff teams, at least in part because of the good players Keim put on the field for Whisenhunt to work with. Give the guy some credit. He’s helped build a winner in Phoenix for a change.
I’m not saying he’s the best candidate for the Seahawks. I really don’t know that any of us here are qualified to make that call unless there is somebody here who has worked inside a modern NFL front office. But for Ruskell-haters who objected to his relatively ‘safe’ draft methodology, Keim’s “swinging for the fences” could be a breath of fresh air.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
What about those of us who were NON-Ruskell haters???
Not impressed by Keim’s body of work at all.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 22, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
Where's Larry Fitzgerald?
Pitt wasn’t southeast, but if Penn State is included, it seems you’d have to include Pitt….
Good point.
I only meant to include Penn State after Keim took over as the Director of College scouting. Including Bryant Johnson was a mistake.
by John Morgan on Dec 22, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Graves has served with Arizona since 1997, and few franchises in any sport can claim a longer period of losing,
Well why the hell not? We took Gregg Friggin’ Knapp from the Raiders FGS!
What? No SOUL?
I think you are looking at the from the wrong angle. Keim is a big reason why the cards have made the playoffs the past couple of years. He has found talent in smaller schools that turned into late round gems. here is an article to check out.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-stevekeim012709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&print=1
I’m not saying he should be the man but I think Arizona would be the worst for losing him
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Five unanswered preseason questions
- Preseason Confidential: Forsett and Seahawks still have concerns
- This is why we don't wear huge diamond earrings to practice
- The Shutdown Eleven: The most interesting footballers of 2010. #10: LaDainian Tomlinson
- Reports: Cardinals now want to trade Leinart; Giants interested
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
