|
|
I was pissed about the internet last week because there is a lot of the internet that is stupid. Mostly it is bad sports blogs, bad mass media websites, poor filtering and framing, and most American pornography. But, I must admit to good internet when I see it. Peter King has a pretty good completion percentage. I think he connects on about 64% of his throws. That is not bad at all. Given that logic, Monday Morning QB is not a bad column, it is good column. Today, it had this article about the Ronin nature of Derrick Brooks. I found this article to be a very good read, in particular is the insight provided by Warren Sapp about the mindset of young players. I would ask people to read that very closely.
Scroll Down to Continue Reading
|
|
For all of the people who comment on the parity of the NFL, I would
argue that the league, while creating a field of play that allows for a
surprising victory on any given Sunday, actually has a few teams that
continuously succeed and many more that do not. If a person wants to
cultivate a greater respect from their players for the game and their
organization then they need solid leadership structures. It is really
hard to develop that if you have a revolving door at the Head Coach
position, lack of direction in the front office, and an absolute lack
of continuity in personnel decisions. In terms of the most successful
teams over the last ten years, the best teams are New England,
Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Denver, Philly and Seattle. ( I give tips of
the cap to teams who have had very good short runs at either the
beginning of that time frame or the end. They would be San Diego,
Tampa Bay, and maybe Carolina) Regardless, New England, Pittsburgh,
Indianapolis, Denver, Philly and Seattle have had continued success as
franchises. Success, by the way, is defined as continued compilation
of Ws in the "win" column.
Sapp's comments speak to a greater trend within the game that promotes
very little patience, little professional pride, and no sense of
place. Teams don't take the time to devlop players and often they
acquire free agents with the expectation that the free agent will
immediately be worth 4 wins. That is rarely the case. Sometimes, a
key free agent can be an excellent addition to a veteran team (Randy
Moss, Wes Welker, Reggie White, Deion Sanders) or a shiftless,
leaderless, young team (Priest Holmes, Drew Brees). Football, as a
game, is not baseball or basketball. It requires more trust and faith
between teammates because of the syncronised nature of the game. As it
is, most signings take a year or two for the trust to build and the
player to fit into the system. Ironically, this was the case with
Warren Sapp.  As he indicates in the article, a player, even one as
great as Sapp was (and Sapp was great, few players of this generation
have impacted the game the way he did), can find themselves a fish out
of water as he did. If you have read the article, I ask you, would
that exchange between Sapp and the young player happened on Sapp's
Tampa teams, or Ray Lewis' Baltimore teams? No, established leaders
would have engendered a greater sense of history and pride and
consciousness of purpose. Young players obtain this mentality by the
meat market behavior of their teams.
There are lots of great examples of teams with mercenary mentalities
that have doomed themselves to failure. In our generation, Dan
Snyder's Redskins and Al Davis and his Raiders are probably the best
examples. The Skins have the second highest revenue of any team in the
last ten years. How many Playoff seasons have they had? Two or
three? How concise has their draft strategy been? How many free
agents have they brought in? OF those free agents, who has performed
up to expectations? Only the ones that Gibbs brought in. How many
coaches have they had since 1999? I would go on to talk about the
Raiders but that is too easy. Many other teams have had trouble
maintaining continuity and focus (Detroit, Cleveland, Cincy, Houston,
Miami, Kansas City, sometimes Dallas but they get it together for short
periods sometimes, and Arizona). Lots of factors contribute to long
term lack of success, but with really good, long-term success examples
that base their organizations on continuity, it would appear that teams
without it should acknowledge their impact...MINNESOTA.
|
6 Comments
Leave a comment
|
|
|
2008 Cubs Preview
You know, I read pretty much all of King's MMQB columns and I think he's a gasbag. He does give some good information but I feel like that is negated by his name dropping and 'old-schoolisnesh'. I just made up that word. He shows obvious bias to some veteran players and seems pretty pretentious. I think he's out of whack when he tries to make pop culture references and generally takes himself too seriously.
That being said, I do read his stuff because he does provide information other writers don't. I feel like I'd want to punch him in the gut though if I saw him in person.
I agree with your points Cobra. He has too much "Hollywood wanna be" (I just made up that word/sentence) type stuff in there with the name drops and look at me stuff. I usually glance through and read stuff that is worth the time and skip over all the crap. Overall, the real football stuff is a good read. Your chance to punch him in the gut will be at Victory Field in Indy on some kind of "look at me" tour he is doing.
He's supposed to be off for the next four weeks so I'm looking forward to who his replacements are.
As for the point of this post....(sorry Paine) I think that leadership is both overrated and underrated in the NFL. With guys like Sapp, it's overrated. I wouldn't ask him for advice unless it was about what the best hamburger joint was. With guys like Manning, it's underrated. Leaders in the NFL have to perform and I'm not sure Brooks is able to do that anymore.
You know, a lot of people said that about Junior Seau. No, he is not a player you want dropping deep into a zone coverage in the middle of the field, but that is not the only part of the game. If you have the other team backed up against their end zone, it is a third down, or they are in your red zone, then you need guys who can read plays and react. You need that experience and knowledge. That is very much how Seau was used, and used effectively, late in his career. Certainly, guys like Seau and Zach Thomas and the like are exceptions to the rule. Still, if you have a young team that has trouble getting off the field on third down or is getting fooled by counters on the goal line, then there is a perfectly legitimate reason to have a guy exactly like Derrick Brooks on your team. If it is about performance, I would be willing to wager as much as $ million for a year that Derrick Brooks can read the flat pass on third and three and get out there to bat it down. That is all the performance you need if a person does it. As for Sapp, you should watch interviews with former Bucs teammates. Sapp made that team happen. Sure, he had his share of jackassery and a lot of peple don't like him, but that is as much a representation of his unwilllingness to care about what other people think about him more than anything else. A hundred times that defense went back onto the field after their miserable offense failed to accomplish anything and they always performed. That was because Warren Sapp kept people's heads in the right place. As for Peter King, he definitely enjoys his access, and it limits his effectiveness. That is kinda the paradox. The less access you have the better work you do to try to get it. Once you get it, your work drops off. I stick with 64% and believe that kind of percentage is good for mass media outlets. I woud rather read King than Simmons.
I'm not sure there is an elite team that can take on a player like Brooks and offer him the playing time he might covet. I'm sure someone will take a flyer on him at some point though.
Every era says, 'it was tougher back then', 'kids don't listen now', etc. It's going to happen until the end of time. Think of how people were saying Sapp was a primadonna when he came into the league....along with every other high draft pick outside of maybe P. Manning. There were a lot of leaders and guys with pride on the Tampa defense. Lynch, Brooks, Sapp, Rice, Barber, Quarles, etc. To say Sapp spurred them on might be pushing the envelope a bit. Plus, they had a helluva d-coordinator.
King and Simmons are complete opposites of each other. King covers the NFL, Simmons doesn't cover anything and only offers his thoughts. It's like comparing Peter Gammons to Rick Reilly. To compare them doesn't make sense. I don't read Clayton or the guys from ESPN so I'm not sure how King compares to them but I pray that you guys have better NFL coverage out there. I used to read Dr. Z but he was more for entertainment value. I'm a fringe NFL fan at best so from my perspective I'm thinking he's closer to 50%.
You can keep Lynch and Brooks, but Rice Barber and Quarles were not leaders of those good Tampa teams. It was Sapp and Brooks. Lynch was the guy leading the secondary, and look what kind of play Denver got from him under similar circumstances. This situation is very similar to Junior Seau leaving San Diego and winding up in Miami. Seau was an intelligent player who understood the keys of the game and had played at a high level for a long time. He shows up in Miami and has a decent year, played at a high level, and did it at the age of 33-34. Brooks could do the same thing. I do think that Seau's subsequent career in New England is a touch disappointing. He wants a ring and the Pats want someone whose instincts are super sharp to play on the goal line. THere, whether the player has the ability or not, his reaction to the play gives the safety behind him a good read on what to do. I have been hurt a little watching Seau play this role, but he seems happy to do it and be with the team. Brooks could be an asset to many teams in a few very specific ways. I think its too bad he can't find a team.
As for Peter King, if you think he hits closer to 50%, that is cool. I don't think that is so far outside my margin of error to say boo about it.