Sunday, October 26, 2008

I Watched the First Six Innings of the Game Last Night

And in doing so, I picked up the following eight pieces of garbage which Tim McCarver's mouth littered out of my TV set. (Despite my lack of DVR, all are printed here verbatim or very close.) Chris W and I had a discussion about Timmy- we agree that unlike, say, Joseph Q. McBrainless Morgansheffield, McCarver actually has a pretty decent head/brain on his shoulders. His problem is that the connection between said head/brain and his mouth is tenuous at best. He's got a lot to contribute... but he's unable to do so because he's inarticulate. He's like a less excitable version of Shannon Sharpe.

So why is this a big deal? Isn't it a little nitpicky to go after him when his crime (usually) is not stupidity, but rather struggling to put his thoughts into words? Well, I'm glad you asked. My stance is this: due to the fact that he's employed as a television broadcaster, i.e., he is paid to talk into a microphone and explain things to viewers, we're holding him to a perfectly reasonable standard by criticizing each and every dumb thing he says. So let's get to the head-scratchers.

1. During the pregame scouting report (that term being used loosely here, thanks, FOX) about Andy Sonnanstine:

[He]... might be the best thing a teammate could say about him... is that he's just a winner.

First of all, that sentence is either missing several words or is simply poorly spoken. Second, Sonnanstine's career regular season record: 19-19. Record in last night's game: 0-1. This "He's just a winner!" bullshit is the kind of half-hearted attempt at praise broadcasters give to players who don't actually have much talent, but play for successful teams. See: Young, Vince.

2. After Jimmy Rollins leads off the game with a double and moves to third on a Jayson Werth flyout:

The Phillies once again with a chance to score a cheap run here early.

I don't disagree with Tim that there are such things as "cheap" runs. However, I strongly disagree that a guy who leads off with a double and then comes around on two sac flies/groundouts scored "cheaply." A cheap run is like a HBP, a failed pickoff attempt that goes up the 1st base line and lets the runner get to third, and an error that allows the guy to score. Runs that score because of extra base hits are almost always very, very expensive.

3. Referring to Philadelphia's poor performance in the series thus far in terms of getting hits when runners are on base:

It's almost as if the Phillies can't score a run unless they drive in themselves! With a teammate... uh... (trails off)

Good point in the first sentence there. In the first three games of the series, they'd hit six solo home runs and only scored ten runs total. However, Tim, once you've made that point, maybe it's time to quit while you're ahead, shut up, and let Joe Buck fill up the airwaves with more of his smarmy drivel.

4. After Jimmy Rollins reaches on an Akinora Iwamura error to open the bottom of the 4th-

When Rollins gets on, he prevents the Phillies from becoming a station-to-station team.

Could you possibly do a worse job of phrasing that idea? It would be tough. I might go with "When Rollins gets on, the Phillies can't not be a team that doesn't go station-to-station." But I'm not sure that stacks up to what Tim said. Also: Rollins ended up scoring when Ryan Howard hit the proverbial three-run homer everyone except the Angels seems to be waiting around for these days.

5. With runners on 1st and 2nd, Iwamura snares a Carlos Ruiz ground ball but doesn't have a play on any of the runners. Tim gets excited.

Think about the wisdom of that play! With 2 outs and a runner on second, infielders are taught to dive for a ball even if they don't have a play!

Whereas, if there isn't a runner on second who could potentially score if the ball gets to the outfield, most infielders will just kind of watch a grounder trickle past them and shrug their shoulders. Also- I'm pretty sure the use of "wisdom" there is a little heavy-handed.

6. Noting that Sonnanstine was not exactly pounding the strike zone:

I wouldn't say the layoff (14 days had passed since his last start) has affected his effectiveness, but it has affected his control.

Sonnanstine's fastball tops out at about 89 mph, and one of his biggest strengths is limiting walks (63 in 324 career innings). I'm pretty sure effectiveness and control are one and the same for him. His biggest problem last night was not doing a good enough job controlling his control.

7. Comparing Tropicana Field to Citizens Bank Park:

The dimensions are not as big here.

Again, we have a problematic disconnect between a thought (good, relevant) and a sentence (sounds like it was orinigally written in Japanese, translated to English, then translated back and forth a couple more times).

8. After a Joe Blanton solo shot makes it 6-2 Phils in the bottom of the 5th:

Normally they only score in one or two big innings. They do not have an offense with those tack on runs, but they do tonight.

Re: the first sentence- Wrong. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Re: the second sentence- What? What, what, and what?

Given the way Cole Hamels has been pitching this month, there may be but a scant one game left in the 2008 MLB season. Gosh, seems like just yesterday I was waking up at 5:30 in the morning to watch the A's and Red Sox square off in Tokyo. Good thing the NBA is about to start up! And I mean that non-sarcastically. Check the comments section for Chris W's obligatory complaints thereof.

28 comments:

Chris W said...

...well that's nitpicking, idinit

Tonus said...

That was the impression I was getting of McCarver last night. He acts as if he is getting more for making additional comments, so he winds up saying some weird stuff. After Blanton hit the home run, he said:

Joe Blanton got a hit in his first at bat for the Phillies, and he has a hit in his last at bat for the Phillies.

Aside from how weird a statement it is, there is no real value in the comment as analysis. McCarver may be senile.

Anonymous said...

Of all the people in the world of sports who lack talent yet are fortunate enough to be on winning teams, you pick Vince Young? Seriously? Young is on a shortlist for best college football players of the last decade. His team's major success, the college football national championship, was due almost entirely to his performance. Furthermore, his record as a starter in the NFL is mediocre...meaning he has hardly been carried to a deceptively strong record despite his own poor performance.

In sum, Vince Young is perhaps the worst possible example you could have picked.

john said...

lol, given how much McCarver thinks that W-L records are a important statistic for pitchers, its pretty dumb for him to think that sorrastine is a winner. His record is as you stated, 19-19. This just goes to show you how dumb these writers and/or broadcasters are. If some stat guy said that Sorrastine was a winner, they would've ripped him appart. ah well

Jack M said...

Anonymous:

Vince Young, as an NFL starter, has a 17-11 record, which is .607 . If an NFL team has a .607 record at the end of the season, that means they've won 9.7 games, and are most likely going to the playoffs. Hardly mediocre.

Mediocre is the word that would be used to describe Young's numbers as a starter: 32 TDs (passing/running), 32 INTs, 68.3 QB Rating.

In spite of this, up until the playoffs last year, pundits consistently labeled Vince Young "a winner," "a guy who just goes out and wins football games," other hyperbolic crap.

So in sum Anonymous, you are the one who is wrong.

Larry B said...

I have heard Young referred to as a guy who "Just wins games" countless times over the course of the past two years. It's like the fallback thing commentators say about him. Yes, he is and was an all-time great college QB. Guess what? In the NFL, you can't just run away from everyone. He sucks, his career record is 75% due to Tennessee's defense, he sucks, I'm tired of people calling him a winner, he sucks. Maybe there are better cases out there, but his came to mind first. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Young is 17-12 as a starter. With that winning percentage, a team will win 9 games and make the playoffs some of the time. Last year, 9 wins would not have made it in the AFC, and probably wouldn't have made it in the NFC. That is slightly better than mediocre, but that's not the point.

Young had a phenomenal rookie season. He set the record for running yards by a rookie QB. He had 19 TD's with 13 INT's-respectable by typical starting NFL QB standards and absolutely stellar by rookie NFL QB standards. His team went 8-5 when he started.

In Young's second season, he played poorly, like most green NFL QB's, and his team went 9-7. Without a strong supporting cast, Young no doubt would have had a worse record in 2007 than 9-7...probably deserved 4 or 5 wins based solely on his performances.

His college football career hardly needs mention. He is literally one of the greatest college football players ever, and his performance in the Rose Bowl to win the national championship was simply out of this world.

So those are the facts: almost unsurpassed dominance in college; two uneven years in the pro's in which he has achieved vastly more than most two year QB's.

And this is the guy that has no talent? Give me a break. Just admit the example was ludicrous and move on. By actually arguing that Vince Young has no talent you just sound unqualified to blog sports.

Larry B said...

Young is 17-12 as a starter.

Yes. And as we've already discussed, that's mostly due to the Titans' defense.

Young had a phenomenal rookie season.

You cite his TD and INT numbers. That's all well and good, but it's like looking just at HRs to judge a hitter. QB rating paints a much clearer picture of performance. His rookie year it was 66.7, and last year it was a still-awful 71.1. For his career he's at 68.3. That means, in no uncertain terms, that he is a terrible passer. There are no two ways about it.

The only thing he has going for him, of course, is his ability to pick up yards on the ground. But his numbers took a huge dive in that department last year. You know why? Because defenses made adjustments and schemed against him to take away a lot of the easy rush yards he was picking up in 2006. Welcome to the NFL, Vince. Your gimmick does not work here. Ask Mike Vick. Who, by the way, is twice the player Vince is IMO. (If true, that would be really bad, huh?)

Being an incredible athlete is about 25% as useful for an NFL QB as it is for an NCAA QB. Life is tough when you can't just run away from everyone. Will he be able to adjust and actually have a decent career? Time will tell. Right now, I'd say it's worse than a 50/50 chance for him.

In Young's second season, he played poorly, like most green NFL QB's,

I could make an enormous list of QBs who had better second seasons than he did. It would be a waste of time. Suffice to say, 9 TDs and 17 picks in games 14-29 of a career is not a sign of development.

His college football career hardly needs mention.

We're not arguing about that, shithead. You like Vince Young. We get it. I'm mocking his inability to play in the NFL. That's it. You can stop bringing his college career up. I'm not trying to take it away from him.

So those are the facts: almost unsurpassed dominance in college; two uneven years in the pro's in which he has achieved vastly more than most two year QB's.

The first part I just talked about. The second part: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You're an idiot. Fine, here's a short list of NFL QBs who started early and had better second years:

Alex Smith
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Byron Leftwich
Trent Edwards (in progress)

Those are five of the first six guys I looked up. The sixth was Matt Leinart, who somehow is a worse passer than Young. Congratulations. I purposely chose a spectrum of guys who vary from great to awful. All of them except Leinart had or are having better second years than your boy. The point being: I don't know if he'll ultimately bust, or right the ship. But I do know that saying he achieved "vastly more" than most second year starters is WRONG.

And this is the guy that has no talent?

Easy with the straw men. He has plenty of talent. The problem is, most of it is mitigated when linebackers are just as fast as he is.

Just admit the example was ludicrous and move on.

How about I admit this instead: if Vince Young is still in the NFL 5 years from now as a QB, I'll be really, really, really surprised. Not saying it's impossible. But seems very unlikely right now. He is a shitty passer; teams are scheming against his run game; and to top it off, he obviously has some mental makeup problems. Things aren't looking good.

By actually arguing that Vince Young has no talent you just sound unqualified to blog sports.

What are the necessary qualifications for blogging about sports? As far as I know, they are the following:

1) Opening a blogger account and setting up a blog.
2) Caring enough to periodically update said blog.

This isn't Sports fuicking Illustrated. I don't have to answer to anyone regarding my qualifications. I don't have any. I have opinions. You're welcome to disagree with them, but if you disagree by claiming Vince Young is even a mediocre NFL QB, you are a moron. CRAM IT.

Chris W said...

Vince Young was on the cover of Madden.

You didn't account for the curse of Madden, you fag. http://firelarryb.blogspot.com

Jack M said...

Kyle Boller had a 70.9 passer rating and rushed for 189 yards in his second year as the Ravens finished 9-7.

Anyone who called him a flop after a season like that must feel like a big fucking idiot right about now.

Anonymous said...

First, Larry B, I'm clearly not "welcome to disagree" with your opinion, because you and your colleagues here at firejay have all completely freaked out about my belief that Vince Young has talent. The whole point of this blog, or so I thought, was to argue sports and to criticize other people's opinions. You and your boys dish it out all day long and then shit your pants as soon as someone disagrees with you.

Second, fuck you. If you argue that the 2006 NFL Rookie of the Year had a shitty rookie season in 2006 you're a fucking idiot and clearly just going out of your way to stand up for your dumbass example.

Third, stop misrepresenting my arguments. I didn't say that Vince Young had a great second season...in fact, I said the exact opposite. Yet, you proceed to argue (as if anyone disagreed) that there were QB's who had better 2nd seasons than Young. No shit, asshole. Way to spend 1/3 of your argument countering an argument I never made. I said that after two years he had achieved more than most QB's. Do some research, overlook his rookie of the year award, overlook the records he set, and give credit for his wins entirely to every other member of the Titans, and prove me wrong. But just please argue the point I actually made, not a non-argument you concoct yourself.

Finally, yes, my last point about qualifications was stupid. But what I was driving it was that you guys rate yourselves pretty highly in the realm of sports knowledge and opinion. If you're going to constantly act like the smartest guys in the room (I'm especially talking about whichever pompous ass entitled an article "The Definition of Meta" or some such pretentious bull shit), don't make dumbass statements like Vince Young "sucks" without expecting people to call you on it.

Larry B said...

Here's the difference between how I argue and how you argue- I copy and paste what you said, so that everyone can clearly see that I'm not using straw men. You just use straw men and hope no one will notice.

Winning Rookie of the Year does not make you a good passer if your QB rating is below 70. The running numbers make Young a better QB than the passing numbers alone would indicate, but they don't make him "good" per se. Just like winning an award that idiot writers vote on does not make someone "good" per se.

True, you didn't say he had a great second season, but you did say he accomplished "vastly more" than most second year QBs. Which is still untrue.

Being wrong doesn't preclude you from disagreeing. Don't get butthurt. I'm not sitting here saying "DON'T EVER WRITE A COMMENT HERE AGAIN." I'm sitting here saying "You're more than welcome to write all the comments you want. However, if the comments contain assertions that Vince Young is good, you are (in my opinion... and yes, this part is always implied) WRONG." Simple as that.

And no one here is shitting their pants. Yet.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations...you copy and paste, and you do it in a completely disingenuous way. Returning to the whole second year argument. Either you can't read, or you deliberately misconstrued my argument, because anyone with a working knowledge of the English language could see that I didn't claim that Vince Young had a good second season.

You copied and pasted "So those are the facts: almost unsurpassed dominance in college; two uneven years in the pro's in which he has achieved vastly more than most two year QB's." Then you proceeded to respond not to that statement but to a statement noone made--one that might read read something like "Vince Young had an awesome second year! Better than anyone ever! Noone can name a single quarterback in NFL history that has ever had a better 2nd year than Vince Young!" So, though you may believe that your method of arguing is superior to my own (shocking that a writer on this page would imply such a thing!)because yours involves copying and pasting, your method is on par with any jackass who falsely represents what his opponent says for the sake of winning a debate. I think you're the one here that goes to law school. I went to law school, too, and I hated people that argued like you. They loved hearing themselves talk, so they'd make assinign comments that had nothing to do with anything anyone had actually said, but they sure seemed proud of themselves nonetheless.

Here is the one thing I will copy and paste:

"This "He's just a winner!" bullshit is the kind of half-hearted attempt at praise broadcasters give to players who don't actually have much talent, but play for successful teams. See: Young, Vince."

You clearly cite Vince Young as an example of someone who doesn't "actually have much talent". So, when I paraphrase you as saying he lacks talent, how in the hell is that a straw man? That just happens to be more or less what you said. Just because that's a ludicrous statement readily open to attack by someone with a different opinion doesn't mean that I'm using straw men.

Finally, I am well aware that awards don't meaning everything and that they are often products of dumbass, highly subjective criteria. But when a guy wins Rookie of the Year in the NFL, I nonetheless take that as solid proof that he doesn't "suck".

Larry B said...

A couple clarifications:

1. We're just bitching about semantics with your second year thing. True, I screwed up in responding to that at first. But I corrected it in my last post. I'll reiterate.

You say he achieved "vastly more" in his first two years than most 2 year QBs. If I can't rebut that by pointing out the fact that there are tons of QBs who had better years 1 an 2, how can I rebut it? Look at the list above. All those guys pretty clearly outplayed Young. What else do you want me to say? Yes, again, I now realize you weren't claiming he had a great second season. Does it really matter if we look at my list vs. Young in the context of years 1 and 2 or just year 2? No.

2. My original comment about Young's talent level needs clarification, I agree. He has tons of athletic talent. He has adequate QB talent that mixed with said athletic talent to turn him into a fantastic college QB. However, now that he's in the NFL, the athletic talent is somewhat mitigated, and the QB talent is well below average. Thus: he now, relative to his competition, sucks. If I were him I'd start taking reps at WR pronto. It's his best chance at prolonging his career.

3. Yes, I am in law school, and no, I do not enjoy talking for the sake of talking in class. I'm about 2 months into my 1L year and I think I've voluntarily talked about four times so far. I may be "that guy" on this blog, but I'm sure as shit not him in school. Don't get all huffy just because I'm uncovering painful memories from your past.

Chris W said...

Re: Anonymous queening out about my post entitled "The Definition of Meta"

What does pretentiousness in the field of academia have to do with pretentiousness in the field of sports analysis.

Also, awesome argument:

"If you're gonna argue that the ROOKIE OF THE YEAR had a bad ROOKIE OF THE YEAR season then you clearly don't understand that he won ROOKIE OF THE YEAR"

Chris W said...

I mean, what's the point of having this discussion.

If a guy's going to get all fucking histrionic about how Vince Young "has talent" based on the fact that he was great at the CFB level and won a meaningless award his rookie season, and act like YOU'RE the clueless one, what else is there to say about it?

He wins. Vince Young won a Heisman and a Rookie of the Year. He must be already great and destined for more greatness. And we're just plain clueless for not seeing that. You win, anonymous. Anonymous wins. His point was so strong he didn't even need an identity.

Anonymous said...

Chris W, those were two shitty comments.

"What does pretentiousness in the field of academia have to do with pretentiousness in the field of sports analysis."

I understand that was a rhetorical question. What I don't understand is how it rebuts my claim that you're a pretentious douche. Seriously, what did that question even mean? Did I somewhere say that your pretentiousness with respect to academia has necessarily made you pretentious with respect to sports? If you mistakenly believe that to be my point, allow me to clarify: you're a pretentious dbag with respect to all things--I recognize no distinctions or limits with respect to your pretentious nature.

"If you're gonna argue that the ROOKIE OF THE YEAR had a bad ROOKIE OF THE YEAR season then you clearly don't understand that he won ROOKIE OF THE YEAR"

I didn't say that. Not sure why you have that listed as a quote. However, I would generally tend to defend the argument that 1) if A wins the NFL Rookie of the Year; 2) then A is talented at football. If you disagree with that or think that it is somehow overly simplistic to make such a generalization, fuck off you pretentious douche. I'll make that generalization all day long.

Finally, yes, pretentious dbag, I will assume that the Heisman winner and Rookie of the Year in the NFL has talent. Once again, if you think that is some sort of outrageous generalization to make, shove the latest copy of the New Yorker up your pretentious ass...I'm sure you have a copy on your coffee table.

Chris W said...

You're a fucking idiot.

What else do you want anyone to say?

You refuse to listen to evidence based on stats, measurables, and immeasurables, instead preferring to harp on two of the most meaningless predictors of NFL success:

"whether he was good in college!!!"
"whether he won an arbitrary award 2 years ago as a rookie."

So seriously. Go away. If you're gonna continue to be obnoxious on this issue, do it elsewhere.

You can go tell your buddies on longhornsrock.vbulletin.com that you totally owned us idiots on fjaym if that makes you feel better.

Whatever it takes to make you go the fuck away with your obnoxious Vince Young hectoring.

Anonymous said...

You're incredibly rattled, pretentious douche, as indicated by this comment:

"You refuse to listen to evidence based on stats, measurables, and immeasurables, instead preferring to harp on two of the most meaningless predictors of NFL success:

"whether he was good in college!!!"
"whether he won an arbitrary award 2 years ago as a rookie.""

You point to two factors with respect to success in the NFL and apparently regard them both as "meaningless". Let's take them one at a time.

1) "Whether he was good in college"

It would not take a significant amount of effort to demonstrate the shockingly retarded nature of your assertion that success in college is "meaningless" in relation to success in the NFL, but I'm just going to pass, assuming that the people who read this blod understand how idiotic (and pretentious) you are. That is so amazingly a stupid statement from someone who claims to be a sports fan that it doesn't require a response. (Success in college is quite clearly the most reliable factor for predicting success in the NFL. If you think differently, you are literally retarded).

2)"whether he won an arbitrary award 2 years ago as a rookie."

In response to this assertion, that winning Rookie of the Year is a "meaningless predictor[] of NFL success", I offer the following list of NFL Offensive Rookies of the Year:

"1967 Mel Farr Detroit Lions Running back
1968 Earl McCullouch Detroit Lions Wide receiver
1969 Calvin Hill Dallas Cowboys Running back
1970 Dennis Shaw Buffalo Bills Quarterback
1971 John Brockington Green Bay Packers Running back
1972 Franco Harris Pittsburgh Steelers Running back
1973 Chuck Foreman Minnesota Vikings Running back
1974 Don Woods San Diego Chargers Running back
1975 Mike Thomas Washington Redskins Running back
1976 Sammy White Minnesota Vikings Wide receiver
1977 Tony Dorsett Dallas Cowboys Running back
1978 Earl Campbell Houston Oilers Running back
1979 Ottis Anderson St. Louis Cardinals Running back
1980 Billy Sims Detroit Lions Running back
1981 George Rogers New Orleans Saints Running back
1982 Marcus Allen Los Angeles Raiders Running back
1983 Eric Dickerson Los Angeles Rams Running back
1984 Louis Lipps Pittsburgh Steelers Wide receiver
1985 Eddie Brown Cincinnati Bengals Wide receiver
1986 Rueben Mayes New Orleans Saints Running back
1987 Troy Stradford Miami Dolphins Running back
1988 John Stephens New England Patriots Running back
1989 Barry Sanders Detroit Lions Running back
1990 Emmit Smith Dallas Cowboys Running back
1991 Leonard Russell New England Patriots Running back
1992 Carl Pickens Cincinnati Bengals Wide receiver
1993 Jerome Bettis Los Angeles Rams Running back
1994 Marshall Faulk Indianapolis Colts Running back
1995 Curtis Martin New England Patriots Running back
1996 Eddie George Houston Oilers Running back
1997 Warrick Dunn Tampa Bay Buccaneers Running back
1998 Randy Moss Minnesota Vikings Wide receiver
1999 Edgerrin James Indianapolis Colts Running back
2000 Mike Anderson Denver Broncos Running back
2001 Anthony Thomas Chicago Bears Running back
2002 Clinton Portis Denver Broncos Running back
2003 Anquan Boldin Arizona Cardinals Wide receiver
2004 Ben Roethlisberger Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback
2005 Carnell "Cadillac" Williams Tampa Bay Buccaneers Running back
2006 Vince Young Tennessee Titans Quarterback
2007 Adrian Peterson"

I'll let you do the math for what percentage of Rookies of the Year is or will easily be in the Hall of Fame, you fucking idiot. Suffice to say, that if you win Rookie of the Year you are not only most likely talented or successful or whatever the fuck you want, you're more than likely flat out fucking awesome.

To conclude, ya big pretentious dbag pussy, you're not only a big pretentious dbag pussy, you're fucking stupid when it comes to sports.

Eat shit. I fucking hate Texas and Vince Young's retarded ass.

Larry B said...

Drunken commenting is no good for anyone.

Larry B said...

Oh yeah, and Vince Young still sucks. Five years from now he's out of the league. Count on it.

Chris W said...

keep saying "pretentious" as if that has any bearing on the discussion.

anti-intellectualism from a moron. what a shock.

why are you still here?

Chris W said...

Oh just for Larfs:

1998 Randy Moss Minnesota Vikings Wide receiver

Great player. HOFer

1999 Edgerrin James Indianapolis Colts Running back

Great player. Perennial Pro Bowler. Might coast into the HOF but probably won't.

2000 Mike Anderson Denver Broncos Running back

Washout journeyman who, for one year, succeeded because he was playing in an excellent system for him to succeed in (sound familiar?)

2001 Anthony Thomas Chicago Bears Running back

See above

2002 Clinton Portis Denver Broncos Running back

Great player

2003 Anquan Boldin Arizona Cardinals Wide receiver

Great player

2004 Ben Roethlisberger Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback

Has his ups and down, but generally a QB most teams would love to have

2005 Carnell "Cadillac" Williams Tampa Bay Buccaneers Running back

One year wonder who's had trouble staying on the field. Didn't even have a particularly good rookie year, for that matter

2006 Vince Young Tennessee Titans Quarterback

Shitty player.

2007 Adrian Peterson"

Looks like he'll be a great one.



So basically in the last 10 years, we've had 1 no-doubt HOFer (Moss), 4 players who could conceivably be in the HOF when their career's over (Boldin...I guess, Peterson, Portis, and James), 1 very solid player who is almost certainly never going anywhere near the HOF (Roethlisberger), 1 player who could be described as mediocre at best (Cadillac), two more or less worthless washouts (Anderson and Thomas) and....Vince Young.

What a convincing argument

Jack M said...

It would not take a significant amount of effort to demonstrate the shockingly retarded nature of your assertion that success in college is "meaningless" in relation to success in the NFL, but I'm just going to pass, assuming that the people who read this blod understand how idiotic (and pretentious) you are. That is so amazingly a stupid statement from someone who claims to be a sports fan that it doesn't require a response. (Success in college is quite clearly the most reliable factor for predicting success in the NFL. If you think differently, you are literally retarded).

The Heisman trophy is almost always awarded to successful players on successful teams. Here are the Heisman winners 1990-2006 (Off the top of my head 10 of these players I know for sure won national titles or played in the title game):

1990 Ty Detmer
-Really bad.
1991 Desmond Howard
-Won the Superbowl MVP as a special teamer. Never did anything else.
1992 Gino Torretta
-7th round pick. Really bad.
1993 Charlie Ward
-Went to the NBA.
1994 Rashaan Salaam
-Solid rookie season followed by perpetual failure.
1995 Eddie George
-8 1,000 yard seasons. However, had a pretty low career yards per attempt of 3.6. Not saying that he was no good, but Tomlinson and Jamal Lewis have career averages of 4.5 and 4.3 respectively.
1996 Danny Wuerffel
-Horrible.
1997 Charles Woodson
-Pretty solid.
1998 Ricky Williams
-Had 2 very good seasons, and 1 outrageous season before going crazy. Now just mediocre.
1999 Ron Dayne
-Sucks.
2000 Chris Weinke
-Finished his career 2-18 as a starter with a 62.2 QB rating.
2001 Eric Crouch
-Never played in a regular season game.
2002 Carson Palmer
-At one point was a top 5 qb.
2003 Jason White
-Not selected in the draft. Only given tryouts by two teams.
2004 Matt Leinart
-A fantastic backup QB.
2005 Reggie Bush
-Not particularly valuable as a running back (averaging 3.6 yds/carry for his career). Jury is still out.
2006 Troy Smith
-Picked in the 5th round. Has thrown one pass this year. Might still be good.

Success in college: highly indicative of what kind of pro career one will have.

Chris W said...

Let me make something perfectly clear.

When evaluating draft talent, college performance is certainly as good a predictor as anything.

But 3 years after the fact, when evaluating a player who has produced absolutely nothing at the NFL level, pointing to a college career where that player succeeded playing a style of football nearly irrelevant to NFL level football, is absolutely asinine.

It would be like, if Reggie Bush had failed to produce up to this point, saying "But he outran a bunch of d-backs at Oregon State and Arizona. It's clear he will become a stud running back soon."

Anonymous said...

I do apologize for the drunken comments. (Drunken posts are definitely a bad idea--things tend to get a little personal and a little out of hand.) The personal attacks and the general "fuck you" nature of my post was pretty uncalled for.

You guys are obviously very good at pointing out that the figures people often rely on in assessing sports talent are retarded. I agree that wins for a pitcher, RBI's for a batter, and like categories are at best indirect evidence of talent. But at the same time, I think you get a bit carried away. Things like wins as a quarterback, home runs as a batter, success in college sports, awards, etc.--all things you've disparaged throughout this banter--are imperfect indicators of talent, but they are hardly meaningless. So, while the facts and figures I have mentioned in support of my argument, namely awards, college success, etc. serve as flawed proof of the proposition that Young is/can be good, they serve as proof nonetheless. And I think there is at least enough proof from these things to counter your confident assertions that Young lacks talent, has been carried by his teammates, or will certainly be out of the league within a short matter of years.

Again, sorry for the personal shit. I promise I will actually go away now. Oh, and I'm not anti-intellectual, and I don't know if Chris W is pretentious. It was just a theme I went with, because I thought that "meta" title was lame.

Chris W said...

Perhaps some guys are "just winners". There are certainly things beyond measurables. Few would deny that Favre of the 90's was one of the best QB's in the NFL regardless of what his QB rating was or that a 20 game winner in baseball is a good pitcher even if his supplemental numbers aren't so good (well maybe PNoles wouldn't say that).

However, sometimes all a player can do is win (and not even win very much...9 wins? Mediocre). If every other measurable shows he sucks, and if he pretty much is universally acknowledged to have played himself out of a job, then you have to say "does this guy even know how to win? Or did he just have a first year where he happened to win some games?" In Young's case, it's pretty clear, especially after an old and mediocre QB like Kerry fucking Collins steps in and has even more success, that in Young's case, it's more like he was along for whatever ride the defense and running game had to offer him.

Chris W said...

One more thing:

Of course Young has talent. Everyone in the first round has talent. Tony Mandarich had talent. Matt Leinart has talent. Everyone and their fucking mother has talent. Vince Young has acres of talent as did Michael Vick before him.

The only problem is that their talent doesn't translate to being a successful NFL QB, and it probably never will.