On Carson Palmer, Part 2
by John Morgan on Jan 27, 2011 5:00 PM PST
Email
PrintHurting Carson Palmer's chances of outperforming historical averages are his injures. Kimo von Oelhoffen did a number on his knee in 2005. Ligament tears are relatively standard, but damage to cartilage and meniscus is far more serious and Palmer suffered both. That said, Palmer was never a scrambler, has not suffered any kind of spike in sack percentage (Palmer has consistently outperformed league average (and sack percentage is the most consistent stat when a quarterback changes teams)), and has not missed additional time because of the injury. As much as it's possible, the knee injury is a thing of the past.
Palmer missed 12 games in 2008 because of a partially torn tendon and ligament in this throwing arm. That ended a streak of 51 games started. He has since started 33 straight games. Hasselbeck's career long is 35, and that ended in 2004. Palmer elected to rest and rehab instead of undergoing Tommy John surgery, which seems ill-advised, and may contribute to his below average completion percentage and interception percentage. It's something to consider at the very least.
And if we're considering injury-related decline, we should probably talk about his declining performance passing the ball deep:
2005
| Distance | Comp/Att | Yards | TDs | INTs |
| 21-30 | 11/25 | 271 | 5 | 0 |
| 31-40 | 9/19 | 383 | 5 | 3 |
| 41+ | 3/12 | 165 | 1 | 0 |
2006
| Distance |
Compl/Att | Yards |
TDs |
INTs |
| 21-30 |
12/35 |
384 |
3 |
0 |
| 31-40 |
9/24 |
424 |
4 |
1 |
| 41+ |
4/12 |
205 |
2 |
1 |
2007
| Distance |
Comp/Att |
Yards |
TDs |
INTs |
| 21-30 |
13/36 |
323 |
4 |
3 |
| 31-40 |
2/18 |
73 |
1 |
2 |
| 41+ |
6/14 |
286 |
3 |
1 |
2008
| Distance |
Comp/Att |
Yards |
TDs |
INTs |
| 21-30 |
2/6 |
42 |
1 |
1 |
| 31-40 |
0/3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 41+ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2009
| Distance |
Comp/Att |
Yards |
TDs |
INTs |
| 21-30 |
3/15 |
146 |
0 |
1 |
| 31-40 |
1/9 |
40 |
0 |
2 |
| 41+ |
3/10 |
135 |
0 |
2 |
2010
| Distance |
Comp/Att |
Yards |
TDs |
INTs |
| 21-30 |
7/22 |
224 |
2 |
2 |
| 31-40 |
5/13 |
251 |
4 |
1 |
| 41+ |
2/11 |
99 |
0 |
1 |
Now, other things are at play here. The Bengals line was pretty good in 2005. It started a still promising Levi Jones at left tackle, and sub-elite left guard Eric Steinbach. Steinbach signed with Cleveland in 2007. Jones, however, missed most of 2006. Then-rookie Andrew Whitworth took over, and has since settled in as the Bengals starting left tackle the last two seasons. Whitworth is a suspect pass blocker, and the Bengals attempted to replace him by drafting Andre Smith. All-Pro right tackle Willie Anderson was at his peak from 2004-2006. He missed significant time in 2007, was cut, signed with the Ravens and has since retired. Rudi Johnson was at his peak. That was when Johnson was a high-volume power back that demanded safety attention. So, protection, a run game, Palmer had the two elements so often cited as a quarterback's best friend.
How much of Palmer's decline can be attributed to his surrounding talent is impossible to say, but that decline is too often overstated. By DYAR, Palmer's 2010 would rank as Hasselbeck's second best season ever, only behind Matt's amazing 2005. And, in fact, by DYAR, which accounts for playing in a division that includes the Ravens and Steelers, Palmer has been a superstud.
2004: 430 DYAR (17th ranked among qualifiers); 3.9% DVOA (16)
2005: 1,509 (2); 32.5% (3)
2006: 1,189 (3); 21.7% (4)
2007: 1,215 (6); 20.1% (9)
2008: 54 (30); 5.0% (29)
2009: 739 (15); 12.9% (18)
2010: 1,003 (10); 13.6% (17)
For those unfamiliar with DVOA and DYAR, think of it like quarterback rating but opponent adjusted, including sacks and not moronic. Palmer does not perform quite as well by other standards. His adjusted net yards per attempt is just below league average. His EP/A is just above. Neither accounts for opponent adjustment though, and that can not be ignored. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are consistently two of the best defenses in the NFL.
176 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Seeing how we're again toast in the draft a QB sweepstakes
I almost wouldn’t mind having Carson Palmer for the next four years. Look at the difference Warner made with the Cardinals in this division, that’s all it takes to put a team at the top. Palmer might be able to do that for the Hawks. Him being protected by Okung and throwing to BMW, Obo, Tate, Stokley, and Butler kinda does a number on my shorts.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 27, 2011 5:16 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
The next four years?
Any QB in his 30s + “Next 4 years” = Scary.
Fire Gus "What's a screen?" Bradley.
It would be the equivilent of Hasselbeck's last four years
with a higher starting performance level and less injury risk
i think you just made his point
Hass’ numbers and performance have been down right awful for the last few years.
by plyka on Jan 27, 2011 9:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You missed Flame's though...
“with a higher starting performance level and less injury risk”
In other words, it’s like Hasselbeck except for performance and injury risk.
Which means it’s like Hasselbeck in age, but not… well… performance. Or injury risk.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 27, 2011 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
My point was that
Palmer at age 31 is much better than Hasselbeck at 31, so when he declines, he will not be as bad as Hasselbeck is now. I worded this horribly.
by Flamefox111 on Jan 28, 2011 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
If we want to trade for a veteran QB, I say it's for Orton or Young.
Palmer suffered a bad O-Line in Cincy despite having good targets and had his numbers inflated from playing behind.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I'd rather choose Young than Orton
And then give him anti-depressants.
Fire Gus "What's a screen?" Bradley.
I mean, Young is at least intriguing for his tools, but I can not understand anyone's interest in Orton.
In case no one noticed, rookie Tim Tebow outperformed Orton: 18.2% DVOA to 13.4% DVOA.
I think Orton is a great example of how good a fairly crappy quarterback can look with a talented offense and a talented play caller.
SSST
Small Sample Size Theater. Right? I mean, Tebow had 82 attempts. Derek Anderson can look good over 82 attempts.
It's a small sample, absolutely
but small sample doesn’t invalidate something. It just means it’s unstable. Rookie Tim Tebow did in fact outperform Kyle Orton, but we can’t say he would continue to.
I have never disagreed with you so much as now
Especially when your own post contradicts so many things you preach.
Using “suck” as an overstatement (Olindo Mare column).
Using Tebow’s three-game stretch to overthrow Orton. Sample size, anyone?
Talented offense in Denver? Who? I’ll wait.
Talented play-caller? You mean Daniels, I presume, the guy who benefitted from one of the greatest offenses and QBs of all time (was before he got there, was after he left) and who called a game worthy of Mike Martz in Super Bowl XLII.
You seem to want to account for the defenses played against (which is fair if totally imprecise) but make little allowance of surrounding talent other than that which supports Palmer nor take into account the stability of same system, same coaches, etc. (likewise imprecise, but no moreso.)
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Jan 29, 2011 7:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Talent on offense in Denver?
Maybe the best bookend tackles in the league… certainly top5 between the two.
A young talented 1st round draft pick RB who can run and catch. A couple solid backup types like Buckhalter and only 25 year old former 1st round pick Lawrence Maroney. (And he did trade Hillis too.)
A WR who is among the more talented in the league. (I don’t care that he was cut twice— he’s talented and finally got it going on.) In addition to Lloyd, Eddie Royal and Demaryius Thomas are NFL quality talent. Jabbar Gaffney is a journeyman, but a playable NFL talent.
Denver’s talent on offense going into the season was far and away better than ours.
Better line, at worst, equal RB’s, better WR’s, and people are talking about trading for their QB. Maybe we have them at TE, but wow… I can’t believe you think their offensive talent was low.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
We disagree on nearly everything
Particularly Brandon Lloyd. Good-great quarterbacks have made a living turning journeymen into Pro Bowlers which is all Lloyd has been in his 8? years in the league. I don’t see how Orton doesn’t get at least partial credit for Lloyd getting it together.
Denver’s interior line is hideous.
I believe that history will bear me out; our RBs are TWICE theirs.
Royal’s a solid possesion guy, but he looks to have a pretty flat trajectory, same with Jaffney (whose two best years have been with Orton); I like our receivers RIGHT NOW over theirs.
It will be YEARS of success/failure them/him before I believe this group carried Orton.
Orton hate also fails to account for his final year in Chicago versus Cutler’s two years there. I think this comparison is telling.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Why wasn't Orton able to turn Lloyd into a pro bowler in Chicago then?
And his running backs are far better geared for the passing game, they’re both good pass catchers (they caught 65 balls last year) and McDaniels uses them and Royal, who is excellent after the catch, to stretch the field horizontally which opens up deeper passes.
Orton wasn't benched
He got injured, Young was put in IR after being benched then getting the spot back.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jan 28, 2011 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
Still, all the sudden neckbeard love is a bit strange
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 28, 2011 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
Not sure if it's love
He’s just the best value and he’s a solid quarterback.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jan 28, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
Orton is totally awesome and badass now?
When did this happen?
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Kitna is awesome and badass?
news to me. More like the average QB a team is constantly looking to replace.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 28, 2011 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
He wasn't benched
He was listed on the injury report each week and during each press conference, Studesville said Tebow would be starting because Orton was injured.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jan 28, 2011 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
But he wans't injured and openly complained about the decision.
by John Morgan on Jan 28, 2011 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
As in:
First line of the article: “Predictably and understandably, Kyle Orton is not pleased with his benching in Denver.”
by John Morgan on Jan 28, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
He was injured
He just felt he could play. The last two games he played, KC and ARI, he was playing injured, and it was obvious that he played very poorly. Studesvilles said Tebow would start because he was a better option then an injured Orton. Orton wanted to start, but the coach said that he would take a healthy Tebow over an injured Orton.
Most Denver fans like Orton, but think it’s time for Tebow to start, but almost none actually think Orton was benched for play when he was healthy, but that Tebow started because he was better then an injured Orton.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jan 28, 2011 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think JM is disputing your notion that he was hurt.
It’s just that virtually every starter in the NFL is nursing some kind of injury that late in the season and his weren’t any more likely to lower his level of playing ability than anybody else’s. Matt Hasselbeck played most of the year with a bad hand, for example. That late in the year, the injury report exists as much to give a head coach plausible deniability in benching a struggling player as it reflects guys actually being too hurt to play.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
Very nice. A compelling case for Carson Palmer
I have to admit I didn’t see this one coming.
So he'd be an upgrade over Hasselbeck, even though he sort of "feels" like a Hasselbeck
How do we measure how much of an upgrade he would be?
Not for any educated or defensible reason, to be honest. That's why I put feels in quotation marks. I suppose age, and my perception that he's been declining steadily for a season or two.
Regardless, I’d be happy to see him in a Lake-Washington-in-the-middle-of-July blue uniform.
Assuming he becomes available and we want him.
What should we expect to pay? Our 1st? 2nd? 1st + another pick?
I don't know. Nothing that steep, I hope.
I wouldn’t endorse spending that much given the state of the Seahawks. No offense to Bengals fans but I hope the situation becomes toxic, the league underestimates Palmer’s talent and he is relatively cheap.
His reputation seems pretty tarnished
I would think he could be had for a 2nd, maybe less. The only mitigating factor I see is the sheer number of teams with quarterback needs.
Two separate questions
There are two separate questions contained therein:
(1) What’s Palmer’s fair market value and
(2) What should the Seahawks be willing to pay for him?
And do the two intersect?
Considering that McNabb was traded for a 2nd rounder last year, that would probably be the market value for Palmer.
But considering how poorly McNabb played for the Redskins, other teams may consider that price to be too high for an older QB following 2 down seasons. The Seahawks could put together a unique package (our 4th rounder and perhaps a conditional 2012 pick?) that might get close to that perceived value, but we might not want to even spend that on Palmer.
Well if we gave up a 3rd for CW, he seems worth a 2nd (but of course most feel we way overpayed for CW)
I would certainly prefer Plamer to Matt, but I would rather see us pay a lot less for Young or even Orton.
I would be surprised to see the Hawks deal for Palmer.
I was just happy
That we didn’t have to send a pick to Cleveland just to get them to take Seneca as well.
Seneca out performed CW
Check the stats. CW may look the part but he didn’t do it on the field.
by Patches Pal on Jan 28, 2011 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
And how many starts has Seneca Wallace had to date?
14 going into this season. Enough to have a good idea who and what he is as a QB.
Charlie had TWO. He needs more opportunity to prove out, one way or the other.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
CW started 2 games
One win, one loss. Give him 12 more starts, then compare their respective stats.
Personally, I’d rather see Whitehurst out there any day over Seneca, who constantly ran around like a nervous Chihuahua looking for a fire hydrant.
by Buster! on Jan 28, 2011 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually... it was 14 going into last season, in which he got 4 more.
I didn’t phrase that well.
So perhaps (I’m not sure who started when) we could actually say, “Give Charlie 14-17 more starts, and see how he does.”
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
Are you realy going to compare
a QB who spent multiple years in the same system as a backup, who came in and had mediocre success a few times to a QB that spent less than one year in a new system who came in and had mediocre success. By the way you do realize that Seneca showed pretty much nothing in Cleveland don’t you?
The Bengals seem pretty determined to hold onto him
Every press release I’ve seen says that Palmer is central to the team they want to build around him. Pretty concrete statements when a little ambiguity wouldn’t have been amiss. Palmer seriously wants out of Cincinnati, so they might have put this out in the open to squash any controversy.
On the other hand, if his trade demands extend long into the offseason, the Bengals are in a position to deal him: He’s still under contract, though for a pretty hefty amount considering he’s entering his declining years. And the Bengals have the 4th overall draft pick, and excluding Denver (who has Elway’s manchild Tebow) and possibly Carolina (who may or may not stick with Clausen), they are easily within reach of the top three QB prospects.
I don’t know much about the Bengals’ team situation, but they might already have plans for that draft pick: Maybe an awesome LT or something for their defense or the like. They have options if they choose to deal Palmer, but grooming a QB might will disrupt their current rebuilding plans.
As for a fair price, it looks like Cincinnati’s front office holds the cards. They can keep their QB, or give him up and draft a new one at the top of the class. We need a new QB more than they need to give one up, so the asking price for Palmer is gonna be steep, as in an early pick. Most likely scenario I see is giving up our 2nd and Hasselbeck for Palmer. That leaves Cincinnati with a veteran QB of their own and the option of drafting their own QB of the future (which is a damn enviable position to be in, with their draft status).
That’s expensive, though, giving up a 2nd round draft pick (which would normally be spent on a fairly long-term starter elsewhere) in return for a QB who’ll be in the same situation as ours within three or so years. As has been said elsewhere, that’s giving up the long-term in favor of the short-term, which is definitely not the mindset I want us to be in.
I don't think Clausen is going to be a legitimate option for Carolina, particularly with John Fox leaving.
Also, I don’t think it’s even worth mentioning the scarcity and proportional need of and for quarterbacks in this league. That’s a given, year to year. If we can have Palmer without sacrificing a potential QB prospect, do it.
What it comes down to is draft day, and your opinions of the available QBs.
I still want Locker, cause, hey, I’m a total homer and I think his potential is being hidden by the Willingham-to-Sark transition.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
Sorry, also, that second rounder that results in a "fairly-long term starter" is worth far less when it's not a QB you're drafting.
Elite talent at other positions may be hard to find, but good and passable talent are easy to find when you have a good talent evaluator. Furthermore, the drop from “elite” to “good” is way more dramatic in a QB, as opposed to most any other position, aside from maybe a LT or a dual-threat DL.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
I don't disagree that a QB with a 2nd round pick is more valuable
I’m just saying that it would be a QB we’d have for three years or so before we find ourselves right back in the same boat we’re in now, whereas by spending that pick in the draft, we’d end up with a starter who would, with luck, last for a good deal longer.
Even drafting a second-tier rookie QB would have more upside in development, and with a halfway decent chance of breaking through as a starter.
Totally valid.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
Palmer seems pretty determined to retire if he doesn't get his wish
at this point I take all statements by the parties involved with a grain or two of salt. No trades can happen without a new CBA. In the mean time bets will be hedged.
How "long-term" is a draft pick, really?
You draft a guy and you sign him for four years, maybe five. After that period expires, he may or may not re-sign; you can slap various tags on him when the time comes, but it means you’ll pay full fare to retain him, especially if you want to sign him to a long-term deal. I don’t think you’re getting all that much more for the long term than you would with a veteran QB with four years left.
Stated differently, in the NFL, four years is the long term.
by Suburban Shocker on Jan 28, 2011 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
You wasted a ton of analysis time
to demonstrate that Carson Palmer sucks. If that is the best we can do we may as well write off next season. Frankly, I would rather ride Matt Hasselbeck one more year than switch to another aging QB. We need to use a 4th round pick on a developmental prospecl. I think Colin Kaepernick would fit perfectly.
brilliant retort
complete with salient observations and supporting arguments… I think Steve Kelley might be retiring soon and the Times could use a replacement.
Only a teeny, weensy bit.
…fuck us.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
Someone please send this article to schneider
PLEASE this put exactly what i was thinking into words and sold me on it even more I had no Idea Palmer was nearly that good I had a much worse Opinion of him before reading this article and I still wanted the Hawks to get him.
I'd take Orton mostly for the value
He’s likely going to come cheaper then Palmer, who they will likely only trade for a 1st, and Orton costs a 2nd. He’s still young, solid, and look what he did with Denver’s patchwork offensive line and lack of offensive talent these past two seasons. Trade for him or pick him up if he’s cut and draft a mid round QB.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
In 2009, no 2010
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jan 28, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
Also, regarding his poor 2008 season
it’s worth noting the team had finally waived Chris Henry due to all his off field troubles, but then when injuries hit Ochocinco, Housh and Caldwell, they brought him back in. That was a rather banged up WR core for a good chunk of the season.
Thanks
Reason #363 why I shouldn’t write after 10 p.m.
by SmartAssCoug on Jan 28, 2011 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
I just can't believe people sports talk radio believe that Palmer would be a lateral move to Hasselbeck.
Palmer represents a pretty significant, medium-term upgrade.
Sports talk radio
Probably expects more of the type of performances he gave in both Saints games. He probably has a couple of those left in his arsenal even next year. It’s a question if you want to forget about the rest of the games. They do. So it goes.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2011 6:04 AM PST up reply actions
They think he's got a season with 16 of the Saints games in him.
Because historically the past doesn’t matter, nor would we ever be doomed to repeat it. Not if we have Hasselbeck!!!!
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
Hasselbeck in 2011 = Jerome James in 2005.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
That's not fair.
Jerome James was never any good. Hasselbeck at one point in time was.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
The nature of analogies means they are not exact.
However, if Hasselbeck gets a payday or heck a starting gig at all it will be because of one good playoff game. That’s pretty much exactly how JJ parleyed one good series against an injured Brad Miller into a payday with the Knicks. That and the Knicks were/are dumb.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree.
I think even if Hasselbeck didn’t play lights out against NO, there’s still a great chance he’d be highly sought by the majority of our fanbase. He’s not living off of one good playoff game, man. He’s living off of 2005 and 2007… and will continue to until he is no longer a Seahawk.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
If I understand these pieces right
They were simply to consider where Carson Palmer is now rather than to make the case we “should” trade for him, yes? I’d ask you “should we trade for him”, but we all know the answer is “depends on the price”. It always does.
It’s a difficult question, but considering the rawness of much of the QB talent available, it makes some sense to get a medium-term answer. I’m not sure Palmer is it though, he might be “too talented” for a medium-term answer of that type.
Wow. I think I'm actually convinced.
I’m still very pessimistic that Palmer will be traded, but this totally turns around my conception of the guy. Seriously. Thanks for this.
"conception"?
Are you pregnant with Carson Palmer? Brilliant! That shouldn’t cost us more than a 4th, I’m pretty sure.
Dammit.
“Concept” + “Perception” = a word that doesn’t mean either of those things.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
My dictionary is telling me to conceive is to formulate,
not “understand” necessarily.
You're a Nazi if you don't like the Seahawks :/
if you know of another way,
could you please formulate a Tom Brady?
We can rebuild him.
Actually here’s a good way: Look under “Progenation machine”
You're a Nazi if you don't like the Seahawks :/
If science can clone a woolly mammoth, I see no reason why they can't clone Tom Brady.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
WHAT?!?!!?
Has science done that, or merely science will someday be capable of it?!?
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
http://www.pcworld.com/article/216872/scientists_to_clone_woolly_mammoth_in_five_years.html
This could end up being another cold fusion, who knows, but it’s pretty f’ing awesome if they can actually pull it off.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
I see an entertainment franchise in there somewhere
Pleistocene Preserve perhaps?
by SmartAssCoug on Jan 28, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
Woolly mammoth park?
Let’s hope the head computer programmer doesn’t try to steal their infos
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 28, 2011 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
So what? The other people left at the park will be surrounded by a bunch of peaceful herbivores.
Unless the park breeds some Woolly Raptors.
Well you can't have woolly mamoths without sabertooth tigers!
They’re joined at the tusk(tooth)
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 28, 2011 7:45 PM PST up reply actions
we should start taking DNA samples of all the current species out there.
for when they go extinct, and we need to “reboot” them
They're already doing that, although so far they've had more success with plants than animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedbank
When I went to Kew Gardens outside of London in ‘09, much of the proceeds for that place went toward funding the Kew Millenium Seed Bank. There’s an even bigger and more comprehensive one in Svalbard (and it’s a good idea to have several such places throughout the world).
If memory serves, the big issue with animal gene banks is one that might just get itself solved with this woolly mammoth issue: frozen DNA degrades over time and we haven’t as yet figured out a better way to store it. Eventually, I am sure, we’ll have a way to map genomes into a computer and then replicate it with a DNA “lathe” (or whatever you want to call it). Finding a way around the frozen DNA issue will give us a great secondary tool while we build that other technology.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 29, 2011 1:42 AM PST up reply actions
Fascinating stuff.
Thanks for the info, guys.
Learn something new every day.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 29, 2011 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
What about Young?
As soon as the season ended i felt like he would be a great pickup for our team, mobile qb with experience, didnt get along with his old coach but could be brought in by good ol’ pete to buddy up with. On top of that he seemed to fit the profile of Bates (who now is no longer with us) a OC who liked roll outs, bootlegs and throwing deep.
by RawkEmHawkEmBirdbots on Jan 28, 2011 12:48 PM PST reply actions
Has both injured and emotional issues
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jan 28, 2011 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
thats true, but maybe his emotional issues are because of the coaching?
I have a feeling carroll could instill some confidence. Moving to a new team/new system is exactly what he needs?
by RawkEmHawkEmBirdbots on Jan 28, 2011 1:00 PM PST reply actions
I'd say that Pete might be good at that, as we've seen with BMW.
As I said once before, the thought of reclaiming both BMW and Young is very appealing to me. I love those underdogs.
I’d say the Seahawks should take a look at all of those supposedly “available” veterans: Palmer, Young, and Orton. I guess McNabb is in that club too, though he is older. See who’s available for cheap, make some offers. What effect does their presence on the semi-open market have on teams drafting in the first round? There are a bunch of college QB’s hovering around the first round, but no clear-cut blue-chip prospects.
From a probability perspective, it seems much more likely to get a ProBowl year or two
out of Young, Orton, Palmer, Flynn, etc. than Locker, Mallet, Gabbert, Devlin, Kaepernick, etc.
I’m beginning to wonder whether gambling on Pete rescuing Young’s mental state (and career) is probably a better bet than gambling on Locker learning to throw accurately (for example).
Dunno. Not easy, this getting-a-good-QB thing.
Whitworth a suspect passblocker?
and Andre Smith drafted to replace him???? HELL NO. (Yes, I’m a Bengals fan). Whitworth let up 2 sacks all year – to include 4 games against two of the elite passrshers in the league, Terrel Suggs and James Harrison. Whitworth got snubbed this year for the probowl, but is arguably the best LT in the game. Andre SMith was drafted to fill in at RT, not replace him.
Just for added touch….
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
You picked an OT 6th overall, and you're claiming he was intended to play RT?
Sorry, I call bullshit.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2011 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
you can call it whatever you want, though so far, we’ve been paying him to eat donuts
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
He was projected to likely struggle at LT.
Most reviews said he was probably best suited for RT or LG.
Personally, I thought he was a poor pick due to his off the field/lack of discipline/weight issues, but if there was a LG who was incredibly dominant when we picked Curry at 4, I would have loved to have taken him instead.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
Not really
He was considered in the running for best OT in the class for a while. The big problems came when he came into the combine with weight issues, left early and sort of messed up his agent. He wasn’t considered a pure RT until late in the process.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 28, 2011 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
We're talking about the same guy...
you’re talking well before the combine, I was already referencing the after. But even before the combine there was some talk about him perhaps being better suited to moving inside, because weight issues looked to be a consistent thing, not something that snuck up on him/everyone.
Sometimes I wonder if you just want to dispute everything I say…
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 8:38 PM PST up reply actions
Andre Smith was drafted the year HBO did their Hard Knocks series on the Bengals.
That show was all about him being the LT of the future, if memory serves.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 28, 2011 9:16 PM PST up reply actions
I could care less about that.
He was getting hammered as a LT prospect due to weight, discipline, footspeed (connected to the weight.)
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 11:46 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah he's a bust
A bust because he’s too fat and lazy to play LT.
No one picks an RT 6th overall. Not even the Bengals FO.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 29, 2011 12:54 AM PST up reply actions
RE:
unfortunately, I never got to watch the Hard Knocks version of the Bengals, so maybe there was speculation on that show about him eventually becoming a LT. And there was definitely discussion about possibly moving Whitworth back to LG and moving Andre SMith to LT, though it was often brought up by people who hadn’t realized the greatness of Whitworth yet.
As far as him being a bust, based on playing time and contribution, so far it would seem that way. Though, Andre had, and still does, the ability and potential to be an elite OT in the NFL. His major problem is his foot, which he’s already broken twice – once the second day of his rookie training camp which sidelined him till late in the season when he started to come on strong towards the end. Then he reinjured it this past offseason, which set him back some, coming into traiing camp out of shape.
However, he eventually worked himself into the starting lineup this year and had some very solid games at LT – until he broke it again…..
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
***meant to say RT in last paragraph
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
I think we have a concept disagreement here
To me, it doesn’t matter how successful he is at RT. If you draft an OT 6th overall, you draft him to be LT. The positional value of an RT simply doesn’t warrant that high a pick. Sure, “bust” might be a hard time, but let’s be real here, Robert Gallery is a really good LG, but people still think of him as a bust because you don’t want a really good LG out of the 2nd overall pick.
I really can’t understand the concept of an FO that thinks a starting RT would be good value with the 6th overall pick. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 29, 2011 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
well first of all, we're the Cincinnati Bengals
and have arguably THE worst owner, who has refused to hire a GM and continue to micromanage all our personnel decisions, despite 20 years of failure.
However, I don’t have an issue with drafting a RT with the 6th overall pick. Our best lineman since Munoz, was Willie Anderson who played RT (with mostly right handed QB’s). I don’t even have an issue with drafting a guard with a first round pick either. To me, linemen are the most valuable players on the team and a solid LT (i.e. Whitworth) can be negated with a weak LG or RT (as is our case).
As an example, the Steelers (who are becoming the standard of excellence in the NFL) drafted Pouncey with the 22nd pick and he is now a probowl center. I wouldn’t call that a waste of a 1st roudn pick.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
After LT, C is the next most important position on the line though.
And you can’t just swap a failed LT down to C the way you can with RT or the guard positions. The offensive line is a little bit (this analogy breaks down quickly but bear with me) like a 4-man pitching rotation with a center in the middle. You don’t say a guy who failed as a #1 starter is not a bust because he’s a great #3 starter, do you?
It’s not quite the same because the skillsets for guards and tackles are a little bit different (guards need more size to push guys ahead on running plays, tackles need more speed and quickness to deal with rushers from the edge – guards who get fast guys coming inside are instructed to push them outside towards the edge of the pocket). So you can have a guy like a Steve Hutchinson who is a perfectly competent guard but wouldn’t play well as a tackle.
Center is totally different, though. For one thing you have to snap the ball between your legs and then bring your hands back up to block very quickly. You may have the advantage of being the only man on either team who knows when the ball is going to be snapped but that is more than made up for by the fact that you start in an awkward position and are slightly closer to the guy you have to block than the rest of your team. For two, the center is generally considered the quarterback of the line. Since the guards and tackles aren’t supposed to move once they get down into their three-point stance, it’s up to the center to read the opposing front seven and call out changes in blocking assignments on the fly. For three, teams that don’t play against a lot of 3-4 usually want a center who is fast enough to get out to the second level and take out a linebacker on most plays. Even those who do play against the 3-4 or the bandit need their guy to be generally faster than a guard who snaps the ball.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 29, 2011 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
center is definitely an evolving position
with the increase in behemoth NT’s. I can buy your argument on the priority of linemen, though still wouldn’t mind drafting a RT or guard in the first.
One thing that is extremely frustrating to me is seeing our LT plow the DE or OLB, but then watching the running play go to crap because our LG couldn’t open up anything against his guy. Or seeing our QB get hit from the right side or have to throw away the pass because he’s getting pressure from that side.
All in all, the line is a collective body that can give up a lot of plays with one weak spot. And with a strong, formidable line, they can make average skilled players look like all-pros (which is what they made Carson Palmer, Rudi Johnson, and Chad Johnson/Ocho look like through 2005-2007).
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
1st round and a top 10 pick are not remotely the same thing
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 29, 2011 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
But value is value.
If you had the 6th pick, and in hindsight the best player in the draft was a RT who was taken 18th, would you look back and go, “Yep. Glad we took that raw but supremely talented pass rusher instead. It was the right pick….”
Would you say that in hindsight even though the pass rusher never maximized his potential, because, well, “you just don’t take RT’s that early?”
You take the talent where it is at when it is available, particularly when it fits your team need. That’s what good teams do, period.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 29, 2011 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
The best RT in the world isn't worth a 6th overall pick
You don’t take kickers in the 1st and you don’t take RTs that high.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 29, 2011 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
okay, comparing offensive tackles to kickers is ridiculous
and yes, the best RT in the world is well worth a 6th overall pick. – and even a 1st overall pick.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
That's great, but Andre Smith is not and never will be the best RT in the world
We seem to be too far apart on positional evaluation to have much common ground for debate thought. If you believe drafting a RT 6th makes sense, then ok, so be it.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 30, 2011 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
The picking of a LT/RT combo 6th isn't a mistake.
The picking of Andre Smith can be considered one.
Big difference.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
Stupid fucking comment.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry.
Let me elaborate. That was rude.
I’m talking about a foundational player who can positively improve your run game and pass game and will start for you immediately at a position of need.
You speak in hyperbole to make a drastically bad point using a position only utilized on special teams.
And for the record, the Raiders picked Janikowski in the first round in 2000, and he’s still on the team. Might be a better selection than many in that draft, few of which are still in the NFL. He’s still on the original team. Might have been a reach to go that early, but damn… not the worst thing in the world to lock up a position for a decade.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
RTs aren't foundational players
You can’t build an offense around a “franchise RT”. Almost by definition, they are guys that failed at LT. Most of the time, in base formations, these guys will get help blocking from TEs. The RT position is of limited value (as are kickers) and there are plenty of them around. Both the kicker and the RT have limited utility and wide availability, but they don’t have the same utility.
You’d have to be fucking stupid to think that I was directly comparing the utility of the K and the RT.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 30, 2011 11:09 PM PST up reply actions
I can't believe you are sticking with your RT and K are equal argument.
But attempting to recenter it by saying they are “limited utility” players. (And then calling me fucking stupid for calling you out for it.)
One is on the field for every single play of his offense. The other gets kickoffs (dependent, mostly, on the other and his group doing well) and field goals and extra points (again, dependent for the most part on the other and his group doing well.)
“Most of the time, in base formations, these guys will get help blocking from TEs.”
And wouldn’t it be nice if that wasn’t the case, because the RT wouldn’t need help? And wouldn’t such a RT be a foundational player? And isn’t the entire line a foundational group?
“RTs aren’t foundational players.”
Fine. You’re right, I’m wrong.
The kicker and RT are equally unimportant and of limited utility to a team, and you should never build a team by having a foundation of a strong offensive line with bookend tackles who can hold their own.
Get your LT in the first round, and hope to fucking god that someday down the line one of your 3rd or 5th round tackle picks develop into a good RT, because it would be a waste of resource to draft one any earlier.
I’m done with this. We disagree. I suggest fixing the offensive line first. You disagree. You create strawman arguments about time of possession, and equate kicker with right tackle. That evolved into it being a wasted pick at 25, and then eventually into it being an even more wasted pick at 6.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 7:51 AM PST up reply actions
He never said they're equal, in fact he directly opposes that view in the post you're replying to
For someone complaining about strawmen, that’s a pretty blatant strawman. Either that or you didn’t read the post you’re replying to. How unambiguous can “You’d have to be fucking stupid to think that I was directly comparing the utility of the K and the RT” be?
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 31, 2011 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
Here.
“The best RT in the world isn’t worth a 6th overall pick
You don’t take kickers in the 1st and you don’t take RTs that high.”
That is where he said it. The fact that he ended the later statement with
“You’d have to be fucking stupid to think that I was directly comparing the utility of the K and the RT.”— for some reason, displeased me a little. Wonder why.
And I did read it. But thanks for the further irritation. Here, let me try and see if you get it a different way.
I’m replying to his post. Which means you must be fucking stupid if you think I didn’t read his post before replying to it.
If that doesn’t rankle you just a tad, I’d be surprised. I didn’t open up the strawman, he’s the one that earlier compared them, and then later retracted it.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
Easy there
Since he did clearly retract it, clarify an earlier hyperbole, why would you still reply to it as if it is his stated opinion?
by Thomas Beekers on Feb 5, 2011 5:48 AM PST up reply actions
And the fact that you're defending the Janikowski pick
is funny.
You seem to think that there is no position for which the relative utility is low enough and the supply high enough that a 1st-round pick shouldn’t be spent on it. I disagree.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 30, 2011 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
I'm only defending it in context to you saying that RT and K are "limited functionality positions."
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 7:52 AM PST up reply actions
Sure, why not.
If there was a guy who could boot 65 yard field goals with an 80% success rate and 75 yarders with a 50% success rate, and would put every kickoff into touchback mode…. I’d gladly draft him in the 1st round.
First overall pick if he punted too.
I don’t subscribe to the “you don’t do that because it’s not been done” camp. Was Janikowski a reach? Absolutely. But just because, as Humongous said above, “relative utility is low enough and supply is high enough” doesn’t mean he’s right…. .about either utility or supply.
While there may be a lot of average kickers and average right tackles, there may always be those who are a cut above. In the kicker’s case, it would have to be a mighty cut to be worth a 1st round pick. See Mr. Ridiculous Boot above.
In the case of RT though, the difference between an average RT and an elite one is that there isn’t a large supply of elites, and by being elite he is by definition a foundation player and of high utility.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 8:00 AM PST up reply actions
Since FGs are often break-even events at best, getting a good kicker like that might actually cost the team points.
The touchbacks would be nice, but would they make up for this? A 42-yard field goal generally costs a team about 1 point because they also end the field position battle they were winning.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 31, 2011 9:17 AM PST up reply actions
Factor in a 70 yarder and see how that works out.
Since they weren’t winning the field position battle.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
In most cases, going for it on 4th is still a higher percentage play.
Also, realistically nobody is making 65 yard field goals 80% of the time. Or 67%, which is about the point where you’d break even point-wise on a 67 yard try.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 31, 2011 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Johnny, I'm in favor of going for it on 4th always.
But NFL coaches are not, and I doubt they ever will be. Too much risk associated with going against “the book” even if the book is statistically outdated.
If you could promise them 3 points every possession in which they get to the 50 yard line, I’m guessing most coaches would take their chances with that.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
Okay, but from a fan's perspective having a bad FG kicker might actually help your team win more games.
Granted, much of the time coaches would just punt instead, but even there a 50 yard punt that travels to the 5 yard line doesn’t lose you any points at all in the grand scheme of things, whereas a FG from that range gains you about 1 point over what field position alone would grant. If you even miss that loooong FG half the time, which is a lot to ask even of a Jason Elam in Denver, you’re essentially losing half a point just by making the attempt (+1 for 3 vs 2 if made, -2 for 0 vs 2 if missed). In some situations, like the end of games, you’re better off with the points on the board but the vast majority of the time you don’t even want to put that situation in the HC’s hands.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 31, 2011 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Whoops! Messed up the math.
Giving the opponent the ball at the 50 gives them 2 points, so a FG attempt from that range would actually be worth -1.5 points if you had a 50% chance of hitting it. Generally speaking, any turnover at the line of scrimmage is going to be worth -4 points.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 31, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
I don't really disagree with you...
just throwing out the hypothetical. However, thanks for the yardage equivalence.
I’m curious about how they calculate those numbers though. I’m sure they take the total sum of all possessions from those spots. Each team being individual with individual strengths and weaknesses, and each opponent the same, you have to think there would be a large variability between the league-wide tally and individual team scoring.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
Glad you got my point.
Which was, again, that ANY position is worthy of being drafted early in the first, if that guy is elite AND if that elite is so much better than the norm that your team enjoys an extreme advantage at the position by drafting him.
Moreso my point was about a great tackle playing RT for you, but I believe it to the point that I would support it in the context of a super-amazing kicker too. Not that the guy exists (hence my make believe kicker that you are hung up on), but it would take a guy like Mr. Make Believe up above to make that differential worthy at the kicker position.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 6:09 PM PST up reply actions
Another baseball analogy that might work better...
…is shortstop vs. second base. Very rarely do teams draft a player thinking he’s going to play second. More often what’s the case is they bring in a guy to be shortstop, he can’t quite cut it there or they already have a better glove at that position, and he plays second instead. Or if he’s Craig Biggio or Dustin Ackley, he comes in playing a completely different position and he’s moved there to maximize his value. That isn’t to say that guys can’t ever be Hall of Fame quality second basemen; it’s saying that the guys with the best set of skills play short, and the guys who aren’t quite that good flip over to the other side of the bag.
As with the earlier one, the nature of analogy is that it’s not going to be exact. Left tackle → right tackle is somewhere between 1st starting pitcher → 2nd starter and shortstop → second base.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 29, 2011 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I've really appreciated your last two posts
They’ve been quite thought-provoking and considerate, and you’ve made some good points.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Jan 29, 2011 8:23 PM PST up reply actions
you're stretching a little here
one analogy for you: Alex Rodriquez. NYY converted the highest paid SS in the MLB to 3B.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
And in so doing continued to play a less talented SS for pr reasons
Before converting to 3B, ARod was considerably better at both defense and hitting than Jeter. They didn’t move Jeter because A) he lacks the arm to regularly play 3rd, and B) he was the team captain and entrenched at the position.
It’s the equivalent of the Pats signing Andre Johnson, then playing him behind Branch and Welker.
by SmartAssCoug on Jan 30, 2011 1:29 AM PST up reply actions
What?
Andre Johnson would be a starter on whatever team he goes to. Playing him behind Branch (who they pretty much picked back up off the street to temporarily fill in the void left by Moss) would be abserd. Welker onthe other hand is a slot reciever who plays a completely different type of game, which is complementary to someone like Johnson.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
Agreed
if everything were based entirely on talent merit. Talent was not why Arod was moved to 3rd and Jeter stayed at short.
Arod was a better SS than Jeter offensively and defensively. If talent were the only factor, Arod would have remained a SS and Jeter would have moved to 2B (lacking the arm to play 3B). The external factors (Jeter’s “leadership”, fan reaction, etc) drove Arod to 3B.
Look, I absolutely get what everyone is saying here.
But the NFL is quite different from baseball, and RT is WAY FUCKING DIFFERENT from kicker, as was referenced above. (That comment was ridiculously insulting to my point, by the way.)
Your point is well made, but baseball is a static thing and a bad example, as draft picks generally take 2-5 years to get to the show, if they ever make it. That time allows for LT’s to eventually slide to RT… err.. SS’s to eventually slide to 2B, so OF COURSE you draft SS’s first.
If you ONLY drafted SS and CF with every pick every year, you could probably build a better baseball team over time than you could by picking every position BUT SS, CF. (And that’s even including P in the mass grouping of all other positions… you can convert guys to pitch too.) That simply isn’t the case in football.
In the NFL, a position player who is a building block long term foundational player can and should be drafted 6th. Because he plays RT instead of LT doesn’t mean he isn’t worth the pick. Because teams don’t do it doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Teams reach for talent all the time that doesn’t work out. I just don’t get the rationale of saying, “well, I wouldn’t draft a RT there, it’s too soon” if the best player available, a guy who could be a starter for you the next 10 years, and is at a drastic position of need is sitting there, and you instead take a Vernon Golston type because, you know, he could be an elite pass rusher, he blew up the combine!
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
It's not so much the thinking of "well I wouldn't draft a RT this soon"...
…it’s that with very few exceptions RTs are guys who aren’t quite good enough to be the LT on their team. Sure, there are Willie Andersons out there. If you had a guy who you knew was an uber-talented tackle but for whatever reason he had to play on the right side, no, talent dictates that’s not a reach pick. But there’s a much larger pool of RTs than LTs because the RT pool basically includes all RTs plus all LTs, so saying that a guy is good for an RT is not in and of itself a reason to draft him with a top 10 pick.
And again, in the specific case of Andre Smith, I am just about positive he was not drafted to play right tackle. He was drafted to take over for Whitworth, who himself was going to move to RT. Then he held out, got hurt, and in the meantime Whitworth turned out to be pretty okay himself at the position.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 30, 2011 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I'm fine drafting a guy who CAN play LT and putting him at RT...
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
You're ignoring availability.
Elsewhere you called Ryan Harris part of one of the best bookends in football. Ryan Harris was drafted in the third round. You can find high quality right tackles in the second, third and later rounds. You will not find a Vernon Gholston in the midrounds.
Another example thats not position specific but is relevant to draft strategy is what the Packers did in the 2009 draft. The Packers took BJ Raji 9th in the same draft that they took Clay Matthews 26th. This would seem backwards since Matthews is very likely a much better player but considering Raji’s stock going into the draft they would not have been able to flip flop the two picks. If they had taken Clay Matthews 9th they would not have been able to get Raji at 26.
With good right ends consistently dropping into the middle rounds theres no reason to pass up other opportunities that are unlikely to be there later.
I know you can find them..
but that doesn’t mean you will. Look, I want an elite offensive line. We’ve decided we’re going “smash mouth”— you want to be successful with that, you need elite talent on the line.
I think everyone is so caught up in a LT/RT debate. I’m saying we get two LT level talents. Yes, you have to pay them more. But then you have two great tackles. Someone earlier used baseball as an analogy. I’ll use basketball. I’m 35. When I was a kid, people had a center, power forward, small forward, shooting guard and point guard.
People eventually realized, you put your best 5 players on the floor. You now see teams that go Power Forward, Point Forward, Wing, Combo Guard, Combo Guard. Or even Post, Post, Wing, Guard, Guard. Players ceased to be defined by positional terms.
I guess my argument for drafting another tackle (let’s not call it a right tackle) is similar. Yes, you may be able to get a right tackle in the 3rd round or even as a UFA. But we don’t have that cushion time, that waiting period, if we want to transition to a smashmouth team. So let’s go get a hungry ass combo tackle.
And yes, I would take that guy with the 25th pick, or the 6th pick, in the first round. And while RT is not traditionally a “building block” position because of perceived “limited functionality”— that shit needs to change. Just like “Small Forward” in the NBA. You CAN build around the right “limited functionality” position, if that player is better than his peers at the position, you will be better than the competition at that position, and then you have an advantage…
And that’s where we are all on the same side of the same argument— we want the Seahawks to have the greatest advantage against their opponents possible. I have provided a direction in which that can be leveraged and attained quickly. Others are afraid of it because it hasn’t traditionally been the case. So be it.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 31, 2011 8:12 AM PST up reply actions
Hindsight is useless for that kind of talent evaluation
Yes, if you could be 100% sure that RT would end up the best player of the draft, then you pick him. That kind of talent evaluation doesn’t exist, which is why I kinda dislike analyzing drafts primarily with hindsight.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 30, 2011 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
I see what you're saying to a point.
But only to a point. One thing I think folks like JM or, for that matter, anyone else trying to introduce detailed analysis into pro football is analyzing prior drafts to get a handle on what works and what doesn’t. In a sense, this is different from what you’re talking about; I’m saying “drafting WRs in the first 5 picks is a bad idea” is a good and testable hypothesis we can look at past drafts with while you’re saying (I think) “Wide receiver X was a bad pick with #4 and the fact that he turned into a 5-time Pro Bowler doesn’t change that”. However, it’s imperative to do the kind of analysis that I’m talking about in order to get to the analysis that you’re talking about.
Going further with this, we must always consider the idea that a pick that looked bad on draft day but which ended working out well was not a matter of luck so much as it was a matter of a team acting with more knowledge than what we had available at the time (for example, maybe that guy drafted as a WR played college as a QB and the team in question is planning on running an offense that involves lots of end-around option passes and which will be wildly successful)(yes, I realize that’s a silly analogy but you get my point, right?) or else a team using a better model than the one we’re using. One thing I see with baseball stat guys a TON, for example, is that they underestimate the talent evaluation capabilities of teams who use traditional scouting methods and as such are too quick to decry a trade that makes less than complete sense on a sabermetric basis and who are more inclined to chalk up a trade like that which works out to luck rather than different skills. There has, fortunately, been a backlash against that kind of thinking in the past 5 years or so, but it’s important to remember that everyone is capable of committing out-group bias.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 30, 2011 5:09 PM PST up reply actions
BTW, most Bengals fans are not big proponents of Palmer
a lot of us are actually kind of happy he is trying to force himself out of cincy. If you’re interested, I actually did a piece on Palmer a while back on why I don’t think he is, or ever was, an elite QB….
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2010/12/12/1872465/palmers-issue-mental-not-physical
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
Read it, looks like a lot of opinion
with no true facts to sustain it to me. Trying to blame a players problems on “Mental” issues seems to me to be an impossible thing to prove, therefore doesn’t really mean much. And if you are going to do it, you better take into consideration the effects other problems around him like poor coaching for instance have on his “mental” state. Also if you are going to place partial blame on his playing against his recent play against 3-4 defenses, why don’t you use any stats or substantial information on how he has actually performed against them? You may very well be correct but without anything thing concrete to back you up it’s all simply opinion.
You also state “most Bengal fans are not big proponents of Palmer” but even in the limited info I can get from the remarks section on your post there are plenty who disagree with you.
4 th sentence should read
“Also if you are to blame his recent failures on his inability to succeed against 3-4 defenses,…”
alright, one more comment before I stop trolling on your blog
I’ll state I didn’t have enough time to delineate his stats between 3-4 and 4-3 defenses. The point I was making is that when Palmer was in his prime and considered elite, he was playing against predominantly 4-3 defenses. Since then, half the NFL has adapted to the 3-4 defense and other more complicated schemes (even among 4-3 defenses).
While many attribute his decline over the years to injury, I attribute it to his inability to mentally adjust to complicated defenses which easily confuse him. The one argument make against this is his success against Pittsburgh and Baltimore’s 3-4 elite defenses. My counterargument is this is because he’s been playing them for 8 years and is used to them. However, when he goes up against other strong defenses, he gets destroyed.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
I'd agree
though my post was sort of a caveat on a few other posts made prior to that, which had reflected Carson’s steady decline through the years, which had shown a lot of his numbers and stats. And as I’ve mentioned many times on CJ, it was speculation on my part, though I feel after watching him for years, it can be somewhat substantiated. And I did break down a play in the article to showcase some of his typical mental breakdowns.
And yes, there are lot of advocates for Palmer, who strongly came out against my article. But, I’d say the majority of CJ bloggers are probably not on Palmer’s side, and hardly anyone still claims he is an elite QB.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
and to be honest, there aren't many who buy into my "mental" argument on Palmer
though I still subscribe to it.
Moisture is the essense of wetness, and wetness is the essense of beauty.
All is good
This probably stems from some crazy “homerism” thought process where I find myself defended another teams QB from being considered bad because he has so outperformed our own QB. If I conclude that Palmer is bad and has been bad coupled with the fact that but for 1 year he has been better than Hass, where does that leave me?
I enjoyed this on Carson Palmer.
Now that it’s been widely reported that the Titans are going to trade or release Vince Young, don’t we have to account for the possibility of him coming to Seattle?
I’m not lobbying for him, by any means, but I’m curious about it. Hint..hint… ;)
Hasseldone.
Well, they fired their head coach instead, it looks like.
Which is a damn shame but since the issue seemed to be either Fisher or Young this offseason, I doubt the Titans are going to send both of them off.
by Johnny Slick on Jan 29, 2011 1:43 AM PST up reply actions
Reports are that they are, in fact, sending both off
But who knows with crazy ol’ Bud Adams
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 29, 2011 2:45 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
