Saturday, April 08, 2006
Friday, April 07, 2006
"It begins..."
Brad Childress had his first day of minicamp. Judd Zulgad and Kevin Seifert at the Star Tribune have some interesting observations. Dontarrious Thomas and Napoleon Harris took shots at MLB. Linebacker is one of the big concerns for the Vikes going into 2006. But linebacker has been one of the big concerns for the Vikes going into ever year for the last 6 years...or 7 years...or as long as I can remember. When was the last time Ed McDaniel was playing solid football?
Yes, we care about minicamps. We care about everything.
Football in April is like non-alcoholic champagne. Obviously it shouldn't affect you...but as Barney Gumble knows, the real addict can be taken in by just about anything.
Oddly enough, though, I can't stand to watch pre-season football. I have watched many NFL practices. I have watched teams run drills (I used to live in River Falls, WI, where the Kansas City Chiefs have training camp. I am basically indifferent to the Chiefs in particular...but I frequented practice just to watch NFL practice). But I can't stand watching preseason games.
Minicamps, though...that's good stuff.
Yes, we care about minicamps. We care about everything.
Football in April is like non-alcoholic champagne. Obviously it shouldn't affect you...but as Barney Gumble knows, the real addict can be taken in by just about anything.
Oddly enough, though, I can't stand to watch pre-season football. I have watched many NFL practices. I have watched teams run drills (I used to live in River Falls, WI, where the Kansas City Chiefs have training camp. I am basically indifferent to the Chiefs in particular...but I frequented practice just to watch NFL practice). But I can't stand watching preseason games.
Minicamps, though...that's good stuff.
Beyond Metrodome
SI ranks the Metrodome as the #10 toughest NFL stadium to play in (not sure if it's good to be ranked #10 when there are only 32 teams, or if it's good to be recognized in the top 10).
It's fun for the Vikes to have home games at the Dome; it is an advantange. The problem, I think, is that the Dome has helped foster the team's pitiful outdoor record in the past few years. This is partly practical: the Vikes have been built for speed and offense to play on turf, and don't get to fully exploit what they were built for when outdoors. Part of it is psychological: the team seems to lack intensity and confidence when made to play in the cold outdoors (the exception, for some reason, is Lambeau).
The Vikes went to 4 Super Bowls playing in the old Met; since moving to the Dome, the Vikes haven't been to a Super Bowl.
I hope Zygi really gets his way and the new stadium allows the Vikings to play outdoors on grass. We know what it's like in Minnesota in December; now lets make other teams know that too.
It's fun for the Vikes to have home games at the Dome; it is an advantange. The problem, I think, is that the Dome has helped foster the team's pitiful outdoor record in the past few years. This is partly practical: the Vikes have been built for speed and offense to play on turf, and don't get to fully exploit what they were built for when outdoors. Part of it is psychological: the team seems to lack intensity and confidence when made to play in the cold outdoors (the exception, for some reason, is Lambeau).
The Vikes went to 4 Super Bowls playing in the old Met; since moving to the Dome, the Vikes haven't been to a Super Bowl.
I hope Zygi really gets his way and the new stadium allows the Vikings to play outdoors on grass. We know what it's like in Minnesota in December; now lets make other teams know that too.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Real sports stories: a nation turns its hungry eyes to you
Big news today! The NFL released its 2006 schedule. Talking heads are atwitter; there's plenty of online discussion. People are excited.
Of course, each team has known the opponents for 14 of its 16 games in 2006 for several years. The other two games were determined immediately after last season. The only thing we learned today is when those games will be played.
Let's face it; we're addicted to football, and will take any chance to discuss football we can. But this isn't news.
Last night on ESPN News, the "Breaking News" box in the corner informed us that Barry Bonds went 0 for 1. That was there "breaking news"; that was apparently the most important thing going on in sports last night. A baseball player went 0 for 1.
And finally, we have rape allegations and all sorts of other sordid things going on with the Duke Lacrosse team. How many people have watched a Lacrosse game or know much about it or care about it at all? How many of you follow college Lacrosse? The only thing I know about Lacrosse is that "you don't score until you score." I'm not even sure I know how to spell Lacrosse. I'm not saying rape allegations aren't serious business, but this story seems tangental to the sporting world. There are ramifications about gender, race, class, and privilege--but would these ramifications be terribly different if a random fraternity was going through the same allegations? I don't know.
But this is the news we get.
Of course, each team has known the opponents for 14 of its 16 games in 2006 for several years. The other two games were determined immediately after last season. The only thing we learned today is when those games will be played.
Let's face it; we're addicted to football, and will take any chance to discuss football we can. But this isn't news.
Last night on ESPN News, the "Breaking News" box in the corner informed us that Barry Bonds went 0 for 1. That was there "breaking news"; that was apparently the most important thing going on in sports last night. A baseball player went 0 for 1.
And finally, we have rape allegations and all sorts of other sordid things going on with the Duke Lacrosse team. How many people have watched a Lacrosse game or know much about it or care about it at all? How many of you follow college Lacrosse? The only thing I know about Lacrosse is that "you don't score until you score." I'm not even sure I know how to spell Lacrosse. I'm not saying rape allegations aren't serious business, but this story seems tangental to the sporting world. There are ramifications about gender, race, class, and privilege--but would these ramifications be terribly different if a random fraternity was going through the same allegations? I don't know.
But this is the news we get.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Taking Favre's name in vain
I hate Brett Favre. It is the irrational hatred shared by most Viking, Lion, and Bear fans (and probably also the Bucs of the old NFC Central. I don't know--do Niner fans hate him too?). I admit that this hatred is irrational, and that if he played in the AFC, I would either like him or be indifferent to him.
What is not irrational, I think, is my hatred of broadcasters who salivate for Favre. I simply despise the TV broadcasters who blame his interceptions on WRs, or who credit his mistakes to his "gunslinger" attitude, or who talk about how much fun he has, who basically elevate him to the status of some sort of football holy man (Theismann once said he wished everybody in America could sit down and have a conversation with Brett Favre, as if contact with this angel of purity would have a lasting impact on us mere mortals).
In the last few seasons (particularly last season, when Favre threw 29 interceptions on a 4-12 team), broadcasters have remained true to their pattern of defending everything Favre does. In the Packers' playoff loss to the Vikings at Lambeau after the '04 season, Favre threw an underhanded pass well past the line of scrimmage that might have cost his team a TD. The announcers laughed. Peter King continues to flirt with Favre through his columns, even when he seems not to be talking about Favre.
But in the last few years, more people have been willing to lay blame on Favre for his interceptions and team record. Not broadcasters, of course, but plenty of writers (especially on the internet) were able to recognize that Favre's interceptions may not show a gunslinger's attitude, but simple recklessness. Writers have been willing to admit that the fault for his picks lies with him, not his WRs, and that his wild passes actually cost the Packers some wins in 2005.
In the past few seasons, some have been willing to criticize Favre the man too, for his handling of Javon Walker's holdout and his Hamlet-like indecision regarding retirement. These things don't concern me much--"The play's the thing," of course--but it's notable that people are willing to share criticism. But through a link via PFT comes this NFL.com article by Vic Carucci. Carucci begins,
The problem with Brett Favre taking his time to divulge whether he will retire or return for one more season with the Green Bay Packers is that it has made him more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration he has been for the better part of 15 years.
Carucci shows his concern that Favre might actually be a target of criticism! Hm, an NFL Qb a target of criticism? That's unconscionable! He's been the "object of affection and admiration" for years--he simply must avoid doing anything that would make him the object of criticism!
Does Carucci think that Favre's overtime interception lob in the '03 playoffs, or his 4 INTs against the Vikings in the '04 playoffs, or his 29 INTs in 2005 are enough to make him a "target of criticism"? I do, but apparently it's only himming and hawing on retirement that can do so for the great Favre.
Carucci ends by giving Favre his advice:
Here's some additional sound advice, Brett. Let's not stretch this out too much longer. You should not be more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration.
Yes, Carucci wants Favre to be an object of affection and admiration. He doesn't want him to be a target of criticism. Note, Carucci is not saying that Favre is doing anything worthy of criticism, but that he will be the "target" of criticism that Carucci implies is unfair:
But the more days and weeks that pass without a decision from Favre, the less fairness there will be in every assessment. Perception has taken charge of this story.
Carucci just wants to preserve Favre's sterling reputation--that's the reason he's written this column.
Frankly, I don't think it's that big a deal what Favre is doing (though it may be hamstringing the Packers' plans, and there's definitely some hypocrisy after the way he criticized Walker for putting self above team). I'd rather see Favre criticized for all the crazy interceptions and erratic playoff performances. But I welcome any criticism of Favre, after years and years of listening to how perfect and wonderful and flawless he is as a man and a player.
What is not irrational, I think, is my hatred of broadcasters who salivate for Favre. I simply despise the TV broadcasters who blame his interceptions on WRs, or who credit his mistakes to his "gunslinger" attitude, or who talk about how much fun he has, who basically elevate him to the status of some sort of football holy man (Theismann once said he wished everybody in America could sit down and have a conversation with Brett Favre, as if contact with this angel of purity would have a lasting impact on us mere mortals).
In the last few seasons (particularly last season, when Favre threw 29 interceptions on a 4-12 team), broadcasters have remained true to their pattern of defending everything Favre does. In the Packers' playoff loss to the Vikings at Lambeau after the '04 season, Favre threw an underhanded pass well past the line of scrimmage that might have cost his team a TD. The announcers laughed. Peter King continues to flirt with Favre through his columns, even when he seems not to be talking about Favre.
But in the last few years, more people have been willing to lay blame on Favre for his interceptions and team record. Not broadcasters, of course, but plenty of writers (especially on the internet) were able to recognize that Favre's interceptions may not show a gunslinger's attitude, but simple recklessness. Writers have been willing to admit that the fault for his picks lies with him, not his WRs, and that his wild passes actually cost the Packers some wins in 2005.
In the past few seasons, some have been willing to criticize Favre the man too, for his handling of Javon Walker's holdout and his Hamlet-like indecision regarding retirement. These things don't concern me much--"The play's the thing," of course--but it's notable that people are willing to share criticism. But through a link via PFT comes this NFL.com article by Vic Carucci. Carucci begins,
The problem with Brett Favre taking his time to divulge whether he will retire or return for one more season with the Green Bay Packers is that it has made him more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration he has been for the better part of 15 years.
Carucci shows his concern that Favre might actually be a target of criticism! Hm, an NFL Qb a target of criticism? That's unconscionable! He's been the "object of affection and admiration" for years--he simply must avoid doing anything that would make him the object of criticism!
Does Carucci think that Favre's overtime interception lob in the '03 playoffs, or his 4 INTs against the Vikings in the '04 playoffs, or his 29 INTs in 2005 are enough to make him a "target of criticism"? I do, but apparently it's only himming and hawing on retirement that can do so for the great Favre.
Carucci ends by giving Favre his advice:
Here's some additional sound advice, Brett. Let's not stretch this out too much longer. You should not be more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration.
Yes, Carucci wants Favre to be an object of affection and admiration. He doesn't want him to be a target of criticism. Note, Carucci is not saying that Favre is doing anything worthy of criticism, but that he will be the "target" of criticism that Carucci implies is unfair:
But the more days and weeks that pass without a decision from Favre, the less fairness there will be in every assessment. Perception has taken charge of this story.
Carucci just wants to preserve Favre's sterling reputation--that's the reason he's written this column.
Frankly, I don't think it's that big a deal what Favre is doing (though it may be hamstringing the Packers' plans, and there's definitely some hypocrisy after the way he criticized Walker for putting self above team). I'd rather see Favre criticized for all the crazy interceptions and erratic playoff performances. But I welcome any criticism of Favre, after years and years of listening to how perfect and wonderful and flawless he is as a man and a player.
Monday, April 03, 2006
PV's Players that Time Forgot: Bob McAdoo and Jamaal Wilkes
(Periodically I will briefly educate the rubes on the great basketball and football players of yore that I feel are too quickly forgotten today).
Bob McAdoo
McAdoo was the only NBA MVP not elected to the NBA 50 Greatest Players list in 1996. He won three straight scoring titles in 1974, 1975, and 1976, averaging over 30 ppg each season. His MVP came in '75, when he averaged 34.5 ppg and led the league in total rebounds with 1155. In short, he was a dominant player in the mid-1970s. In the latter part of his career, he was a very positive contributor for two championship teams with the L.A. Lakers, '82 and '85.
Jamaal Wilkes
After winning two championships at UCLA, Wilkes made an immediate impact in the NBA. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 8.2 rpg for the 1975 NBA Champion Golden State Warriors, winning Rookie of the Year. He moved on to the Lakers, and was a 20 ppg scorer (in regular season and playoffs) for two Laker championship teams, '80 and '82. A proven winner, Wilkes ended up a key player for 2 NCAA champions and 3 NBA champions.
Bob McAdoo
McAdoo was the only NBA MVP not elected to the NBA 50 Greatest Players list in 1996. He won three straight scoring titles in 1974, 1975, and 1976, averaging over 30 ppg each season. His MVP came in '75, when he averaged 34.5 ppg and led the league in total rebounds with 1155. In short, he was a dominant player in the mid-1970s. In the latter part of his career, he was a very positive contributor for two championship teams with the L.A. Lakers, '82 and '85.
Jamaal Wilkes
After winning two championships at UCLA, Wilkes made an immediate impact in the NBA. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 8.2 rpg for the 1975 NBA Champion Golden State Warriors, winning Rookie of the Year. He moved on to the Lakers, and was a 20 ppg scorer (in regular season and playoffs) for two Laker championship teams, '80 and '82. A proven winner, Wilkes ended up a key player for 2 NCAA champions and 3 NBA champions.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Bruins are back where they belong.
UCLA has the consistent ability to make its opponent play like 8th graders. Little comment on the utter domination of LSU tonight. LSU was supposed to be athletic and dominant in the post, but the Bruins were by far the most athletic team on the court. They intercepted passes, contested every shot, got fast breaks, layups, dunks, and open jumpers.
I think UCLA might have an advantage in Final Four games. In today's world of college basketball, just getting to the Final Four is considered a great accomplishment for a lot of these schools and players. But as Jordan Farmar said, they only hang one type of banner in Westwood. UCLA seemed to play with greater intensity and urgency tonight.
I think UCLA might have an advantage in Final Four games. In today's world of college basketball, just getting to the Final Four is considered a great accomplishment for a lot of these schools and players. But as Jordan Farmar said, they only hang one type of banner in Westwood. UCLA seemed to play with greater intensity and urgency tonight.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Why I want Favre to retire...desperately.
I'll keep this simple: I desperately want Shitdick to retire. Here's why:
1. I don't want him to break Marino's all-time TD pass record. That record is pretty hallowed to me...if Shitdick broke it, I'd have to re-examine existence (plus, we'd have to listen to broadcasters coo about him no matter how many interceptions he throws).
2. I don't want any possibility of Favre winning another Super Bowl. I know the Packers are nowhere near contention, but I can't deal with the possibility. And if the Packers win their 13th championship before the Vikings win their 1st, I'm going to have to get a passport, buy a plane ticket to Tibet, find a Buddhist Monastery, and find somebody to explain to me why God is so evil. Whatever answer they gave me, I'd probably stay there and never watch football again. Plus, I don't want to listen to broadcasters coo about him if he does win another Super Bowl.
3. The Vikings beat the Packers the last three times they faced each other, and I want that to be my lasting memory of Shitdick. I also like the idea of him finishing up 4-12 with 29 interceptions.
4. I can't stand another season of broadcasters talking about Favre's retirement. It's not like you can avoid it by not watching Packer games--it's like Dick Vitale bringing up Duke no matter what teams he's covering; announcers find a way to work it in everywhere.
Now, it might be nice to have him come back, face more losing, embarrass himself some more (his play got really bad in the second half of the year), throw some more dreadful interceptions, and cost his team some more wins with his "gunslinger" mentality. Plus, I don't even know if he has the 24 TDs in him (that's what it will take to catch Marino's 420). But I've had enough of Shitdick to last me--I'm ready to move on. I can't put the hatred aside until he's no longer in uniform. Then I still won't be able to put the hatred aside, but it won't consume me.
1. I don't want him to break Marino's all-time TD pass record. That record is pretty hallowed to me...if Shitdick broke it, I'd have to re-examine existence (plus, we'd have to listen to broadcasters coo about him no matter how many interceptions he throws).
2. I don't want any possibility of Favre winning another Super Bowl. I know the Packers are nowhere near contention, but I can't deal with the possibility. And if the Packers win their 13th championship before the Vikings win their 1st, I'm going to have to get a passport, buy a plane ticket to Tibet, find a Buddhist Monastery, and find somebody to explain to me why God is so evil. Whatever answer they gave me, I'd probably stay there and never watch football again. Plus, I don't want to listen to broadcasters coo about him if he does win another Super Bowl.
3. The Vikings beat the Packers the last three times they faced each other, and I want that to be my lasting memory of Shitdick. I also like the idea of him finishing up 4-12 with 29 interceptions.
4. I can't stand another season of broadcasters talking about Favre's retirement. It's not like you can avoid it by not watching Packer games--it's like Dick Vitale bringing up Duke no matter what teams he's covering; announcers find a way to work it in everywhere.
Now, it might be nice to have him come back, face more losing, embarrass himself some more (his play got really bad in the second half of the year), throw some more dreadful interceptions, and cost his team some more wins with his "gunslinger" mentality. Plus, I don't even know if he has the 24 TDs in him (that's what it will take to catch Marino's 420). But I've had enough of Shitdick to last me--I'm ready to move on. I can't put the hatred aside until he's no longer in uniform. Then I still won't be able to put the hatred aside, but it won't consume me.
"Respect," shout the old men.
You know the Adam Sandler bit called "Respect," I think on his CD "They're all going to laugh at you"?
All those guys need to be around anytime UCLA is discussed.
Check out Bruins Nation for a discussion under "Coach K = Wooden?" and a link to a very good LA Times article by Chris Dufresne (an article I'm having trouble linking to).
John Wooden is "hands down" the greatest coach in the history of college basketball. "THE HANDS ARE DOWN," shouts Abe.
All those guys need to be around anytime UCLA is discussed.
Check out Bruins Nation for a discussion under "Coach K = Wooden?" and a link to a very good LA Times article by Chris Dufresne (an article I'm having trouble linking to).
John Wooden is "hands down" the greatest coach in the history of college basketball. "THE HANDS ARE DOWN," shouts Abe.
Sports Fan = Masochist
There are 32 teams in the NFL, and since only 1 team can win a championship per season, each season approximately 97% of fans will be disappointed at the end of the year.
In a single decade, if there are no repeat champions (and every decade has featured multiple repeat champions so far), a minimum of approximately 69% of fans will not see their team win a championship. You can watch football for ten years, and there is over a 2/3 chance that your favorite team won't win a title in that time.
There are 16 NFL teams that have never won a Super Bowl in their current city. So if each of these teams takes turns winning the Super Bowl, and there are no repeats, and no teams that have previously won the Super Bowl win, you could wait 16 years before seeing your favorite team win. And there are always repeats, and there are the 16 teams that have won Super Bowls competing, too.
You have a 3% chance of seeing your favorite football team win a Super Bowl in the 2006 season. Yet you will probably watch every game, celebrating victories and mourning defeats, thinking about the team during the week, attaching all sorts of emotions to your team. And in the end, there's a 97% chance they will make you unhappy.
There are plenty of Viking fans around who have been watching the team fail to win a championship for its entire 45 year history. And there are many more that will devote much of their lives to the Vikings for the next 45 years regardless of whether or not the team wins a Super Bowl in that time.
Every sports fan must hate himself/herself to put up with this.
And yet...would you have it any other way?
In a single decade, if there are no repeat champions (and every decade has featured multiple repeat champions so far), a minimum of approximately 69% of fans will not see their team win a championship. You can watch football for ten years, and there is over a 2/3 chance that your favorite team won't win a title in that time.
There are 16 NFL teams that have never won a Super Bowl in their current city. So if each of these teams takes turns winning the Super Bowl, and there are no repeats, and no teams that have previously won the Super Bowl win, you could wait 16 years before seeing your favorite team win. And there are always repeats, and there are the 16 teams that have won Super Bowls competing, too.
You have a 3% chance of seeing your favorite football team win a Super Bowl in the 2006 season. Yet you will probably watch every game, celebrating victories and mourning defeats, thinking about the team during the week, attaching all sorts of emotions to your team. And in the end, there's a 97% chance they will make you unhappy.
There are plenty of Viking fans around who have been watching the team fail to win a championship for its entire 45 year history. And there are many more that will devote much of their lives to the Vikings for the next 45 years regardless of whether or not the team wins a Super Bowl in that time.
Every sports fan must hate himself/herself to put up with this.
And yet...would you have it any other way?
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The future Viking QB
According to the Trib, Brad Childress says the Vikings will certainly be taking a QB in the draft (but since Childress talking about Culpepper still seems to be the lead story for the Vikes, you have to find that information in the middle of a lot of pointlessness about a player who isn't a Viking anymore).
Childress also suggests they won't be taking a big-name early pick, but a developmental quarterback later in the draft (though why would anybody trust anything anybody says before a draft?).
I do think the Vikes should take a QB with a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Yes, it would be exciting to trade up and get a player like Matt Leinart. But quarterback is a crapshoot. Draft a QB in the later rounds, and you never know--he just might win a Super Bowl. And if he doesn't turn out, all you've done is use a later round draft pick. But if you draft a QB in the first round, you've got maybe--maybe--a 50/50 shot of him being any good at all. If he is good, great. If he's not good, then you've just wasted a first round pick and probably set your franchise back several years trying to make it work.
With quarterback such an unpredictable position, I support trying to use later, low-risk picks to try and win the crapshoot, while using first round picks on more dependable positions (relatively speaking). Unless you think you've got a can't miss QB, use your first rounders on something else.
Just look at first round QBs: it's totally hit-or-miss. In 1999, 5 QBs went in the first round: 2 became Pro Bowlers, one was mediocre, and the other two completely sucked. In 2000, the best QB drafted was a sixth-rounder. In 2001, the Chargers missed risking an early pick on Ron Mexico, ended up with the best RB in the league, and still managed to get a Pro Bowl QB at the beginning of the second round. 2002 featured three first-round QBs, but third-rounder Josh McCown has shown as much promise as any of those three. '03, '04, and '05 are still too early to judge.
Nothing is guaranteed in the draft--no matter what player or position you draft, you could end up with a dud. But quarterback is especially risky. If you blow an early pick on a defensive lineman or a wide receiver...well, it's a blown pick, but you're basically just getting no contribution. If you blow an early pick on a quarterback, chances are he's losing you games. It's a devestating risk.
If the Vikes trade up for Leinart because they think he's a sure-thing, I'll support it. If they trade up for Vince Young, I'll be nervous (a QB like him seems like a great potential pick, not a sure-thing pick). If they trade up for Jay Cutler, I'll probably scream and throw objects in anger (while maintaining my blind hopeful optimism inside). If they draft a QB in the second or third round, it won't be terribly exciting, but I'll smile and quietly hope they've just drafted the QB that will lead the Vikings to Super Bowl glory.
Childress also suggests they won't be taking a big-name early pick, but a developmental quarterback later in the draft (though why would anybody trust anything anybody says before a draft?).
I do think the Vikes should take a QB with a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Yes, it would be exciting to trade up and get a player like Matt Leinart. But quarterback is a crapshoot. Draft a QB in the later rounds, and you never know--he just might win a Super Bowl. And if he doesn't turn out, all you've done is use a later round draft pick. But if you draft a QB in the first round, you've got maybe--maybe--a 50/50 shot of him being any good at all. If he is good, great. If he's not good, then you've just wasted a first round pick and probably set your franchise back several years trying to make it work.
With quarterback such an unpredictable position, I support trying to use later, low-risk picks to try and win the crapshoot, while using first round picks on more dependable positions (relatively speaking). Unless you think you've got a can't miss QB, use your first rounders on something else.
Just look at first round QBs: it's totally hit-or-miss. In 1999, 5 QBs went in the first round: 2 became Pro Bowlers, one was mediocre, and the other two completely sucked. In 2000, the best QB drafted was a sixth-rounder. In 2001, the Chargers missed risking an early pick on Ron Mexico, ended up with the best RB in the league, and still managed to get a Pro Bowl QB at the beginning of the second round. 2002 featured three first-round QBs, but third-rounder Josh McCown has shown as much promise as any of those three. '03, '04, and '05 are still too early to judge.
Nothing is guaranteed in the draft--no matter what player or position you draft, you could end up with a dud. But quarterback is especially risky. If you blow an early pick on a defensive lineman or a wide receiver...well, it's a blown pick, but you're basically just getting no contribution. If you blow an early pick on a quarterback, chances are he's losing you games. It's a devestating risk.
If the Vikes trade up for Leinart because they think he's a sure-thing, I'll support it. If they trade up for Vince Young, I'll be nervous (a QB like him seems like a great potential pick, not a sure-thing pick). If they trade up for Jay Cutler, I'll probably scream and throw objects in anger (while maintaining my blind hopeful optimism inside). If they draft a QB in the second or third round, it won't be terribly exciting, but I'll smile and quietly hope they've just drafted the QB that will lead the Vikings to Super Bowl glory.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
The Greatest Viking
According to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, there are 5 Vikings in the Hall "who made the major part of their primary contribution for" the Vikings: Page, Eller, Tarkenton, Yary, and Krause. There are a lot of great Vikings not in the HOF right now--Mick Tinglehoff and Jim Marshall probably should be HOFers, Cris Carter will be, Randy Moss should be, and other players such as Chuck Foreman made significant contributions to the team but aren't really HOF material. And despite never winning a title, the Vikings have a very rich history, playing in 4 Super Bowls winning 16 division titles.
So who is the greatest Viking ever?
For my money, it's Alan Page. Page was the first defensive player to win NFL MVP in 1971. He was the anchor of the Purple People Eaters. He played in all four Super Bowls. His quickness allowed him to do a lot of things that we'll never see defensive tackles do anymore. He was consistently the best defensive player on a team that more often than not relied on defense to win games.
I rank him ahead of Tarkenton because he played in all four Super Bowls, and because he was a more dominant DT than Tarkenton was a QB.
Tarkenton is wonderful. He retired the all-time leader in completions, attempts, passing yards, and passing TDs, he was the second Viking to win MVP (1975, and unless I'm mistaken, we're still waiting for the third), and his style of play was unique. But the Vikings first achieved success with Page as their best player, not Tarkenton.
Alan Page is the signature player in the Vikings' history.
And until they win a Super Bowl, I won't rank any other player ahead of him.
So who is the greatest Viking ever?
For my money, it's Alan Page. Page was the first defensive player to win NFL MVP in 1971. He was the anchor of the Purple People Eaters. He played in all four Super Bowls. His quickness allowed him to do a lot of things that we'll never see defensive tackles do anymore. He was consistently the best defensive player on a team that more often than not relied on defense to win games.
I rank him ahead of Tarkenton because he played in all four Super Bowls, and because he was a more dominant DT than Tarkenton was a QB.
Tarkenton is wonderful. He retired the all-time leader in completions, attempts, passing yards, and passing TDs, he was the second Viking to win MVP (1975, and unless I'm mistaken, we're still waiting for the third), and his style of play was unique. But the Vikings first achieved success with Page as their best player, not Tarkenton.
Alan Page is the signature player in the Vikings' history.
And until they win a Super Bowl, I won't rank any other player ahead of him.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Parity, Mediocrity, and Juggernauts
In the last few NFL seasons, we have not had what one could possibly call "parity." Particularly in 2005, as sports writers such as Dr. Z and Bill Simmons pointed out, you had a big chunk of good teams, a big chunk of bad teams, and not a lot of mediocre teams. This isn't exactly Pete Rozelle's dream of "any given Sunday" with everybody finishing around 8-8. 2005 featured the opposite of parity--you had a lot of good teams who, most weeks, faced far inferior competition and easily beat them. 2004 featured much the same thing. Instead of a bell curve, you have a dumbell curve.
And at the top, as I attempted to show below, we don't see the signs of parity. Teams that make it to the Super Bowl usually do so during the beginning, middle, or end of a successful run of contention. That is what is important, I think. It's good that the current system allows teams to rebuild quickly; the bad teams can get good again quickly. But I don't see any evidence that the Champions are diluted in today's NFL. Indeed, the 2003 Patriots went 10-0 against teams with 10+ wins. I think that team (and the '04 team) could compete with Lombardi's Packers, Noll's Steelers, or Walsh's 49ers. I don't know that they were better than those teams...but they would compete.
That said, there are some signs of parity. Looking through records at pro-football-reference.com, I struggled with the methodology I should use. I didn't want to separate eras arbitrarily to compare, because the cutoff would alter the results (for example, if I want to look at the number of teams that make the playoffs in a given era, and I decide to cut off eras at '70-'79 and '80-89, I can't deal accurately with a team that might have made the playoffs in '79 and '80 because they would each count for one playoff appearance in each era, when in actuality those appearances should be looked at together). Furthermore, since the league merger in 1970, expansion of the league and the playoff format makes using playoff appearances difficult. From '76-'77, only 29% of teams in the league made the playoffs. From '90-'94, 43% of teams in the league made the playoffs (Peter King provides a nice graph). Today, 38% of teams make the playoffs, compared to 31% at the merger.
I decided to examine a certain phenomenon in assessing the "parity" of the NFL: Isolated Playoff Appearances (IPA). An IPA occurs when a team makes the playoffs, but had not made the playoffs in the previous 2 years and does not make the playoffs in the next 2 years. I examined occurances since the merger, but can only count from 1972-2003 ('72 because it doesn't make sense to try stretch the statistics back before the merger, '03 because we can't know whether '04 or '05 playoff teams can count). I excluded the 1982 season because 16 of 28 (57%) of teams made the playoffs (even though would have only added two Isolated Playoff Appearances). I included the second-year Panthers' '96 playoff appearance, because since they didn't even exist in two years previously, it's a good example of an Isolated Playoff Appearance).
I think this is a fair measuring stick for parity. We know that teams can quickly rebuild--but truly rebuilt teams won't have an Isolated Playoff Appearance, as they'll compete for several years. But in a parity-driven league, a poor team can have one decent (or lucky) year before playing like a poor team again.
My findings show that there is a certain level of parity.
1972-1979: 2 Isolated Playoff Appearances
1980-1989: 5 Isolated Playoff Appearances
1990-1999: 13 Isolated Playoff Appearances
2000-2003: 5 Isolated Playoff Appearances
In the '70s and '80s, IPAs were uncommon. The '90s saw a boom in IPAs, and the '00s seem to be continuing that trend.
There are signs of parity, but not at the level most people talk about parity.
(note: I only see usefulness in comparing the different NFL eras--it is simply not useful to compare different sport leagues. The nature of the NFL game itself (more players, more injuries, shorter careers) means that there will be a higher level of parity than, say, basketball.)
And at the top, as I attempted to show below, we don't see the signs of parity. Teams that make it to the Super Bowl usually do so during the beginning, middle, or end of a successful run of contention. That is what is important, I think. It's good that the current system allows teams to rebuild quickly; the bad teams can get good again quickly. But I don't see any evidence that the Champions are diluted in today's NFL. Indeed, the 2003 Patriots went 10-0 against teams with 10+ wins. I think that team (and the '04 team) could compete with Lombardi's Packers, Noll's Steelers, or Walsh's 49ers. I don't know that they were better than those teams...but they would compete.
That said, there are some signs of parity. Looking through records at pro-football-reference.com, I struggled with the methodology I should use. I didn't want to separate eras arbitrarily to compare, because the cutoff would alter the results (for example, if I want to look at the number of teams that make the playoffs in a given era, and I decide to cut off eras at '70-'79 and '80-89, I can't deal accurately with a team that might have made the playoffs in '79 and '80 because they would each count for one playoff appearance in each era, when in actuality those appearances should be looked at together). Furthermore, since the league merger in 1970, expansion of the league and the playoff format makes using playoff appearances difficult. From '76-'77, only 29% of teams in the league made the playoffs. From '90-'94, 43% of teams in the league made the playoffs (Peter King provides a nice graph). Today, 38% of teams make the playoffs, compared to 31% at the merger.
I decided to examine a certain phenomenon in assessing the "parity" of the NFL: Isolated Playoff Appearances (IPA). An IPA occurs when a team makes the playoffs, but had not made the playoffs in the previous 2 years and does not make the playoffs in the next 2 years. I examined occurances since the merger, but can only count from 1972-2003 ('72 because it doesn't make sense to try stretch the statistics back before the merger, '03 because we can't know whether '04 or '05 playoff teams can count). I excluded the 1982 season because 16 of 28 (57%) of teams made the playoffs (even though would have only added two Isolated Playoff Appearances). I included the second-year Panthers' '96 playoff appearance, because since they didn't even exist in two years previously, it's a good example of an Isolated Playoff Appearance).
I think this is a fair measuring stick for parity. We know that teams can quickly rebuild--but truly rebuilt teams won't have an Isolated Playoff Appearance, as they'll compete for several years. But in a parity-driven league, a poor team can have one decent (or lucky) year before playing like a poor team again.
My findings show that there is a certain level of parity.
1972-1979: 2 Isolated Playoff Appearances
1980-1989: 5 Isolated Playoff Appearances
1990-1999: 13 Isolated Playoff Appearances
2000-2003: 5 Isolated Playoff Appearances
In the '70s and '80s, IPAs were uncommon. The '90s saw a boom in IPAs, and the '00s seem to be continuing that trend.
There are signs of parity, but not at the level most people talk about parity.
(note: I only see usefulness in comparing the different NFL eras--it is simply not useful to compare different sport leagues. The nature of the NFL game itself (more players, more injuries, shorter careers) means that there will be a higher level of parity than, say, basketball.)
The myth of NFL parity
We hear it all the time--the NFL is a league of parity. There are no juggernauts. Any team can come out of nowhere and end up in the Super Bowl. Indeed, teams like the '99 Rams, '01 Patriots, and '03 Panthers make it seem as if a bad team can suddenly make a run to championship contention overnight.
There's a great deal of myth here. Yes, in the NFL, any team has a good opportunity to compete regardless of location. Yes, free agency makes fast rebuilding projects possible.
But this isn't a parity-driven league--good teams tend to stay good for a number of years. Let's look at the last 7 Super Bowls to see.
1999 St. Louis d. Tennessee
The Rams did come out of nowhere, but it was in fact the beginning of a pretty successful run. From '99-'04, the Rams were in the playoffs 5 of 6 years, and went to another Super Bowl. Including '99, the Titans went to the playoffs 4 of 5 years through '03.
2000 Ravens d. Giants
Here's a case of potential flash-in-the-pan teams. The Ravens hadn't been to the playoffs since moving to Baltimore, and would appear in the playoffs again in '01 before rebuilding. The Giants had previously made the playoffs in '97, and would make it again in '02 before tearing it apart and rebuilding.
2001 Patriots d. Rams
The Rams are already spoken of. The Patriots seemed to come out of nowhere, but this was really just the beginning of a dynastic run. They've followed the '01 Super Bowl season with four straight winning seasons, three playoff appearances, and two more Super Bowl wins.
2002 Buccaneers d. Raiders
Before winning this Super Bowl, the Bucs were in the '97, '99, '00, and '01 playoffs, including the '99 NFC title game. Before losing this Super Bowl, the Raiders were in the playoffs in '00 and '01, including the '01 AFC title game. This matchup culminated the runs of two teams that were in contention for a while.
2003 Patriots d. Panthers
The Patriots are in the middle of their run here. The Panthers recovered very quickly from a 1-15 season in '01, but since then, it appears that John Fox has built a winning football team. The Panthers were back in the '05 NFC title game, and don't appear to be going anywhere.
2004 Patriots d. Eagles
The Patriots again. Before 2004, the Eagles were in the playoffs 4 straight years and in the NFC championship game three straight years.
2005 Steelers d. Seahawks
The Steelers had been to the playoffs in '01, '02, and '04, including hosting the AFC championship game in '01 and '04. For the Seahawks, 'o5 was their third straight playoff appearance.
This list of Super Bowl teams isn't a great deal different than any other era. Teams that are good stay good for a few years, breaking through to the Super Bowl one or more times during their runs of contention. The NFL from '99-'01 actually compares pretty well to the NFL from '80-'82. At that time, the Steelers' dynasty had pretty much wrapped up. The Cowboys were still contending under Danny White (they did lose the NFC title game all three of those years), but their run of championships was over. The Vikings were done losing Super Bowls for a while. And during this time, the Raiders became the first wild card team to win a Super Bowl, defeating the Eagles (who were in the middle of four straight playoff appearances). The Raiders won with a different coach and QB than they won with in '76--one could argue it was a different team. In '81, the 49ers made it to their first Super Bowl and won. They hadn't made the playoffs since '72--you could argue that they came out of nowhere to win the Super Bowl. Of course, we found out they were to be the dominant team of the '80s (actually, from '81 to '97 they were in the NFC title game 10 times). Then in '82 the R*dsk*ns, who hadn't been to the playoffs since '76, won the Super Bowl in a strike shortened season.
If you look at the period from '80-'82, you'd think you were watching a league of parity, where teams can come out of nowhere to win a Super Bowl. In fact, the Raiders were in the middle of winning their 2nd of 3 Super Bowls in 8 years, the 49ers won their 1st of 5 Super Bowls in the next 14 years (4 in 9), and the Redskins would be playing in 4 Super Bowls, winning 3, in a 10 year period.
That was a period of transition, just as '99-'01 was a year of transition. It was a period between the Dallas-San Francisco-Green Bay-Denver success of the '90s and the Patriots success of the 'oos.
It's still a league of juggernauts. Don't let anybody tell you differently. It's just that the NFL has a system in place to maintain competitive balance regardless of location, and the free agency system makes it easier for rebuilding teams to rebuild within a matter of a year or two. That's notable--but it's not led to a drastic change from the history of the NFL.
There's a great deal of myth here. Yes, in the NFL, any team has a good opportunity to compete regardless of location. Yes, free agency makes fast rebuilding projects possible.
But this isn't a parity-driven league--good teams tend to stay good for a number of years. Let's look at the last 7 Super Bowls to see.
1999 St. Louis d. Tennessee
The Rams did come out of nowhere, but it was in fact the beginning of a pretty successful run. From '99-'04, the Rams were in the playoffs 5 of 6 years, and went to another Super Bowl. Including '99, the Titans went to the playoffs 4 of 5 years through '03.
2000 Ravens d. Giants
Here's a case of potential flash-in-the-pan teams. The Ravens hadn't been to the playoffs since moving to Baltimore, and would appear in the playoffs again in '01 before rebuilding. The Giants had previously made the playoffs in '97, and would make it again in '02 before tearing it apart and rebuilding.
2001 Patriots d. Rams
The Rams are already spoken of. The Patriots seemed to come out of nowhere, but this was really just the beginning of a dynastic run. They've followed the '01 Super Bowl season with four straight winning seasons, three playoff appearances, and two more Super Bowl wins.
2002 Buccaneers d. Raiders
Before winning this Super Bowl, the Bucs were in the '97, '99, '00, and '01 playoffs, including the '99 NFC title game. Before losing this Super Bowl, the Raiders were in the playoffs in '00 and '01, including the '01 AFC title game. This matchup culminated the runs of two teams that were in contention for a while.
2003 Patriots d. Panthers
The Patriots are in the middle of their run here. The Panthers recovered very quickly from a 1-15 season in '01, but since then, it appears that John Fox has built a winning football team. The Panthers were back in the '05 NFC title game, and don't appear to be going anywhere.
2004 Patriots d. Eagles
The Patriots again. Before 2004, the Eagles were in the playoffs 4 straight years and in the NFC championship game three straight years.
2005 Steelers d. Seahawks
The Steelers had been to the playoffs in '01, '02, and '04, including hosting the AFC championship game in '01 and '04. For the Seahawks, 'o5 was their third straight playoff appearance.
This list of Super Bowl teams isn't a great deal different than any other era. Teams that are good stay good for a few years, breaking through to the Super Bowl one or more times during their runs of contention. The NFL from '99-'01 actually compares pretty well to the NFL from '80-'82. At that time, the Steelers' dynasty had pretty much wrapped up. The Cowboys were still contending under Danny White (they did lose the NFC title game all three of those years), but their run of championships was over. The Vikings were done losing Super Bowls for a while. And during this time, the Raiders became the first wild card team to win a Super Bowl, defeating the Eagles (who were in the middle of four straight playoff appearances). The Raiders won with a different coach and QB than they won with in '76--one could argue it was a different team. In '81, the 49ers made it to their first Super Bowl and won. They hadn't made the playoffs since '72--you could argue that they came out of nowhere to win the Super Bowl. Of course, we found out they were to be the dominant team of the '80s (actually, from '81 to '97 they were in the NFC title game 10 times). Then in '82 the R*dsk*ns, who hadn't been to the playoffs since '76, won the Super Bowl in a strike shortened season.
If you look at the period from '80-'82, you'd think you were watching a league of parity, where teams can come out of nowhere to win a Super Bowl. In fact, the Raiders were in the middle of winning their 2nd of 3 Super Bowls in 8 years, the 49ers won their 1st of 5 Super Bowls in the next 14 years (4 in 9), and the Redskins would be playing in 4 Super Bowls, winning 3, in a 10 year period.
That was a period of transition, just as '99-'01 was a year of transition. It was a period between the Dallas-San Francisco-Green Bay-Denver success of the '90s and the Patriots success of the 'oos.
It's still a league of juggernauts. Don't let anybody tell you differently. It's just that the NFL has a system in place to maintain competitive balance regardless of location, and the free agency system makes it easier for rebuilding teams to rebuild within a matter of a year or two. That's notable--but it's not led to a drastic change from the history of the NFL.
"Nobody roots for Goliath."
Everybody who doesn't root for UCLA, Florida, or LSU should be rooting for George Mason in this year's Final Four. Hell, I'm almost rooting for George Mason (almost). Quite a Final Four--the greatest program in college basketball history, two SEC football schools, and a commuter school from the Colonial Athletic Association (or some such title). If the Bruins win, it will be their 12th title; if any of the other teams win, it will be their first.
And which astounding UCLA record is more impressive? The 11 national titles? The 7 consecutive national titles? The 88 game winning streak? The 4 undefeated seasons?
And which astounding UCLA record is more impressive? The 11 national titles? The 7 consecutive national titles? The 88 game winning streak? The 4 undefeated seasons?
Monday, March 27, 2006
Workers of the world...
Two moments of note on the day.
1. It was announced that the Vikings will open the 2006 season with a Monday night game.
2. I informally agreed, or at least said I'd be willing, to teach a Monday night class next fall semester.
Only later did I understand the consequences. But when you are an adjunct professor with nothing even resembling the word "seniority," you teach any class they're willing to give you.
And the first day of class isn't exactly an opportune time to say, "Hey everbody, your prof is obsessed with the Vikings, so we're just going to leave--right now--so I can go home and watch them."
This is why I keep a VCR. I'll likely be missing the Vikes' opening game of the 2006 season. I'll likely be missing the first meaningful game of the Brad Childress era. Though it's not official yet...
But the material conditions of existence do affect the life of a fan. There's a reason that despite my obsession and proximity I don't have season tickets for the Vikings.
Speaking of material conditions, I may not have cable in September anyway. In the past, any Viking game on ESPN was simulcast on a local broadcast network. Has anybody heard whether this is remaining the same with the new TV deal? I assume so. I hope so.
1. It was announced that the Vikings will open the 2006 season with a Monday night game.
2. I informally agreed, or at least said I'd be willing, to teach a Monday night class next fall semester.
Only later did I understand the consequences. But when you are an adjunct professor with nothing even resembling the word "seniority," you teach any class they're willing to give you.
And the first day of class isn't exactly an opportune time to say, "Hey everbody, your prof is obsessed with the Vikings, so we're just going to leave--right now--so I can go home and watch them."
This is why I keep a VCR. I'll likely be missing the Vikes' opening game of the 2006 season. I'll likely be missing the first meaningful game of the Brad Childress era. Though it's not official yet...
But the material conditions of existence do affect the life of a fan. There's a reason that despite my obsession and proximity I don't have season tickets for the Vikings.
Speaking of material conditions, I may not have cable in September anyway. In the past, any Viking game on ESPN was simulcast on a local broadcast network. Has anybody heard whether this is remaining the same with the new TV deal? I assume so. I hope so.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Writing History with an Unstable Reality
UCLA is advancing to its 16th Final Four after dominating the inside game, defeating Memphis, and...
Wait a minute...no, UCLA is advancing to its 15th Final Four according to NCAA records.
But no, add it up...
What's going on here?
Well, the Bruins are actually one of the final four teams left in the NCAA tournament for the 16th time. However, according to the NCAA records, the 1980 Bruins had vacated their appearance in the Final Four.
In the realm of "reality," the Bruins will be playing in their 16th Final Four. In the world of official record, in fact in the "history" of the NCAA, the Bruins will be one of the final four teams for a 15th time.
So you tell me: are the Bruins appearing in their 15th Final Four, or 16th? Who gets to decide what is "real"?
Who gets to decide what is "truth"? Because the Bruins did appear in the Final Four in 1980...only they didn't.
In this case, there is no truth. There is no concrete reality, no stable existence. We create our history. We essentially decide what is true and real.
Wait a minute...no, UCLA is advancing to its 15th Final Four according to NCAA records.
But no, add it up...
What's going on here?
Well, the Bruins are actually one of the final four teams left in the NCAA tournament for the 16th time. However, according to the NCAA records, the 1980 Bruins had vacated their appearance in the Final Four.
In the realm of "reality," the Bruins will be playing in their 16th Final Four. In the world of official record, in fact in the "history" of the NCAA, the Bruins will be one of the final four teams for a 15th time.
So you tell me: are the Bruins appearing in their 15th Final Four, or 16th? Who gets to decide what is "real"?
Who gets to decide what is "truth"? Because the Bruins did appear in the Final Four in 1980...only they didn't.
In this case, there is no truth. There is no concrete reality, no stable existence. We create our history. We essentially decide what is true and real.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Regrettably...easing up on Colin Cowherd
All over the internet, bloggers are (rightly) indignant that Colin Cowherd, a radio host for ESPN, used material borrowed from an internet source The M Zone without citing it.
It is wrong to borrow intellectual property without citing your source. Cowherd is pretty rotten for borrowing from somebody's blog and passing it off as his own.
However, do we all need to remove the logs from our own eyes before trying to remove something from the eyes of another?
At many of the blog entries I've read chastizing Cowherd for stealing material from the internet without identifying it, a photo is included of Cowherd. At none of these blogs have I seen citation material accompanying the photo.
All over the internet, we are "borrowing" images without citing the sources. I do it (guess what? I didn't take that photo below of the cute little Shakespearians). You probably do it.
What makes copying and pasting an image without citation acceptable, but repeating written material from a blog without citation reprehensible?
(update: I just emailed Deadspin asking about this, and they have a policy/agreement to use AP photos. That's interesting to know, and I appreciate the response to my query. I don't know if that applies to the rest of us)
(update II: Please don't take this commentary to mean I don't think Cowherd is a dickhead for this, or that I don't side with all the bloggers who are angry with him. I'm just trying to raise a point)
It is wrong to borrow intellectual property without citing your source. Cowherd is pretty rotten for borrowing from somebody's blog and passing it off as his own.
However, do we all need to remove the logs from our own eyes before trying to remove something from the eyes of another?
At many of the blog entries I've read chastizing Cowherd for stealing material from the internet without identifying it, a photo is included of Cowherd. At none of these blogs have I seen citation material accompanying the photo.
All over the internet, we are "borrowing" images without citing the sources. I do it (guess what? I didn't take that photo below of the cute little Shakespearians). You probably do it.
What makes copying and pasting an image without citation acceptable, but repeating written material from a blog without citation reprehensible?
(update: I just emailed Deadspin asking about this, and they have a policy/agreement to use AP photos. That's interesting to know, and I appreciate the response to my query. I don't know if that applies to the rest of us)
(update II: Please don't take this commentary to mean I don't think Cowherd is a dickhead for this, or that I don't side with all the bloggers who are angry with him. I'm just trying to raise a point)
And Fortinbras strides in...
At the end of Hamlet, every important character is dead. Denmark is so diseased, corrupt, and rotten, that all the sickness needs to be purged with blood. And so, the sickness killed, a healthy, strong leader can come in and allow for rebirth and renewal. The catharsis of tragedy.
I think this is similar to what happens when a sports franchise decides to cut from the past and go in a new direction. At this point, Zygi Wilf has almost completely replaced the Viking management (Brezinski remains, like Horatio). The entire coaching staff has been changed (and with this new coaching staff comes a new offensive and defensive system). And in this purging, many players will stay, but many more need to be removed.
The Vikes have signed a whopping number of free agents. If they let Nate Burleson go to Seattle, they will have 5 first day draft picks. 5! The sheer number of new players that could be on the team, a team that went 9-7 last season, is staggering.
Let's look at the impact of these new players.
Steve Hutchinson, G: one of the best guards in the league, filling a clear need.
Jason Whittle, G: I don't know that he's particularly good, but again, interior blocking is a serious need.
Chester Taylor, RB: I consider him an upgrade over Michael Bennett. Seems like your floor is a solid running back, your ceiling is completely unknown.
Ryan Longwell, K: uuuuuughhh, ya need a kicker!
Ben Leber, LB: Linebacker has been a weakness for the Purple for years. I have to think there's more to be done in the draft at this position, too.
Mike McMahon, QB: Mike McMahon sucks. I don't have anything else to say about this disturbing signing.
Tank Williams, S: a 25 year old safety who has started 50+ regular season games and played in 4 playoff games replaces the likeable but aging Corey Chavous. I consider this an upgrade.
DeQuincy Scott, DL: he was signed for the veteran minimum, so he can't be that great. But defensive line depth is important, and the Vikes are implementing a new defense.
Tony Richardson, FB: a position that has rarely been used by the Vikings in the past 14 years. If you're going to essentially create a new position on your team, why not get a Pro Bowler?
And what's left? A first round pick, two second round picks, and probably two third round picks?
I think the Vikes need to consider just a few more things in the upcoming draft.
1. QB of the future. BJ turns 38 sometime next year. Mike McMahon sucks. There better be something in mind.
2. Upgrade at Linebacker. Childress says he has an in-house candidate to play MLB. I hope he's right. But this is a position that still needs work.
3. Offensive line depth and improvement. I'm excited about the offensive line for this year, as it features McKinnie, Birk, and Hutchinson. But overall, either guys like Marcus Johnson need to improve, or the Vikes need to fine a few more linemen.
And this is in addition to a team that has the following strengths.
1. A versatile, deep, young WR corp.
2. A young and potentially devestating defensive line.
3. A secondary comprised of talented, intelligent veterans.
So Fortinbras comes in to bring renewed life to Denmark. The old, corrupt, failing regime is gone (plus, Hamlet may have been fucking his ma). Let the Renaissance begin.
I think this is similar to what happens when a sports franchise decides to cut from the past and go in a new direction. At this point, Zygi Wilf has almost completely replaced the Viking management (Brezinski remains, like Horatio). The entire coaching staff has been changed (and with this new coaching staff comes a new offensive and defensive system). And in this purging, many players will stay, but many more need to be removed.
The Vikes have signed a whopping number of free agents. If they let Nate Burleson go to Seattle, they will have 5 first day draft picks. 5! The sheer number of new players that could be on the team, a team that went 9-7 last season, is staggering.
Let's look at the impact of these new players.
Steve Hutchinson, G: one of the best guards in the league, filling a clear need.
Jason Whittle, G: I don't know that he's particularly good, but again, interior blocking is a serious need.
Chester Taylor, RB: I consider him an upgrade over Michael Bennett. Seems like your floor is a solid running back, your ceiling is completely unknown.
Ryan Longwell, K: uuuuuughhh, ya need a kicker!
Ben Leber, LB: Linebacker has been a weakness for the Purple for years. I have to think there's more to be done in the draft at this position, too.
Mike McMahon, QB: Mike McMahon sucks. I don't have anything else to say about this disturbing signing.
Tank Williams, S: a 25 year old safety who has started 50+ regular season games and played in 4 playoff games replaces the likeable but aging Corey Chavous. I consider this an upgrade.
DeQuincy Scott, DL: he was signed for the veteran minimum, so he can't be that great. But defensive line depth is important, and the Vikes are implementing a new defense.
Tony Richardson, FB: a position that has rarely been used by the Vikings in the past 14 years. If you're going to essentially create a new position on your team, why not get a Pro Bowler?
And what's left? A first round pick, two second round picks, and probably two third round picks?
I think the Vikes need to consider just a few more things in the upcoming draft.
1. QB of the future. BJ turns 38 sometime next year. Mike McMahon sucks. There better be something in mind.
2. Upgrade at Linebacker. Childress says he has an in-house candidate to play MLB. I hope he's right. But this is a position that still needs work.
3. Offensive line depth and improvement. I'm excited about the offensive line for this year, as it features McKinnie, Birk, and Hutchinson. But overall, either guys like Marcus Johnson need to improve, or the Vikes need to fine a few more linemen.
And this is in addition to a team that has the following strengths.
1. A versatile, deep, young WR corp.
2. A young and potentially devestating defensive line.
3. A secondary comprised of talented, intelligent veterans.
So Fortinbras comes in to bring renewed life to Denmark. The old, corrupt, failing regime is gone (plus, Hamlet may have been fucking his ma). Let the Renaissance begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)