NFL Week3-4: Revenge of the Nerd?

[Jace, Extat]

LaVarr Arrington and Clinton Portis reminiscing about Sean Taylor. It's actually a pretty nice video.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

But nothing crystallizes the Patriots agony and ecstasy than the 2013 draft. In 2013 the Pats traded away the 29^th overall pick. For the 52^nd, 83^rd, 102^nd, and 229^th overall picks. On paper, that seems like a lot.

The Pats ended up getting Jamie Collins at 52 (developing defensive talent), CB Logan Ryan at 83 (incredibly average player), Josh Boyce at 102 (he was so good the Pats cut him this season) and traded the 229^th pick for LaGarrette Blount which was … fine.

With the 29^th pick Minnesota acquired Cordarelle Patterson a stud Wide Out and cornerstone of that team.

So, yes, on paper, the Pats “got value” but that trade was a bunch of stuff for a stud and I always think that at the end of the day, the teams with the studs win out.

Of course it is only relevant if you know for certain Pats would have taken Patterson with that pick. Are you really confident they wouldn´t have taken some bust anyway?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Of course it is only relevant if you know for certain Pats would have taken Patterson with that pick. Are you really confident they wouldn´t have taken some bust anyway?

That's pretty much at the heart of draft second guessing though.

LOOK WHAT YOU COULD'VE HAD WITH THAT PICK, IDIOT!

[BLU-RAY]

Well, the whole point of drafting is that nobody is really that good at it in the abstract - which is why it's better to get more picks by trading down.

If I were a Pats fan, I'd be more curious about why the team can't seem to develop its WR or DB talent. Players don't come out of the draft fully-formed. I love Richard Sherman, but there was a reason he was not picked in the first couple of rounds.

[Jaime L]

I think a better way to think about is that Elway is playing to win and Belichick is playing for value. Its almost as if they are doing two different things; Elway is looking at what he needs to win and acquiring all that he can. Belichick is looking at what is available and always getting his “three dimes for a quarter” premium. This is not to say Belichick does not care about winning or that Elways is too concerned about the present. But everything Belichick does seems more geared to maximizing value than winning- the draft deals (almost always trading down); the reclamation projects (with mixed results); the veterans playing for less pay. Its as if Belichick thinks he can win a championship based upon frugality and a degree of difficulty score. Meanwhile, Elway looks at the team, sees what they need and goes and gets it. And if that means in 2 years the Broncos will be 2-14 so be it. It worked for the Colts after all…

Yep, I think that's exactly it. I will say Belichick's method is the best way to maximize wins over an X time span (5 years, 10 years etc.) whereas Elway is best at maximizing a single year. If they're 2-14 ujnder Osweiler in 2016, that's a tomorrow problem.

For Belichick, for years felt like he was running circles around the league in terms of accumulating draft assets and always making the right decision longterm, even if it delayed gratification. Basically the exact opposite of Daniel Snyder's approach and partly why they're also very good. Still that's why despite the hits in the draft you named, it's still extra disappointing to me that the Patriots have been only okay in the draft despite having so many more picks than anyone else.

Just so wanted to see that one year where he'd be less of a computer, push all his chips to the center of the table, and say "we're going to try to get one more title with Brady". I mean 2007 showed it was in his repertoire. He gave up draft capital and big contracts to Welker, Moss and Adailus Thomas in an effort to kick ass right now. And getting Revis was that kind of baller move. Felt like this was the year he makes his stand...but nope there goes Mankinss and now Brady looks for the first time to be in clear decline...and is it now too late? Has the title window, which remarkably has been open for 13 seasons, finally closed?

LaVarr Arrington and Clinton Portis reminiscing about Sean Taylor. It's actually a pretty nice video.

Definitely going to have to check this out.

[Mack Kilimaro]

ESPN has suspended Bill Simmons for three weeks for this rant (apparently):

I just think not enough is being made out of the fact that they knew about the tape and they knew what was on it. Goodell, if he didn't know what was on that tape, he's a liar. I'm just saying it. He is lying. I think that dude is lying. If you put him up on a lie detector test that guy would fail. For all these people to pretend they didn't know is such f------ b-------. It really is — it's such f------ b-------. And for him to go in that press conference and pretend otherwise, I was so insulted. I really was.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-simmons-roger-goodell-2014-9#ixzz3EHGzzBJG

As the Twitter yukster class has noted, that's three times as long as Stephen A. Smith was suspended for essentially saying that Rice's wife deserved to be hit, and longer than the NFL itself originally suspended Rice.

But what will we do without three weeks of Guess the Lines podcasts? Cousin Sal flying solo?

[DanteGabriel]

Does RGIII count, or is he a category of his own?

I'd say RGIII is closer to the Bradford model -- promising career derailed by injuries.

Now if you want to argue that rookie QBs benefit from sitting an entire season like Rodgers, Kaepernick or Rivers, that's a different argument and one that I can possibly buy, especially if you have a better option at QB that year. I just think it's silly not to play your best starter just because he's a rookie out of some misguided attempt to "protect" him, when you're just going to throw him to the wolves 3 weeks later. Sit him if he hasn't earned it, like Johnny Manziel hasn't. But if he looks far better than your replacement level veteran QB, you're doing your team a disservice. Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck are all evidence that if a rookie has what it takes to be successful in the league, there's no set amount of time you should feel like you have to wait.

I can see an argument for sitting Bortles this year, and it's an argument I saw some sportswriters making before the start of the season: the Jags' OL is so awful that it'd be counter-productive to throw a rookie out there to get David Carred. Of course, that's a tough row to hoe for Chad Henne and the rest of the team.

ESPN has suspended Bill Simmons for three weeks for this rant (apparently):

You've got to be fucking shitting me. Way to blow the "not the league's lapdog" cred you got for the OTL piece, ESPN.

[l2 0 5 5]

ESPN has suspended Bill Simmons for three weeks for this rant (apparently):

As the Twitter yukster class has noted, that's three times as long as Stephen A. Smith was suspended for essentially saying that Rice's wife deserved to be hit, and longer than the NFL itself originally suspended Rice.

But what will we do without three weeks of Guess the Lines podcasts? Cousin Sal flying solo?

Bill Simmons is great. It's a shame he's tied down by the ESPN-Disney hand holding jamboree alliance.

[Fez]

ESPN has suspended Bill Simmons for three weeks for this rant (apparently):

As the Twitter yukster class has noted, that's three times as long as Stephen A. Smith was suspended for essentially saying that Rice's wife deserved to be hit, and longer than the NFL itself originally suspended Rice.

But what will we do without three weeks of Guess the Lines podcasts? Cousin Sal flying solo?

I heard that rant on the podcast, I was surprised something that candid had made it out; I guess ESPN really doesn't have any editorial control over Grantland, at least, not until after-the-fact like this.

Its bullshit to suspend to him though. The only reason I could maybe see would be for obscenity, but the podcast straight up has a warning at its start saying that "mature language" is sometimes used. But that's not the reason, ESPN' statement was:

“Every employee must be accountable to ESPN and those engaged in our editorial operations must also operate within ESPN’s journalistic standards. We have worked hard to ensure that our recent NFL coverage has met that criteria. Bill Simmons did not meet those obligations in a recent podcast, and as a result we have suspended him for three weeks.”

I fail to see what "journalistic standards" should apply to a personal opinion given in podcast about guessing NFL lines. I think Simmons could proudly say that no journalism has ever occurred during an episode of "Guess the Lines."

[DanteGabriel]

ESPN statement on Simmons suspension:

Every employee must be accountable to ESPN and those engaged in our editorial operations must also operate within ESPN’s journalistic standards. We have worked hard to ensure that our recent NFL coverage has met that criteria. Bill Simmons did not meet those obligations in a recent podcast, and as a result we have suspended him for three weeks.

Ah, journalistic standards. Well, that's certainly a reasonable justification for laying three weeks on a guy you've built a brand and a website on as the "voice of the regular fan" for what he said on his podcast. Maybe you can trot out Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless to further illuminate the ethics of journalism for us.

Funnily enough there was someone on sports radio wondering why Simmons daring ESPN to discipline him was a big deal.

[Mack Kilimaro]

I fail to see what "journalistic standards" should apply to a personal opinion given in podcast about guessing NFL lines. I think Simmons could proudly say that no journalism has ever occurred during an episode of "Guess the Lines."

I doubt it's that they regularly expect journalistic standards from the B.S. Report, but Simmons is involved in the editorial aspect of ESPN in that he was kind of the progenitor of the 30 for 30 documentary series and he does some serious-ish work for them regarding the NBA.

Not that I think it excuses their suspending him in any way - I'd just guess the justification is something along those lines. He is a part of the network's editorial operations, therefore, any time he's doing anything, he should uphold whatever. I wonder whether he would have gotten less shit from the higher-ups if he had made more of an effort to make clear that it's his opinion, although the full text of it seems to suggest he has some inside info.

To the outsider it sure seems to piss away any inkling of independent thought that the network might have gained over the last week.

[Rockroi]

Of course it is only relevant if you know for certain Pats would have taken Patterson with that pick. Are you really confident they wouldn´t have taken some bust anyway?

That's not the whole story, though. My point as not just that the Pats could have had Patterson; its the trade they fostered. If the Pats are half as smart as we all think they are, they MUST have known that the Vikings wanted to take Patterson and that they knew why. I DO NO think the issue is that the Pats did or did not take Patterson at that pick. I think the issue is that they DIDN'T TAKE ANYONE! And instead traded it away.

That was why I called it the "agony and the ecstasy" of being a Pats fan. Sure, Pats got value, but what did they pass up to get that value? And what would have been so bad about cultivating a first-round talent at WR? Why are we so frightened about that? And what did the Pats get instead of a crisp $100 Bill? Thirty-Seven, $2 Bills, three fives, three jars of nickles and a package of buy-one-get-one free coupons. And maybe that was value?

But at what cost?

Look, who cares? All I know is that I am going to enjoy this week's recaps with Cousin Sal and the Spor-

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/espn-suspends-bill-simmons-anti-735565

Fuck Balls.

Look, Simmons is becoming less and less "Sports" and more and more "That Guy" but he's still funny and insightful. So, yeah- lets suspend him for having a completely valid and widely held opinion! YES Makes perfect sense, you NFL ball-licking sycophants.

ESPN blows.

[Jace, Extat]

Just listened to the Simmons podcast. Fucking great stuff.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Simmons more or less dared espn to suspend him in that podcast

[Rockroi]

Simmons more or less dared espn to suspend him in that podcast

Then ESPN looks all the more foolish.

Their statement should have read "Well, what did you want us to do? He DARED us!"

I actually read that Simmons double dog-dared ESPN and they stuck their tongue to that pole and that's why they suspended him.

[Commodore]

Simmons was suspended for cursing his employer and daring them to punish him, not for comments about Goodell.

Which is exactly what he wanted of course.

Simmons is a younger Costas, aiming to be perceived as the most indignant member of the sports media.

[Fez]

I doubt it's that they regularly expect journalistic standards from the B.S. Report, but Simmons is involved in the editorial aspect of ESPN in that he was kind of the progenitor of the 30 for 30 documentary series and he does some serious-ish work for them regarding the NBA.

And if this was at all related to his 30 for 30 work, being executive editor for Grantland, doing NBA television work, etc. that would be one thing, maybe, but this was unrelated to any of that. This was a podcast that has no specific journalistic or editoral component.

Anyway, I'm finding it interesting that a lot of the non-sports journalists I follow on twitter are commenting on this and being generally outraged. I wonder how caught up in the coverage of the broader NFL story that the non-sports world is following this will get.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

It seems they have removed the podcast from Grantland. It was still up earlier today.

[drawkcabi]

Gotta say I enjoyed seeing Snyder being beat to a pulp, even if it was by the Cowboys :P

Go F(Washington Redskins logo)ck Yourself!

[Jace, Extat]

Gotta say I enjoyed seeing Snyder being beat to a pulp, even if it was by the Cowboys :P

Go F(Washington Redskins logo)ck Yourself!

Don't mean to sound snarky, but what are you talking about?