Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


15 Mar 2010

MMQB: Where's Love For McNabb?

This week, PK introduces the concept of Hasselbeck and McNabb fighting it out in Seattle, reveals that Rex Ryan's dream came true (perhaps this came from Vince Wilfork's "Dream-Angel"), updates the Five for Fighting project, uncovers Ed Orgeron's from-the-womb recruiting methods (no surprise, really), and wonders with the rest of us what the hell Cleveland was thinking with this whole Jake Delhomme deal.

Posted by: Doug Farrar on 15 Mar 2010

34 comments, Last at 27 Mar 2010, 4:07am by sports-veronica

Comments

1
by Harris :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 10:20am

Sportswriters must get paid by the number of times they try to trade McNabb.

Hail Hydra!

2
by Jimmy :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 10:22am

The weird thing about the 2004 draft is that there are some fantastic players in the first round and maybe the first ten to fifteen picks of the second but there are hardly any good players after that. There were actually more players who made it in the NFL (ie made rosters and played for at least a few years) in the 2005 draft than 2004, and everyone talks about '04 with great reverance and slags off the '05 crop.

4
by Independent George :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 10:53am

Aren't we due for the 'Five Years Later' draft review soon?

Wow, that was an awkwardly-worded question.

10
by Temo :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:36am

Can you cite the specific stats on how many players from the '05 draft are still in the league vs. players from the '04 draft?

It seems likely that if we're talking about lower round draft choices, a year of age would have a great effect on expected career length, because it's a year less time you have to potentially wash out of the league with injury or such.

19
by Independent George :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:14pm

No time to do an analysis, but the Mark-I eyeball test seems to back him up.

2005 Draft, R2+:

Barrett Rudd (2/36)
Michael Roos (2/41)
Corey Webster (2/43)
Lofa Tatupu (2/45)
Nick Collins (2/51)
Vincent Jackson (2/61)

Frank Gore (3/65)
Justin Tuck (3/74)
Kirk Morrison (3/78)
Ellis Hobbs (3/84)
Dominique Foxworth (3/97)
Nick Kacszur (3/100)

Neckbeard (4/106)
Marion Barber (4/109)
Brandon Jacobs (4/110)
Kerry Rhodes (4/103)
Todd Herrimans (4/126)
Darren Sproles (4/130)
Chris Canty (4/132)

Trent Cole (5/146)
Michael Boley (5/160)
Bo Scaife (6/189)
Chris Myers (6/200)
Jay Ratliff (7/224)
Matt Cassel (7/230)

18
by Independent George :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:13pm

2004 Draft, Rounds 2+

Karlos Dansby (2/33)
Chris Snee (2/34)
Igor Olshansky (2/35)
Julius Jones (2/43)
Bob Sanders (2/44)
Tank Johnson (2/47)
Devery Henderson (2/50)

Darnell Dockett (3/64)
Nate Kaeding (3/65)
Max Starks (3/75)
Bernard Berrian (3/78)
Chris Cooley (3/81)
Matt Schaub (3/90)

Shaun Phillips (4/98)
Nate Vasher (4/110)
Will Allen (4/111)
Robert Geathers (4/117)
Jared Allen (4/126)

Gibril Wilson (5/136)
Michael Turner (5/154)
Patrick Crayton (7/216)

21
by Jimmy :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:00pm

This is pretty much what I found. I haven't time to do it again right now and can't remember the actual numbers I had at the time but IIRC I was using the average length of an NFL career as a benchmark of sorts and there were quite a few more players who well, became NFL players in '05 than '04. The talking heads only ever seem to look at the first round and consequently know very little about who drafts well. Generally if you get a reporter saying GM XYorZ drafts well they are simply looking at the team's record over the last few years and then noting that (suprise suprise) some of their players were drafted.

22
by Independent George :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 2:13pm

What strikes me about those two lists is quality, not quantity. The 2005 list looks like a potential pro-bowl roster. The 2004 list has a few studs early, but mostly consists of some slightly above-average guys on good teams.

27
by Jimmy :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:44pm

True.

Which is part of the conundrum regarding the draft. Obviously drafting seven good players each year and getting value out of them for their rookie deals would be great but rarely ever happens. Yet draft picks are still treated as though they guarantee top players. From looking through a few years of drafts I would reckon that one that produced 75 players who look like decent picks five years later would be an awesome draft but that would barely make 2.5 players per team. In reality if you hit with your first two picks on a regular basis you are drafting extremely well (and that would include average starters).

3
by Vague (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 10:41am

Dire Straits and Tom Waits should be in the Hall...and I suppose Kiss... Is Neil Diamond rock or roll?

6
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:20am

As for The Stooges, I didn't know that you needed top 40 hits to matter. I think it's safe to say The Stooges weren't exactly pushing for radio play . . .

8
by Kevin from Philly :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:31am

Top 40 hits in RRHOF is equivalent to ProBowl appearances in the NFL HOF. They mean something, but they don't signify greatness.

7
by Kevin from Philly :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:24am

Without the makeup and stage show, Kiss would be a bad cover band in Wildwood NJ.

9
by Jimmy :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:35am

Which would be appropriate.

25
by Mansteel (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:04pm

How can you discount makeup/glitz/image from the discussion of a rock band's greatness? That's like saying, "Without all that accuracy and ability to read defenses, Drew Brees would be bagging groceries somewhere?"

29
by tuluse :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 10:09pm

Seriously?

30
by RaxGrissman :: Tue, 03/16/2010 - 12:33am

It's true. At least for some band. Like KISS isn't trying to be the next Zeppelin, but a lot of people still think they rock because they're fun to watch, and that's what matters most really (at least in some cases)

31
by Eddo :: Tue, 03/16/2010 - 10:59am

Agreed. Showmanship is very important for rock and roll acts, which are simply there to provide entertainment. Why do you think that Mick Jagger is considered a great frontman? It's not just for his vocal talents.

11
by Joe T. :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:40am

Since when does an act have to be rock n' roll to get into the rock n' roll hall of fame?

5
by Kevin from Philly :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:14am

""I told Matt Cassel that as soon as he and his beautiful wife had a son, I would offer him a scholarship.''
-- @CoachEdOrgeron, defensive coordinator/defensive line coach/recruiting coordinator at Southern Cal, on a conversation he had with the former Trojans backup quarterback (now the starting QB in Kansas City) Thursday.

He'll be the kid with spinners on his Big Wheel.

12
by Snack Flag (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:40am

I really enjoy that he ignores the fact that Philadelphia would be one of the quarterback needy teams after trading McNabb. If all those teams listed need a top 10-12 quarterback, how is Philly any different? I'm not sure we know enough about Kevin Kolb to say for certain he can replicate McNabb's performance, especially on a team who is in contention year in, year out.

14
by KarlFA :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 12:01pm

We do know he's significantly more certain than a rookie. We've seen him play, and play well, in the NFL. Similar situation to Schaub before he went to Houston, Rivers before Brees was not re-signed, etc. Besides, Reid has job security. Pete Caroll & Mike Singletary? Not so much.

I still don't get why the 49ers have been so absent in the QB conversations so far. With two first round draft picks, a stellar defense and RB - they make the most sense for dealing with the Eagles. One pick for McNabb, the second pick to use during this OT deep draft, call it a day.

Karl, Miami

15
by Snack Flag (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 12:39pm

I agree with your premise that he is a better bet than a rookie, but I don't believe your examples are analogous. SD made a significant investment in Rivers and almost had to play them, while Schaub makes the argument that these teams should be trading for Kolb, and not McNabb. He obviously has more upside in the long-term, and you can deal with his growing pains if you're Seattle or Cleveland. Also, if you're the Eagles and Schaub is Kolb's upside, isn't McNabb STILL the better option in 2010? I don't think Schaub is a better qb than McNabb right now, and he certainly hasn't proven he can get a team over the hump.

As much as people joke about it, Philly is at or near the top of DVOA almost every year. While there are many caveats with the metric, we can at the very least say it tells us that the Eagles are one of the best 6-8 teams each year and have a chance at the championship. I don't see a lot of holes on that team in 2010, and I think their best option to win is with McNabb at the helm. That's why it's not unreasonable for Philly to ask a lot for him - if they trade him, they're pretty much raising the white flag and telling their fans that there's less certainty they will compete this year.

Of course, all of this is moot because Seattle or Clevo have no reason to trade for McNabb. If this is such a strong draft, doesn't it make more sense to fill the numerous other holes on your roster and then sign McNabb in FA next year when his contract is up? No matter what, they're not competing in 2010 (I don't see 2009 Dolphins upside in either of those teams), so why waste the pick if you have to sign McNabb long term anyway?

Typical Peter King garbage. I would guess his thesis for his American Lit paper at Ohio U was entitled "What is the symbolism of the green light in The Great Gatsby? I don't know, we can't say for sure."

16
by Snack Flag (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 12:40pm

Typo: play him (Rivers), not them.

24
by justanothersteve :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 3:35pm

PK would make up something for the green light, probably something about coffee, an aggrevating travel experience, or the current Minnesota QB.

20
by bravehoptoad :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:48pm

Rightly or wrongly, the 49ers are still invested in Alex Smith, and want to see if he can be a good player now that he'll be spending his first season NOT having to learn a new system.

Next year is the year they'll be hunting for a QB.

13
by KarlFA :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 11:57am

Ed Orgeron - gotta love it.

Karl, Miami

23
by Otis Taylor89 :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 3:21pm

Ed's Tots!!

Michael Scott would be jealous.

BTW, Linda Ronstadt should be in the RRHOF

17
by Frank (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 1:01pm

What is PK talking about? The hour-long Office "Baby" episode was one of the all-time funniest programs ever (IMHO). Last week's St. Patrick's Day episode was just okay.

26
by Todd S. :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 4:21pm

Agreed.

28
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 03/15/2010 - 6:45pm

Pretty nice analysis of the Browns-Broncos trade. Almost every other article I've seen was centered entirely on Quinn but PK explained why the Browns had a reason to want Hillis.

One thing about Brady Quinn--this is the point in a career where being a big-name does you no favors. He'd be far better off starting over in Denver if his name were Brady Smith. If he doesn't prove to be starter material in Denver, he could quickly be out of the league entirely simply because I believe teams picking a career backup would rather have a lesser-known guy who isn't going to create an artificial QB controversy based on nothing other than the fact he has recognizable name and was a top draft pick.

33
by towishimp (not verified) :: Tue, 03/16/2010 - 10:55pm

Like Chris Simms, perhaps? The guy who might be out of the league now that Quinn has been signed to his team?

32
by jebmak :: Tue, 03/16/2010 - 4:08pm

*gasp* You hit him in the biscuits!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.