NFL: Tebowmania's Migration

[Space Bandito]

Read rumor that KC might be lookin to trade up to the sixth to get Tannehill. Let the bidding war for a QB with the ceiling of being the next Christian Ponder begin!

I took that as a reporter was bored that the draft was 2 weeks away and wanted something to write about. I doubt it. But you never know. It got him on talk radio and ESPN so it sort of worked. I am finally getting into draft mode. When I finally start looking at players and who I should care about. As usual the Patriots have more than a few picks.

[Greywolf2375]

Not suprisingly, Goodell upheld the suspensions, though they are now pushed back to effective 4/16:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/18423389/nfl-upholds-suspensions-for-saints-sean-payton-mickey-loomis-joe-vitt

Depending on how they operate during the suspension with the programs they are to be part of, they might be able to get back the 2013 pick they had to give up.

[Rhom]

Saw this morning that former NFL QB (back up QB) Bair Kiel died of natural causes. That is crazy.

If you don't mind me asking... what's crazy about it? He's 50; that's young, but not so young that you think its outright bizarre for him to die of natural causes.

[Queen of Summerwine]

After the flat 2011 season with no Peyton, no Brett, no Kurt, finally found zen watching Eli kick Brady's ass. Now it looks like my Rams dodged a monumental disaster having the Williams bounty slime suspended, but wondering about birds of a feather... Gregg Williams so quickly snapped up by Rams new dubious HC Jeff Fisher, as longtime personal best friends...??!!

On a lighter note, became a dazed Broncos fan, hunted out some Denver sport writers and found some funny as hell Anti-Tebowists...shocked. And although the Peyton Palooza has peaked, the Winter Has Come to the Meadowlands Tebow to Jets has not, personally; so as a former NYer in the spirit of a cyber BronxCheer to give Tebow a back handed welcome, and sympathy to Jets players that fight the good fight, decade after decade, QB after QB...this alleviated some of the wtf frustration;

Tim Tebow-Peyton Manning memes: Did Mark Sanchez get f*cked by a virgin?

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/03/tim_tebow_peyton_manning_memes.php

Peyton Manning's plane parked in Taylor Swift's hangar: Sounds dirty!

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/03/peyton_mannings_plane_taylor_swifts_hangar.php

[prrmartin]

Here's a football/game of thrones related thing.

http://prrmartin.deviantart.com/#/d4vp9m4

[Jaime L]

Brian Billick:

“We did a pretty decent job, and obviously they continue to do a phenomenal job in Baltimore, with Ozzie Newsome and his group,” Billick said. “JaMarcus Russell was the highest-rated player I’ve ever seen on any of our boards. So we all missed on JaMarcus Russell. Make no mistake.”

So, look, I get it. I mean JaMarcus Russell had all the physical tools and it's not absurd to think he went #1 in a given year just because teams always need potential franchise QBs. But how can one of the best organizations in football have this guy as the highest rated player ever to come out? How does potential motivational concerns and lack of demonstrable intangibles not enter the evaluation? What, because it's more difficult to measure you just ignore it?

Hindsight is 20/20, sure, but people had these concerns then. I don't think it's a Raiders thing - I don't think Russell would've been successful anywhere because he flat didn't want it enough. We mock bad teams for draft misstep after draft misstep but quotes like this make it seem like a lot of the good ones are just lucky they don't pick in the top 10 or they'd fall into some of the exact same traps.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

We mock bad teams for draft misstep after draft misstep but quotes like this make it seem like a lot of the good ones are just lucky they don't pick in the top 10 or they'd fall into some of the exact same traps.

I suppose, but It's not just a matter of luck. The best run teams rarely find themselves drafting in the top 10 unless they've traded into that pick. And if you take a look at the most disastrous busts in NFL history, they are almost always made by front offices that are widely considered to be inept.

I agree that Russell would've probably been a bust wherever he landed, but I don't think it's a coincidence that it happened to be the Raiders who picked him.

[DanteGabriel]

I agree that Russell would've probably been a bust wherever he landed, but I don't think it's a coincidence that it happened to be the Raiders who picked him.

It's possible that a better-run team would have drafted Jamarcus Russell and developed him into a shaky or mediocre QB instead of the unmitigated Purple Drank disaster he became.

[Maithanet]

I suppose, but It's not just a matter of luck. The best run teams rarely find themselves drafting in the top 10 unless they've traded into that pick. And if you take a look at the most disastrous busts in NFL history, they are almost always made by front offices that are widely considered to be inept.

I agree that Russell would've probably been a bust wherever he landed, but I don't think it's a coincidence that it happened to be the Raiders who picked him.

And while Billick may have thought that Russell looked amazing, it's also likely that the Ravens weren't looking that closely, since he was never going to drop far enough to be on their board anyway. This was an interesting piece about the Cam Newton pick, which many people thought was a bad one at the time. The Panthers had the #1 pick and knew that they couldn't afford to miss with that kind of opportunity, so they gave Newton a very, very close look. They decided that while he did have some red flags, he also could do some things that nobody else could do, and that if they were going to stake their reputations on a pick, he was a risk worth taking.

Likewise, the groupthink is that Luck is #1 and RGIII is #2, and at this point no other teams really need to worry about evaluating them all that much. Teams evaluate everybody, of course, but they spend the most time evaluating the players they actually might get to draft, and the higher that pick, the more time they need to spend making sure it's right.

Also, it looks like Ryan Tannehill madness is really heating up. Here's one mock draft that has the Chiefs trading up to take him at #3. Pretty crazy for a player with a habit of blowing games, who is recovering from a broken foot, and who's only played quarterback for two college seasons.

We'll see if last year's trend of drafting quarterbacks way earlier than they deserve continues (locker at 8? Gabbert at 10? Ponder at 12?). I think it will. If so, that will only serve to help the rich get richer, as bad teams continue to waste high draft picks on longshot quarterbacks, whereas good teams with a solid qb can just wait while great players go undrafted until the middle/end of the first round.

[Jaime L]

And if you take a look at the most disastrous busts in NFL history, they are almost always made by front offices that are widely considered to be inept.

Right but it's a chicken and the egg thing. If the Ravens had the chance I think it's clear they would've taken Russell, never would've gotten Flacco the following year and almost certainly wouldn't be looking at the 4 straight playoff appearances.

I'm not saying there isn't a huge gap between the good and bad organizations or that the Ravens aren't one of the best drafting organizations in football, just that this shows quite clearly the extent that sometimes its better being lucky than good. Also highlighting the extent that the draft is a crapshoot and that even good organizations can't necessarily identify future colossal busts. The Pats are on record saying that they accumulate a ton of draft picks because they know 50% aren't going to work out. But they're a class organization in part not out of any particular drafting acumen but because they understand this numbers game and how to play it better than just about everyone else.

And while Billick may have thought that Russell looked amazing, it's also likely that the Ravens weren't looking that closely, since he was never going to drop far enough to be on their board anyway.

Wasn't just Billick - it was Newsome and the whole Ravens scouting apparatus. We're talking the highest rated player they've ever had on their board. Can't imagine that comes from a cursory examination "oh yeah, we're sure he's gonna be awesome". And it's possible they even discussed early on trading up to get him considering his rating. But yes, granted they weren't spending as much time later in the process once it was clear that he was gonna be a top 5 type pick.

Also, it looks like Ryan Tannehill madness is really heating up. Here's one mock draft that has the Chiefs trading up to take him at #3. Pretty crazy for a player with a habit of blowing games, who is recovering from a broken foot, and who's only played quarterback for two college seasons.

It's insanity. And then you got Florio saying things like the Browns should take him at #4 because there's no point in settling with a 2nd or 3rd round QB who isn't clearly better than McCoy. But what if Weeden or Osweiler or Wilson is flat better than Tannehill? Tannehill is a freaking blank slate. He could be amazing or he could be terrible - he hasn't started enough games to be sure one way or the other. So it seems crazy to me to invest a top 10 pick just because the conventional wisdom is that he's the third best QB in the draft. Could be a yawning chasm between the #2 and #3 guy at a given position and generally the draft reflects that...except when it comes to QBs.

[Maithanet]

So it seems crazy to me to invest a top 10 pick just because the conventional wisdom is that he's the third best QB in the draft. Could be a yawning chasm between the #2 and #3 guy at a given position and generally the draft reflects that...except when it comes to QBs.

Well, I think that given how much drafting quarterbacks is a crapshoot, and there aren't as many starting-level qbs in the league as there are teams, there's a certain attitude to try and solve this problem with volume. "If you don't have a quarterback, you need to take one every year, and the sooner the better. Then you'll eventually find one and become one of those teams that has a great quarterback." It completely ignores that there are a lot of factors in developing a great quarterback beyond just picking the right guy. It's entirely possible that David Carr could have been the right guy somewhere, but it wasn't Houston.

[Kalbear]

I just don't get how Russell had high grades, much less the highest. Unless the only question was "how far can he throw" - which actually explains boller, Russell and billick's firing.

[Jaime L]

Well, I think that given how much drafting quarterbacks is a crapshoot, and there aren't as many starting-level qbs in the league as there are teams, there's a certain attitude to try and solve this problem with volume. "If you don't have a quarterback, you need to take one every year, and the sooner the better. Then you'll eventually find one and become one of those teams that has a great quarterback." It completely ignores that there are a lot of factors in developing a great quarterback beyond just picking the right guy. It's entirely possible that David Carr could have been the right guy somewhere, but it wasn't Houston.

Agreed. And yes the question with drafted QBs is how much of their success is nature and how much is nurture. I'm guessing Tom Brady had the necessary intangibles to be successful whereever he went but probably not to this extent. Then again he goes to the wrong place and he never has a chance to show what he can do as a lowly 6th rounder and maybe only is successful after his second go-around.

I just don't get how Russell had high grades, much less the highest. Unless the only question was "how far can he throw" - which actually explains boller, Russell and billick's firing.

Well he can throw 60 yards from his knees which is an incredibly useful football skill.

[Maithanet]

I just don't get how Russell had high grades, much less the highest. Unless the only question was "how far can he throw" - which actually explains boller, Russell and billick's firing.

I wasn't paying much attention to Russell since I knew the Skins wouldn't get him, but I am likewise baffled at how everyone said he would be so good. Because he really was terrible for the Raiders. It was obvious that Jason Campbell was outplaying him when we played, and JC is like the embodiment of "replacement level NFL quarterback".

[Mack Kilimaro]

I think that teams scout even the consensus No. 1 picks that they have no chance to draft because it expands their base of scouting knowledge. Then in the future you might see Prospect X and think, hey, he looks just like that guy we couldn't draft four years ago because someone picked him #3...

Then, too, in the case of a bust like Russell, you have all your work and deliberations to go through and figure out what you missed in rating him higher than he should have been.

Pretty fascinating stuff when you get down to it.

[Mexal]

Agreed. And yes the question with drafted QBs is how much of their success is nature and how much is nurture. I'm guessing Tom Brady had the necessary intangibles to be successful whereever he went but probably not to this extent. Then again he goes to the wrong place and he never has a chance to show what he can do as a lowly 6th rounder and maybe only is successful after his second go-around.

I agree. I think Brady had the intangibles to succeed (i.e.: work ethic, football smarts, will to win) but I do think that he was successful in a large part because of the system he's in. I cannot imagine Brady being successful in a system like Bratkowski used in Cincinnati because his strengths don't lie in the vertical passing game even though he can be good at it. NE almost certainly adapted their offenses around Brady's strength and weaknesses as well as the personnel around him whereas a lot of teams wouldn't. They have a system and instead of adapting, they try to fit a square peg in a round hole until that peg breaks. So I do think that the environment has a lot to do with it.

[Mexal]

I think that teams scout even the consensus No. 1 picks that they have no chance to draft because it expands their base of scouting knowledge. Then in the future you might see Prospect X and think, hey, he looks just like that guy we couldn't draft four years ago because someone picked him #3... Then, too, in the case of a bust like Russell, you have all your work and deliberations to go through and figure out what you missed in rating him higher than he should have been. Pretty fascinating stuff when you get down to it.

I've been very active this year in following all the prospects and as you said, it's incredibly fascinating. I think it's the most interesting part of the offseason by far and it can be a lot of fun.

[BLU-RAY]

Irsay is actually trying to tweet up Tannehill's value, telling other teams to trade with MN for the 3rd pick. 1) What is the benefit to him here, and 2) I hate this guy so much.

[Howdyphillip]

Irsay is actually trying to tweet up Tannehill's value, telling other teams to trade with MN for the 3rd pick. 1) What is the benefit to him here, and 2) I hate this guy so much.

I don't get his angle here either. His glowing endorsement of Tannehill pretty much confirms to me that he will be a bust. I don't think Irsay has made anything close to a good football decision this year.

[Young Wolf]

Strangely, and in a tie-in to previous posts, Billick just said on ESPN that he thinks Tannehill is very comparable to Russell in which he has all the physical skills, but not the resume/longevity of consistent high play.