Uhh…could it be that having R. Budd as gorified award presenter makes dullen’ Bill Cullen look like a regular Asadata Dafora on stage?
So, this year, for the first time, they tried to make the First Year Player Draft a television spectacular. They broadcast it in prime time. Commissioner Bud Selig came out to the lectern every few minutes to make a dramatic reading of a name he clearly had never seen before. Then, some baseball analysts talked for a few minutes about that name, and how great that name would become, how that name had 60-power or three-plus pitches—scout talk—and everyone came to the inevitable conclusion that the name would really help the team in the future. Yes, it’s a familiar formula.
Only ... the whole production didn’t work at all, at least for me. To be fair, this isn’t anyone’s fault—not even Bud Selig’s. The baseball draft simply doesn’t make any sense as an event because:...
...And that might be the biggest reason all this new hype for the baseball draft is probably doomed. The baseball draft is more about disappointment than triumph, more about failure than success. If the averages hold up, maybe five of the players taken in the first round will have reasonable big league careers, play in 1,200 games or so. Maybe one or two pitchers will win 100 games in the show. A couple might become big stars. Maybe.
In other words: It’s risky to hype ANY baseball draft pick, much less do a big show about the whole thing. It reminded me that a few years ago, the Kansas City Royals took a fast and promising outfielder named Chris Lubanski with the fifth overall pick in the draft. And after he signed, he took a little batting practice at Kauffman Stadium, and our dear friend Art Stewart—one of the great baseball men ever—walked around gushing: “You will remember this day for the rest of your life.”
It’s six years later, and Lubanski has not yet had a single big league at-bat. He’s hitting .308 in Omaha, and maybe he will get a chance. Maybe not. Either way, Art Stewart was right: I haven’t forgotten that day.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
if thats the biggest reason, then a close 2nd is that not many people watch college baseball compared to NCAA football and basketball... so noone knows who these guys are
Someone may have studied this – odds are, someone has, and I haven't been aware. A few years ago, I was looking at All-Star rosters. I noticed that about a third of the All-Stars were first-round picks, a third were foreign free agents, and another third came almost at random from rounds 2 through the end of the draft. There could be lots of reasons for the last third (among them, top prospects slipping down several rounds due to signabiity concerns), but it was somewhat surprising to me. Well, not that surprising, given the legendarily hit-or-miss nature of developing baseball talent; what was maybe even more surprising was that so many first-rounders do make good.
Now of course, All-Star rosters are just a heuristic; if you were really to study the issue, you'd want a much more objective measure. But it's a starting point, and easy to look up ...
I like that they made it available. Even if it's going to be a niche thing compared to the NFL draft, it's going to bring in some people (this is the first time I've ever paid attention to a draft) and it helps heighten interest in the overall organization. Though I suppose that could be a bad thing in some organizations.
I think Nate hits upon it - we don't know most of these players. Heck, I'm a bit of a draftnik, and I had never heard of any of these players until a month ago.
I think that's reason #1A, with reason #1B that none of these guys are going to play right away with rare exception. The NFL and NBA drafts are appealing in large part because the players picked ideally fill holes in the current roster. Your team doesn't have a pass rush? They can add a DE that will start day 1. Not enough size in the front court? There's a couple of PF that can play 25 minutes a night out there.
Also the inability to trade picks makes it a boring TV event. Trades are exciting and give you a reason to watch because your team could conceivably draft at any time via a trade. A non-draft geek Twins fan has no reason to watch the first 21 picks before the Twins are up.
I did a study a few years ago, the NFL (the team that picks 1st) is actually worse at selecting the #1 college player than the Heisman voters are. That is contrary to what we are told.
I wouldn't automatically assume the NFL is that much better at picking players in Rd 1 than MLB. Certainly the NFL is better than MLB in rounds 2-7, but that speaks to the greater difficulty and amount of skill involved in becoming a professional baseball player. It is incredible MLB is as good as they are in identifying talent in rd 1.
Out of curiosty, how did you judge "best" in terms of college?
Also, how did you adjust for the fact that the #1 player in the NFL Draft is frequently chosen based on "team need at position", rather than "most skilled."
Those are two, well three, completely different criteria.
And that the best college player isn't always draft eligible or declared, among other obvious glares in such a study.
And despite all the reports about baseball being not popular among African-American kids, I did not quite a few African-Americans drafted quite yesterday including Donovan Tate, Jared Mitchell, Jiovanni Mier, LeVon Washington and Kentrail Davis in the first round
Various measures, games started, All-Pro teams, Pro Bowls and years in the league. It is not easy. Obviously the NFL lacks the advanced metrics MLB has, so using yardage, TDs, etc it pretty difficult, esp when so many OL and DL are involved.
It is close, but Heisman winners have a slight edge from my measures. This is the major point, there is no discernible gap as many assume exists.
As far as drafting for need, I grant you that, but on the flip side, Heisman voters rarely vote based on NFL potential, yet they have just as good of success as the #1 pick in the NFL. The NFL is filled with memes and one meme is the Heisman winner sucks in the NFL. Well, many Heisman winners fail to have NFL careers, but many #1 picks are just as terrible. In fact, if the upfront investment wasn't there, many of those guys would have been cut pretty quick.
I'm sure some NFL fans that defend mindless memes will be angered someone has dared to question the NFL's manhood like this.
There are no glares here. You missed what the study was trying to determine.
I simply compared which player had a better NFL career. It was a comparison of Heisman winners or NFL #1 overall picks in history.
Then that's not really a study on who the best college player was, it's a study on the best NFL players to play college football. One can be the best college player and not be a viable NFL player.
Well that's fine and not really earth shattering, but what you said in post 7 led me, and I guess Ryan Jones, to believe that you were judging who was the best player at the NCAA level by using their NFL careers.
I find this important precisely because there was a movement, from time to time, and in the mid 90s for the Heisman voters to select big time NFL prospects, presumably because it was embarrassing a Heisman winner failed to have an NFL career, a notion I strongly disagreed with. I wholeheartedly agree that the best player in college does not have to be an NFL prospect at all. And one does not have to be a NFL prospect to be truly the best college player and worthy of the Heisman.
I wish the new meme was, since the NFL isn't so good at picking college players in the #1 slot, they should automatically draft the Heisman winner there.
Of course I don't want this meme to exist, but it would be equally inaccurate.
I didn't get that. I immediately thought of Drew Brees when he pointed out his study, Drew was said to be a product of his system and that doesn't translate well into the NFL. Heisman finalist get drafted later or not at all, yet there are plenty that seem to do well when given a chance in the NFL. (Doug Flutie is probably another example but I think he took himself out of the draft before he got a chance to see what the NFL thought of him)
Then we're on the same page.
Not that I want to start a Heisman/#1 pick like meme, but it wouldn't hurt the MLB draft to have the Golden Spikes announced before the draft (it's being announced at the All Star Game). It might help create a little more buzz and awareness for the draft. At least push that players are finalists, most winners go on to be quality major leaguers.
Exhibit A: Eric Crouch. Didn't deserve the Heisman, bombed in the NFL.
The NFL is pretty incredible in that they allow maybe half or 66% of great QB athletes pass by the wayside because they all like to copy each other and refuse to incorporate innovation, instead stick by stone age west coast style type offenses.
Many systems that are used in college would work just fine in the NFL, but until the NFL changes, the NFL would rather take the lesser player/athlete that used the "correct" system.
Working against the NFL is the fact that football players are in their athletic prime between age 20-25. 2-3 years of which are spent in college. It is pretty hard to imagine the NFL being able to create a developmental league for players aged 22-27.
This is incorrect. Heisman winners get drafted early, from 96-06 (the '07 and '08 winners are still in college) 6 of those 10 were drafted in the 1st round. If you go back 20 years 13 of 19 (can't count Charlie Ward) were 1st round picks. Flutie was drafted even though he had already signed with the USFL.
Baseball has been being declared dead since the day it became popular (I can totally see one of the Knickerbockers saying "Alex, this game you had us play today, can we do something else tomorrow?") and has been declared dead every year since. They could easily have kept it with one of the older larger format (where they quite literally could have gone forever, as it just went until everyone dropped out). I mean, obviously anyone from the late rounds would have basically no chance (Piazza being an extreme exception, of course), but...
I wouldn't say he bombed, he never had any expectations at the NFL level. He was drafted with the intention of turning him into a WR, he even converted to safety for a while.
And quite a few of these unconventional QBs used to make their way up to the CFL. Now, with the AFL and NFL Europe (does that still exist) teams are more likely to stock them away in one of those locations, with the hope of teaching them to a more conventional system.
NFL Europe hasn't existed for a few years. The AFL isn't playing this year and isn't affiliated with the NFL anyway, so teams can't stock players away in the AFL. They should get together, it would benefit each league, but the NFL can be pretty dumb sometimes.
He was a third-round pick. Most teams use those on players they expect to have value in the future.
The NFL used to have a quasi-development deal with the CFL, but it really didn't work that well - while both play football, the differences (including the much more wide open, pass oriented, nature of the CFL) were significant enough that many of the offensive and defensive schemes didn't translate well between leagues.
I thought he went later than that. A third round pick on Eric Crouch, oh my. Well, that's better than drafting Matt Jones in the 1st round.
I did say finalists, and I imagine that the running backs do pretty well in the draft, but it just seems that quarterbacks do pretty poorly.
NFL Europe hasn't existed for a few years. The AFL isn't playing this year and isn't affiliated with the NFL anyway, so teams can't stock players away in the AFL. They should get together, it would benefit each league, but the NFL can be pretty dumb sometimes.
I agree, NFL really needs to have something deeper than the practice squad (which has weird rules anyway) I mean as a previous post put out there, the nfl doesn't like to draft a player to develop, but if each team had one minor league team they can set the system they want up and stockpile guys down there. I know the NFL wants to make a profit on everything but sometimes you have to accept spending on something to keep your quality up. Heck with the salary cap and non-guaranteed money the NFL has plenty of money to spend on a developmental league, and if they get lucky a network like VS may pick them up to help offset the cost.
Which may be why they don't do anything with the AFL, although it seems more players go from the AFL to the NFL than from the CFL these days. If you have a raw toolsy WR or DB it's not a bad league to get him some reps.
There are many reasons why certain players won the Heisman that really shouldn't have. NFL career is certainly not one of them. Crouch was a weak Heisman winner, he even had a better Soph season than his Sr winning season.
But 2001 was a rather weak year for candidates. Crouch was a J Morneau type winner. I would like to see all players start winning Heisman's, including WR and of course Def. Believe it or not, WR gets almost zero support for the Heisman. Of the 5 players in history to win the Heisman listed as WR or END, none of them were just WR. 3 of them were big time kick returners, the two Ends were two way players in a different era. Basically no WR or Def player can win the Heisman unless they return kicks. Very silly. Randy Moss and M Crabtree both should have won Heismans. Neither returned kicks.
Ed Reed might have been the most deserving, leading the nation in INTs and leading the best D. Crouch was still a one man offensive machine, he took a rather mediocre team to the title game.
I dunno. Jones was actually decent for the part of last year where he wasn't suspended. I think he might be rounding into a productive player (though whether he'll get another shot is an open question).
He did deserve the Heisman, and got injured in his first training camp and never really recovered (although he did some time in the NFL Europe and I think in the CFL). He also returned his signing bonus to the Rams, FWIW, something few draft 'busts' ever do.
Crouch certainly was deserving.
And then he retired because it was too hard trying to play with a bruised thigh.
Yeah, quite the football player.
"He also returned his signing bonus to the Rams, FWIW, something few draft 'busts' ever do."
Most busts don't quit before their first game. If he hadn't returned it of his own free will, they could've sued him to recover it.
Well he got to play with the team in the title game. Who "took" them there is a bit of a dispute, as I'm sure you know.
He was a very good college player, however, and that was a lousy year for Heisman Candidates but... the Big-12's annual invitation to the title game is probably my least favorite aspect of college football. Particularly when the invitation says "Texas" on it. :(
Turns out that's not true either.
1996* - 0 of 3
1997* - 3 of 3(?): Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson, Randy Moss
1998* - 3 of 4: Ricky Williams, Cade McNown, Tim Couch
1999 - 3 of 5: Chad Pennington, Ron Dayne, Michael Vick
2000 - 1 of 4: LaDainian Tomlinson
-Drew Brees was nominated in '99 and '00
2001 - 2 of 4: Rex Grossman, Joey Harrington
2002 - 3 of 5: Carson Palmer, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson
-Ken Dorsey was nominated in '01 and '02
2003 - 3 of 4: Larry Fitzgerald, Eli Manning, Chris Perry
2004 - 4 of 5: Adrian Peterson, Alex Smith, Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart
-Jason White was nominated in '03 and '04
2005 - 3 of 3: Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, Vince Young
2006 - 2 of 3: Brady Quinn, Darren McFadden
*I couldn't find a list of finalists, only a list of those who received votes (which isn't the same thing) or were named a finalist in an article about an individual.
That's 20 of 40 that were first rounders. And there were a bunch of 2nd rounders.
Most people don't know this, but Moss was an excellent returner when Marshall was I-AA. He just didn't return kicks once they got to I-A.
Nice job by the expansion Browns making their first pick a QB who had no playbook in college. Yeah, he'll transition nicely...
I would narrow that down to Oklahoma and add Ohio State. I could certainly do without OU and tOSU in a title game for the next decade, at least until they show they are worthy of the opportunity. Texas at least did America a favor and defeated the "Greatest College Football Team" ever, USC, per ESPN in 2005.
Do you ever read Smart Football? I think I may have asked you before, but I may be invisible to you because I'm courteous to most and don't mix it up with you as much as some others here will.
You must be a USC person then.
Guilty as charged...and still wiping away tears from that Baja-Oklahoma game.
I went to a Big Ten school, U of Minnesota, grew up in Wisconsin. So yes, college football is very much on my radar. Family influences also generated a following of Husker football as well. Lately I've been traveling to SEC venues, I've been to about 20 of the top 40 venues in college football.
I have followed your links to Smart Football before, it is a good site, and yes I do share their angle of attack. Thanks for think heads up on that. I'll be following it more closely this football season, I might even correspond with them at some point. I have read a little from the football outsiders guys, they seem to be creating interesting, groundbreaking work in football. I am very curious as to what data can be gleaned from a football that nobody has considered before, at least beyond the basics, TDs, Yards...etc. There are many memes to destroy in football, esp at the NFL level.
I know a guy, from CT that worked for the NFL a few years ago. I brought up how the NFL holds all coaches video as proprietary. I suggested the NFL would make a killing selling those videos to hardcore fans for entertainment and doing arm-chair QBing...etc. Also suggested stats researchers would be able to apply new research to the sport. He acknowledged that the NFL is arrogant about the subject of research and there is very much an attitude of condescension toward these stats geeks in NFL offices. He said they were going to do their own in-house research. This approach must be going over as well as their NFLNetwork launch.
Sure seems like the NFL is even more of a boys club than MLB was, certainly in embracing data as it relates to player/team evaluation.
I come across of few sites that put up links posts that are usually a couple of "news cycles" old, but he's talking about football game theory and not who signed where. He can afford to be a few days behind.
I'm not talking about player movement, he doesn't care about that stuff and it's focus on college football anyways. I mean stuff like rule changes, but upon further review I'm mistaken on his timing.
-- MWE
Another problem with the baseball draft, IMO, is that it occurs while most of the players are playing somewhere - except for Mike Trout, who lives nearby, none of the top draftees were in the studio, in most cases because they were playing ball somewhere, whether it be American Legion, AAU, or college summer league. One of the big things for draftniks is actually "seeing" the players come up to the podium, shake the hand of the Commish, and model their jersey.
-- MWE
This is true. One of my favorite parts of the NBA draft that once in a while, you'll have a guy picked late in the first round that didn't get invited by the NBA to sit in the green room jump from the stands where the regular fans sit, and mug Stern for a handshake and the jersey of the team that drafted him while a bewildered Stern is wondering what the heck is happening. Sasha Vujacic did this, among a couple of others I don't remember.
Exactly. Hard to get excited about a high school kid from Georgia when you know 1) he's never played against anything other than high school kids and 2) talent at that level doesn't translate well to the Majors. Add to that the substantial time needed to season most prospects and you end up with something that's simply not all that exciting.
In the NFL, you've had the opportunity to see nearly every draft pick play multiple times. In the NBA, you've probably seen them and if you haven't, they'll be on the professional roster within 6 months. The baseball draft simply can't compare.
Not very likely.
The Eyes of Texas are upon you,
all the live long day...
The Eyes of Texas are upon you,
you cannot get away.
Do not think you can escape them
at night or early in the morn'...
The Eyes of Texas are upon you
til Gabriel blows. His. HORN
Yay Orange, yay White
Yay Longhorns fight fight fight
Texas fight Texas fight
Yay Texas fight
Texas fight Texas fight
Yay Texas FIGHT
-----
Any chance I ever had of not wishing ill on Matt Leinart ended after that game. He had a million routes to go, hell I'd have even understood if he had harped on the fumble call and ignored the calls in SC's favor. But he went the whiny ######## route of "The best team didn't win today". Those interviews are a net losing proposition, as I'm never coming away thinking "That guy's a great person" when they parrot the typical lines, but you can damn sure act like a petulant crybaby and ruin your reputation.
F Matt Leinart. I wish him nothing but terrible things in his professional life. (Until he leaves football and not wishing for injuries that affect him off-field.) Overrated and backing up a 40 year old guy is a great start, too. And don't think we didn't notice that NCAA 07 commercial with you breaking twelve tackles and running in a 50 yard TD against us, Matthew. Wishing makes Pinocchio a real boy, but it makes you a douche.
</rant>
At least Colt isn't Chris Simms, that dirty whitebread national-championship costing piece of ARGGGGHH RAGE. Not to mention he ruined the legacy of The Greatest Quarterback in College Football History (TM).
Nah, he doesn't fit the Al Davis mold. Besides, there are plenty of teams that can't draft and develop a QB.
Agreed.
Cheers, that was truly a ridiculous torch that ESPN carried.
Perhaps most notable, but not the most enjoyable, gosh so many to choose from, especially from their historically inept 2007 season.
I would burn down the house of every single Primate if it meant Major would have a slightly better day.
FireMajorApplewhite.com Yeah, I went there.
I'm with you on McCoy. One of the great tragedies of Sarkissian's incompetence is that Colt didn't get a chance to play against SC's defense last year. I think I would have enjoyed that. As for the 05 game, I'm almost at peace with it. The team did play poorly, but it was a great game and Texas made great plays to win- the Huff tackle on the fourth-down play was one of the most improbable great plays I've ever seen. Going into that season, that game, or that moment- if you give me that scenario and tell me the Trojans will give it to Lendale in a power set, I would have bet every dollar I'd ever make on SC getting the first. I still believe that they could run in that situation 100 more times and never miss- but I'll bet Michael Huff disagrees.
Beano, no one believed that, the 2005 team was a shadow of the 2004 team which had essentially the same offense and a vastly superior defense. The '05 team had a very mediocre defense, and Texas had just the guy to exploit it. I understand your beef with the ESPN stuff- I hated that garbage too, particularly because I'm superstitious as #### and having people proclaim your team the best ever three weeks before the big game is not what I'm looking for.
Oh yes they did. Especially ESPN.
"ESPN analysts Mark May and Kirk Herbstreit declared, before the 2005 Rose Bowl had even been played, that the 2005 USC Trojans were the 2nd best college football team of the past 50 years... Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated later observed that, although the team "may have had the greatest set of skill players in history" "
link
"In recent days, a SportsCenter feature has pitted this year's USC team against the great national champions of the last 50 years. So far, at least according to ESPN, the Trojans have dispensed with history's great football juggernauts with greater ease than they dispatched, say, the 2005 Fresno State Bulldogs...
For instance, the ESPN crew discussed a hypothetical game between USC and the 1997 Michigan Wolverines... What did ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit predict as the final score? 34-17, Trojans. ESPN's Mark May? USC, 49-14. Will the reader please note that mediocre defenses like Arizona State and Notre Dame held USC well below 49 points this year?
My favorite, though, was the matchup with the 1991 Washington Huskies. That team outscored its opponents by a staggering average margin of 42-9. Herbstreit's conclusion? "There's no way that that defense could stop SC." May: "It wouldn't even be close." "
link
EDIT: Two more
"For the past week, Texas had to listen to all the questions about the greatest USC this, the greatest USC that. Entering the game, the Trojans offense had been called the best of all time and the 2005 team was being labeled as one of the greatest of the last half-century."
link
"Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated later observed, "ESPN spent the better part of Christmas season comparing that Trojans squad to some of the most acclaimed teams of all time only to find out that they weren’t even the best team that season." "
link
You couldn't tell at the time, but now its obvious the reason he did it was because Lienart had more years of eligibility remaining.
What are you talking about.
The Applewhite - Chris Simms era is my exhibit A when explaining to someone how college football is better (and different) than pro football.
The problem with being a sarcastic ### on the intertubes is that it doesn't take much of a mistake for something to read a lot differently than you intended.
Not sure if this is sarcastic or not, I won't go into the detail of Dr Love, but the USC greatest team ever push was bigger than Y2K. It may have been taken as seriously, but it certainly turned out to be a lot of nothing, that disrupted the enjoyment of what was a great Texas team that itself won 18 or 19 games in a row.
The Big 12 Championship against CU was like being a manic-depressive for 3 hours. I was so pissed when Simms threw his last INT that I punched the wall of my apartment hard enough that the dents from my knuckles cost me money from my deposit. But when Major came in and threw the first long bomb TD and jumped down the middle of the field while exhorting the Buffs to bring it on? That was my unquestioned favorite moment in sports history. The friend who was over to watch and I sounded like NKOTB fans, squealing his name. I was sure he'd pull it out. Throw on the Washington game that followed and you can see why.
That friend's third cousin is now married to Major, oddly enough. Best I've got is Josh and John David Booty's aunt is my godmother, and I could do without that.
----
Dagoberto, no worries. Taken as such.
And college football >>>>>>>>> NFL.
Everyone knows it's the 1995 Huskers, right? The Gators could have had 15 defensive players and not stopped Tommie Frazier.
Please, the 2005 team being an all-time great was an ESPN promotional gimmick that no credible observer agreed with (not even May and Herbstreit agreed with it until the Bowl season.) The '05 team didn't even have a good defense by the standards of that year, let alone an all-time one.
The "team" of Leinart/Bush/White was looked at as an all-time great and with good reason. They won 34 straight games including a complete destruction of the previous years entry in the "Game of the Century"- a team from the same conference as Texas. They were on an incredible run which would have credibly put them in the conversation with any all-time great squads had they beat Texas. As I said, I didn't like the ESPN stuff, but you can't argue that the Trojans at that time were overrated, they hadn't lost in almost 3 years.
EDIT- My point is that ESPN promoted the 2005 team as historic because it had the same offense as the previous two years. That run, with that offense, would have been historic. The actual 2005 team was good, with a phenomenal offense, but it wasn't an all-time great team, and without the previous two years, no one would have suggested it was.
Brent Mushbuger still has a chubby over USC. Next year, I'm sure he'll say, "if not for Vince Young, we could be looking at USC's fifth straight national championship."
Next to his (former ?) columnmate Grant Wahl, Mandel is probably the worst columnist of any sport. He has been telling us how the NFL has made a terrible mistake over Troy Smith every year. Each year, he tells us how Ohio State has the best players in the country, and always picks Ohio State in every big game. He is bigger homer for the Big 10, then the freshman sportswriter at the Univ. of Michigan's student newspaper.
Both he and Wahl's shtick is to insult other programs and get a fanboy chubby over a certain player that they crush on the whole year.
Randy Moss and M Crabtree both should have won Heismans. Neither returned kicks.
The most deserving receiver never to win was probably Larry Fitzgerald.
“You bring up easily the most pitiful NFL cop-out of all,” Leach said in a telephone interview. "And you can send that message to the whole NFL. Any coach who has ever said or uttered those words or considers that a concern, here’s my message for them: How could you possibly look yourself in the mirror and consider yourself an NFL coach and not be able to teach a guy to run back three steps, five steps and seven steps? I can teach a child that!
“Any coach in the NFL who can’t do that ought to be fired!”
“I can do that,” Leach said of teaching a quarterback to drop back. “I only need a three-hour window. I’ll have a great clinic for all the NFL coaches who are so horrible that they can’t teach a guy to take a snap under center and go backwards.”
I would have thought the 71 Huskers. Keith Jackson always liked '72 USC as the best team ever.
The struggles of several high-profile recent USC draft picks (Leinart, Bush, Jarrett, Williams, Justice) illustrates the hype that the program gets. Pete Carroll is a great coach and an incredible recruiter and I'm sure his program is better suited to preparing kids for the NFL than most. But it's nowhere near the NFL factory that Miami was 10 years ago.
Of course. Almost certainly the best team of the last 40-50 years. Sagarin has N '95 followed by N '71.
400 yards rushing/game
Yards Gained Rushing 4,571 1,263
Yards Lost Rushing 173 401
(+524 yards rushing against -28 against) the #2 team in the nation
0 Sacks allowed +228 official attempts
32 Sacks made for -232 yards
Punt Ret Yards:
512 to 12
______________
I believe Tommie Frazier was either 1st or 2nd in the nation in yards per pass attempt as well. At an absurdly efficient 8.4
Not one game was close.
Yet, as far as off the charts talent, 80s-90s and early 00's Miami takes the cake, as Florida remains well ahead of CA, IMO, in terms of football talent.
I did a quick study a few years ago, that late 90s, early 00's Miami team had more NFL 1st round picks in a 4 year period than the entire AFC East.
I'm not sure if a football player's true athletic peak happens between 20-25. I think it would be almost impossible to study simply because the washout/injury rate for players of any quality is incredibly high.
If you look at the rosters and key players on teams that have been successful over a period of many years, you will find many times that the team turned a sixth-round pick or undrafted free agent into a quality contributor. Teams like the Patriots, the Steelers, the Eagles consistently get production out of UFAs or second-day picks. What happens is they sign a guy, put him on IR for a year or whatever, have them play special teams for a year, and by year 3 they are quality reserves or starters. Sometimes the process is much faster than that.
The Eagles have had years where their undrafted free agent class turns out to be much more productive than their actual draft class.
Few 20-22 year-olds, even great college athletes, are truly prepared for the rigors of the NFL season. The offenses and defenses are often exponentially more complicated than the ones they played in college. If you have any weakness in your game, the NFL will exploit it (this is obviously true in all sports, but given the much-shorter schedule, there is much less margin/tolerance for error in the NFL. A few key blown assignments can doom a player.) And physically, most 22-year-olds are simply not prepared to handle the monstrous athletes of the NFL.
If you take someone who may not be a Combine freak but was a productive player with high desire/"coachability" from a small school, you will often find that at age 25, with three years of training and learning, he will be far better than 95% of highly rated 22-year-olds from major programs.
Another NFL meme is college coaches fail in the NFL and NFL coaches dominate college. Yet only two NFL coaches have ever led a college team to a undefeated record, G Stallings and Pete Carroll. The vast majority of NFL turned college coaches are a disgrace. It is a very long list of disgraces.
Charlie Weis might be my exhibit A for NFL coaches that have had their ass handed to them in college. He came in arrogant and cocky too. He claimed that Notre Dame "would have a decided schematic advantage in every game, every play" during his tenure.
When Georgia Tech fired former NFL coach Chan Gailey and replaced him with Navy's Paul Johnson nobody expected him to be able to take an "out of date" option rushing based offense and make it work with a pro-set roster. So much for learning curve. Ga Tech had a very nice season, 9 wins and is poised to move up this year.
When Bill Callahan, formerly the "offensive genius" of the Raiders, took over at Nebraska, I was told that he needed 4 years to overhaul the old roster for power rushing players and replace it with a pro-style west coast roster. Lies. Paul Johnson didn't need time. These NFL guys can't teach.
I was also told Nebraska needed a pro-style offense to recruit QBs. Another lie. Not one Bill Callahan QB was drafted by the NFL. 4 straight Nebraska rushing QBs were drafted, pre Callahan, however. It would have been 6 had Berringer not died a week before the draft and T Frazier been cleared by doctors.
I know the '83 team lost to Miami, but, man, Turner Gill, Rozier, Irving Fryar, Steinkuhler, and Tom Rathman all on the same offense.
Almost every season, the biggest, fastest, strongest OL, DL, LB, RB, WR QB is a rookie....or came from college. Football destroys your body and year athletic peek in football is a window of time that closes quickly and sooner than in other sports. This argument is well out of date. I'd argue that 20-25 of the best 100 football players in the world at any given time are in college, in that 20-25 window. This argument was made with regard to the NBA and the NBA, in case you don't follow it anymore, has become more physical than hockey. It is brutal. Yet, nearly all of the best players are aged 20-25. Dwight Howard.....aged 23, LaBron James...aged 24.
Now if you add the element of skill into the equation, then yes, many players older than 25 are better than 20-25 year olds, but not because of physical ability, but skill. I am only talking about physical abilities. The older players have to rely on skill to last. A few positions are so dependent on skill, QB and OL, that athleticism becomes less of a factor toward success.
Scoring Explosion.
Incredible amount of scoring plays over 40 yards and 70 yards. Nobody can watch film of Turner Gil and say he wouldn't have been able to play NFL football. This was still during the Jim Crow era of the NFL.
Take defensive tackles...there are few defensive tackles who go in the first 10 picks. But you get a few that come around, and they are 310 pounds with a lightning-quick first step and incredible college productivity. There are many of these guys who are disappointments in the NFL. Battling in the trenches causes you to lose that explosiveness pretty quickly.
But you take a kid who might be considered undersized and not that quick, let him ferment for a few years and add muscle/bulk AND not expose him to the grind of actually playing games, voila, quality NFL player.
Overall I have some of the most radical football views, so I expect people to disagree with me most of the time.
NFL coaches are an incredibly stubborn/dogmatic lot and systems rule all. When you do find the occasional innovative coach, every team immediately copies everything he does. Look at the success/imitation of the Wildcat formation. You'll probably see more demand for the rushing quarterback now.
I married into a family of Nebraskans, I go to at least one game in Lincoln per season, and I follow the Huskers fairly closely these days. It's hard to overstate what Callahan and Pederson (the former AD) did to kill morale among NU fans at the time. They divorced themselves from tradition, and they treated the program like a chemistry set. Obviously, Callahan wrecked the Blackshirts, but his offense looked like something out of flag football at times. He was out of his depth in many ways. Pellini comes in, and the energy was immediate. And then, automatically, the team itself was orders of magnitude better without any significant changes to the talent base. Funny how that works.
A line position however, save for an outside rush guy, requires tremendous physical strength and power, the type of thing most 19 year-olds don't have yet. A few freaks would exist, but as a general matter, most teenagers won't cut it in those spots.
The issue about physical breakdown is also key though and it wouldn't shock me if getting guys part-time snaps on the line when they're 20 and then riding them hard from say 22-26 (when they've got experience and young legs) wouldn't be a better deal for most teams. Of course, to do that it would, like basketball, require the destruction of the college game- and I'm not interested in that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main