Once again, I’m directed back to my soapbox by the writing talents of Jemelle Hill, a periodic contributor to espn.com since she joined ESPN in 2006 and once again, Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick featured prominently in her writing and this time she threw in Brett Favre as the (very old) cherry on top.
Before I go any further, I want to throw out a small disclaimer. First of all, I never read a particular writer’s work simply to disagree with them. I’ve listened to Hill on various sports talk shows on ESPN and found her to be a person fully capable of speaking intelligently about sports. I am singling out her articles because they hit very definite nerves with me and for all I know, that might be the point. Lastly (for the disclaimer part, that is) I do believe that sexism and racism exist in the world today and they do exist in the world of sports. I also believe that legitimate claims of both racism and sexism are lost in the uproar of false claims which is nothing short of sad. I have been required to take sexual harassment classes at every job that I have worked, including especially intense classes when I became a supervisor as well as in my current job where I am a government contractor. Nothing I’m about to say should give you the impression that I am “ok” with sexual harassment. I’m not; end of story.
DONOVAN MCNABB
My first issue that I’d like to discuss is related to Hill’s article of December 28th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5963154) in which she talks about the situation that Donovan McNabb finds himself in with the Washington Redskins and my issue is very simple. Hill explains very eloquently the pickle that McNabb put himself in by signing a huge (fluffy) contract extension with the Redskins. However, when she talks about why McNabb has been supplanted as the starting quarterback of the Redskins, she never mentions race. She cites what head coach Mike Shanahan and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan said about McNabb, saying he lacked the “cardiovascular endurance” and “familiarity” to run their two-minute offense.
I only bring this up because Hill dedicated an entire article to talking about black quarterbacks in the NFL and mostly spoke about Donovan McNabb. Granted, Vince Young was mentioned as was Jason Campbell but neither of them have the track record of McNabb and he was the one that Hill focused on.
So, in a nutshell, which is it? Is Donovan McNabb struggling this year because he is playing for a new coach in a new system for a team that isn’t very good? Probably. Did he get benched, not once but twice, because he was black? I will readily admit that it is possible because I don’t know if Mike Shanahan is racist or not; I’ve never met him. However, I find it far more likely that he was benched the first time for his struggles and not his skin color.
Hill very explicitly said that she was not calling anyone out as being racist when she wrote about black quarterbacks a while ago but when it comes to the situation that McNabb is in now, she didn’t even mention that factor. I sincerely hope and believe that his situation has nothing to do with race. He’s been one of the top quarterbacks in the NFL for a decade and he’s having one of his worst seasons as a professional. Is it a coincidence that he went from a team that had a combined winning percentage of .616 (108-67-1) during his time in the NFL to one that has had a winning percentage of .455 (80-96) over that same time span?
BRETT FAVRE
Ah yes, the guy that Roger Goodell wants to see play forever… and at the same time, wants him out the door as soon as possible. There is little question in my mind that Brett Favre is a diva. He is also one of the best quarterbacks ever to pick up a football. The last few years have exemplified his “me-first” mentality and along the way, he has had three different head coaches fired in his last three seasons with three different franchises. Coincidence? Umm, if you think it is, I can get you a really good deal on a brand new…
Never mind.
Last year Favre was fantastic for the NFL at large and specifically the Minnesota Vikings who haven’t had a decent quarterback since Daunte Culpepper’s last season in 2004. Every team stacked the box against Adrian Peterson and before he knew it, Favre was facing man coverage in the secondary with linebackers and linemen intent on hitting Peterson. In short, it was the best possible situation for him to be in and he exploited it like the first ballot Hall-of-Famer he is. He had the best season of his illustrious career.
And then he had to be convinced to come back for this season (this was warning flag number one for me). Secondly, everything went right for the Vikings last year until they ran into the Saints. The odds of replicating that success were slim (warning flag number 2). Lastly, Favre was a year older and it was no secret that he and head coach Brad Childress didn’t really see eye to eye (number 3).
This season has been a train wreck for the Vikings but there is hope for the future. Rookie QB Joe Webb started against the Eagles and played a fantastic game and Brett Favre is retiring. Put those together with a solid defense and running game, and they’ll be competitive again next year (although with a healthy Packers team, the Bears, and the Lions return to respectability, it will be very hard for the Vikings to come out of this division).
Then, to add an ocean full of salt to Brett Favre’s numerous wounds, back in October the NFL began its investigation into the “sexting” allegations leveled against Favre by former Jets employee Jenn Sterger. This investigation came to a head yesterday when the NFL fined Favre $50,000 (or how much he earns for 3 minutes of game time this year) for failing to cooperate with the commissioner’s office in this investigation. This brings me back to Hill and the article she wrote for espn.com today. In a word, Hill was outraged at the insufficient punishment handed down by Commissioner Goodell and said that his credibility in matters of “player conduct” was less than before this ruling.
Here’s the problem; “The league said it couldn't determine whether the inappropriate images originated from Favre during his tenure as Jets quarterback.” That is right from Hill’s article. They couldn’t determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Favre was indeed the one harassing Sterger. Should he be punished if we’re not even sure whether or not he was the one who did it? That doesn’t seem quite right…
I have a cell phone and have had one for several years. In the state of Colorado (where I live) it is illegal to text while driving so there have been numerous occasions where I will receive a text and then hand my phone to my passenger so they can read me the text and then reply. Is it my phone? Yes. Do I pay bills for its monthly usage? Yes. When my passenger has my phone am I in control of what gets sent out? Absolutely not.
According to the NFL (and common sense) we have no way of knowing exactly who it was that sent the picture messages to Sterger unless we have a witness who is willing to come forth. Even then, would that testimony stand up in a court of law? That is dicey…
I am deadest against sexual harassment but I am even more against miscarriages of justice and to punish someone without that evidence is exactly that; a miscarriage of justice. To contrast this case with the highly publicized case of Adam “Pacman” Jones, Jones had several chances to shape up his act and failed to do so, resulting in a huge suspension without ever having been charged with a crime. As far as we know, up until this point, Favre has only been guilty of being a diva and has not been implicated in any other crimes… which brings us to yet another point. Sterger’s case shouldn’t be against Favre, it should be against her employers, the New York Jets and by extension, the NFL.
When sexual harassment cases come about in the business world, the most the harasser can face is termination of employment. If the employer fails to act appropriately, they can be held liable in civil court. In my opinion, Brett Favre was fined for two reasons; one, he wasn’t as forthcoming as Goodell thought he should have been and two, the NFL needed a scapegoat to try and avoid a lawsuit from Sterger.
I have two more points before I sign off and one of them, I will admit, is semantics. The NFL released a statement saying that Favre was being fined for "a failure to cooperate with the investigation in a forthcoming manner" and that Favre was "not candid in several respects during the investigation resulting in a longer review and additional negative public attention for Favre, Sterger and the NFL." Immediately after putting forth that quote, Hill says that this is a “very fancy way of saying that Favre lied”. Really? Where did the NFL say that he lied?
“Not being forthcoming” and “not candid” are not necessarily synonyms of “lying”. I’m not trying to get into a war of words with Hill (which she will certainly win), I’m simply trying to state that acting as if a person is innocent until proven guilty is a good thing and since the NFL has no absolute proof that Favre is guilty of these allegations, what more can they do? Make an example of him when this would be his first run-in with the league? No.
Lastly, Hill compares this duplicity to Michael Vick’s duplicity at the NFL draft several years ago when Goodell asked him if there was any truth to the rumors of his involvement in dogfighting rings. When asked, Vick said no. Goodell then tacked a short suspension onto the tail end of Vick’s prison sentence for that lie. The big difference here is simply that Goodell has no proof that Favre lied. Shortly after Vick said no to the Commissioner, he was indicted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for the crimes he lied about. NONE of that has happened yet to Favre.
You may or may not believe it but I gave Vick the benefit of the doubt when he said that he had nothing to do with it. Maybe it really was happening on one of his properties without his knowledge. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to give Favre that same benefit of the doubt.
Did Favre simply lie and then get away with it because it’s impossible to verify whether he did or not? Maybe, but until it can be proven, the word “alleged” still belongs in any sentence relating Favre to this harassment. There is nothing “alleged” about what Michael Vick did.
It would be going too far to call Brett Favre a hero of mine but I have enjoyed following his career over the past 15 years or so that I’ve been truly cognizant of the NFL. If there’s one way I can sum up those years, between players getting shot and killed in nightclubs or Vick helping to torture and murder dogs or Favre sending pictures of his endowment to female co-workers without their consent, it’s this:
The NFL’s off-the-field shenanigans are threatening the on-the-field product. I sincerely believe that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is trying and I have one message and challenge for him:
Try harder…
Showing posts with label Michael Vick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Vick. Show all posts
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Quarterback Rating Revisited
Not too long ago, several writers on espn.com starting looking at the difference between white and black quarterbacks and while they never specifically called anyone out for being racist, they came extremely close. In one of these pieces, it was brought up that one of the most common stats used to evaluate a quarterback (QB Rating, a formula that spits out a number between 0 and 158.3 to measure a quarterback’s performance) does not take into account the running ability of a quarterback.
At first, I thought this task was a little on the tall side but eventually I decided to tackle it and while my formula is simplistic, it takes into account total times touching the ball, yardage accumulated, touchdowns scored, and times turning the ball over. Different people will disagree on what they value most from a quarterback but I think that in general we can agree that yards are good (and more yards are better than fewer yards), touchdowns are good, and turnovers are bad. That is the template that I used.
THE SAMPLE
In order to qualify for the rate titles, the Stat-Geeks-That-Be have determined that quarterbacks need to have at least 14 pass attempts per team game or 224 over the course of a full season. For this analysis, only those individual seasons were looked at from 1990-2010. Granted, the 2010 season isn’t over yet but already 30 quarterbacks have thrown the ball more than 224 times and it is this season that has brought up the debate over whether or not the mystical QB Rating is the best way to measure a quarterback. Overall there were 659 such seasons from 1990-2010 with Brett Favre providing 19 of them all by himself.
While this leaves out a good number of quarterbacks that have thrown many passes over the last 21 years, this method compares apples to apples in my opinion. For the most part, backup quarterbacks do not get to throw 224 passes in a season unless the starter suffers a pretty bad injury. Therefore, this sample (for the most part) includes starting quarterbacks only; theoretically the best of the best.
THE METHOD
For this analysis, I wanted to look at as much that shows up in the box score for a quarterback as I could. The main categories that I totaled up were touches, yards, touchdowns, and turnovers.
- Touches included pass attempts, sacks, and rush attempts.
- Yards includes passing yards, rushing yards, and yardage lost on sacks
- Touchdowns included passing and rushing touchdowns
- Turnovers included interceptions and fumbles
I then took these raw numbers and calculated the following rate stats; yards per touch, yards per game, touchdown percentage, and turnover percentage. Once I had those, I compared them to the average of all the quarterbacks that qualified for that season. In other words, Tom Brady’s 2007 season wasn’t compared against Peyton Manning’s 2004 season. For instance, let’s say the average for yards per touch (YPT from now on) was 5.92 (which it was) and a certain player were to have a YPT value of 6.911 (like Tom Brady does this year).
6.911/5.92 = 1.1689
1.1689*100 = 116.89
Therefore, like OPS+ and ERA+ in baseball, I get a number where above 100 is above average and below 100 is below average. Much like quarterback rating, I capped the possible number at 200 (twice as good as league average) and then divided each of the metrics by 4. I know 4 seems like a random number but if you were twice as good as league average in all four metrics, then your MR (Murphy Rating, as I’ve decided to call it) would be an even 200 and I like nice round even numbers. Accordingly, league average is 100, just as it was before.
THE RESULTS
This year, Michael Vick has turned the corner as a quarterback. His QB Rating is 104.3, easily a career high, and his 483 rushing yards already rank 15th for quarterbacks since 1990 and with three games to go if he were to maintain his average, he would go up to 7th. Surely with this dual threat combination, he is having just as good a season as his counterparts that stand like a statue in the pocket and distribute the magic bean.
Nope, this year, Michael Vick ranks just 4th in MR, behind Aaron Rodgers (who is mobile), and two guys that will never be mistaken for track champions, Matt Cassell and Tom Brady. So why is Vick only fourth in by far his best season since being drafted with the number one overall selection? Why do running quarterbacks still not measure up? Well, there are two explanations and one of them is apparently that I am racist.
If any of you reading this know me, you’ll know that’s ridiculous. There is another explanation and it might be a possibly reason why black quarterbacks get paid a little less or why they are continually underrated.
Michael Vick has a better YPT, TD% (touchdown percentage), and yards per game (YPG from now on) than both Aaron Rodgers and Matt Cassell and a better YPT and YPG mark than Tom Brady. Why is he ranked behind them? It’s that fourth metric, the turnover percentage (TO% from now on). Vick has thrown 4 interceptions, the same number as Cassell and Brady and 6 fewer than Rodgers. However, here are their pass attempts this year:
Brady – 425
Rodgers – 410
Cassell – 354
Vick – 294
Now here’s the other part that perhaps wasn’t fully thought through by those who said that the Quarterback Rating needed to be rethought. When Michael Vick tucks the ball and heads upfield, he doesn’t always tuck the ball. I’ve seen many replays where he’s holding the ball at arm’s length as if he’s about to throw the ball well beyond the line of scrimmage. So what, am I saying he can’t hold onto the ball? Not at all, on the contrary, I’m saying it’s much easier for a defender to knock the ball loose. Despite carrying the ball 82 times for 483 yards and 7 touchdowns this year, Vick has fumbled the ball 9 times. When you take that into account, his running ability seems to be mitigated by his turnovers. Why is Aaron Rodgers ranked ahead of Vick? Mostly because Vick has turned the ball over 13 times in a total of 401 touches (rushes, sacks, and pass attempts). Aaron Rodgers has 492 such touches and only 12 turnovers. Matt Cassell is surprisingly high because he is at 395 and 6, respectively, and Brady is number one this year because he has only turned the ball over 6 times and has a total of 474 touches.
In 2006 Michael Vick set the record for rushing yards by a quarterback with 1,039 and in this sample, that season ranks only 256th (or in the 61st percentile) because he turned the ball over 22 times while providing 22 touchdowns. On top of that, his total yards per touch were very low that year, mostly because his yards per pass attempt was significantly lower (6.4) than his yards per rush attempt (8.4).
THE BEST
If you look at the quarterbacks that did well in this analysis, they do have one thing in common; they can throw the football. If you look at the top of the MR rankings, there are several quarterbacks who could run the ball but they could still throw it. In Steve Young’s best 5 seasons, he ranked 3rd, 7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th in MR and combined to rush for 2,106 yards. His lowest passer rating in those five years was 101.1.
Of the top ten seasons, the average number of passing yards was 3,781 and passing touchdowns was 32.9. By contrast, those ten averaged just 187 rushing yards, a decent total from a quarterback but hardly at the level of a “running” quarterback. Most notable when you’re looking at that top ten list is the fact that those quarterbacks combined for 356 touchdowns and just 130 turnovers.
These are the top ten seasons of the past 20 years:
Name (year)
MR (out of 200)
Touches-Yards-TD-Turnovers
Tom Brady (2007)
163.9
636-4,776-52-14
Peyton Manning (2006)
155.8
594-4,347-35-11
Steve Young (1994)
154.9
550-4,099-42-14
Peyton Manning (2004)
153.8
535-4,494-49-15
Randall Cunningham (1998)
152.8
477-3,704-35-12
Donovan McNabb (2006)
148.9
369-2,719-21-9
Steve Young (1991)
147.3
358-2,853-21-11
Kurt Warner (1999)
144.6
551-4,244-42-22
Tom Brady (2010)
143.5
474-3,276-30-6
Steve Young (1992)
141.1
507-3,850-29-16
SUMMATION
Is it coincidence that black quarterbacks have only two of those ten seasons? Yes, it is. Every action in football has a tradeoff. When you throw a pass, it’s possible that it can get intercepted. When you tuck the ball and run, it’s possible that the ball can get stripped from your hands. Considering that many quarterbacks are taught for their entire careers to avoid interceptions and perhaps aren’t taught at all to properly cradle the ball to protect it from defenders, it shouldn’t be that surprising that quarterbacks have high fumble rates and running quarterbacks have even higher fumble rates.
Of the top 12 rushing seasons by QB’s since 1990, seven of them have fumbled more than 10 times. While Daunte Culpepper rushed for 609 yards and 10 touchdowns in 2002, he also fumbled the ball 23 times.
So the real question is, who would you rather have on your team, a guy who may not make spectacular plays with his feet but turns the ball over about once a game or the guy who will make the highlight reel every Sunday night but will give the ball to the defense 25-30 times in a season?
Am I racist when I say that Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb aren’t as good as Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? Some of you may think so but I don’t think I am. Many people say that success as a quarterback is measured by how many rings you have and while Manning has one and Brady three, McNabb and Vick have combined for zero. Peyton Manning will probably break nearly ever career passing record in the books and will hold them for a very long time. Brady has an excellent shot at a fourth ring this year despite a porous defense. Donovan McNabb is finally finding out what it’s like to play on a team that isn’t studded with Pro Bowlers and Michael Vick has a good shot at a deep run in the playoffs because he is now on a balanced team.
I’m all for using more tools to evaluate quarterbacks, but to put guys like McNabb and Vick in the conversation with Manning and Brady (when considering their careers) is nothing short of ludicrous and that has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
At first, I thought this task was a little on the tall side but eventually I decided to tackle it and while my formula is simplistic, it takes into account total times touching the ball, yardage accumulated, touchdowns scored, and times turning the ball over. Different people will disagree on what they value most from a quarterback but I think that in general we can agree that yards are good (and more yards are better than fewer yards), touchdowns are good, and turnovers are bad. That is the template that I used.
THE SAMPLE
In order to qualify for the rate titles, the Stat-Geeks-That-Be have determined that quarterbacks need to have at least 14 pass attempts per team game or 224 over the course of a full season. For this analysis, only those individual seasons were looked at from 1990-2010. Granted, the 2010 season isn’t over yet but already 30 quarterbacks have thrown the ball more than 224 times and it is this season that has brought up the debate over whether or not the mystical QB Rating is the best way to measure a quarterback. Overall there were 659 such seasons from 1990-2010 with Brett Favre providing 19 of them all by himself.
While this leaves out a good number of quarterbacks that have thrown many passes over the last 21 years, this method compares apples to apples in my opinion. For the most part, backup quarterbacks do not get to throw 224 passes in a season unless the starter suffers a pretty bad injury. Therefore, this sample (for the most part) includes starting quarterbacks only; theoretically the best of the best.
THE METHOD
For this analysis, I wanted to look at as much that shows up in the box score for a quarterback as I could. The main categories that I totaled up were touches, yards, touchdowns, and turnovers.
- Touches included pass attempts, sacks, and rush attempts.
- Yards includes passing yards, rushing yards, and yardage lost on sacks
- Touchdowns included passing and rushing touchdowns
- Turnovers included interceptions and fumbles
I then took these raw numbers and calculated the following rate stats; yards per touch, yards per game, touchdown percentage, and turnover percentage. Once I had those, I compared them to the average of all the quarterbacks that qualified for that season. In other words, Tom Brady’s 2007 season wasn’t compared against Peyton Manning’s 2004 season. For instance, let’s say the average for yards per touch (YPT from now on) was 5.92 (which it was) and a certain player were to have a YPT value of 6.911 (like Tom Brady does this year).
6.911/5.92 = 1.1689
1.1689*100 = 116.89
Therefore, like OPS+ and ERA+ in baseball, I get a number where above 100 is above average and below 100 is below average. Much like quarterback rating, I capped the possible number at 200 (twice as good as league average) and then divided each of the metrics by 4. I know 4 seems like a random number but if you were twice as good as league average in all four metrics, then your MR (Murphy Rating, as I’ve decided to call it) would be an even 200 and I like nice round even numbers. Accordingly, league average is 100, just as it was before.
THE RESULTS
This year, Michael Vick has turned the corner as a quarterback. His QB Rating is 104.3, easily a career high, and his 483 rushing yards already rank 15th for quarterbacks since 1990 and with three games to go if he were to maintain his average, he would go up to 7th. Surely with this dual threat combination, he is having just as good a season as his counterparts that stand like a statue in the pocket and distribute the magic bean.
Nope, this year, Michael Vick ranks just 4th in MR, behind Aaron Rodgers (who is mobile), and two guys that will never be mistaken for track champions, Matt Cassell and Tom Brady. So why is Vick only fourth in by far his best season since being drafted with the number one overall selection? Why do running quarterbacks still not measure up? Well, there are two explanations and one of them is apparently that I am racist.
If any of you reading this know me, you’ll know that’s ridiculous. There is another explanation and it might be a possibly reason why black quarterbacks get paid a little less or why they are continually underrated.
Michael Vick has a better YPT, TD% (touchdown percentage), and yards per game (YPG from now on) than both Aaron Rodgers and Matt Cassell and a better YPT and YPG mark than Tom Brady. Why is he ranked behind them? It’s that fourth metric, the turnover percentage (TO% from now on). Vick has thrown 4 interceptions, the same number as Cassell and Brady and 6 fewer than Rodgers. However, here are their pass attempts this year:
Brady – 425
Rodgers – 410
Cassell – 354
Vick – 294
Now here’s the other part that perhaps wasn’t fully thought through by those who said that the Quarterback Rating needed to be rethought. When Michael Vick tucks the ball and heads upfield, he doesn’t always tuck the ball. I’ve seen many replays where he’s holding the ball at arm’s length as if he’s about to throw the ball well beyond the line of scrimmage. So what, am I saying he can’t hold onto the ball? Not at all, on the contrary, I’m saying it’s much easier for a defender to knock the ball loose. Despite carrying the ball 82 times for 483 yards and 7 touchdowns this year, Vick has fumbled the ball 9 times. When you take that into account, his running ability seems to be mitigated by his turnovers. Why is Aaron Rodgers ranked ahead of Vick? Mostly because Vick has turned the ball over 13 times in a total of 401 touches (rushes, sacks, and pass attempts). Aaron Rodgers has 492 such touches and only 12 turnovers. Matt Cassell is surprisingly high because he is at 395 and 6, respectively, and Brady is number one this year because he has only turned the ball over 6 times and has a total of 474 touches.
In 2006 Michael Vick set the record for rushing yards by a quarterback with 1,039 and in this sample, that season ranks only 256th (or in the 61st percentile) because he turned the ball over 22 times while providing 22 touchdowns. On top of that, his total yards per touch were very low that year, mostly because his yards per pass attempt was significantly lower (6.4) than his yards per rush attempt (8.4).
THE BEST
If you look at the quarterbacks that did well in this analysis, they do have one thing in common; they can throw the football. If you look at the top of the MR rankings, there are several quarterbacks who could run the ball but they could still throw it. In Steve Young’s best 5 seasons, he ranked 3rd, 7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th in MR and combined to rush for 2,106 yards. His lowest passer rating in those five years was 101.1.
Of the top ten seasons, the average number of passing yards was 3,781 and passing touchdowns was 32.9. By contrast, those ten averaged just 187 rushing yards, a decent total from a quarterback but hardly at the level of a “running” quarterback. Most notable when you’re looking at that top ten list is the fact that those quarterbacks combined for 356 touchdowns and just 130 turnovers.
These are the top ten seasons of the past 20 years:
Name (year)
MR (out of 200)
Touches-Yards-TD-Turnovers
Tom Brady (2007)
163.9
636-4,776-52-14
Peyton Manning (2006)
155.8
594-4,347-35-11
Steve Young (1994)
154.9
550-4,099-42-14
Peyton Manning (2004)
153.8
535-4,494-49-15
Randall Cunningham (1998)
152.8
477-3,704-35-12
Donovan McNabb (2006)
148.9
369-2,719-21-9
Steve Young (1991)
147.3
358-2,853-21-11
Kurt Warner (1999)
144.6
551-4,244-42-22
Tom Brady (2010)
143.5
474-3,276-30-6
Steve Young (1992)
141.1
507-3,850-29-16
SUMMATION
Is it coincidence that black quarterbacks have only two of those ten seasons? Yes, it is. Every action in football has a tradeoff. When you throw a pass, it’s possible that it can get intercepted. When you tuck the ball and run, it’s possible that the ball can get stripped from your hands. Considering that many quarterbacks are taught for their entire careers to avoid interceptions and perhaps aren’t taught at all to properly cradle the ball to protect it from defenders, it shouldn’t be that surprising that quarterbacks have high fumble rates and running quarterbacks have even higher fumble rates.
Of the top 12 rushing seasons by QB’s since 1990, seven of them have fumbled more than 10 times. While Daunte Culpepper rushed for 609 yards and 10 touchdowns in 2002, he also fumbled the ball 23 times.
So the real question is, who would you rather have on your team, a guy who may not make spectacular plays with his feet but turns the ball over about once a game or the guy who will make the highlight reel every Sunday night but will give the ball to the defense 25-30 times in a season?
Am I racist when I say that Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb aren’t as good as Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? Some of you may think so but I don’t think I am. Many people say that success as a quarterback is measured by how many rings you have and while Manning has one and Brady three, McNabb and Vick have combined for zero. Peyton Manning will probably break nearly ever career passing record in the books and will hold them for a very long time. Brady has an excellent shot at a fourth ring this year despite a porous defense. Donovan McNabb is finally finding out what it’s like to play on a team that isn’t studded with Pro Bowlers and Michael Vick has a good shot at a deep run in the playoffs because he is now on a balanced team.
I’m all for using more tools to evaluate quarterbacks, but to put guys like McNabb and Vick in the conversation with Manning and Brady (when considering their careers) is nothing short of ludicrous and that has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
Monday, November 29, 2010
State of Football Address - NFL Edition
Essentially, my goal for this post is to simply weigh in on a few issues that I think are important that are going on in the NFL right now. It’s week 12 and with five weeks remaining in the regular season, there are currently 21 teams within two games of first place in their division and that doesn’t even include the 6-5 Dolphins who are three games behind the Jets and Patriots. Parity is ruling supreme as seven teams are either 9-2 or 8-3 and another four teams are 7-4. I am willing to bet that home field advantage is going to play a much bigger role this postseason than it has in the past few years. Currently, four teams are undefeated at home (the Chiefs, Ravens, and Patriots are 5-0 while the Falcons are 6-0) while only the New York Jets have yet to lose on the road (5-0), although the Steelers aren’t far behind at 5-1.
So what is troubling me this season? Who the MVP will be? Nope, Phillip Rivers has a fantastic inside track at that award given that the Chargers have begun their late season push and he’s putting up phenomenal numbers. Whether or not someone will pass for 5,085 yards? Not really. Rivers and Orton are both on pace to come close but as Rivers has shown in recent weeks, winning and huge passing numbers don’t necessarily go hand in hand. History has shown time and time again that the easiest way to have success in the NFL is with a balanced offense and a strong defense. Balanced usually does not equal record breaking.
VICK
One of the two issues I want to address is Michael Vick. He has been a feel good story for some this year and for others, he is still public enemy number one. Personally, I don’t care about the things that he has done personally to rehabilitate his image and get back in the good graces of the NFL, the numerous sponsors, and most importantly, the American criminal justice system. As the owner of one of the cutest, happiest 30 pound dogs that exists on the face of this earth, I will never forgive Vick for the things that he did and the things that he stood by and watched happen. The details of his case were sickening to me and thinking about those details while my puppy stared into my eyes happily, I was nearly brought to tears.
However, I do not believe that he should be kicked out of the NFL forever. In the eyes of the law, he is back to square one (at least I think he is, I’m not sure if he’s still on probation or anything like that). He has paid his debt to society and he is doing everything he can to become a functioning part of society once again so he can regain the fortune that he lost. My biggest issue anymore is that for the disgusting animal cruelty that he allowed to happen and participated in, I believe his sentence was far too light. This is not Michael Vick’s fault. It is the fault of the lawmakers and as I read somewhere, apparently 30 different laws have been passed making the penalties for dogfighting much more severe and because of the high profile nature of this case, apparently more reports of dogfighting are being received by police. If that’s the case, then maybe there is a silver lining that isn’t stained with the blood of defenseless dogs.
There is a flip side of the coin to all of this and that is Michael Vick the player. At some point in the last several years, something clicked. In his first 6 years in the National Football League, Vick completed just 53.7% of his passes with a quarterback rating of 75.9 and a win-loss record of 38-28-1, a good record by any mark but when you take out his 2004 season that record drops to 27-24-1. Maybe he is more mature now and realizes that in the long run his legs won’t be able to sustain him in this league as long as his arm will. Whatever clicked inside his head, it has made him into the player that defensive coordinators have always feared he would become; he is now a threat to throw as well as run.
Thus far this season, he has completed 63.4% of his passes and while that doesn’t rank amongst the league’s best (12th best in the NFL), it’s a huge step for a guy who has 419 rushing yards and is averaging 6.5 yards per carry. His QB rating of 106.0 is not among the league’s best; it is the league’s best. An even better indication of his maturity as a passer this year is the fact that he has thrown 13 touchdowns and has been intercepted just 1 time.
While I have very little respect for Michael Vick the person, I have gained an immense amount of respect for Michael Vick the player.
BLACK QB’S
On November 23rd, Jemele Hill wrote a nice piece (here is the link, definitely worth a read: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hill/101123) about the role that race plays when it comes to quarterbacks in the NFL and it was a very well written, thought provoking piece. So much so that I feel the need to weigh in.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am Caucasian, or as Chuck Lorre once wrote on a vanity card, beige. I have tried very hard over the course of my life to be sensitive to issues of race while trying very hard to ignore them. It sounds like an interesting dichotomy but in the immortal words of Dr. King, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
At no point during this article does Hill imply that race had anything to do with fishy decisions to bench black quarterbacks that have all had varying degrees of success in their respective careers. I’m not saying that these benching were or were not racially motivated but I have a hard time believing they are so what I’m going to do is I’m going to put forth my opinions on them and take them with a grain of salt for the only information that I have is what is printed by the media.
#1 – Donovan McNabb
Benching McNabb in the fourth quarter of a game where the Redskins were trailing by less than a touchdown was very odd. Mike Shanahan’s explanations of the benching were even more mystifying. First he said he felt he had a better chance with Rex Grossman because of the better handle on the ‘Skin’s two minute offense (and if he had such a good handle on the two minute offense, wouldn’t he still be a starter in this league?) and then Shanahan called out McNabb’s fitness level. Yes, McNabb has to learn a new system after spending eleven years under Andy Reid and yes, it’s not the first time that his fitness has been called into question (though be careful believing whatever Terrell Owens says). It still seems odd to bench a guy that has a history of leading game-winning drives in the fourth quarter (as Hill points out).
My personal theory is that this league has become the ultimate example of “what have you done for me lately?” and Mike Shanahan took this way too far. In his career before this year, McNabb has a QB rating of 86.5 and he was coming off of a 2009 season where his rating was 92.9, the third highest of his career. So far this season with the Redskins, his rating has been 76.0, which would be the lowest of his career excluding his 216 attempt rookie season. He has posted a rating higher than 80.0 just twice this season while having four games below 70.0 and one below 60.0.
Is it possible that Shanahan is feeling a little frustrated that they brought in a guy they were hoping to be a franchise quarterback and so far, his passer rating is below the league average (83.8)? Is it possible that he is feeling so pressured to win games with “Chainsaw” Dan Snyder signing his paychecks that he’ll do anything to jumpstart his team to a victory? Absolutely. Is it possible that this decision was racially motivated? Of course it is, but while this is the one of these three benchings where that seems to be the most plausible explanation, I just don’t see it.
#2 – Jason Campbell
At first glance, this one makes very little sense. They gave up a draft pick to get Campbell and then they’ve turned to Bruce Gradkowski at a moment’s notice multiple times this year. However, this is the one that seems to me to be the least racially motivated.
Jason Campbell has been a solid starting quarterback in the NFL thus far but this year, he has been a complete Jekyll and Hyde. He’s had three games with a rating over 100.0 and he’s had two games where if he had let every pass fall incomplete, his rating would have been higher than what he actually did. His overall rating (75.8) isn’t too far off of his career mark (82.3) or at least it’s close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
However, I think that consistency is an extremely valuable asset in professional life, not just in professional sports. So which would you rather have, a quarterback that has a passer rating of 85.0 every single game or a quarterback who has a passer rating of 65.0 one game and 105.0 the next? Personally, I will always choose the former because that way, you can gameplan around him knowing that his performance will be on a fairly even keel. These have been Campbell’s passer ratings this year in games he’s played in (sorted by rating).
127.9
120.9
117.6
76.5
69.7
42.9
26.2
10.7
Three fantastic games, two below average games, one bad game, and two abysmal games. Is that what the Raiders were hoping for when they traded for him?
Which brings us to the other factor at work with Campbell; the Raiders. Last year, while JaMarcus Russell was having his worst professional season, Tom Cable started inserting Bruce Gradkowski in at quarterback and not only did he play well for a back-up (80.6 QB rating), the offense responded to him and they starting moving the ball down the field. So when Jason Campbell played horrifically against the Steelers (7-19 for 70 yards and two interceptions for a rating of 26.2) and the offense stagnated, was it completely unreasonable for Cable to think that perhaps Gradkowski could jumpstart the offense? Of course not because it had worked before.
While we’re on the subject of the Raiders, it’s also possible that Cable is open to just about anything because he’s not too worried about long term job security with Al Davis as the owner… I’m just saying. Hill also mentions that JaMarcus Russell was a black quarterback and received similar treatment from Cable and she only goes as far as saying that Russell was a “draft bust”.
His quarterback rating in his two full seasons was 66.2 and he went from 77.1 in his first full season to 50.0, a truly atrocious rating for any quarterback, and he wasn’t just any quarterback, he was a former #1 overall pick making millions of dollars. The league average for QB rating in those two years? 81.4.
#3 – Vince Young
This is by far the most intriguing because Young was not struggling as a quarterback this year. On his way to a QB rating of 98.6, he had shown flashes of brilliance with moderate struggles along the way. In other words, he was progressing as a passer, minimizing his mistakes while figuring out how to make plays. How you feel about this particular benching depends on what you think of Vince Young and what you think of Jeff Fisher. Was Vince Young playing well enough to remain the starting quarterback? Presumably, excluding the thumb injury that he suffered that eventually sidelined him for the rest of the season. Was Young mature enough to handle the starting job? That is the real question.
Hill brings up that Fisher has had contentious relationships with quarterbacks in the past and that he perhaps hasn’t shown the faith in Young for him to thrive at this level. Given the type of gameplan that Fisher puts forth, my guess is that he didn’t want a QB in Young’s mold and I don’t think race had anything to do with it. He wanted a game manager and his owner fell in love with the one of a kind playmaker and I think that is where a lot of friction originated. I really hate to say it quite this bluntly, but if that is the case I have only one message for Vince Young; grow up.
How many times has Peyton Manning’s shoulder pads ended up in the stands after being pulled from a game? I don’t think I need to answer that one. How many times has Tom Brady said, in front of teammates, that he was walking out on Bill Belichick, even though it’s no secret that one of Belichick’s trademarks is watching game film and serving out healthy portions of “humble pie” after a game, win or lose?
My point is that it seems to me that Young entered the NFL and expected to be a starting quarterback from the word go and hasn’t been able to adjust to actually having to work for the job. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that I don’t know about but maybe there isn’t. Jeff Fisher may be partially to blame but for Vince Young to accept no responsibility for his behavior would be astounding for a guy who has been in the NFL for five years.
It’s not the head coach’s job to stroke the ego of his young star. It’s his job to win games.
COMPARISONS
In her article, Hill compares these quarterbacks to one of the best QB’s of all time in Peyton Manning and I don’t find this to be a fair comparison to either Manning or any of the aforementioned quarterbacks.
Coming into this season, Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, and Jason Campbell had combined for a 138-94-1 record, 50,576 yards, 303 touchdowns, and 177 interceptions as starting quarterbacks in the NFL.
Peyton Manning, by himself, had a 131-61 record, 50,128 yards, 366 touchdowns, and 181 interceptions.
At the point of their benching (or in Manning’s case, right after his last drive and comeback killing interception against the Patriots), this is how these four quarterbacks had done.
Name
Rating
Completions-Attempts-Yards-TD-INT
Vince Young
107.6
12-16-165-0-0
Donovan McNabb
75.7
17-30-210-1-1
Jason Campbell
26.2
7-19-70-0-1
Peyton Manning
96.3
38-52-396-4-3
In other words, one quarterback wasn’t performing too well, one was performing terribly, one was potentially injured and then threw a tantrum, and the last had thrown for nearly 400 yards and four touchdowns and had brought his team to the brink of a victory after trailing 31-14. I just don’t see that comparison. Peyton Manning doesn’t get criticized as much by the media because he isn’t a controversial figure. He doesn’t take his shoulderpads off and throw them in the stands and if anything, he is more critical of the way he plays than anyone else is.
Is the NFL prejudiced against black quarterbacks? Possibly, but before you answer that, answer this. Who are the ten most polished quarterbacks in FBS football right now and how many of them are black? Not all that many, but that still isn’t where it starts. If you are a high school football coach and you have a world class black athlete who can play quarterback, is that necessarily the best use of his talent? Maybe, but if the average high school receivers can’t catch the balls he throws to them, you’re not getting the most of his physical ability. Instead, you have an average kid play quarterback and have your outstanding athlete play running back or wide receiver where he can make plays to compensate for the lack of physical ability in his teammates.
So at the age of 14 or 15, an outstanding athlete gets moved from quarterback to running back to help the team win games and it’s possible he never switches back to QB. Is that the NFL’s fault? Nope, it’s the same thing that keeps cropping up; our obsessive need to win.
So what is troubling me this season? Who the MVP will be? Nope, Phillip Rivers has a fantastic inside track at that award given that the Chargers have begun their late season push and he’s putting up phenomenal numbers. Whether or not someone will pass for 5,085 yards? Not really. Rivers and Orton are both on pace to come close but as Rivers has shown in recent weeks, winning and huge passing numbers don’t necessarily go hand in hand. History has shown time and time again that the easiest way to have success in the NFL is with a balanced offense and a strong defense. Balanced usually does not equal record breaking.
VICK
One of the two issues I want to address is Michael Vick. He has been a feel good story for some this year and for others, he is still public enemy number one. Personally, I don’t care about the things that he has done personally to rehabilitate his image and get back in the good graces of the NFL, the numerous sponsors, and most importantly, the American criminal justice system. As the owner of one of the cutest, happiest 30 pound dogs that exists on the face of this earth, I will never forgive Vick for the things that he did and the things that he stood by and watched happen. The details of his case were sickening to me and thinking about those details while my puppy stared into my eyes happily, I was nearly brought to tears.
However, I do not believe that he should be kicked out of the NFL forever. In the eyes of the law, he is back to square one (at least I think he is, I’m not sure if he’s still on probation or anything like that). He has paid his debt to society and he is doing everything he can to become a functioning part of society once again so he can regain the fortune that he lost. My biggest issue anymore is that for the disgusting animal cruelty that he allowed to happen and participated in, I believe his sentence was far too light. This is not Michael Vick’s fault. It is the fault of the lawmakers and as I read somewhere, apparently 30 different laws have been passed making the penalties for dogfighting much more severe and because of the high profile nature of this case, apparently more reports of dogfighting are being received by police. If that’s the case, then maybe there is a silver lining that isn’t stained with the blood of defenseless dogs.
There is a flip side of the coin to all of this and that is Michael Vick the player. At some point in the last several years, something clicked. In his first 6 years in the National Football League, Vick completed just 53.7% of his passes with a quarterback rating of 75.9 and a win-loss record of 38-28-1, a good record by any mark but when you take out his 2004 season that record drops to 27-24-1. Maybe he is more mature now and realizes that in the long run his legs won’t be able to sustain him in this league as long as his arm will. Whatever clicked inside his head, it has made him into the player that defensive coordinators have always feared he would become; he is now a threat to throw as well as run.
Thus far this season, he has completed 63.4% of his passes and while that doesn’t rank amongst the league’s best (12th best in the NFL), it’s a huge step for a guy who has 419 rushing yards and is averaging 6.5 yards per carry. His QB rating of 106.0 is not among the league’s best; it is the league’s best. An even better indication of his maturity as a passer this year is the fact that he has thrown 13 touchdowns and has been intercepted just 1 time.
While I have very little respect for Michael Vick the person, I have gained an immense amount of respect for Michael Vick the player.
BLACK QB’S
On November 23rd, Jemele Hill wrote a nice piece (here is the link, definitely worth a read: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hill/101123) about the role that race plays when it comes to quarterbacks in the NFL and it was a very well written, thought provoking piece. So much so that I feel the need to weigh in.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am Caucasian, or as Chuck Lorre once wrote on a vanity card, beige. I have tried very hard over the course of my life to be sensitive to issues of race while trying very hard to ignore them. It sounds like an interesting dichotomy but in the immortal words of Dr. King, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
At no point during this article does Hill imply that race had anything to do with fishy decisions to bench black quarterbacks that have all had varying degrees of success in their respective careers. I’m not saying that these benching were or were not racially motivated but I have a hard time believing they are so what I’m going to do is I’m going to put forth my opinions on them and take them with a grain of salt for the only information that I have is what is printed by the media.
#1 – Donovan McNabb
Benching McNabb in the fourth quarter of a game where the Redskins were trailing by less than a touchdown was very odd. Mike Shanahan’s explanations of the benching were even more mystifying. First he said he felt he had a better chance with Rex Grossman because of the better handle on the ‘Skin’s two minute offense (and if he had such a good handle on the two minute offense, wouldn’t he still be a starter in this league?) and then Shanahan called out McNabb’s fitness level. Yes, McNabb has to learn a new system after spending eleven years under Andy Reid and yes, it’s not the first time that his fitness has been called into question (though be careful believing whatever Terrell Owens says). It still seems odd to bench a guy that has a history of leading game-winning drives in the fourth quarter (as Hill points out).
My personal theory is that this league has become the ultimate example of “what have you done for me lately?” and Mike Shanahan took this way too far. In his career before this year, McNabb has a QB rating of 86.5 and he was coming off of a 2009 season where his rating was 92.9, the third highest of his career. So far this season with the Redskins, his rating has been 76.0, which would be the lowest of his career excluding his 216 attempt rookie season. He has posted a rating higher than 80.0 just twice this season while having four games below 70.0 and one below 60.0.
Is it possible that Shanahan is feeling a little frustrated that they brought in a guy they were hoping to be a franchise quarterback and so far, his passer rating is below the league average (83.8)? Is it possible that he is feeling so pressured to win games with “Chainsaw” Dan Snyder signing his paychecks that he’ll do anything to jumpstart his team to a victory? Absolutely. Is it possible that this decision was racially motivated? Of course it is, but while this is the one of these three benchings where that seems to be the most plausible explanation, I just don’t see it.
#2 – Jason Campbell
At first glance, this one makes very little sense. They gave up a draft pick to get Campbell and then they’ve turned to Bruce Gradkowski at a moment’s notice multiple times this year. However, this is the one that seems to me to be the least racially motivated.
Jason Campbell has been a solid starting quarterback in the NFL thus far but this year, he has been a complete Jekyll and Hyde. He’s had three games with a rating over 100.0 and he’s had two games where if he had let every pass fall incomplete, his rating would have been higher than what he actually did. His overall rating (75.8) isn’t too far off of his career mark (82.3) or at least it’s close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
However, I think that consistency is an extremely valuable asset in professional life, not just in professional sports. So which would you rather have, a quarterback that has a passer rating of 85.0 every single game or a quarterback who has a passer rating of 65.0 one game and 105.0 the next? Personally, I will always choose the former because that way, you can gameplan around him knowing that his performance will be on a fairly even keel. These have been Campbell’s passer ratings this year in games he’s played in (sorted by rating).
127.9
120.9
117.6
76.5
69.7
42.9
26.2
10.7
Three fantastic games, two below average games, one bad game, and two abysmal games. Is that what the Raiders were hoping for when they traded for him?
Which brings us to the other factor at work with Campbell; the Raiders. Last year, while JaMarcus Russell was having his worst professional season, Tom Cable started inserting Bruce Gradkowski in at quarterback and not only did he play well for a back-up (80.6 QB rating), the offense responded to him and they starting moving the ball down the field. So when Jason Campbell played horrifically against the Steelers (7-19 for 70 yards and two interceptions for a rating of 26.2) and the offense stagnated, was it completely unreasonable for Cable to think that perhaps Gradkowski could jumpstart the offense? Of course not because it had worked before.
While we’re on the subject of the Raiders, it’s also possible that Cable is open to just about anything because he’s not too worried about long term job security with Al Davis as the owner… I’m just saying. Hill also mentions that JaMarcus Russell was a black quarterback and received similar treatment from Cable and she only goes as far as saying that Russell was a “draft bust”.
His quarterback rating in his two full seasons was 66.2 and he went from 77.1 in his first full season to 50.0, a truly atrocious rating for any quarterback, and he wasn’t just any quarterback, he was a former #1 overall pick making millions of dollars. The league average for QB rating in those two years? 81.4.
#3 – Vince Young
This is by far the most intriguing because Young was not struggling as a quarterback this year. On his way to a QB rating of 98.6, he had shown flashes of brilliance with moderate struggles along the way. In other words, he was progressing as a passer, minimizing his mistakes while figuring out how to make plays. How you feel about this particular benching depends on what you think of Vince Young and what you think of Jeff Fisher. Was Vince Young playing well enough to remain the starting quarterback? Presumably, excluding the thumb injury that he suffered that eventually sidelined him for the rest of the season. Was Young mature enough to handle the starting job? That is the real question.
Hill brings up that Fisher has had contentious relationships with quarterbacks in the past and that he perhaps hasn’t shown the faith in Young for him to thrive at this level. Given the type of gameplan that Fisher puts forth, my guess is that he didn’t want a QB in Young’s mold and I don’t think race had anything to do with it. He wanted a game manager and his owner fell in love with the one of a kind playmaker and I think that is where a lot of friction originated. I really hate to say it quite this bluntly, but if that is the case I have only one message for Vince Young; grow up.
How many times has Peyton Manning’s shoulder pads ended up in the stands after being pulled from a game? I don’t think I need to answer that one. How many times has Tom Brady said, in front of teammates, that he was walking out on Bill Belichick, even though it’s no secret that one of Belichick’s trademarks is watching game film and serving out healthy portions of “humble pie” after a game, win or lose?
My point is that it seems to me that Young entered the NFL and expected to be a starting quarterback from the word go and hasn’t been able to adjust to actually having to work for the job. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that I don’t know about but maybe there isn’t. Jeff Fisher may be partially to blame but for Vince Young to accept no responsibility for his behavior would be astounding for a guy who has been in the NFL for five years.
It’s not the head coach’s job to stroke the ego of his young star. It’s his job to win games.
COMPARISONS
In her article, Hill compares these quarterbacks to one of the best QB’s of all time in Peyton Manning and I don’t find this to be a fair comparison to either Manning or any of the aforementioned quarterbacks.
Coming into this season, Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, and Jason Campbell had combined for a 138-94-1 record, 50,576 yards, 303 touchdowns, and 177 interceptions as starting quarterbacks in the NFL.
Peyton Manning, by himself, had a 131-61 record, 50,128 yards, 366 touchdowns, and 181 interceptions.
At the point of their benching (or in Manning’s case, right after his last drive and comeback killing interception against the Patriots), this is how these four quarterbacks had done.
Name
Rating
Completions-Attempts-Yards-TD-INT
Vince Young
107.6
12-16-165-0-0
Donovan McNabb
75.7
17-30-210-1-1
Jason Campbell
26.2
7-19-70-0-1
Peyton Manning
96.3
38-52-396-4-3
In other words, one quarterback wasn’t performing too well, one was performing terribly, one was potentially injured and then threw a tantrum, and the last had thrown for nearly 400 yards and four touchdowns and had brought his team to the brink of a victory after trailing 31-14. I just don’t see that comparison. Peyton Manning doesn’t get criticized as much by the media because he isn’t a controversial figure. He doesn’t take his shoulderpads off and throw them in the stands and if anything, he is more critical of the way he plays than anyone else is.
Is the NFL prejudiced against black quarterbacks? Possibly, but before you answer that, answer this. Who are the ten most polished quarterbacks in FBS football right now and how many of them are black? Not all that many, but that still isn’t where it starts. If you are a high school football coach and you have a world class black athlete who can play quarterback, is that necessarily the best use of his talent? Maybe, but if the average high school receivers can’t catch the balls he throws to them, you’re not getting the most of his physical ability. Instead, you have an average kid play quarterback and have your outstanding athlete play running back or wide receiver where he can make plays to compensate for the lack of physical ability in his teammates.
So at the age of 14 or 15, an outstanding athlete gets moved from quarterback to running back to help the team win games and it’s possible he never switches back to QB. Is that the NFL’s fault? Nope, it’s the same thing that keeps cropping up; our obsessive need to win.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Readers and Potential Commenters; BEWARE!
In case you haven’t heard by now, the New York Jets are under investigation for “things” done and said which allegedly created an uncomfortable atmosphere for a female reporter from a Mexican TV station. Shortly after, Clinton Portis was reached for comment and managed to put his foot in his mouth, much as he did when felon Michael Vick was under investigation for the truly hideous crime of dogfighting (if you really want a rant about Vick from a dog owner, just send me a note and I’ll tell you how I really feel).
I frequent espn.com and I truly love their content. The page is a little bit multimedia heavy but whatever, some of my favorite writers on the face of the planet write for that website. Whenever a story such as this breaks, involving gender issues and something that can definitely be called sexual harassment, I love to read viewpoints from all places of the spectrum and this story was no different. I read about the frat house atmosphere that the New York Jets seem to be allowing if not promoting (found here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=howard/100915). I also read about the fact that the Jets may not have been the only ones who should share blame in this fiasco (no, she didn’t ask for it, but read more here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hill/100914).
I know that I shouldn’t, but another thing that I do from time to time is I look at the comments that people write after reading an article. I know that to a certain extent I shouldn’t let these comments get to me but sometimes I do. So I’ve decided to dedicate this post to those people and I’m going to let anyone who reads this (yes, I’m talking to you) know why these comments, mostly innocent, bother me so much and if I manage to make one single person re-evaluate before posting their comment, I will consider myself victorious.
The first two paragraphs of this post are building up to a law so dramatic that we went to war over it (granted, we went to war for many other reasons but this was included). In short, it is the law that allows us to say whatever we want. Yes, that law is the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Everyone knows the basics about these far-reaching and powerful words but many people seem to think that they are more powerful than they really are. First of all, this is the text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Before I wade too deep into my point, I would like to say first and foremost that I will not be discussing freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, right to petition the government, or the freedom of religion. Yes, that eliminates everything except the freedom of speech.
So what do those words mean? In a nutshell, it means that we as citizens have the right to say whatever we want, whenever we want. Now, for the public good, people have been found legally liable for doing idiotic things like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater but for the most part, that law remains the same today as it did over two hundred years ago.
Writers on espn.com and all over the sports journalism world like to get juicy quotes and then comment on them; that’s just the nature of the beast. When a kicker is critical of one of the best quarterbacks in league history and then that quarterback, known for his unbelievable poise and class in his responses to the media, refers to the instigator as “our idiot kicker who got liquored up and ran his mouth off”, it’s news.
What often happens after episodes where professional athletes put their foot in their mouth is some combination of the team that employs them and the league that indirectly employs them comes down and slaps them on the wrist. In some cases, minority opinions needs to be heard and it is through this courage that the enormous ball that is “social change” can get rolling. That’s not what we’re talking about though. I’m talking about Clinton Portis, who on two occasions has earned the ire of his own front office and the league office by doing nothing more than voicing his opinion (first about Michael Vick and dogfighting and secondly about this most recent incident involving the Jets).
I know it’s not a great idea to take seriously the comments that follow the articles written by professional journalists but sometimes they just make my blood boil and I’m here to rant about it. The one that gets me time and time again are the comments about the articles that are written about the wrist slapping. It took me a minute to work that out so I’ll make it simpler.
Situation occurs
Third party gives good quote
Third party is reprimanded by team/league for giving quote
Article is written about reprimand
Comment is made about article
Make sense?
Ok, now back to my point. Many people that take the time to submit a comment immediately jump on the team (twice now the Redskins) that does the wrist-slapping and one ignorant person even went so far as to say that Portis should retain a lawyer and sue the Redskins for violating his right to free speech.
The reason this bothers me so much is it shows a complete ignorance in the text of the first amendment. Congress shall make no law… Congress! The first amendment says nothing about the Washington Redskins, the National Football League, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., etc. The right to free speech cannot be infringed upon or impeded by the government (be it state, local, or federal). Private companies and organizations can include all kinds of restrictions in the contracts that they have their employees sign. For instance, there might be a clause in Portis’ contract (I know I keep coming back to Portis but he is the one shining example that proves my point) that states that he will do or say nothing that would reflect badly upon the Redskins franchise.
At the point that he signed it, he is now bound by that clause and if he wants to say and do things that reflect poorly upon the Redskins, he can still do that… but he might find himself out of a job very quickly.
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS
The last rant that I will undertake before I sign off will be to all those of you who take the time to write a comment just to say that the person who wrote that piece is stupid (or something along those lines). I know that I don’t have a huge circulation and not very many people read this blog so therefore, I don’t get a lot of comments. Nevertheless, it takes a certain kind of courage to put your ideas and thoughts down on paper (electronic or newsprint). I write for the enjoyment of sharing one particular set of opinions and views of the world with anyone who will take the time to read it. Am I out to convert anyone to my chosen viewpoints? Absolutely not. I would say that my sole goal is to spark debate or further debate and if I had to guess, I would say that if you polled professional journalists around the country, they would say similar things about why they enjoy writing for complete strangers.
To go to those sites and call the writers idiots is nothing short of disrespectful and it irks me incredibly. I don’t care if you disagree with me; in fact, I enjoy it when I debate a topic with someone who disagrees with me as long as the discussion is respectful in nature. To all you who would make such comments, you are the internet equivalent of the guy standing behind home plate who stands up and yells “you suck!” when the other teams best player comes up to bat. It is an emotional response and emotional responses have no place in debate.
So the next time that somebody writes something that you vehemently disagree with, craft your comment and then ask yourself if you would want someone to say that to you after you make a point. If so, post it. If not, please reconsider.
…
To sum all this up, be informed. If you disagree with something that someone says, back your opinion up with solid reasoning. Some of the most fruitful and interesting discussions that I’ve ever had were ones where I did not have all the facts and when they were presented before me, I acknowledged my lack of information and continued the discussion/debate without an emotional outburst. In a world of grey, nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong.
And I’ll leave you today with this thought.
Always remember it is never a good idea to argue with a stupid person because someone walking by may not be able to tell the difference between the two of you.
Happy Friday everyone.
I frequent espn.com and I truly love their content. The page is a little bit multimedia heavy but whatever, some of my favorite writers on the face of the planet write for that website. Whenever a story such as this breaks, involving gender issues and something that can definitely be called sexual harassment, I love to read viewpoints from all places of the spectrum and this story was no different. I read about the frat house atmosphere that the New York Jets seem to be allowing if not promoting (found here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=howard/100915). I also read about the fact that the Jets may not have been the only ones who should share blame in this fiasco (no, she didn’t ask for it, but read more here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hill/100914).
I know that I shouldn’t, but another thing that I do from time to time is I look at the comments that people write after reading an article. I know that to a certain extent I shouldn’t let these comments get to me but sometimes I do. So I’ve decided to dedicate this post to those people and I’m going to let anyone who reads this (yes, I’m talking to you) know why these comments, mostly innocent, bother me so much and if I manage to make one single person re-evaluate before posting their comment, I will consider myself victorious.
The first two paragraphs of this post are building up to a law so dramatic that we went to war over it (granted, we went to war for many other reasons but this was included). In short, it is the law that allows us to say whatever we want. Yes, that law is the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Everyone knows the basics about these far-reaching and powerful words but many people seem to think that they are more powerful than they really are. First of all, this is the text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Before I wade too deep into my point, I would like to say first and foremost that I will not be discussing freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, right to petition the government, or the freedom of religion. Yes, that eliminates everything except the freedom of speech.
So what do those words mean? In a nutshell, it means that we as citizens have the right to say whatever we want, whenever we want. Now, for the public good, people have been found legally liable for doing idiotic things like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater but for the most part, that law remains the same today as it did over two hundred years ago.
Writers on espn.com and all over the sports journalism world like to get juicy quotes and then comment on them; that’s just the nature of the beast. When a kicker is critical of one of the best quarterbacks in league history and then that quarterback, known for his unbelievable poise and class in his responses to the media, refers to the instigator as “our idiot kicker who got liquored up and ran his mouth off”, it’s news.
What often happens after episodes where professional athletes put their foot in their mouth is some combination of the team that employs them and the league that indirectly employs them comes down and slaps them on the wrist. In some cases, minority opinions needs to be heard and it is through this courage that the enormous ball that is “social change” can get rolling. That’s not what we’re talking about though. I’m talking about Clinton Portis, who on two occasions has earned the ire of his own front office and the league office by doing nothing more than voicing his opinion (first about Michael Vick and dogfighting and secondly about this most recent incident involving the Jets).
I know it’s not a great idea to take seriously the comments that follow the articles written by professional journalists but sometimes they just make my blood boil and I’m here to rant about it. The one that gets me time and time again are the comments about the articles that are written about the wrist slapping. It took me a minute to work that out so I’ll make it simpler.
Situation occurs
Third party gives good quote
Third party is reprimanded by team/league for giving quote
Article is written about reprimand
Comment is made about article
Make sense?
Ok, now back to my point. Many people that take the time to submit a comment immediately jump on the team (twice now the Redskins) that does the wrist-slapping and one ignorant person even went so far as to say that Portis should retain a lawyer and sue the Redskins for violating his right to free speech.
The reason this bothers me so much is it shows a complete ignorance in the text of the first amendment. Congress shall make no law… Congress! The first amendment says nothing about the Washington Redskins, the National Football League, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., etc. The right to free speech cannot be infringed upon or impeded by the government (be it state, local, or federal). Private companies and organizations can include all kinds of restrictions in the contracts that they have their employees sign. For instance, there might be a clause in Portis’ contract (I know I keep coming back to Portis but he is the one shining example that proves my point) that states that he will do or say nothing that would reflect badly upon the Redskins franchise.
At the point that he signed it, he is now bound by that clause and if he wants to say and do things that reflect poorly upon the Redskins, he can still do that… but he might find himself out of a job very quickly.
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS
The last rant that I will undertake before I sign off will be to all those of you who take the time to write a comment just to say that the person who wrote that piece is stupid (or something along those lines). I know that I don’t have a huge circulation and not very many people read this blog so therefore, I don’t get a lot of comments. Nevertheless, it takes a certain kind of courage to put your ideas and thoughts down on paper (electronic or newsprint). I write for the enjoyment of sharing one particular set of opinions and views of the world with anyone who will take the time to read it. Am I out to convert anyone to my chosen viewpoints? Absolutely not. I would say that my sole goal is to spark debate or further debate and if I had to guess, I would say that if you polled professional journalists around the country, they would say similar things about why they enjoy writing for complete strangers.
To go to those sites and call the writers idiots is nothing short of disrespectful and it irks me incredibly. I don’t care if you disagree with me; in fact, I enjoy it when I debate a topic with someone who disagrees with me as long as the discussion is respectful in nature. To all you who would make such comments, you are the internet equivalent of the guy standing behind home plate who stands up and yells “you suck!” when the other teams best player comes up to bat. It is an emotional response and emotional responses have no place in debate.
So the next time that somebody writes something that you vehemently disagree with, craft your comment and then ask yourself if you would want someone to say that to you after you make a point. If so, post it. If not, please reconsider.
…
To sum all this up, be informed. If you disagree with something that someone says, back your opinion up with solid reasoning. Some of the most fruitful and interesting discussions that I’ve ever had were ones where I did not have all the facts and when they were presented before me, I acknowledged my lack of information and continued the discussion/debate without an emotional outburst. In a world of grey, nobody is 100% right and nobody is 100% wrong.
And I’ll leave you today with this thought.
Always remember it is never a good idea to argue with a stupid person because someone walking by may not be able to tell the difference between the two of you.
Happy Friday everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
