Is John Clayton A Manatee?
As you may know, I generally have made it my policy to avoid commenting on the likes of Peter King and Little Dicky Justice, Age 12. That doesn't mean, however, that I will avoid calling out mainstream media types when I think it is worth my time.
I don't generally have anything against ESPN's John Clayton. He is, after all, "a recipient of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's McCann Award for distinguished re porting" according to ESPN.com. That's quite something. That's a real award, not the kind of thing one branch of the media establishment gives to the other in some kind of back-scratching exercise. No way.
Whatever. Clayton's certainly not as annoying as King, and at the very least when you read his columns you aren't worried about how Brett Favre's prostate will survive the constant impacts with his nose, which is the feeling I get when I read King. That, and King doesn't know how to count to ten.
But I digress. Just this weekend I came across this little piece from the award-winning Mr. Clayton. I fear that someone had kidnapped the award-winning Clayton and replaced him with a retarded manatee. I wonder if the people at ESPN are aware of what's happened to the crown jewel in their NFL reporting.
After taking a couple of minute to digest it, the muse landed on my shoulder. I would show the poor people at ESPN, who apparently weren't aware that John Clayton had been switched out for a large, waterborne mammal. All I had to do was use my buddies cut&paste and google.
And that's what I done. Shall we start?
(and now, by popular demand, the jump!)
INDIANAPOLIS -- In a perfect world, NFL teams draft the best players and best athletes available. Each February, coaches, scouts and general managers assemble here to evaluate approximately 330 players. It's the perfect world. They interview the draft-eligible players and evaluate the physical skills of the ones who work out.
This is sort of like what I imagine Hugh Hefner does with potential roommates at the mansion.
Once everyone leaves Indianapolis, though, the perfect world disappears. Financial considerations enter the decision-making process, and those financial decisions will have a major impact on the 2010 draft.
Apparently the football professionals only begin to think of financial considerations after the end of the Combine. Until then, they live in a world where every team drafts first and has unlimited budgets and Hugh sends some of his extra ladies over to their offices to fan them with palm fronds. Nice world, that.
At the top of every draft, teams don't necessarily select the best athletes available. Often, teams take the players who make economic sense based on the positions they play.
This is an interesting theory. I'd like to learn more. Let's see an example. Oh wait. You're not going to provide one. Ok. Fine, then.
This year's draft will be the perfect test case for that premise. Most draft experts consider DonkeyKong Suh of Nebraska, Gerald McCoy of Oklahoma and Eric Berry of Tennessee to be the top three players. Here's the problem: Suh and McCoy are defensive tackles. Berry is a free safety.
Yes. That is a problem. It's hard to imagine a defensive tackle not being the best player in the draft. And there's no way a safety could be the best player in a draft. That's just crazy talk!
Most likely, at least a couple of teams at the top of the draft won't be able to justify paying a defensive tackle or a safety top-three money. It could lead to a quarterback (Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen) or a left tackle (Russell Okung) vaulting up the draft board. Sure, coaches and general managers draft players in relation to talent and rankings, but finances and the reality of the game do enter the discussion.
OK, maybe you were waiting until now to hit us with an example, or perhaps a quote? Or something remotely approaching evidence to back this assertion up? Let me have it, John baby!
Let's start with the St. Louis Rams. They have the No. 1 pick, and many people believe St. Louis likes Suh more than McCoy. Here's the problem: Drafting Suh No. 1 when the franchise is without a true starting quarterback doesn't make much sense, particularly if the Rams don't bring back Marc Bulger.
Oh. Never mind. I'm sure you meant to put the example in there. Your editor must have taken it out. No problem, everyone has to please the boss.
Looking at the football side of things, Suh might not make sense for the Rams anyway. Selecting the Nebraska defensive tackle would mean the Rams would have him on a defensive line with Chris Long and Adam Carriker, three first-round defensive tackles in the past four years.
I can see how having three first-round tackles on your defensive line would be a problem, especially with that nasty Three-First-Round-Defensive-Tackles-On-Your-D-Line-And-You-Have-To-Sacrifice-Your-First-Born-Child rule. Nasty rule, that. Oh, and Chris Long is a defensive end. But never mind, you're on a roll.
The problem facing the Rams is that they aren't one defensive tackle away from being competitive. They went 1-15 this past season. Adding Suh without a top quarterback might keep the Rams in double-digit loss territory.
True fact: Top quarterbacks can only be drafted in the first round. Any quarterback drafted after the first round is destined to be a failure. Take that, Tom Brady!
Dominating defensive tackles can make an impact on good teams, but they don't always change the fate of bad teams. Former Steelers coach Chuck Noll built his Steel Curtain defense around Mean Joe Greene, but that team was loaded with Hall of Famers. Defensive tackles who go to bad teams can do only so much.
As opposed to quarterbacks who go to bad teams. Those guys can really turn shit around right away, can't they? Just ask Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Andre Ware, Todd Blackledge, Rick Mirer, Todd Marinovich or Heath Shuler.
The Seahawks got a Hall of Fame career from defensive tackle Cortez Kennedy, the third pick in the 1990 draft, but Seattle had only one playoff appearance during his great career.
Maybe they should have taken a quarterback with that pick, huh? Andre Ware was available, and he even won a Heisman Trophy! He didn't go until number seven. I'm sure that would have been a better choice. Really, I am.
Glenn Dorsey, the fifth pick in the 2008 draft, didn't stop the downturn of the Kansas City Chiefs. Steve Emtman (Colts) and Dan Wilkinson (Bengals) were top picks, but they didn't turn around bad teams. The Cleveland Browns drafted Gerard Warren No. 3 in 2001, but the team struggled throughout the 2000s.
If only these teams had had the common sense to draft a quarterback instead of a defensive tackle.
That's why I predict the Rams will draft Bradford instead of Suh.
Lemme get this straight. Because you, the mentally-challenged manatee who has kidnapped John Clayton and ghost-written his column, have made some completely arbitrary and ungrounded observations about the draft, you think the St. Louis Rams will follow your (il)logic and do the same thing? Does this mean that the Rams GM is Matt Millen also a retarded manatee?
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me.
The Lions' 3-13 season in 2009 was a little more tolerable because they drafted Matthew Stafford. Quarterbacks offer more hope than defensive tackles, even if most teams rate the defensive tackle as the better choice. You win in this league with quarterbacks. [Emphasis mine.]
Let's rewind this little nugget, shall we? Quarterbacks offer more hope than defensive tackles, even if most football professionals rate the defensive tackle as the better choice. On the one hand, we have the award winning writer retarded manatee, who believes that quarterbacks offer more hope and you win with them. On the other hand we have, by the manatee's own admission, the majority of football personnel professionals, who believe that defensive tackles (at least in this draft) are a better choice. Who to believe? I dunno, I think I'll go with the football professionals myself.
As great as Albert Haynesworth is as a player, the Redskins went from a playoff contender to 4-12 last season after giving Haynesworth a $100 million contract.
I take it all back. The retarded manatee has won me over with an airtight argument. Because the Redskins went from a playoff contender last in their division to, err, last in their division after signing Fat Albert, defensive tackles are clearly a liability. Teams might as well not bother having them at all. Every example we've discussed so far in this article involves a things going horribly awry when a team has signed a defensive tackle. It really sounds like they're not worth it, amirite?
If Suh or McCoy is the top pick, either player will command a contract in the $12 million-a-year range. Teams would rather pay that for quarterbacks, left tackles or pass-rushing defensive ends who can produce sacks.
An impressive, concise, well-stated assertion, backed up with solid evidence nothing.
The economic realities also should affect Berry's chances of going in the top three. Maybe Berry can be the next Ed Reed or the next Troy Polamalu. Top safeties, though, make less than $8 million a year. If Berry goes No. 3 to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, he probably would get a five-year deal for around $50 million, approximately $10 million a year.
Finally, we're advancing something approaching a fact to support an argument. Awesome. Broken clocks and all that.
If the Bucs take him at No. 3 and he isn't the most dominating safety in league history, they might not be able to justify re-signing him. He'd ask for a raise, and it will be hard for the Bucs to justify paying him more than $10 million a year.
He'll want a raise and the Bucs won't be able to justify it because he's not that good. Interesting theory. I don't think this has ever come up before in the world of sports. How will teams handle this unique, ground-breaking situation?
If this were a perfect world, Suh, McCoy and Berry could go 1-2-3. The draft isn't perfect anymore because of economics. That's why I think the quarterbacks will move up with maybe one -- most likely Bradford -- going to the Rams.
...and journalism isn't perfect anymore because retarded manatees keep kidnapping award-winning journalists and writing horrible articles based on poor research and faulty logic. That's why I think that ESPN will launch a nationwide manhunt for John Clayton's kidnappers with maybe one suspect -- most likely Peter King -- coming from CNNSI.com.
What a great closing. After going out of his way to point out numerous flawed draft picks going back over a decade, the manatee laments that "the draft isn't perfect anymore." The reason? Economics. That's right. The draft was fine until Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes got their wicked hands on it, those bastards. And if the Rams actually take someone that their own personnel people likely acknowledge is, at best, the fourth-highest rated player in the draft with the first pick, the blame belongs not with their own front office, but with economics.
I sure hope the real John Clayton gets found soon. This manatee is killing me.
3 recs |
124 comments
|
Comments
I never knew...
John Clayton is a writer for Family Guy?? Interesting…
by grungedave on Feb 28, 2010 10:37 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
This must have been a blast to write
And with the first pick in the 2010 NFL draft, the rams select Eric berry, only to totally stick it to previous said retarded manatee
by AllenOU on Feb 28, 2010 11:47 AM CST via mobile reply actions
I always thought that Manatees are intelligent and noble creatures.

See, here they are writing for a major television network. I have proof.
A Texas Wannabe, born and raised in New Zealand. Currently located 7539 miles South west of Houston.
by distant_texans_fan on Feb 28, 2010 12:21 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Well, actually
I put that in there to see if anyone would notice.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 28, 2010 1:02 PM CST up reply actions
1 simple search to prove why the Rams shouldn't take a QB
It’s a bit outdated (doesn’t include 06-09 draft results, but that really hasn’t changed anything) The verdict hasn’t changed on underclassmen QBs.
Stupid manatee.
*cough* after the jump *cough*
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
by nolander on Feb 28, 2010 1:41 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
+1
A Texas Wannabe, born and raised in New Zealand. Currently located 7539 miles South west of Houston.
by distant_texans_fan on Feb 28, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions
+2
but the BRB writers have done a much better job at this, tGC’s current post notwithstanding.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
OK, OK
I get it. Gimme a second.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 28, 2010 11:58 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think it's that crazy to suggest
That teams would rather not pay $12 mil a year on a DT when they have huge needs elsewhere. Most teams don’t have an unlimited supply of $ even in uncapped years, so you want a player who’s taking up that ammount of change to really be a franchise caliber player… DT is a hard position to draft effectively. The last #1 DT was Dan Wilkinson who went from a can’t miss dominating DT prospect to a somewhat average NFL career. He wasn’t terrible, he had 40.5 sacks in his first 6 seasons, but only 14 in his final 7 years in the league, and never had more than 38 tackles in a single season. Far from the can’t miss dominant force he was projected to be, and in my opinion neither Suh or McCoy are anywhere near the level Wilkinson was coming into the league.
Take a look at the recent DTs taken in the top 10.
2009- BJ Raji: Decent rookie season when he played, and it’s too early to suggest he’s not worth a top 10 pick
2008- Glenn Dorsey: has had a hard time producing at any position on the line, clearly well on his way to being a bust…. Sedrick Ellis: So far has been an average tackle in the NFL at best.
2007- Amobi Akoye- also has been average at best so far
2003- Dewayen Robertson- who?… Johnathan Sullivan- no i’m not making up names…
2002- Ryan Sims- Below average tackle in the league now… John Henderson average player at best
2001- Gerard Warren- If not for the Raiders he might not even have a job in the NFL.. Richard Seymour- ok, he was worth it.
2000- Corey Simon- out of the league, had a couple decent seasons early on then crashed and burned….
So there you have it, 10 years and 11 DTs taken in the top 10 and only 1 clearly worth the pick so far… that’s not a very good success rate.
I don't agree with all your ratings
mainly because it’s hard to gauge someone who has had less than three seasons in the league. It’s also not a very good argument unless you show the other side as well (QBs).
But really, wouldn’t all this be fixed if there was a rookie salary cap in place?
by theaxeeffect4311 on Feb 28, 2010 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
True
There’s busts at every position in the top 10, but it’s not really about “bust rate” so much as the overal worth of those picks. Even the best of the DTs in the past 10 years, Richard Seymour, i’d argue if you could draft him all over again right now as a rookie and get the same player, it wouldn’t be worth $12 mil a year.
The best of the QBs in that same time period would be McNabb, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, and Matt Ryan… It would be an easier pill to swallow paying one of these players, in their early years in the case of Vick, $12 mil a year.
The best of the RBs in the top 10 during the past 10 years my best guess would be Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ronnie Brown, and Adrian Peterson…. Same is true here, it’d be easier for me to swallow paying one of these guys $12 mil
CBs… Champ Bailey, Chris McAlister, Quentin Jammer, Terence Newman, DeAngelo Hall, and Dunta Robinson… While not all ended up being pro bowlers, it’d be easier for me to pay $12 mil to the top of this group as well, especially Champ Bailey.
LBs… A smaller group but at the top you have Brian Urlacher, Lavar Arrington, and Terrell Suggs… This one ended up being the closest so far, but still for the cream of the crop i’d rather give Briant Urlacher as a rookie $12 mil ahead of Richard Seymour.
you wouldn't give
Albert Haynesworth $12M to play for the Texans in 2010?
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
I wasn't sayin there aren't any DTs worth that kind of money.
But they are few and far between, and none of those who are were picked in the top 10 in the past ten years… Really I was pointing out why i’d agree with Clayton saying teams might be wary of drafting a DT that high… I certainly would be.
a reach is only a reach
to ESPN’s commentators.
I doubt anyone in the FO cares what on air personalities say about their picks.
So they pick the best guy available on their board, not Kiper’s.
If they rate a DT that high, they pick him, if not, they don’t.
You gave a stat that 11 DTs were picked in the top 10 in 10 years. Thats 11% of the picks available. Then you say only one DT worth a top 10 pick. 1/11 in 10 years? Thats a small sample size.
I would argue that all top 10 picks are crapshoots, and DT is one of many positions that may not work out statistically, so the point is somewhat moot.
I hope, however, that the other 31 GMs read your comment, and steer clear of DTs for picks 1-19. That would be awesome.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
The problem is
You pick a DT at #1 and you’re paying him like $4-5 mil more per season than an established an franchised DT…
I agree that all positions have their share of busts, but when it’s a position that’s traditionally underpaid like DT, busts hurt alot more than other positions where their salaries would at least be less retarded compared to their veteran counterparts around the league…
You pick a DT at #1 and you’re paying him like $4-5 mil more per season than an established an franchised DT…
This is a problem at all positions with the draft but I agree that it is only made worse in the case of someone like a DT.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
And just for the lovers of fat men
OL… Chris Samuels, Bryant McKinnie, Levi Jones, D’Brickashaw Ferguson (he doesn’t get enough lovin), Joe Thomas, and Jake Long…. and i’m sure i’m leaving someone out that someone thinks should be on the list… but I have my limits of fat guys per list and apparantly it’s 6….
Anyways, I think it’s safe to say i’d rather pay $12 mil for another Chris Samuels than for a Richard Seymour. It’s not that I don’t like DTs, really I do, it’s just that it seems to be very difficult to really judge DT prospects untill they actually get into the league so giving them guarunteed money is kind of wastefull… and even when they do play well they’d have to be absolutely dominating to be worth that kind of money at their position.
It would honestly work out great
If the Rams took a Suh or McCoy and negotiate their salaries down from $12 mil a season to a more reasonable number for their position. However, some greedy agent would prevent that from happening.
While it makes more sense to draft a cornerstone position, the Rams should avoid Bradford and Clausen. Not only are they underclassmen QBs, but this reminds me of Alex Smith in 2005. Just because you need a QB doesn’t mean you should reach for one. Take the best talent available and move on.
You kind of skipped over the whole rookie pay scale thing...
And you should watch the names you’re throwing out there. McNabb was drafted in 1999 and was actually the second QB taken. The first QB taken, Tim Couch, is probably sitting on his couch. You added a lot of guys from the 1999 draft even though you started your comparison for DTs in 2000. Granted, there are no DTs taken in the top 10 in 1999 but you said last ten years. So to be fair, Champ Bailey, Edgerrin James, and Chris McAlister cannot be used in this comparison. Also, I’m surprised you skipped LT in the best of RBs. I would definitely say he’s better than those guys except for AP maybe. And I like how you left Kevin Williams out. If you don’t think he’s been successful, then I don’t know what you expect from a DT.
But again, I don’t agree with your ratings.
by theaxeeffect4311 on Feb 28, 2010 11:06 PM CST up reply actions
I did mention
That there are busts at all positions and thought I made it clear that I was only listing the top players from those positions and comparing them to the top DTs taken in the top 10 to avoid the “which position has the worst busts” argument, which is pretty much all relative.
Yes I started at the ‘99 draft, I did so for the DTs as well there just weren’t any listed because there were none drafted in the top 10 that year. I guess that’s actually 11 seasons, but math never was my strong suite, I was going 99-09 rather than 00-09, which would have actually been 10 years. Just as well though, considering it’s near impossible to judge success or failure from prospects’ rookie seasons alone.
I left Kevin Williams out partly from clerical error, he was listed as a DE on the draftboards of the site I was looking at so skimmed over him without noticing. I meant to include LT but excluded him by accident, in fairness though there was a boatload of RBs to type out, he just got lost in the shuffle.
I don’t know what you want me to say about the rookie payscale thing… Do I think there should be one? Doesn’t just about everyone but the NFLPA? It doesn’t exist though and untill it does or at least becomes more likely to happen, I don’t know what there is to say about it. Am I for it? Sure, but what difference does that make?
The NBA doesn't beat the NFL out in much
but in payscales it totally destroys the NFL. Proven vets get more, rookie contracts don’t cripple franchises, hometown teams have the advantage to offer a player more….etc etc etc
You're preaching to the choir
And it’s wierd to me that they haven’t been able to get it done… Owners certainly would welcome a rookie pay scale, and i’d have thought most NFL veterans would approve of a rookie pay scale, but the NFLPA has shot it down everytime it’s come up so far… I think probably the owners want to pocket the savings while the NFLPA will only agree to it if there are concessions in place forcing the owners to pay the same amt in salary they are now, and appreciating over time, just spread out more to veterans than unproven rookies.
What difference does it make that you don't like DTs
none. But as fans, we’re entitled to our opinions. I just wanted to know how you felt because it seems like you just want to complain about the problem, but not talk about possible solutions. It’s stupid that just because a team has the first overall pick and they don’t have a franchise QB that they have to take a QB. A team should have the potential to grab whatever player they want. When you look at Suh, do you think he can be a dominant player? Do you think he has more potential to succeed than Bradford/Clausen? Honestly, I hope the Rams take a QB. That way it will be clear that the best overall player was not taken first overall. Then we can see down the line whether or not that Suh was the right or wrong choice.
Like TexansDC mentions with the NBA rookie contracts, having the first overall pick actually means something good could come from it.
And I think a rookie salary cap is going to be a part of the new CBA.
by theaxeeffect4311 on Mar 1, 2010 12:11 AM CST up reply actions
I haven't discussed a solution
Because the only people who can create a solution are unwilling to do so, so what’s the point? I believe it’s more productive to plan around the roadblocks in life rather than daydream about everything miraculously being resolve to where there are no more snags and hangups…
There isn’t a rookie payscale in the NFL, and unless the NFLPA and NFL owners both have a complete change of heart and decide to work with eachother on the issue, it’ll likely never happen. Saying “it sure would be nice to have a rookie payscale” is kind of like saying “I sure wish my boss wasn’t such a jackass”. You can talk about it, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is a jackass, the best you can do is plan around it. Just as teams need to understand that they are going to pay through the nose for high round rookies and that makes busts at low paid positions a total nightmare and will make negotiations with other players on your team in similar positions more difficult because you let the “my backup is making $10 mil more than me per season” complaint grow legs, sooner than later you’re left with the $12 mil scrub and a bunch of players under him just happy to have a job somewhere.
That has the potential to happen at any position, but it’s more glaringly painfull at lower paid positions.
Honestly I see both as being solid DTs, but i’m not sure either will be dominant. When Wilkinson came out, there was no doubt that he was going to be a monster and could go down as the best DT in the history of the game… I don’t feel the same towards either of these DTs, I expect both will have decent careers, but neither will be a game changer for their team. Clausen and Bradford have greater risk of being “busts” but they both have the potential to progress into good quality starting QBs in the NFL.
If that were to happen, i’d take a pro bowl QB over a pro bowl DT any day of the week, that’s just the nature of the game today. It’s alot easier to find success with an average DT than an average QB. It sucks that you’re commiting that kind of money to chance, but if i’m taking the risk anyway i’ll take my chances with a player who could potentially be a real difference maker rather than a slightly “safer” pick in terms of starting ability but who would never be able to make the same impact as a position player like QB could.
If you need a QB and a LT, pick the LT first because your QB won’t be crap without him no matter who you’ve got back there. If you need a QB and a DT and there’s less than 5 picks seperating them in talent level, you have to go QB. DT alone just doesn’t work as a building block for a team, or rather it would be much slower and harder to see the results right away. And in this “what have you done for me lately” world we live in now, coaches don’t have very long to turn the ship around, so if you’re taking over a crappy team and have very short time to show progress you need to take some chances and hope they pay off… And you definitely don’t need to be sinking $12 mil a year on a position that takes years to develop fully and even then even the top players at the position don’t make anywhere close to that salary… It just doesn’t make sense.
Well, if you want to talk about "planning around the problems"
then I should point out that there will be no football 2011 unless a new deal is reached. So I think that the NFLPA and owners will work out a deal when they start to feel it in their wallets. But if you think that won’t happen, then what’s the point in talking about it because there won’t be any football in 2011 so no point in even picking (a team can let time run out and not pick).
by theaxeeffect4311 on Mar 1, 2010 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly
If I thought there’d be no football in 2011 I wouldn’t talk about the 2011 season. For one, i’ve never discussed the 2011 season I don’t think… For another, I haven’t given much thought to it as there’s alot of negotiations between now and then to get a deal done. It’s in both parties best interests to have a season in 2011 so it will happen if possible.
Neither side “needs” a rookie pay scale. The owners wouldn’t mind it to limit their costs, but the players union wants the money saved to go to veteran players, who the owners are just as unsure about in later years and it also brings up the situation where “do we employ a lottery system or not” since from a competetiveness standpoint you’d have losing teams purposefully mailing it in halfway through the season and competing with eachother for the 1st overall pick since you’re getting the best player for managable costs. It’s not a clear cut issue and has been debated for many years and will likely be debated for many more before it’s installed if it ever is.
Once I see talks on the matter coming to a head, then maybe i’ll be interested in it, untill then it’s just what ifs and maybe’s.
I'm not gonna argue with you on your main point
But any analysis that leaves John Henderson as an average player is wrong.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Feb 28, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions
I thought I was being generous in the assessment.
In my opinion he’s one of the most overated tackles in the game, and one of the poorest sportsmen you’ll find in pro sports anywhere. He gets more coverage from his snit talking and tom foolery than his play on the field, 26 tackles and 3 sacks is pretty average for a DT. If he had a more blue collar attitude he’d be largely ignored just as players like Shaun Cody is for the Texans.
I'm reading this as
“He is overrated because I don’t like his attitude and he doesn’t compile counting stats.”
Is this correct?
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
Actually
It just means I don’t think he’s near as good as his own hype, and i’m not the only one. When Kuharsky made his all-AFC south team, he left John Henderson off while stating that any votes for him was more for reputation than quality of play.
To make it more clear
I see John Henderson and Shaun Cody being on the same level, they have different strengths and weaknesses but I see them as about the same quality of player… Shaun Cody is nothing more than a serviceable starting DT in the league, and Henderson is right there with him… If he were drafted in a latter round it wouldn’t be a terrible deal, but as a top 10 draft pick he’s a dissapointment.
Co
Henderson’s a 2-time Pro Bowler, 1-time All Pro. He’s no Kevin Williams, but I’d 100% take him over Cody every single time.
by TexansDC on Mar 1, 2010 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn't.
He doesn’t give much more production and comes like 5 times more expensive. Henderson is more of an UT type which means he should get penetration on a regular basis, yet was 11th on the team in tackles last season and had a whopping 3 sacks.
And I know now people are going to want to switch back to “DT isn’t all about individual stats” mode now that we’re not talking about Shaun Cody, so for you… The Jags finished 19th in the league in rushing defens, 27th in passing defense, 19th in tackles for loss… show me where this huge impact that Henderson made came into effect, cause i’d love to see it.
Who exactly is saying DTs rack up big counting stats?
Is that a strawman I see flying by?
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 1, 2010 11:51 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
How about
Warren Sapp’s 16.5 sacks in ‘00.
Dave Butz’s 11.5 sacks in ‘83
Ray Childress’ 13 sacks in ‘92
La’Roi Glover’s 17 in ‘98
John Randle’s 15.5 in ’97
And to save time, there have been 65 DT seasons with 10 or more QB sacks.
19 times DTs have recorded over 100 tackles in a single season, and 58 times they have had over 80.
So who says DTs rack up big counting stats? History says.
Considering
Shaun Cody’s a 2nd round pick turned free agent acquisition on the cheap, being a competent player is good enough
Being a top 10 pick and being billed as a “franchise” calliber DT coming in, 26 tackles and 3 sacks on a 24th ranked defense isn’t quite what you’re hoping to get when you draft a guy that early.
You can’t say DTs don’t rack up big numbers, history states otherwise, and when you’re drafting a DT in the top 10 it’s in the hopes that he will be that kind of producer for your defense. So don’t tell me it’s crazy to even suggest Henderson is a dissapointment for a top 10 pick.
You seem to suggest
that the DT makes the defense by giving team ranking as a point relevant to Henderson’s level of play.
Henderson didn’t rack up big numbers and he’s a disappointment. Yet, Cody has even less stats than him and he’s great?
If Cody was a top 10 pick
He’d be a dissapointment as well. And if Henderson was picked in the 2nd round he wouldn’t be near the dissapointment.
You can’t have it both ways, either a player is good because he has great individual stats or he’s good because he silently made the overall team defense good… He can’t have very few individual stats but is a good player because he helped his team to a great 24th ranking in total defense. It doesn’t make sense.
The argument I made for Cody, for one was strictly to argue that he was a serviceable player… but I used the team’s performance against the run to support the fact that he wasn’t not doing his job on the interior thus was a serviceable DT. With Henderson you’re not trying to prove he was serviceable or just good enough, you’re trying to prove he was worth a top 10 pick in the NFL draft… So show me either in his own individual production or his team’s performance on defense, where he stands out as top 10 worthy.
So the answer to his question
is you?
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
that doesn't actually make sense
so feel free to disregard my comment.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Glad that DT and NT are different positions.
Also glad sacks are the only stat in the NFL.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
I noted tackles as well
I might be wrong, but I believe i’ve seen Henderson line up at the “UT” position in the past quite frequently… In fact in browsing the internets quickly I found a blog post at Big Cat Country from last year wanting the Jags to draft B.J. Raji to play “NT” beside Henderson describing him as a perfect compliment to Henderson… Just because he’s a big fat guy doesn’t mean he’s a big fat NT.
http://www.bigcatcountry.com/pages/better-know-a-draft-prospe
Technically “NT” is a position that only exists in a 3-4 defense, what we refer to the “NT” and “UT” in 4-3 defenses is in most defenses simply labeled RDT and LDT. So if you want to get picky, because he’s played in a 4-3 since coming into the league you can’t say he’s a NT even regardless of where he lines up.
Then why do you refer to Henderson as an UT if
Technically "NT" is a position that only exists in a 3-4 defense, what we refer to the "NT" and "UT" in 4-3 defenses is in most defenses simply labeled RDT and LDT. So if you want to get picky, because he’s played in a 4-3 since coming into the league you can’t say he’s a NT even regardless of where he lines up.
by theaxeeffect4311 on Mar 2, 2010 12:43 AM CST up reply actions
330 lb'ers are NT's, whether you want to call them that or not.
Point being, Henderson’s job is measured in how often he can force 2 blockers to him.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 2, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
You can't draft an underclassman QB
the success rate there is worse.
They could take Okung if they’re playing that game, but no one can fault them for taking Suh or McCoy.
The REAL problem is the rookies need a pay scale. It is ridiculous that any rookie can outearn the top vets at their position.
I agree
They probably should take Suh or McCoy being that they’re projected to be the best players in this class, but if it were me i’d be cursing the football Gods for giving me the #1 overall pick the year two DTs (one of the riskiest first round picks to make in recent history) are arguably the top two prospects. How bad would it suck to spend $12+ mil a year for the next 4-6 years for another Dorsey?
It's a raw deal
Franchised DTs are getting $7 million a year. There’s no reason a rookie DT should get $12 million. It’s ridiculous.
This could all be demonstrably, verifiably true
And it wouldn’t change one thing about what I’ve written.
Do you see why?
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 28, 2010 11:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I thought
Seymour is a DE, not a DT
by HoustonTransplant on Mar 1, 2010 2:56 AM CST up reply actions
Again
He was listed as a DT when drafted so that’s where he ended up on the lists… If someone drafted McCoy this year and he ended up as a 3-4 end somewhere and played well, is he any less a DT prospect now?
John Henderson
Average at best?
That sound you heard was any credibility you might have had flying out the window.
" If CB is a big hole, Dunta was the shovel."
- Rivers McCown
by MDC on Mar 1, 2010 8:36 AM CST up reply actions
I don't know what you're even talking about.
How many times in the past week alone have I said “i’m no expert, but” or something to that effect in my posts? Since a large part of credibility is expertise and i’ve been pretty upfront about my lack of expertise here, I don’t understand the implications that i’d care about my "credibility.
As i’ve said, i’m just a football fan, same as anyone else here, I don’t have any NFL credentials or experience, at least 90% of my posts here are totally opinionated so therefore any credibility they have would all be subjective to the reader anyways, so what’s the point?
Maybe
I should write a disclaimer for every post explaining that i’m not an expert and everything within said post was my opinion alone and i’m making no claims of “credibility”.
Would that help?
/inserts recommendation for use of "after the jump" function
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
by Shake on Feb 28, 2010 2:35 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
+2
A Texas Wannabe, born and raised in New Zealand. Currently located 7539 miles South west of Houston.
by distant_texans_fan on Feb 28, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions
It was interesting
That he thought keeping or not keeping Marc Bulger was even relevant to the Ram’s decision.
I'm sorry.....
This is…I don’t know what it is…
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
by Rip Jersey on Feb 28, 2010 3:59 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Joined the site just to say....
I love this post……Clayton is quite possibly the worst sports writer out there, and I would argue that he wasn’t kidnapped, but was actually born a retarded manatee. I love the point of them not being a DT away form being competitive. You could give them P. Manning and I’m not sure they’d be competitive. To say they shouldn’t draft “X player” because he doesn’t make them competitive might be the dumbest thing I’ve seen from any sports writer this year.
They do need a rookie cap or salary structure of some sort though. As a Bronco’s fans (Texans are my #2…GO KUBIAK!!) I wouldn’t trade our #11 for their #1 straight up. Too much guaranteed money at the top spot.
Thanks for joining!
Glad you like the post. To further your point, a rookie Peyton Manning did not (in the short term) make Indy competitive.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 28, 2010 11:58 PM CST up reply actions
True...
My point was that you could give them the best player in the league with that top pick, and I still don’t think that they’d be competitive and it’s asinine for Clayton to make a point that they shouldn’t pick ‘x’ because they wouldn’t be competitive with him. In their position, they need to pick whatever player might still be contributing in 3-5 years when they might have had a chance to turn things around.
DT, CB or QB
whomever we pick in the first round will generate many posts about how stupid the pick was, then many more about how stupid they were for doubting Smithiak’s talent assessment when said player proves us all wrong.
Or, we’ll have a terrible draft, and we’ll realize that the “iak” of “Smithiak” was the real brains behind the operation, and him missing the combine because of surgery, while helping him sleep, cost us the playoffs in 2010.
Its gonna be one of those two.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
I'm gonna lay off the criticism this year unless it's a real out of left field pick.
Like QB or something.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
Could draft a PK!
The next Janikowski!
by HoustonTransplant on Mar 1, 2010 4:06 AM CST up reply actions
many people
would not be as disappointed as you might think.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
I'll hate this article..
John Clayton is one of the BEST sports writers around. You really don’t think economics come into play during the draft?
I hate these “Fire Joe Morgan” style critiques.
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 1, 2010 5:52 AM CST reply actions
Do you think that John Clayton has given us one good reason
exactly how economics has come into play? Of course not. John Clayton doesn’t apparently know what economics is.
Economics is not the issue here. Economics, per wiki, is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. So, basically Clayton has stated that a social science is the reason that the Rams could well take a quarterback with a high pick. Make any sense to you? Me neither.
Perhaps Clayton should have said that due to the (perhaps inaccurate) perception of the value of one particular player over another based on a variety of factors such as long-term franchise value, the marketability of particular players and the on-field product, the Rams may take a quarterback over a defensive tackle. That, for better or worse, the Rams brain trust is applying a particular model or methodology to their draft valuations.
But he didn’t. He made a series of assertions that are easily contradicted by two minutes’ worth of google research (and often within the article itself).
And I never said that economics, as understood by the manatee, didn’t come into play during the draft. I am at a loss to find where I did say that in the article.
Now, is anything I said controversial? Maybe. I’d be happy to hear your take on it.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Mar 1, 2010 6:17 AM CST up reply actions
*bows*
Economics is not the issue here. Economics, per wiki, is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. So, basically Clayton has stated that a social science is the reason that the Rams could well take a quarterback with a high pick.
Yesssss!
"I hate these "Fire Joe Morgan" style critiques"
Then I am going to go ahead and assumed you were biased against this article in the first place, and your rage-blindness caused you to miss the actual point on the post entirely.
" If CB is a big hole, Dunta was the shovel."
- Rivers McCown
by MDC on Mar 1, 2010 8:39 AM CST up reply actions
plus
Joe Morgan is a terrible fucking announcer.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
"John Clayton is one of the BEST sports writers around"
Care to expand on that? Any evidence? Anything to back that up?
None?
Oh, Okay.
I really thought you were on to something there guy.
I guess not.
Now in FJM style!
I’ll hate this article..
That’s the best way to start stating your opinion. With an unfinished sentence? Fucking impressive man! +1 for the internets.
John Clayton is one of the BEST sports writers around.
PurplePeopleEaters im happy for you, and congratulations to your Vikings for making it to the divisional playoffs with a drama queen for a quarterback and a fuckwit for a defensive end but Rick Reilly is the BEST sports writers of all time.
OF ALL TIME!
You really don’t think economics come into play during the draft?
Nowhere in this post did tGC say that economics don’t come into play during the draft. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself. Hold Ctrl on your keyboard and press F. Then type “economics”. But that requires taking your fist out of your asshole and John Clayton’s asshole so I don’t even know why I bother telling you this when I know that you’re not going to do it.
I hate these "Fire Joe Morgan" style critiques.
I hate these “I hate these Fire Joe Morgan” style critiques" comments.
They never amount to anything.
by Jordann on Mar 1, 2010 10:18 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
From a fan of the team
that:
a. employs Jared Allen
and
helped erect the Brett Favre circus tent for one more yearthanks for your opinion, now move along.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
autoformatting
always kills me.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
The vikes got exactly what everyone else knew they would when they signed Favre
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Wow, sorry to make you guys so angry.
Didn’t know Texans fans were so sensitive. But then again, I should have known the kind of people I’m dealing with; being that I escaped from the Hell hole that is the Houston area. ( I kid, I kid.)
Now, obviously tehGrindCrusher schooled me in his response. I skimmed the article, and maybe missed the point of it. Being a fan of John Clayton and not being a fan of these types of articles was my problem. But I should of read more thoroughly. He should not have used the term “economics”. It made sense to me, but I guess that’s because I’m a stupid manatee, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo
Okay, so I admitted to making a dumb early morning post. But now to address the rest of you guys. :)
First, why the hate for Jared Allen? Because he made a couple bad decisions and got DUI’s in the past? Even though he has stopped drinking? Give the guy a break. He’s a recovering alcoholic. Or is it because he’s such a goof off? Yeah, I hate funny people too.
I understand the Brett hate. I hated the never-ending drama before he joined our team. But, he played better than any QB in Viking history and gave us an extremely exciting season. Of course he made an unbelievably bad mistake to end the season, but we would not have been there if not for him.
As for John Clayton, I like him because he’s the most level-headed writer employed by ESPN. In fact, he’s about the only football personality I can stand on that entire network.
And Jordann, I’m sorry I upset you so much. I hope don’t have high blood pressure.
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 1, 2010 10:51 AM CST reply actions
I hope you don't take any offense.
We like to give people a hard time over here but you know, we do it for the lulz.
I hope you don’t take it personal.
You didn’t upset me at all. I know it sounded like it from my response but im just trying to keep myself entertained at work.
The hate for Jared Allen sprung from the couple of illegal hits that he took on Matt Schaub (Texans QB). Im going to stop there because im at work and cussing out loud for no reason is not acceptable in our office environment.
As for the Brett Favre hate, I actually liked him before all the circus drama. Safe to say that im not rooting for the guy anymore.
And as for John Clayton, I don’t hate the guy. But I don’t like the guy either. So I really don’t have anything against him even after reading his article.
Once again, I apologize for the hostility if you took it out of context. Everybody’s always welcome here even if they have opposing opinions.
It's no problem for me
I actually enjoy being challenged – I appreciate a vigorous exchange of ideas. But I expect reasoned arguments, not strawmen or logically flawed reasoning. Clayton may be level-headed, which gives him a huge advantage over 99 percent of ESPN’s roster, but that hardly makes him a good writer. I could handle the fact that he writes at an 11th grade level, but there’s no real justifying this level of intellectual laziness.
And it’s cool that you’re a Vikes fan and all, but you’ll have to accept that we pretty much all hate Jared Allen. It kinda goes with the territory.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Mar 1, 2010 11:23 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
You remember the Brady Rule?
It could easily have been called the Brady-Schuab rule based on the 2 hits Jared Allen but on Schuab. the main difference here is that Pollard obviously did it on accident, and it sure as hell looked like Allen was gunning for Schuabs knees both times.
His excuse? Pitts separated his shoulder. He never even claimed the hits where clean, just that they were justified.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
by nolander on Mar 1, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Ooohhhhhhhh.. I totally forgot about that. I’m still not too sure about that hit. When I watch it, I see him falling forward and just trying to take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out. Not in my opinion, anyways. Bad hit, but it’s hard to think in the heat of the moment.
Ooohhhhhhhh.. I totally forgot about that. I’m still not too sure about that hit. When I watch it, I see him falling forward and just trying to take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out. Not in my opinion, anyways. Bad hit, but it’s hard to think in the heat of the moment.Nolander, here is the quote from Jared Allen:
“You all right? I didn’t mean to hit you. I didn’t mean to hit your knee like that. I came back (inaudible) falling forward. I was slipping, and I was like (expletive). If it makes you feel better, (Chester) Pitts separated my shoulder.”
Ooohhhhhhhh.. I totally forgot about that. I’m still not too sure about that hit. When I watch it, I see him falling forward and just trying to take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out. Not in my opinion, anyways. Bad hit, but it’s hard to think in the heat of the moment.Nolander, here is the quote from Jared Allen:
“You all right? I didn’t mean to hit you. I didn’t mean to hit your knee like that. I came back (inaudible) falling forward. I was slipping, and I was like (expletive). If it makes you feel better, (Chester) Pitts separated my shoulder.”He did not say that is why he hit his knee. He was trying to make Schaub feel better. I don’t think it worked though. :)
Ooohhhhhhhh.. I totally forgot about that. I’m still not too sure about that hit. When I watch it, I see him falling forward and just trying to take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out. Not in my opinion, anyways. Bad hit, but it’s hard to think in the heat of the moment.Nolander, here is the quote from Jared Allen:
“You all right? I didn’t mean to hit you. I didn’t mean to hit your knee like that. I came back (inaudible) falling forward. I was slipping, and I was like (expletive). If it makes you feel better, (Chester) Pitts separated my shoulder.”He did not say that is why he hit his knee. He was trying to make Schaub feel better. I don’t think it worked though. :)And no guys, I don’t take any offense. Nothing wrong with a little debate.
Ooohhhhhhhh.. I totally forgot about that. I’m still not too sure about that hit. When I watch it, I see him falling forward and just trying to take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out. Not in my opinion, anyways. Bad hit, but it’s hard to think in the heat of the moment.Nolander, here is the quote from Jared Allen:
“You all right? I didn’t mean to hit you. I didn’t mean to hit your knee like that. I came back (inaudible) falling forward. I was slipping, and I was like (expletive). If it makes you feel better, (Chester) Pitts separated my shoulder.”He did not say that is why he hit his knee. He was trying to make Schaub feel better. I don’t think it worked though. :)And no guys, I don’t take any offense. Nothing wrong with a little debate.I am not just trolling here, by the way. I grew up 30 minutes from Houston, so I do root for the Texans. That’s why I’m here. I’m a diehard Vikings fan, (it’s a family thing), but Lord knows I was praying the Texans could sneak into the playoffs this past year. Maybe this year.
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 1, 2010 3:54 PM CST reply actions
Umm...
I don’t know what the hell happened there.
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 1, 2010 3:55 PM CST up reply actions
that looks like a
Bryan72076 reply, but much more logical
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
by texanphil on Mar 1, 2010 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
You know
Just because i’m generally good natured and will take shots on the chin doesn’t mean I like being poked with a stick anymore than the next guy. If you think i’m illogical, that’s your opinion, but I do put thought into any opinions that I have, and try to express those to others in conversation, and can somehow manage to do so usually without purposefully trying to demean others…
When I came to BRB a little more than a year ago, it was largely because a couple fans from other teams who like to “troll” the msg board I used decided to take it to another level and spam my instant messenger and email with constant obscenities, and I let the kids use the PC to chat with family friends so I had to seperate myself from that negativity. Even before that however, it was getting to the point that those people instead of writing any opinion of their own would write posts about me specifically, which isn’t why I post. I genuinely like to talk Texans football and i’d rather keep it that way. I’m not interested in joining a 5th grade class at recess, bottom line is the immaturity and inappropriateness put me off so I was looking for greener pastures.
In BRB I found a place where I could voice my opinions and people would either respond if interested or move on if uninterested, there was no petty bickering or lashing out over foolishness that has nothing to do with the Houston Texans…
For the past few weeks, a few people here have been singling me out for whatever reason and taking shots at me even when i’m not involved in the conversation. It’s not a big deal, it’s mostly harmless… But the thought occured to me, why should I just “deal” with people being jackasses? If it’s so God-awful to have to hear a point of view different than yours that you feel the need to belittle everything that person says there on out, that’s not the BRB I thought I was joining a year ago and quite frankly that’s not the atmosphere I want to be involved with…
So with that rather long winded post, this will be the last time you hear from me here. I may have come off snippity, but really i’m not at all angry or bitter at anything said (it really was nothing untowards about it), I just came to the realization that my perception of BRB didn’t really jive with reality and that it probably isn’t the best fit for me. If people are so critical of me there’s, there’s a reason for it, i’d rather find a place that’s glad to hear my input..
You know
We kid each other a lot here. You write long-winded posts. It’s funny. People think you occasionally use strawman arguments. They point that out. I think MDC has a thing for oiled dwarves. I say so. If you’re going only to stick around places where everyone plays nice, or where sarcasm is underused, then there probably isn’t much room for you on the internets.
It happens. I wouldn’t stress about it too much. But godspeed to you if you want to move on to nicer pastures.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Mar 2, 2010 1:40 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
Baby, please!
I am NOT from Havana!
texanphil is smart and I’m a retard.
" If CB is a big hole, Dunta was the shovel."
- Rivers McCown
by MDC on Mar 2, 2010 2:31 PM CST up reply actions
Definitely
Everyone gets ribbed. I haven’t seen anyone that hasn’t had it (not to belittle your opinions about being a recent target).
As Axe said, t3h int3rw3bz isn’t filled with fluff free places. Personally, I think you bring a voice that isn’t here (ex: Weatherspoon to complete a deadly LB corps…which looks like a possibility) even if you use the occassional long post or are dead-set in your opinion.
If you go, good luck in find a spot, but I don’t think anyone means anything in a mean and malicious way….except that troll BIGBADBRAD.
Goodbye and Good Luck
If this really is the last time that you’re gonna post here. At least you leave knowing how to use paragraphs!!!!
On to a more serious note.
We all take shots at each other. And it’s NEVER going to end. I don’t know if you noticed this but we’re not just a texans message board. We’re a community here. We take shots at each other and see how far we can push people’s buttons without actually breaking it. We’ve called you out on your opinions and you’ve called us out on ours. Doesn’t mean we have any personal vendetta against you or anything.
I know it doesn’t look like it but we value your opinion. If somebody’s take on a specific topic makes me question my opinion on said topic, i’ll keep hearing that person out no matter how long their responses are.
If you can’t take the shots, then you’re right. This isn’t the place for you. Good luck finding a message board that won’t call you out on the things that you say.
Score one for the offseason!
This is probably closest to my reaction
It’s one thing to have a different opinion. It’s another to have a different opinion and not really back it up well. If you can’t do that, yes, you’re going to get called out and called a troll. Hell, we call out people for much less than that. I think Matt called me out for being “like 14” in one of those posts on the old site that no longer exists since I was actually pessimistic about the 09 season. Take attention the right way: it means people are listening.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 2, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions
no comment.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
no comment.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
by nolander on Mar 2, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
awwww sorry to see you go, Bryan72076
I actually enjoyed many of your posts. I am still learning tons about the multitudes of intricacies in football and I learned from many of your exchanges.
I couldn’t give you a precis about what y’all said because it’s still so far above my level of knowledge. But I hope that I can learn little by little from reading more Battle Red Blog and your posts were always either valuable in themselves of food for valuable discussion.
Maybe you’ll reconsider, but even if you opt to completely part ways . . . I do learn alot from so much of what y’all say. And life is too short to get stressed out about a blog. I hope you find fun wherever you go.
hah
I will take quotes out of context if I feel like it damnit! Actually I had never seen the full context of the quote.
I hope that some day I can forgive the Vikings for Favre, because until this year they were one of the NFC teams I would regularly root for.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Damn video evidence, always screwing things up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcqjClE7cuk
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
Yes, yes
I have watched that very video, many times. Here is what I said in my post:
When I watch it, I see him falling forward and just trying to take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out. Not in my opinion, anyways. Bad hit, but it’s hard to think in the heat of the moment
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 2, 2010 8:37 AM CST up reply actions
It's possible that our respective biases
Make objective judgment impossible.
Which is why it’s pretty obvious that he’s a cheapshotting bastard.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Mar 2, 2010 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
If I could REC this infinitely
I would
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
The problem I had
was that it wasn’t an isolated incident. Allen when at Schaub’s knees on three passing plays in a very short timespan.
texanphil is smart and I’m a retard.
" If CB is a big hole, Dunta was the shovel."
- Rivers McCown
by MDC on Mar 3, 2010 5:22 AM CST up reply actions
re-quoting wrong stuff
doesn’t make it better.
take him down anyway possible. Not saying that’s completely okay, but at the same time, it’s not like he set out to take his knees out.
These are mutually exclusive. If by taking him down “anyway possible” involves diving at knees, then it is much worse than “not completely okay.”
And he taught Brett Favre that move, too, and that jackass took out our starting FS for the first 3 or 4 games.
My hatred for all things Vikings is growing by the minute.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low

by 
























