While Jerry Remy is recovering from his surgery to remove a small, low-grade cancerous tumor from his lung, Dennis Eckersley has stepped up admirably to fill his spot in NESN's booth covering Red Sox games.
Now, Eckersley is phenomenal in the studio. I think most fans would agree he brings the hard-to-find combination of game experience, charisma, his own personal flair (and lingo), and a wealth of baseball knowledge to the table.
Remy on the other hand, brings those things but in a way that doesn't really function as well in an environment outside the booth. Before the last few weeks I would've guessed the exact opposite was true for Dennis Eckersley -- that he was a great studio guy but he was better in short bursts and small doses, not over the course of a three-hour game.
I would've guessed that and I would've been wrong.
Eckersley has been great in the booth so far. He and Orsillo have a great chemisty and they haven't worked together enough to have gone through the paces so, although there's been a bit of a "feeling out" period, Orsillo seems genuinely intrigued to have Eckersley in the booth and engages him throughout the game.
Watching the game last night, I thought the best parts of the entire telecast were what Eckersley brought to the table -- stuff that, I'm not afraid to say, Remy wouldn't have brought.
Remy and Eckersley both played for the Red Sox for several years (Remy for seven, Eck for six) and really know the ballpark, the club, the fans, and the city. But last night in particular, I thought Eckersley brought his personal experience to bear on the telecast.
He spoke extensively about what it was like to be a young player making your first start in Fenway, which Blue Jays pitcher Robert Ray was doing last night. He talked about the unique pressure a young kid has walking into a stadium like Fenway.
But I thought the most impressive parts were how honest Eck was about his feelings about the umpires when he was playing and the pressure he put on himself in between starts. It was just little things like how he would work out harder than anyone, run four miles a day just to pitch one inning, because he felt if he did that then he deserved to win.
Remy brings a lot, but that sort of honesty and experience as a top, top player, Remy just doesn't have.
Now, this isn't meant to be a "Remy vs. Eckersley" post, but only one that shows what Eckersley brings to these telecasts. He doesn't have Remy's unique air, he doesn't have the experience calling games, the experience within the game beyond playing the game. He doesn't have Remy's unique ability to become completely bored with the game and still keep the show interesting.
I had to have this pointed out to me, but the best part of most Red Sox games are when Remy goes off on a complete tangent about whatever is on his mind. He basically just leaves baseball behind and starts talking about whatever he'd like, and it works.
I can't ever see Eckersley doing that.
We're all pulling for Remy to get back as soon as possible and to hopefully beat this thing. But in the meantime, I'm alright with Eckersley bringing his own dirty, hairy cheese to the booth.
He'll be replaced by, of all people, Jon Gruden. Chucky joins Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski to give us one of the most interesting booths of all time.
It'll be an interesting change to have a former NFL quarterback, a very-recently-turned former NFL head coach, and one of the better play-by-play guys in football in Mike Tirico. The most interesting interchanges should be between Jaworski and Gruden, especially given their personalities.
Jaworski, I feel, has been one of the best at explaining the Xs and Os to normal football fans since John Madden. You can say what you want about Madden, but he was among the first to explain the subtle strategy changes that take place throughout a game. Not the greatest coach, he made high-level football strategy a common talking point over nachos and beer -- not an accomplishment you should overlook.
He had a schtick that was easily lampooned, though. Jaworski does not, which, given how sophisticated the average football fan has become about the league, is a welcome change. Jaworski will, however, now have somebody with real football chops in the booth to exchange talking points about. Hopefully, we'll even see some differences in opinion.
Jaworski is an incredibly nice guy on TV (I assume he's about the same off screen but I've never met him) and even when Tirico or Kornheiser made a point that didn't fly, Jaworski only gentle corrected him. Gruden, however, is going to stick to his guns (although he'll make far more defensible points that have to do with actual football.) and I wonder if Ron will defer to Gruden a bit.
Either way, it is the end of Tony Kornheiser on MNF, whether it's for the reasons he states or not. Regardless, I think it could be an improvement in the booth. While Tony always tried hard, his points weren't always salient. He's a great writer and a good sports mind, but his abilities lend themselves to seeing the big picture when all the evidence is in front of him.
As a writer, we're always watching games with an idea as to how the story is going to play out. Most of us will writer our game stories as it goes on and just make minor changes as the final minutes or outs play out. Every three-up, three-down inning by a great pitcher is the beginning of a historic 18-k performance, every time a team down 15 points goes on a 6-0 run it's the beginning of a huge comeback, and every bench guy who goes off for 12 points in the first quarter is going to drop 48 on the opposition. We're just wired that way.
When you take that mentality of trying to get ahead of the game to the booth and make a person say it out loud, it just sounds ridiculous most of the time. When we're wrong about those great stories and the game turns out to be pretty pedestrian (as it usually does), there's no delete key in the booth. Tony works on Pardon the Interruption because the game is already played out, he knows what happened and can then react to it, with the facts in front of him. It's just a different game.
I don't think he'll rank anywhere near the worst guys in the booth, but I don't think he ever really rose that high out of the middle of the pack as he was expected to. He may be the best cable sports show co-host ever, but as a booth guy, it just didn't work.
Now we have Gruden, who should be decent and could be exceptional. We've seen the MNF booth, since going back to ABC/ESPN, develop slowly and work out the kinks. The desire to return to the days of Howard Cosell was probably misguided, but now we have a football booth for a football-watching population that wants to watch and hear about, you know, football.
I have had this same conversation with friends in the past, and I've developed a bit of a theory, here. There are simply different types of smart. Everyone has friends who got all the plaudits in school, worked extremely hard, got the 4.0 in school and then fell flat on their face in the real world.
Everyone has friends who bombed school, skipped their finals to get high, drank every weekend, barely stumbled across the stage for their diploma and ended up making a million dollars in two years because they invented the Snuggie.
Is person A smarter than person B? No, they're just different kinds of smart. There's street smarts and then there's book learnin' and there's just not much in between.
Then there's Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell is like a great point guard, he makes everyone around him better. This is a longwinded introduction to what you've probably already read (his back and forth with Bill Simmons for espn.com), but I felt it had to be said. I feel smarter when I read what Malcolm Gladwell has to say.
They should assign his books for every college class, not because he has written anything about those subjects of interest, but you'd just have such an intelligence bump from being exposed to his takes on the world that you would perform better on the test.
I just finished reading that ESPN article (a few days late, I know, I'm graduating so I'm busy with finals and such) and I thought to myself, "Damn, if only I was one-tenth as smart as that guy." That got me thinking; Can you really fractionalize intelligence? What about greatness?
I didn't even know fractionalize was really a word until about five minutes ago. I thought I made it up. This is the effect Malcolm Gladwell has on the world.
Anyway, so here's my theory on greatness after having a lengthy, heated, and all-around lively debate about Jordan and Magic last night at work: there are levels of greatness, but they're not on any sort of normalized scale. There's no "black belt" or "yellow belt" of greatness. Jordan isn't a 10 while Magic is a 9 and Bird is a 9.5, they're all just great.
Now, you can argue that, among that level, Jordan stands out because of what he accomplished, but Jordan isn't 10% better than the guy who would be at level 9, he's infinitely better. There's no comparing Jordan to even, say, Pippen, in my book because Jordan is just Jordan and there's no two ways about it.
I'm of the opinion, though, that the Greatest of All Time arguments, while fun and a good way to really respect players from older generations, are ultimately pointless. It's like the Pele vs Maradona debate. When you reach that level you can no longer be passed, you can only be joined.
The only exception is if, in certain cases, a player simply uncovers a whole other level that nobody even knew about. That's where we should be having the debates. Not "How much better was Jordan than everyone else?" or "Who's the greatest between Woods and Nicklaus?" but, are these guys on a separate level from everyone else? Has Woods pushed greatness in golf to a different level? Will we know? Can we?
I'm going to grade him an incomplete there, because we don't know yet but if Woods continues on this torrent pace and passes Nicklaus, I think you have to say that he's on a new level and the only argument is whether Nicklaus, on further review, was there also. But beyond that, I think it's clear that they're far and away the best two players in the modern game.
Going back to my original point though: there are different kinds of greatness. Simmons and Gladwell touch on this but they don't really give it the full treatment. There are different levels of great, but there's different kinds, too.
There are guys who make everyone around them better, but aren't individually all that great. (Nash, I'd say. Never the most lauded guy individually for most of his career, but he deserves those MVPs because, although it was partly the system, he consistently got the best out of guys who are anything but consistent.) Then there are guys who are individually great, but struggle to really get anything extra out of their teammates. (Kobe. Enough said.)
Then there are the guys who are both. Sticking to basketball, you have Jordan, Bird, Magic, Russell, Duncan, Garnett, etc. Now, they all are individually great, but they also got the best out of their teammates. Now some did it because they just scared the crap out of their teammates (Jordan, Garnett), some did it by simply going out and gutting it and dragging their whole team up by their bootstraps (Bird, Russell), and then there are guys who did it by being there for their teammates, bringing it every night, occasionally having a huge game, and generally just being that fun to play with. (Magic).
Lebron, I think, has a real chance to join that third category. He's so fun to play with that it's fun just watching them play basketball. If they were just playing around, on some random playground, I would enjoy watching them play. Lebron is fun to watch because he's just a phenom, but the Cavaliers, as a team, are just fun. Period.
If you look at that group, though, (and there are probably plenty of guys that I'm forgetting) they all have two things in common: they all won MVPs and they all won titles.
Lebron just won the MVP. Guess which is next?
These are the things Malcolm Gladwell does to my brain. Thank God he's only in his mid-40s. He could pump out another 15 books, easy. It's like watching Lebron.
I've long felt that the most important battles on a football field are among the eight to ten players who we hear the least about: the offensive and defensive lines.
Offensive linemen often find themselves among the least heralded players in the league.
Most writers will tell you that the Pro Bowl for offensive linemen is decided by reputation alone. This is true, but largely because there's just no easy to quantify stats about the success of an offensive line. Tackles just don't score touchdowns or gain rushing yards.
The defensive line has to go through similar pains. But when a defensive lineman makes a fantastic play, he may get a sack or a tackle for a loss and earn the praise. If an offensive lineman keeps a dominant pass rusher at bay for the entire game, he is rarely applauded beyond his own locker room.
Here are New England Patriots LT Matt Light's stats (via Football Reference). There's not enough there to fill a trading card.
The glory of an offensive lineman is only that which is reflected off his better-known teammates and their success. To that end, if I were doing a "fantasy" draft of an offensive line to go out and compete, here's what my lineup would be. It should be noted that while I'm trying to pick who I believe are the best performing players at their position currently, I'm not picking purely in a vacuum here I'm picking players whose talents complement each other. (I.E. picking the five biggest guys who can pass block but can't run block worth a lick isn't going to help my fictional running back.)
On we go:
Left tackle: Joe Thomas, Cleveland Browns
The left tackle has become a glory position of sorts in the past two decades. Michael Lewis recently chronicled this transition in his book The Blind Side, and even he admits that the left tackle only became that glory position—with all the attention, high draft value, and huge contracts that come with it—when players like LB Lawrence Taylor of the New York Giants forced them to become even more specialized and prized players.
Joe Thomas is the result of that specialization. He's a monster at 6'6'' and 305 Lbs., which is actually a lower weight than what he's probably playing at. Still, he's incredibly quick and can stay with even the small, fast defensive ends and linebackers while also being able to splay out into the flat for screens and move into the second level to decimate smaller linebackers.
It may seem odd taking a guy who was on a 4-12 team that was hardly phenomenal on offense, but look at the schedule: played Baltimore and Pittsburgh twice, the NFC East, and the AFC South.
Sacks aren't necessarily the best judge of a defense's pass rushing ability, but of the top six teams in the category from last year, Cleveland played five of them (and two against Pittsburgh) and Thomas gave up only two sacks in those games.
Right Tackle: Jon Runyan, Free Agent (Philadelphia Eagles, 2008)
(Update: Originally had Stacy Andrews here. I ran the adjusted line yards against my perceptions of the Eagles, the Eagles rushing numbers from last year to his side, and the various scouting reports I could find on him and ultimately chose him. Of course, he didn't play for the Eagles last year, so that's a pretty flawed argument and his numbers in Cincinnati were, well, awful. His brother, Shawn Andrews, plays for the Eagles at right guard and I confused the two. Long story short, I'm an idiot.)
This was, by far, the weirdest position to choose in this entire article, made moreso by the fact that the guy who best fit the profile I was looking for didn't actually compile that profile.
What was even more surprising was that Runyan was the guy who actually put up the numbers. Runyan is slow. Real slow. But he's a very solid RT, incredibly durable, and plays through everything.
While he's got a reputation as an effective pass blocker that is both aggressive and athletic, he had a phenomenal year last year in opening up running lanes. The Eagles played a tough schedule and consistently failed to get at least 4 yards on first down rushes (30th in the league at that mark), yet they managed to still open up running lanes in later downs.
This is a choice made all the more weird because Runyan is 35 and I think you'd be mad to sign him for anything but RT depth for the veteran minimum. But if I'm picking up a RT, the 2008 version of Runyan is one hell of an asset and, the general consensus on his career aside, a solid run blocker when need be.
Left Guard: Steve Hutchinson, Minnesota Vikings
The guy responsible for opening up those big running lanes for Adrian Peterson to crash through also happens to be one of the best left guards in the league. He's certainly the most decorated guy on this list with six Pro Bowls and four(!) first-team All-Pro selections.
Reputation, indeed, but in this case it's well earned.
It's not just Peterson that he's been doing great work for. Chester Taylor has benefited greatly from Hutchinson's blocks as well in his time there, putting up his best season (1200 yards, six TDs) in his first year in Minnesota in 2006.
The pass protection numbers haven't been great, but when you're protecting Tarvaris Jackson, I can't expect too much.
Right Guard: Brandon Moore, New York Jets
If you didn't believe me about reputation being almost everything for an offensive lineman in this league, check out the disparity between the Jets' success running left behind perennial Pro Bowler Alan Faneca, whom they gave a 5 year, $40 million contract last year, and running right behind Brandon Moore and Damien Woody.
Now, Woody's a tidy right tackle, so it's hard to really isolate this too much (especially since FO doesn't isolate guards and centers) but going to the left behind Faneca, the Jets are dead last in the league. Going to the middle they're third, and first overall in adjusted yards going further right. That isn't all luck, and it sure isn't all Thomas Jones.
Center: Jeff Saturday, Indianapolis Colts
This was the toughest choice, I feel, because it's so hard to really tell how good a center is compared to his peers. Saturday has probably the hardest job on the field for his team, trying to organize an offensive line and their blocking assignments when the guy behind him is constantly changing the play.
Through all that, the Colts gave up the least adjusted yards in pass protection and just 13 sacks all season.
While their running game wasn't quite as prolific, especially going up the middle, I can't lay all that blame on Saturday. It's simply too hard to isolate centers on specific running plays because, much of the time, they are involved in double teams of onrushing defenders rather than one-on-one blocks.
Extra Analysis
So there's my list. The anomaly I discovered in this really just ends up proving my earliest point: that it's really hard to pick out individual success in the offensive line.
Look at the rushing/pass protection stats of New Orleans, the Giants and The Patriots and it's easy to see that those teams enjoyed phenomenal offensive line play to complement their talented backfields, despite not having ideal size and strength along the line.
How much those stats are due to the strength of their offenses is certainly debatable, but all those lines succeed despite lacking the players that are truly the top of their class at their position.
They all have talent, to be sure.
You'd be hard pressed to find a GM or head coach who wouldn't love to have a Shaun O'Hara, Chris Snee, or Matt Light playing for him. But none of those guys is Jonathon Ogden or Orlando Pace in stature. To be fair, I easily could've put anyone on the Giants or Patriots' left side up there, but in terms of individual talent, coupled with unit production, you really can't beat Hutchinson and Thomas.
And although all those units had success pass blocking and were very effective going to the left side, their success is a better function of their abilities as a group than their individual talent, anyway.
So while individual talent is always a major determining factor in the success of an NFL team, the offensive line is one of the most unique groups on the field in the way they are judged, the way they interact on each and every play, and their ability to overcome the physical disadvantages that often doom players at other positions on the field.
So even if those lines lack the guy scouts drool over, they may be the best lines in the game today.
Although I'd wager that a line of Thomas-Hutchinson-Saturday-Moore-Runyan (2008 version) would give them a run for their money any day.
Sorry for the slow posting the last few days. It's finals time and as I finish up my degree, it means I unfortunately have to put some things aside. Last one is tomorrow and then it's back to regular posting.
There are at least some certainties in the sports world.
Stadium food will always be overpriced. Opening Day can't come soon enough. Only one team walks away happy in the end. There's always next year.
But the one thing that seems as certain as ever is that the great ones can do everything but walk away.
It's still up in the air whether Favre will come back to the NFL, but I think he and every other lock hall of famer who takes that swan song cup of coffee with another team does nothing but hurt their own legacy.
Eventually, time passes. We move on. We forget. Montana will never be remembered as a Chief. Rice will never be remembered as a Seahawk. Jordan will never be remembered as a Wizard. Nobody remembers Frazier fighting Jumbo Cummings. Hell, Joe Frazier probably doesn't remember fighting Jumbo Cummings.
It's one of the great Catch-22s that all great athletes suffer from: they always want one more. One more touchdown, one more game winner, one more title, one more season, one more game. It's always one more with them. You don't get to be Montana or Rice or Jordan or even Favre without always being desperate to push your limits just that little bit further.
The problem is that, especially for the greats, these legacies don't always have the neat little endings we might like. Some manage it. Barry Sanders walked away at 30, seemingly still healthy, with his pride and his wits and a phenomenal career still intact. Some know when to call it a day, some don't get the chance and go out with their boots on because of a career-ending injury, but the best just don't know when to call it quits.
When you're young, sports are great. It's such an overwhelming feast for the senses that you just find yourself in a wash of color and sound. Your teams may lose, but they played hard and you probably didn't understand much of what happened anyway.
As you get older you begin to see the darker corners, the frayed edges of the sports world that contrast so heavily with everything that made you fall in love with sports. By then, you're stuck, though, and no matter how much something may disgust you in sports, you can't walk away--you can only complain (read: sports talk radio...).
One of those dark corners you are certain to find if you're a fan long enough is that time doesn't work the same in sports as it does elsewhere. By 30 you're middle aged at best and, most often, already washed up.
We put a lot of things into sports--time, money, etc.--but faith is the one thing that we seem to have in endless supply as fans. No matter how many times we're let down, we always seem to find the will to believe again. But as infinite as that faith may seem, our hope as fans is always tied to the most ephemeral things; things like ligaments and contracts and a shoulder that just doesn't work at 39 like it did at 29.
Most other places in life, time passes slowly enough and change happens slowly enough that we have time to adapt, to cope. In sports, that isn't the case. One year a player can look unstoppable, the next he looks washed up and old. One year a player can look like the Next Great Thing, the next he's just another Could've-Would've-Should've story.
So I look at the Favre story and I'm already disappointed, whether he comes back or not. He should've retired a Packer. He could've been remembered as a class act who knew when his song was over (whether that's the truth or not). Instead we have a new Favre: the guy with the fading arm who has had the glossy sheen of his image stripped away, layer by layer, who seems not carefree and laudable, but vindictive and manipulative.
We don't know what twist Favre's story will take next, but we know how it'll end. There are conflicting media reports about X-Rays and private planes and phone calls from Minnesota to Mississippi, but that's all just noise. The real truth is that it doesn't really matter what Favre does next. All that matters is he is going to eventually (and likely in the very near future) walk away from the game forever and, undoubtedly, join that last great group of athletes:
Manny Ramirez has tested positive for a banned substance (Ed. Note: It was a banned performance enhancing substance, not a steroid) and has been suspended for 50 games, according to The Los Angeles Times via ESPN.
MLB is expected to announce the suspension today, according to their source.
Wow. Just...wow. I didn't know he had it in him. Really, Manny?
I mean, you're talking about one of the greatest home run hitters of all time, who has dealt with a number of injuries and always rebounded and seems impervious to the effects of age... Okay, now it makes sense.
Then again...Manny?I would've bet even money he'd inject himself with contact solution or cheerios before performence enhancing drugs.
I think we need an update to the Oh, Manny song.
Update: Manny released a statement saying he was given the substance by a doctor who said it was not a problem. He took it and it was laced with something that was banned.
This is why you go to your team doctor, folks. Then it's his behind when you test positive.
Now, whether you choose to believe Manny's testimony or not is up to you. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it does raise considerable questions not only about Manny, but about the whole of baseball once again.
If you had hopes of the Celtics riding the high of a game seven win over Chicago and coasting to an easy game one win over Orlando, you're probably not in a good mood right now.
The Magic did, well, what the Magic do. Shooting 27 three-pointers and making 9 of them, the Magic were able to build a pretty sizable lead before the Celtics came storming back. Make no mistake, there were absolutely no surprises in this game. The Magic shot a ton of 3s, made a poor percentage of their free throws (76.2, still five points above their season average, sadly), and still took the defending champs down at home.
If the world comes tumbling down and historians have only this game tape to judge the 2008-2009 Celtics by, they'll probably express one thought: How the hell did this team make it into the playoffs, let alone out of round one?
Ray Allen continued his really-big-hit-or-really-big-miss playoffs with a 2-12 stinker for 9 points. You can't fault some of the performances he put in in the opening round, but it would be nice for the Celtics if he could bring that type of game every night.
The rest of the team played a pretty pedestrian game, with most firmly in the red in the +/- category except an apparently red-hot Scalabrine who put up a +22 in 27 minutes of time. Scal's line is a microcosm of the problems the Celtics face in this series. It's less about what the Magic can do than it is who the Celtics have to do without. That Scal is even being called on to play in such long stretches is the real hitch in the Celtics' plans to get out of this round, although you can't fault the guy's effort.
The rest of the bench (that actually played) was alright. Marbury was efficient if not spectacular off the bench and Eddie House played a good 13 minutes, with a decent line of 6-3-3 while shooting 40%.
Overall, though, everyone just looked (understandably) tired.
The Celtics came out flat and stayed that way for much of the game until Orlando really took their foot off the gas. Brian "Momentum" Scalabrine checked in with 8:36 left in the third quarter and the Celtics suddenly took off. Coincidence? Well, yeah.
The old adage is that basketball is a game of runs, even at this high of a level. One team goes on a 12-4 run, the other responds with a 15-3; these things happen. Momentum swings are at the heart of each and every basketball game and playoff series are decided based on how teams respond to those runs, both for and against.
This series, especially, is going to prove that point. The Magic are the epitome of a streak shooting team. They're going to rain down three point shots, passing out of the post for that corner shot, especially. When they get hot they're going to be able to put up a bunch of points and put them up fast. At the same time, they're going to go cold and have a really hard time holding on to even the largest leads, as we all saw on Game one.
Charles Barkley said after the game on TNT's postgame show that there are times when you can "win a game without winning a game." Now, it sounded, if you can believe it, even dumber coming out of Charles Barkley than it does in print, but it actually makes sense, as most things Barkley says do in their own unique Alabama way.
The Celtics lost game one on tired legs, poor execution, and by letting the Magic's lead build to such a point that they just couldn't come back, despite their effort. It didn't take any extraordinary effort by the Celtics to come back, however.
That's where the Celtics are finding the victory in this, because they know that the Magic can't hold them down, despite Howard's defensive prowess and those tired legs. They know it. The Magic know it. They know the Magic know it. That's the edge, and that's the reason you should ignore the obituaries on the Celtics 2009 playoff run that you'll probably read in at least one place tomorrow.
A few calls here and there and the Celtics are waking up to game stories tomorrow that are talking about a great game one comeback rather than the early hole they've put themselves in, but the Celtics know they're not out of this yet.
That's where the benefit of experience lies in this series. The Celtics know they can probably go to Orlando and get a win, that's well within the realm of possibility. The question is can the Celtics maintain the intensity needed to prevent Orlando from building such large leads and, when the Celtics build their own leads, keep Orlando from getting hot from behind the line. It sounds simple, but this series is going to boil down to the simple things: intensity, execution, and effort. The Celtics, even without Garnett, should be able to win this series. It would've likely had to go seven, even without the early setback, and the road is certainly more difficult now, but it's very possible.
If I were Dwight Howard, the unquestioned leader of this team, I'd be livid in that locker room tonight. A win by 5 when you were up 28 with barely more than 20 minutes left to play is not the way to start a playoff series, even if your play style means you're subject to letting leads slip.
The Magic are going to win this series one way: by making the shots that they can make, feeding the ball to Howard inside, and putting as much pressure as possible on the Celtics. The more tired the Celtics get, the worse they're going to play. If the Magic can outhustle the boys in Green, this series is as good as over. If the Celtics can find something, anything left, well they've got a lot left to play for.
That's it. I can't take anymore. I'm too tired. How can any of these guys still stand? I'm exhausted and all I've been doing is sitting on the couch and watching.
I mean seriously. Just look at this post on ESPN's True Hoop recapping the 10 best moments of this series. It's been six games and there's already 10 moments that, in any other year, would trump just about anything else in round one. And there's already been 10, and that's leaving some out.
I thought about the game today while at work and realized, yeah, the Celtics let the game slip away with dumb mistakes and dumber fouls, but was there really any doubt this series was going seven? We should've seen this after game 2.
I really can't figure out what could possibly happen in game seven that would top the first six games of this series. I mean, what could happen next? Quadruple overtimes? Perkins shattering the backboard? Rose and Rondo combiniing for 40 assists? The entire building going up in flames? Joakim Noah grabbing a clutch rebound to ice the game for the Bulls then dunking in his own basket and then running around high-fiving the Celtics fans with floor seats? I'm prepared for anything.
The truth is this entire series is one long ESPN instant-classic. No, neither of these teams is likely to win the NBA title this year. Yeah, the overtimes have probably completely wasted any chance of these teams being able to get out of round two simply because of sheer exhaustion. But who cares? It's great basketball between two great teams. It simply doesn't get better than this in round one. Ever. I'm calling it, this is the best round one series in NBA history. There. I said it.
Let's just start with the Rondo/Rose matchup. Chris Paul and Deron Williams may be the better point guards in this age group, but Rondo and Rose aren't far behind and this series just seems like the opening chapter of what could be a long rivalry in the East.
(Sidenote here, with Willams, Paul, Rose, and Rondo there are now four phenomenal young point guards in the league, and we likely get Ricky Rubio and Brandon Jennings next. When's the last time there was this amount of depth at the game's most creative position? I don't mean like Gilbert Arenas/Baron Davis/Iverson type score-first point guards, but guards who actually facilitate the whole teams' offense but who can still score when necessary. It's great.)
The Rondo/Rose matchup has been the highlight of the series, so far, I think. The block by Rose was epic. Completely off balance and off the ground when Rondo starts his fallaway, he made Rondo's shot look like it was launched by a four foot guy with B.J. Raji's wingspan.
Missing the free throws at the end was hardly the way to finish the game, but Rose played out of his mind, matching Rondo step for step. Basketball is one of the few sports where you can get these sorts of matchups and really see two guys go head to head. Football's too team oriented and you don't play both ways. Baseball you get those matchups in pitcher vs. batter but not guys who play the same position. It happens sometimes in soccer but only for midfielders. You get it in hockey a little, but it's still more of a Anything-You-Can-Do-I-Can-Do-Better situation (as I'm sure we'll see with the Crosby/Ovechkin matchup).
The only other sport I can see it happening is boxing. That's what this series has boiled down to: a slug-it-out boxing match between two hungry teams, each trying to just knock the snot out of the other guy.
Some of the best basketball played yet in these playoffs has been in this series. The steal by Noah, the block by Rose, Allen's insane game last night, Perkins' arguably perfect game five, Pierce's spin and shot over Rose, Pierce's pull-up jumper x3, Ben Gordon's multiple huge shots peppered through the series, it's all been there.
It's not all pretty, though, that's for sure. These teams are both capable of some great basketball, but that's not necessarily what's been on display. It's been a mix, I'd say. For all the beautiful jumpers and defensive play on offer, there's been a lot of ugly to go around.
The Rondo foul, Davis deciding to punt the ball into Row Q, Pierce passing up an open-look off a screen to drive and have the ball stolen BECAUSE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO KICK IT OUT TO BRIAN SCALABRINE and then fouling out to boot. Can we diagram that play, for a moment?
Did he see the headband and think it was Eddie House? So here's the checklist of things you have to do to lose a playoff game to the Bulls if you're Paul Pierce:
1. Pass up the open jumper for three after a solid screen.
2. Drive to the basket to drag the help defender over.
3. Make the worst hip feint in the history of hip feints so that nobody actualy believes you're doing anything but a drive and kick.
4. Stare down the teammate you're trying to pass to like you're Rex Grossman.
5. Lose ball.
6. Foul needlessly out of the game.
So there you have it, a boneheaded play in six parts, by Paul Pierce. I can't get too angry at him since he is one of the main reasons why the Celtics are where they are, but he better have a big game seven in him, because he's got to make up for this one.
Either way, see you after Game 7. Well, maybe after Game 7 and a nap, this series is too much for me.
I had been kicking the question around my head the last day or so and PTI was kind enough to ask it for me this afternoon: Will the Celtics-Bulls Game 5 be a dud or a classic?
Well we got out answer tonight. You'd be forgiven for thinking your Tivo was on the fritz when Paul Pierce hit what seemed like three identical pull up jumpers to keep the Celtics in the game, keep them in again, and then finally to put them ahead for good to take a 3-2 series lead over the Bulls.
This was not pretty basketball, folks. You probably didn't need me to tell you that. Missed free throws, an ugly foul by Tony Allen. Joakim Noah. Nothing about this game was good looking.
But it sure was exciting and, for Celtics fans, satisfying. It seems like basketball in 2009 has been a war of attrition for the Celtics as the roster is slowly wittled down, looking less and less like the 2008 championship team and more and more like a first round bust.
Still, this year has given fans something else to cheer about. Last year was about synergy and history. Could three historic talents, all ring-less, come together and meld into a collective unit to win? We got that answer.
This year, it's been, can this great team cope with adversity? Can it continue to win without Kevin Garnett, without its bench, with everyone exhausted mentally and physically? Then, can it continue to win with this patchwork crew up against a rookie point guard who just doesn't know how to do anything but come up big? Then tonight, can it do it with Ray Allen fouling out and against the incredible hot shooting of Ben Gordon? There are a lot of questions left to answer.
But that's playoff basketball for you. In these short series, heroes come and go. Tonight it was Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon for the Bulls most of the game for the Bulls and then basically just Pierce in the fourth and overtime. (apologies to Rondo, I'll get to him in a moment) In Game 6, it could be just about anybody. Davis might hit a big shot. Stephon Marbury may finally stop playing like he's afraid he'll executed for missing an open jumper. Hell, Brian Scalabrine may come up with a clutch dunk over Noah in an ugly vs. ugly matchup for the ages. Anything can happen. But a dud? I don't see it. I couldn't see it going into Game 5 and I don't see it for Game 6 (or 7) with the series on the line. Not with these teams.
What I have been pleased to see, though, is the development of Rajon Rondo. I think any Celtics fan would agree with me there. It's been a pleasure to watch his game. Bob Ryan raved about it the other day, saying nobody's quite had his blend of talents before in the history of basketball. I'm inclined to at least hear Bob out on that one, he's got a few more years in this game than I.
The truth is that the Celtics lost Garnett, but they've gained Rondo. Yes, Garnett is a better player than Rondo right now, obviously. But I don't think you could make much of an argument against saying Rondo is the most important player the Celtics have available right now, and he's certainly been the best in this series. Give Rose the plaudits, but Rondo has this team on the verge of escaping The Team Nobody Really Wants To Play Against with his phenomenal play.
The biggest problem has been the complete absence of the bench in this series. There's nobody left. House can play but he can't lead that unit. The only one who can contribute like that, who isn't currently pressed into a starting role, is Marbury. Stephon hasn't developed nearly the way we might have liked. I think the passed jump shot tonight is a big indicator of that. That, once upon a time, was his shot.
The shot may be there, the speed may be there, the mind may be there. But the confidence isn't, and without a killer "I can win this game" attitude coming off the bench, the Celtics are, at best, reeling into a Game 7 or Round 2 punch drunk and one solid hook from hitting the mat.
I started writing this post Sunday night when the draft had finished and thought better of it. I wanted to first get an idea of what the other experts were saying about the overall draft but realized, well, that's kind of pointless in the end.
There have been such disparate grades handed out for the Patriots that it's hard to even know what the general consensus on the Patriots' draft is now, let alone how any of these players are actually going to turn out in two, three years.
So I'm guarded about grading the draft. I think there were good and bad moves.
Good? Setting up to pick up two more second round picks next year. As I wrote ad nauseum before the draft when discussing the 3-4, the Patriots have been in Moneyball-esque mode for years: finding value where other teams discount it. It used to be the DE/OLB that the 3-4 thrives on that the 4-3 has no use for. Now? It's simply the systemic overestimating of the value of first round picks.
Now, I think in terms of general value, the first rounders are worth more than second rounders. But they tie up an awful lot of money. The money commanded by first rounders is, on average, nearly 11 million guaranteed. Now, obviously the top 5 or 6 guys seriously weigh that down on the high end and there are certainly tiers of value where you can get a player (more on this below) for less than you should have to pay him for his talent level. Still, 11 million is nothing to sniff at and it's unquestionably a higher amount than second round picks without much difference in overall ability.
Do you have to stomach more off-field concerns or past injury history with second rounders vs. first rounders? yeah, but if you do your scouting correctly and dont' get overwowed by combine numbers (or look for guys who are better football players than their measurables suggest) you will find those diamonds in the rough eventually.
So I'm not going to comment on individual players drafted (though I'm very happy with the draft overall, Tate is the only character risk and he's explosive enough to warrant it and the rest of the group seems like good, versatile, tough football players and standup people to boot--a very Belichick group of rooks)
The Bad? The constant trading down. Michael Oher falling to the Patriots at 23 was a blessing. He's nearly as polished a tackle as Monroe or Smith but he's got more raw talent than either, in my opinion, and just needs time. He's only been playing football since he was 16 and was barely in school before that. Read Michael Lewis' phenomenal book The Blind Side to get a better idea of his upbringing. I've heard people suggest that the book, and especially the family's generosity in bringing in Oher, seems impossible. I say it's Michael Lewis, he's one of the best in the business. If there was a shady deal going on funnelling Oher to Ole Miss, he would've rooted it out.
Still, the Patriots are in the perfect position to let a guy like that succeed. They have a half-opening at Right Tackle if Kascur doesn't improve and, if Oher doesn't beat him out he'll just have time to develop and work his way into the lineup in a year or two, which is exactly what he needs. The Patriots could've got the best OL project in the draft for peanuts compared to where he could've gone and balked, trading out of the pick.
So basically, I like the stockpiling of second rounders and placing value on them if there's nobody in the draft you really like enough to pay first-round money but, at the same time, I'm confused how you can't see the value of a guy like Oher at 23 when he easily could've gone in the top half of the draft.
I'm divided overall and I'll say I'm in wait-and-see mode. I think Tate might have personal problems since he tested positive for Marijuana at the Combine, of all places, but he'll be a big help on punt and kick returns. I like Chung and Butler for the defensive backfield, especially, and Brace provides good depth if the unthinkable happens to Wilfork. But again, who knows what will come for these players.
The Patriots have traded cornerback Ellis Hobbs to the Eagles for two fifth round picks, according to Boston.com
Hobbs was signed through this season, so it makes sense in terms of timing. It's pretty much the last time they can get value for him without resigning him next season and they did just bring in Leigh Bodden and Shawn Springs (and drafted Darius Butler), so I can see the logic.
But a year after the Patriots had to scramble to fill cornerback depth because they left themselves light at CB by letting Randal Gay walk and then with the Asante Samuel trade, it doesn't make much sense to trade your best cornerback again.
Now, I think Leigh Bodden is better than Hobbs, but not by much and I think the team would've been in a better position if it went to camp and at least was able to see what they had in those players before shipping out the only proven, consistent performer they have at the position.
And a joyous day it is. Of course it's 85 degrees and beautiful out so I'll try to make this quick.
Admittedly, the #23 pick hardly fills most people's heads with thoughts of out-of-the-box superstars and Hall of Famers, but the #23 pick, as any draftnik will tell you, is nothing to throw away idly.
This late in the first round it's usually hard to find the true superstars who don't come with some sort of baggage. The 20s of the first round are usually full of guys who have a glaring flaw, didn't have a great season, have some sort of injury problem, or are sub-par character guys.
Now, with Belichick, you can guarantee the last group isn't coming anywhere near a blue and white jersey. The Patriots don't deal well with primadonnas so Percy Harvin, show yourself out. However there are a number of guys who bring a lot of value to the table for the Patriots who fill immediate needs.
I've detailed who I think the Patriots could take. I've detailed who I think the Patriots should take. Now let's look at the guys other teams in the same position have taken (and which guys slipped past them in the first round who were arguably better).
So here we go, here's the last 11 guys who were drafted at #23 (along with who that team passed up on in parentheses):
2008: Rashard Mendenhall, RB, Illinois (passed on Chris Johnson)
2007: Dwayne Bowe, WR, Louisiana State (Patriots took Meriweather right afterward)
2006: Davin Joseph, G, Oklahoma (DeAngelo Williams and Joseph Addai)
2005: Fabian Washington, CB, Nebraska (Aaron Rodgers and Logan Mankins)
2000: Rashard Anderson, FS, Jackson State (Keith Bulluck)
1999: Antoine Winfield, CB, Ohio State (Al Wilson, LB)
1998: Mo Collins, T, Florida (Alan Faneca)
Now, when I was setting up to do this list, I figured we'd get a lot of fringe guys, guys who start but aren't really those household names. I have to say, I was surprised. There's always value in the first round, no matter where you draft, but knowing there's franchise guys like Nnamdi Asomugha (arguably the best defender in the league and certainly the best CB), Stephen Jackson, Joseph Addai, DeAngelo Williams, Reggie Wayne, and Alan Faneca in there. Well, that gets me a little more excited about the prospects of some of the talent this late in the draft, especially given how deep the group of OLB/DEs seems to be this year.
So the Patriots might pull a draft day deal, slide up to #8 and try to get that franchise player but, looking at this list, if they do their homework and get a little lucky, they won't have to move at all.
Tip of the hat to Pro Football Talk for finding Peter King's report that the Patriots are making calls trying to find a way to get into one of the top 10 spots in the draft to find someone who can fill their myriad needs.
The only reason to move up in such an aggressive way, especially when the Patriots usually hate to guarantee that kind of money to unproven players, would be to get a specific player or two.
As such, don't expect the Pats to pull the trigger on any deal until their potential trade partner is on the clock--and their targeted player is still on the board.
Who then, might they be targeting?
Some have thrown out the name of Brian Cushing or Rey Maualuga, both of whom have appeared on draft boards mighty high, although I don't think either is a top 10 guy simply because in terms of measurables I don't see it with them. Peter King suggests it might even be an offensive player. Unless he means a tackle, which I also don't think they need, I also don't really see it.
Pettigrew, the best TE in the draft, probably won't even go top 20. They don't really need an offensive lineman, although some quality depth there never hurts in a rough-and-tumble league like the NFL. Quarterback is certainly not an option, not in the top 10 anyway with the kind of money they'd be paying a potential backup-to-the-backup. Then, unless they're going after Beanie Wells (which would make getting the 8 or 9 pick pointless when they could get him at 13 or 14, easily...and for less money) there's no point in RB. So unless the Patriots are really going to surprise people and go WR (don't hold your breath), it's not an offensive player.
My guess is they're then targeting a guy like Tyson Jackson or Brian Orakpo who, in all likelihood, have little real chance of falling much further than 6 or 7. Jackson could go top 5 because of his versatility, but he'll probably fall a couple spots, depending on team needs. Orakpo could do with some extra size if he's going to play DE in a 3-4 but the Patriots do have the very real concern of replacing Richard Seymour to deal with in the next few years. Orakpo is an ideal fit there while still leaving the possibility he could be a passing-down rusher as a LB in the 5 or 7-technique (outside edge of tackle).
King says he's hearing talk that the Pats tried to move into 8 with Jacksonville and were rebuffed.
My educated guess is they're trying to move into 8, above the Packers at 9, because they expect the Packers to draft the guy they're going after (since the Packers are shifting to a 3-4 defense, like the Patriots, and will want to anchor that with a DE or OLB who can rush the passer and seal the edge against the run). It could be Maybin, Orakpo, or Jackson. I think they'd take any of those guys, trying to move into 8 if there's just one left or moving into 10 with the 49ers (assuming Sanchez is gone and the 49ers will want to get multiple picks for their spot) if two of those 3 are left, letting the Packers decide which one they want and taking what's left if they have to.
I like Maybin here. I agree with King that Tyson Jackson from LSU is the most versatile DE in the draft, and "versatile" is pretty much the key word when it comes to Bill Belichick's draft strategy, but I think Maybin has the better potential as a pro and would fit the Patriots system--both on and off the field--perfectly.
To borrow Scouts Inc.'s take on Maybin's character (Insider only but if you don't have Insider, get it, probably the best value there is): "Very mature for his young age. Had to grow up in a hurry after mother died from birth complications when Aaron was six years old. He is a natural leader ? both vocally and by example. Non-stop motor is infectious. Great football character. Not aware of any off-the-field issues."
Sounds like a guy Belichick would be okay investing heavily in, especially given his talent level, too.
Come back later tonight on draft day eve to see our report on the history of the #23 pick in the NFL draft and what type of players it has produced over the years.
When Brandon Jennings decided to forego college and begin playing overseas, it caused an incredible stir among basketball circles.
The difference between European life and American life, even for a basketball star (and perhaps, given the rigors of life as a professional basketball player in Europe) is far greater than even the ocean that divides them.
If you've read stories about Jennings, perhaps seen the HBO Real Sports special on him when he is interviewed by Bryant Gumbel, you get the impression that he was capable of making the transition because he is an incredibly mature young man who has a strong support network--he lives with his brother and mother in Rome--to make sure that he stays focused.
First, he's going to graduate high school, just not from the brick and mortar one that he has been attending. He's working online to get his grades and get a diploma. Second, he's going not because he feels that he's going to make millions and millions and live the NBA lifestyle, but because he feels he can improve more by playing overseas against professionals.
There are high schools that don't require attendance that churn out basketball prospects who can barely make the SAT cutoff for NCAA inclusion. Brandon Jennings left amid reports he would've never been academically eligible to play in college barring a miracle on his SATs. There are far worse academic sins than dropping out, finishing online, and pursuing your career choice--especially when you have no intentions of ever finishing college.
Now, do I believe money doesn't play a factor? Of course it does. Sonny Vaccaro, while not taking a cut from any of these guys he's funnelling overseas, doesn't get involved without making the money side of this business clear.
I do believe that he wants to be the best basketball player that he can be, but I don't know if it's been made clear to him that he won't be able to dominate pro leagues anywhere near the way he can dominate high school. The NY Times story discusses this in greater depth, that his high school team is a mess because of transfer violations involving 3-star recruits. But I wonder if he understands that not only will pro coaches not coddle him, they'll likely put him under more scrutiny because of the press he's receiving now.
The main problem I see here is the hype these players won't receive. Despite all the attention lavished on these two cases since they can seriously upset the balance of power between college, the NBA, and the players themselves. However, nothing hypes a player like March Madness and that is something these guys are missing out on.
Jennings has worked hard and gets his minutes, but he's not going to have the gaudy stats or the nationally-televised moments that his fellow draftees will have gotten by playing in college. I'm not going to talk about the loss of a chance at education or maturity or whatever because I think we can agree many of these stars don't take full advantage of that. Most leave well before graduation and there are significant discipline problems that run rampant in the college ranks even though many of these guys are coddled and hawked over to keep them in line.
But in a real dollars-and-cents way, these guys lose out on something. Brandon Jennings (or Ricky Rubio, for posterity's sake) could have gone to college here, lit up the tournament, and built an incredible amount of hype. Instead, they have to make their case to be drafted highly with just limited playing time, via scouts who travel overseas, or on film. It's just not the same.
From what I've read, heard, and seen out of Jennings and Rubio, both could be perennial all-stars in the NBA if they reach their potential. Yet many look at the two of them as mid-first round picks at best rather than the lottery picks they arguably could've become had they gone through the college system.
Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Who knows. But it's certainly becoming a groundswell movement and, if these guys succeed and others follow and succeed as well, we could see a great deal of change to the system as we know it.
Bill Belichick held his first press conference with the media today, hitting on a number of issues ranging from the upcoming NFL Draft (we've previewed what the media is saying about the Patriot's likely pick here as well as who they maybe should be looking at a few weeks back.
Going into the spring camps though, it looks like one Patriot player is back on schedule: Tom Brady.
According to those in attendance, Belichick said Brady will have no limitations placed on him in camp in terms of what he will and won't be able to participate in. He's obviously not going to be taking a lot of hits early in camp, anyway, but it's certainly good to hear that he's doing well.
WEEI.com's It Is What It Is Blog has the full rundown including audio clips edited down to what Bill discuses specifically. Great work over there.
You can also check out Boston.com's Mike Reiss and his summary of what Belichick had to say on each topic.
Bill basically kept it to the usual: little information but did seem pretty positive about the options available to the Patriots, indicating they could trade up or down, package picks, or try to find help at a number of different positions with the plethora of picks the Patriots have right now.
I can't see the Patriots trading up, to be honest. There's a few guys who look like they could maybe be elite talents but nobody's really distinguished themselves in this draft and unless they move up to 9 or 10, some of those guys (Maybin, Orakpo, Ayers, etc.) could all be gone. I think there's enough talent spread throughout the draft that there just isn't the value (versus the risk) to make it worth moving up this year.
Then again, you'd probably have better luck predicting the lottery numbers for a week straight than predicting what the Patriots will do with 11 draft picks and needs across the board.
It seems everybody and their mother has a mock draft these days.
Trying to analyze the draft and predict what is going to happen might be the most useless thing in sports writing.
Except, of course, analyzing everyone else's analysis of the draft. Give every fool his errand, I guess.
With that soaring introduction, I bring you the Mock Draft Roundup: a final look at what the different football sites around the web are saying about the Patriots and their #23 pick in the first round. Some of these are older than others and I'll provide that context where I can find it because the book on some guys, simply in terms of the measurables that we know, let alone all the stuff teams have found out that we haven't, has changed dramatically (NSFHE -- Not Safe For Human Eyes) in the last few weeks.
On we go:
ESPN
Todd McShay (as of 4-21-09): Clay Matthews, LB, USC
Mel Kiper (as of 4-9-09): Donald Brown, RB, Connecticut
McShay seems to be going with the standard line tha the Patriots will go after a linebacker and Matthews is certainly a popular choice here. There are more athletic guys in the draft, to be sure, but Matthews seems a good fit for the Patriots.
Donald Brown is a puzzling pick here, given that the Patriots already are five deep (!) at the position and certainly won't carry six (let alone five) RB on the roster -- meaning they'd have to give up the ghost on Fred Taylor (just signed), Lawrence Maroney (21st pick just three years ago), Sammy Morris (very productive in limited time), Kevin Faulk (essentiall on 3rd down), and Green-Ellis (the likely victim, but the team seems to like him). Ellis might be the victim here, but throwing another first rounder to the position with such glaring need at others seems unlikely for Belichick, especially for a guy ESPN's own scouting service describes as "lacking elite size and breakaway speed."
Oddly enough, though, Kiper has the Pats passing on Matthews in the second round, too, which seems ridiculous given the value he'd have there.
Caplan also says the Patriots might look to Darius Butler or Eben Britton, but both of those guys could slip out of the first round, too.
Ayers would be a huge value here as he's in that group of highly valued DE-OLB pass rushers who can anchor a 3-4 defense. With so many teams going to the 3-4, as I wrote about a little while ago, he's a guy who is going to earn a hell of a payday after the draft. I doubt he'll be there for the Patriots to pick, but it would certainly be great if they stole him this late.
Walter Football.com
Mock as of 4/20/09 (automatically updates when they change it): Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
Not sure if this is just Walter's pick or a composite by their staff but they have the Patriots also going the USC linebacker route here. They're much higher on Rey than I am and have him down here only because of the torn hamstring. Having messed my hamstring up in the past six months (not even torn, like his) I can tell you that the effects don't go away quickly and, even when you're healthy, there's a mental aspect to the injury because it's so simple to reinjure it. He's got far better treatment than me, but hamstring injuries have derailed plenty of professional athletes before.
The Patriots are old at linebacker and have been pretty badly bitten by the injury bug the last few seasons, having a rookie LB they'll want to work in right away coming into camp with a torn hamstring is not a good start. There are safer picks here and I don't think Rey is that much better than his USC compatriots to warrant the risk.
Patriots Daily
Scott Benson (as of 3/20/09): Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia
Older pick from Benson here because it's a part of a Hands Mock Across America, but I don't know if his opinion has changed at all in the last month since a lot of guys have moved up and down the board (and it's dependent on what other blogs pick, as well).
I'm higher on this pick than on Donald Brown from Kiper, above. I'm down on it in terms of depth but if the Patriots are going to go with a running back I'd prefer a guy like Knowshon who has the potential to be explosive.
His combine numbers were hardly the stuff of legends (4.62 40 yard, 25.5 vertical, 9'7'' broad jump, 4.27 in the 20 yard shuttle -- all middle of the road at best and dead last in the vertical) but I don't trust those numbers. He re-ran the 40 yard dash and got a 4.6 again after being sick that entire week and ended up keeping his middling combine numbers. I think the combine was a fluke (maybe not the 40, but in pads he's faster) and he's far better than those measurables indicate.
Watch him on film and it's obvious that this is not a guy who has a shorter vertical jump than I do:
If you're going to go RB in the first round when you have that much depth, it's because you're gambling on a guy with a ton of upside. Brown has that upside, too, just less of it, in my opinion.
Michael Lombardi (4/17): Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois
Chad Reuter (4/13): Brian Cushing, LB, USC
Pete Prisco (4/18):Brian Cushing, LB, USC
Clarke Judge (4/17): Clay Matthews, LB, USC
Clearly the USC LB thing has caught on at CBS (and I agree, I like either Matthews or Cushing here) so thumbs up on the picks from Reuter, Prisco, and Judge. Who knows if the USC linebackers can do anything at the next level, but I think they're a safer bet than most.
I like the Vontae Davis and Butler picks as well but I think similar value can be had in the second round but at 23, it's hardly a wasted pick unless either guy busts entirely. That Davis' name was cleared earlier on Monday (according to ProFootballTalk.com) certainly makes that an easier pill to swallow, too.
All good picks that fill desperate needs for the Patriots as that linebacking corps looks awfully slow and, even with the additions of Shawn Springs and Leigh Bodden, it's going to need some athletic help in the defensive backfield. My only problem with the Butler pick would be that in the same mock draft Rob Rang has Aaron Maybin still on the board and I don't think you pass up a guy like that for Butler. (Watch this sentence appear to bite me in the behind in three years when Maybin's a washout and Butler is a stud, but still).
Mr. "X" is PFT's anonymous expert here who, according to them, has talked with several scouts around the league about where they think players will land and which teams are actually big on players and which are just pretending to be interested to throw up a smokescreen.
The Orakpo pick is interesting, then, because he's considered a high first-round pick, with every other mock draft I've seen having him fall no lower than 15th, to Houston and most at just 5th, to Cleveland.
Depending on how the first 10-12 picks turn out, he might fall this far, but there would have to be a compelling reason for teams to pass on this kind of talent for mid-first round money. Also falling heavily in this mock is Aaron Maybin, the athletic freak (anyone who adds 20ish pounds of body weight in 12 weeks and is 4-5% body fat, I want on my football team)
The Sporting News also has Moreno going to the Patriots here (and Orakpo going as high as 3, to KC) with the Patriots going LB in the second round (with Utah's Paul Kruger, Matthews falls all the way to Seattle at 37, here).
From what I can tell this is a pretty early mock, but I'm not sure as they don't say when it was last updated. Benson at Patriots Daily already made this pick and, surprise, my opinion hasn't changed in the last 300 words. Good value pick, high upside, but there are probably more pressing needs.
I like the pick here. English has been soaring on draft boards lately, according to a number of sites. Check out the site though, it mock drafts for a whole seven rounds, which is a good way to waste twenty minutes trying to find out which of the fourth-round picks are going to be gems like in recent years and which you'll never hear again. (For the record, The Sporting News above also does all seven rounds, but I'm not sure when theirs was last updated.)
Not to put everyone else's opinion out without my own, I'll say that I think there is considerable depth at LB in the first round, so it'll depend greatly on what is available. I think they need to try to get as much value as possible out of those first two picks so if a guy like Orakpo or Maybin falls to them, I think they should pounce. Linebacker is the obvious need and there's much value there in the first, so I'd assume that's the route the Patriots will go.
But if the LBs are gone, maybe look at a high upside guy like Moreno, who I believe will be a very good back in this league if used correctly. He won't burn around the edge like some in this draft, but he's a guy who, in the second level, will turn 4 yard carries into 40 yard touchdowns and has the size and frame to survive the pounding of running inside in the NFL.
Friday, May 22, 2009 at 02:57PM 
