Rick Reilly can't stop writing bad columns. It is an addiction he has. He just HAS to write sentimental, useless crap. The heading of today's abortion of journalism is called "Not Feeling the NFL Draft." Get it? It's a cutesy play on words. See, from this title it seems like Rick doesn't like the NFL draft, so he isn't "feeling" it, but it also means he isn't feeling the "draft," which can also mean air coming in through a window or such. It has a double meaning and it is about windows and air! Hilarious, only the most educated 7th grader can write something like this.
Unfortunately, Rick actually writes the entire article about how important the NFL Draft is...so he is actually kind of feeling the NFL Draft. But who gives a shit about accuracy when you can make such a clever play on words? As usual, this 500 word article (that Rick Reilly gets paid millions of dollars to write) is terrible. How this man has a job while (presumably) thousands of well-educated journalists who could actually contribute something to sports journalism, other than speeding up its demise, are out of work. Life is not fair.
Last April, after I clicked off two bloated days of the NFL draft, my wife looked up from her book and said, "Who won?"
I get it, I get it! His wife thought the NFL Draft was an actual game, because she doesn't think it matters at all! Hilarious.
For fear of taking shots at sportswriters family members, which I try to avoid, I can't help but wonder if this story is an example of how sports-ignorant Rick Reilly's wife may be or is an attempt by Reilly to tell a fictional story for the purpose of telling a piss-poor joke. Actually, given Reilly's history he may have told this joke previously and is recycling it to make it seem new.
There are many, many reasons to be a draft dodger, but the best one is in that question: At the end of it, nobody wins.
The entire rest of this column will be an example of how good teams draft well. Yet, Reilly states nobody wins at the end of the draft. Confused? Don't be. Rick Reilly is an idiot. We know this and have to adjust our expectations accordingly. Asking Rick Reilly to write a coherent 500 word column is like asking my panther-cat to stop trying to escape from my mom's attic...it's just not happening.
It's like reading a novel with the last chapter torn out, watching a movie with no third act, falling in love after the first kiss but before you've tried her spaghetti.
It's like reading a novel and then having to wait a few years to see if the book was any good or not. I know Rick Reilly doesn't watch sports, but if he did watch sports, he could see that at some point down the road there is an actual verdict on whether a draft pick was a good one or not.
It's like "The Sopranos." Entertaining, but the ending sucked.
No, it didn't. Tony lived and so did everyone else. They went on with their lives. Nobody's life has a definite ending until they die, Tony Soprano didn't die, so his life didn't have a definite conclusion. We just didn't get to see the rest of his life.
Let's look at the drafts from 1997 to 2007. (2007, you'll recall, was 20 years after Brett Favre first started considering retirement.) Here's how many Pro Bowl years those draft picks have had since:
There are so many ways to measure whether a team is good at drafting or terrible at it. I don't really know if Pro Bowls is the best way to determine whether a team had good drafts during this period or not. What about the players that contributed but didn't make the Pro Bowl? Do they not count as good draft picks? Also, you can have 1-2 players on a team skewing the results.
Wasn't it just a few paragraphs ago Rick Reilly stated he didn't think the draft was very useful because "nobody wins" and it is like "watching a movie with no 3rd act?" So my question is this...how can the draft be a situation where no one wins, but then a few years later we find out who won?
- Indianapolis Colts 37
- Pittsburgh Steelers 35
- Dallas Cowboys 34
- Seattle Seahawks 31
- Philadelphia Eagles 27
- Chicago Bears 26
- Minnesota Vikings 26
- Baltimore Ravens 25
- New England Patriots 24
- Washington Redskins 23
- Green Bay Packers 23
- San Diego Chargers 22
- Arizona Cardinals 22
- Carolina Panthers 20
- New York Jets 19
- Denver Broncos 19
- St. Louis Rams 19
- Atlanta Falcons 19
- Kansas City Chiefs 18
- Cincinnati Bengals 18
- San Francisco 49ers 18
- New York Giants 18
- Oakland Raiders 16
- Miami Dolphins 15
- Tennessee Titans 14
- New Orleans Saints 13
- Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12
- Buffalo Bills 10
- Houston Texans 10
- Jacksonville Jaguars 9
- Cleveland Browns 7
- Detroit Lions 4
What slaps you across the face is that the Indianapolis Colts used the draft to climb out of their spider hole of the 1980s and 1990s to become a gorilla in the AFC, and not just with Peyton Manning (10 Pro Bowls). DE Dwight Freeney (5), RB Edgerrin James (4) and WR Reggie Wayne (4) were genius picks, too.
So the Colts have 4 guys who accounted for 23 of the 37 Pro Bowl appearances. That's impressive, but I don't feel it is the whole story. Isn't there one other guy the Colts drafted who made a few Pro Bowls? A wide receiver?
Oh yeah...Marvin Harrison. He contributed 8 Pro Bowls to this count. It's funny how Rick Reilly seem to leave him off this list. So that means 5 players contributed 31 of the 37 Pro Bowl appearances by the Colts. This is still very impressive, but it also doesn't make the Colts look like the wonderfully-awesome drafting machine Rick wants to make them look like by using Pro Bowls as a measure.
This brings me to my complaint that he only counts players who made Pro Bowls as good picks by a team. I don't think this tells us anything really. Wasn't Dallas Clark a good pick by the Colts? So I think this information about how many players from each team made the Pro Bowl tells us something, I don't think it tells the full story about how good a team drafted during this period because it ignores guys who were 3rd-7th round picks and become solid contributors to the team. Reilly's method also completely ignores undrafted free agents a team may sign after the draft.
There really isn't a good way to measure how well a team drafted, but I think using a combination of Pro Bowls, starts for a team and how many of those players are still on the team/or were on the team for 4+ years would be a good way. Just using Pro Bowls stinks.
What slaps you harder is that the Cleveland Browns could've done the same thing, but they screwed the Chihuahua. Their run of No. 1 picks from 1999 to 2002 is the single worst stretch of drafting since the Iraqi Republican Guard.
I don't know. I almost think the Lions run of 1st round picks from 2002-2005 might rival that.
2002- Joey Harrington
2003- Charles Rogers
2004- Roy Williams, Kevin Jones
2005- Mike Williams
If the Lions don't get 1st place, they at least deserve a strong 2nd place.
1999 -- Tim Couch, QB: first pick of the draft, 0 Pro Bowls, out of the league after five seasons. But hey, he married a Playboy Playmate. Bust marries bust.
"Bust marries bust." Neither funny nor clever. How does this man have a job? He is even turning down excess jobs. How does this happen?
2001 -- Gerard Warren, DL: third pick of the draft, 0 Pro Bowls. And they passed up LaDainian Tomlinson!
Cincinnati and Arizona also passed up on Tomlinson. So not-great minds think alike.
The Oakland Raiders are not last on this list, but I don't see how.
Because using solely Pro Bowl appearances to determine if a team is good at drafting or not is misleading.
Between 1997 and 2007, Al Davis had 14 very high picks and got only three first team All-Pro seasons out of them. He could've done better using a blindfolded chicken. Or even Matt Millen.
Actually, he couldn't have done any better with Matt Millen making the picks. I am not sure what a "very high" pick actually means either because the Raiders had 15 1st round picks during this time. In fairness to Al Davis, the All-Pro system is a step above a Pro Bowl season, so Rick is raising the bar here. Also, the Raiders did draft Charles Woodson, Shane Lechler, Sebastian Janikowski, and Nnamdi Asomugha during this time. This year, the Raiders pick was completely rational, which I feel like I have to mention. I am not defending, I am just saying...
What really bugs me is how smug all these people will be about every pick. They're always grinning and puffing out their chests and spouting stuff like, "Look, we knew we had to move up and steal a 10-year starter in this league. This ain't our first rodeo."
Rick Reilly complaining about others acting smug is so deeply ironic. What does he expect them to say?
"We really don't know what we are doing and didn't get any of the players we want. We are failures, please come support the team this fall and spend your money on tickets, jerseys and concessions."
I would actually rather the general manager or coach lie if they got stuck with a player they didn't want. I don't want to know immediately how bad the player is, I prefer to see while he is out on the field.
I like to clip and save these quotes for years later, when the final score is finally in.
Me too! I like to keep score and see how many times Rick Reilly can mail in his columns and sell his soul for money.
Rick Reilly self-plagerism.
Rick Reilly plagerizing someone else.
His claims ESPN stole his ideas. Reilly says ESPN has been handed "five or six" Emmys by him. Of course he forgot all of this when ESPN backed a buttload of cash to his front door. It's amazing how bygones can be bygones when a bunch of money is involved. Now Reilly is stealing ideas from himself and desperately trying to be an actual journalist...and just generally failing at it.
"We just didn't think it was worth it." -- New York Giants GM Ernie Accorsi, in 2000, on not trading up to get RB Jamal Lewis (who is one of only six backs to rush for more than 2,000 yards in a season) and instead picking RB Ron Dayne, who was riding pine within months.
Yes, that was a bad pick, but along with being one of six players to rush for 2,000 yards in a season Jamal Lewis also missed a year in the NFL because he was in jail. I feel like this has to be factored into the equation as well.
The Giants didn't actually pass up Lewis though, they just didn't trade up to get him. I feel like this is completely different from passing over a guy. You can blame nearly every team for not trading up and getting a guy. Hell, you can blame 31 teams for not trading up and getting Peyton Manning but it doesn't mean they made a mistake. So criticizing the Giants for not trading up for Jamal Lewis is unfair, but they do deserve criticism for drafting Ron Dayne.
"I think we made a great pick. To be a championship team, you need playmakers on both sides of the ball and we can do that with Courtney." -- Couch, on draft day 2000, talking about Courtney Brown. Takes a playmaker to know one.
Tim Couch didn't make the pick nor is he a scout. I don't see how we can hold his comments about one of his potential teammates against him, as if he spent the entire fall scouting Courtney Brown and recommended the Browns draft him.
The whole NFL draft is this wonderful 77-float parade that goes past the first judge's stand and right off a cliff. We never hear the other shoe drop.
REALLY? How in the hell is this true? Every NFL fan can make a list of Top 10 busts of all-time, the name "Ryan Leaf" is a joke, and coaches and General Managers are fired for drafting poorly. How can anyone say we never hear the other shoe drop? This is how teams are judged and essentially what makes good teams become good teams and bad teams become bad teams. Draft busts have gotten coaches fired by the owner and mocked by the fans. If Rick Reilly really thinks there is no follow-up on how teams do in the draft he obviously doesn't follow the NFL close enough.
If the draft really is worth all the hype and hair and, this year, red carpets (oy!), we should at least have a little follow-through.
Which we do. Players are paid for the first couple of years by the contract they signed, which is usually slotted as to where that player was drafted. Every good NFL fan knows Tom Brady was not a high draft choice while Ryan Leaf was a bust. I don't see how Rick can say there isn't enough follow-through on the draft.
Here's my simple proposal: On the sleeve of every jersey, instead of the player's number, put the player's draft order number. For instance, Tom Brady would wear 199. Roger Staubach would've worn 129. Joe Montana: 82.
This is an idea that is beyond stupid. Moronic would be too kind for this suggestion. Why the hell does a player need to wear his draft order number? Anyone with an Internet connection can look this information up easily.
And then you could look over at the bench and see all the 1s and 7s and 13s, doing nothing except hogging the heater space.
Now Rick Reilly sounds like Gregg Easterbrook. I swear to God, one day I am going to get together a list of players together and show that highly drafted players actually play more often and better than lower drafted players. Yes, there are high profile busts in the 1st round, but if a person takes a look at the 4th-7th rounds they see more guys who never made the team or didn't play well than the number of busts in the 1st round. I don't know how I will show this, but I am very tempted to get started on showing this to be true. The high profile busts just stick out more in the minds of everyone, because they generally get signed for more money, compared to a 4th round guy who played one year and then got released.
The NFL draft comes off as though the story ends after the last pick, as though the movie ends the moment Dorothy's house lands on the witch; put on your coat, the movie is over, THE END.
I know I always say it, but Rick Reilly is just not a good writer. Does he really believe no one pays attention to how the draft picks do after the draft concludes? The best way to grade a General Manager is with the picks that team makes in the NFL Draft. Everyone knows this. That's why NFL draft grades are a joke and are very rarely correct. Hasn't he heard the Matt Millen or Al Davis drafting jokes? He even makes a few in this column. I can't believe that Rick Reilly actually believes no one pays attention to a draft 2-3 years after that draft occurs.
What it really is, of course, is THE START.
Right. Everyone knows this. This column was neither funny, clever, informative or coherent. The entire basis of this column was that few people pay attention to the results of a draft several years after that draft, even though what talent a team accumulates through the draft is a huge part of how a General Manager and team is judged. In fact, I am not even sure what the entire point of this article was due to me losing what Reilly was trying to say from the rambling beginning where Rick Reilly said the draft stunk because it didn't have winners or losers to the end where he said there are winners and losers but nobody knows this to be true.
I do feel dumber having read this article.
9 comments:
When I read this article the other day, I remember thinking that this was bound to show up on BotB. He really is terrible. The worst part about him is that he gets his own little box. For as much as Bill Simmons can write some terrible things, we cannot knock him for originality, cleverness, or his writing skills. The problem is his massive ego and his overdone pop culture references that no one understands. Reilly, however, is just terrible in every way, shape and form.
You know who wins the NFL draft? The guys who now have a chance to make a ton of money playing a sport that most of us would play for free.
Pretty sure Jamarcus Russell "won" 40 million dollars, or roughly 15 times I'll make in the course of my life.
As for the other shoe dropping, didn't Houston get torched for not drafting Bush/Young back in the day? Now that Mario Williams is an impact player, not many people about how that pick was actually incredibly smart.
Likewise, the pressure of going high in the draft in conjunction with being on a terrible team has certainly led to cautionary tales. Carr and Couch probably can't remember their birthdays. Akili Smith and Blair Thomas are still ridiculed.
Not only does the media kick them when they're down, but the fans aren't any easier. Giants fans ripped Dayne at every opportunity and I suspect every other team is just as hard/harder on their busted picks. There are some players who take it hard and others (Leaf, Russell) who never seem to give a shit, but seriously who is Riley to tell us that the draft is a parade?
Also Scott Sicko signed with the Cowboys today. So much for that vow of his.
There are only 64 first and second round picks versus hundreds and hundreds of picks from the third round on. It's not hard to find examples of "late" round draftees who become good players.
If RR wants to keep clippings of bad draft picks and the quotes on draft day then he should be subject to criticism when any of his sports predictions are wrong. Although his columns are nothing more than 20-20 hindsight bitching instead of writings about what he thinks will/should happen in sports.
But speaking of busts it looks like JaMarcus will be cut by the Raiders. I will shocked if he is picked up by another team. I wonder if there has ever been a top 5 pick that was released or not resigned that never got a chance with another team (injuries don't count). I can't think of one.
The best example I found for proving that 1st rounders are more likely to be successful than later rounders comes from the ESPN draft all-stars column that they did. The names in bold are Hall of Famers. Notice the number of bold names in the first round as opposed to the other rounds.
wow....Terry Bradshaw gets picked because of his rings? Aikmen has 3 and is a better QB. Guess that 1 extra ring Bradshaw won while relying on his defense to win games makes all the difference.
Great. That means I am predictable, which is no good. There is a big difference in Simmons and Reilly. There is very little redeeming about Rick Reilly. By the way, did you have THE Jason Schwartzman on your podcast today, or was that a similarly named person?
Rich, that is a great point that no one remembers the Bush/Young/Williams pick ended up working out well for Houston. I couldn't believe they did it personally. That took balls in my opinion. I still remember having a 30 minute conversation with a friend about it.
I don't get how he thinks no one knows which players are the busts in a draft. That is just completely wrong.
It's amazing how money affects vows people make.
Go, that's another great point. There is a larger sample size of picks from the rounds 3-undrafted as compared to the 64 1st/2nd round picks each year.
Reilly needs to be held accountable for his suckling at the teat of McGwire in 1998. Of course that will never happen.
I think even Akili Smith even got a look with the Green Bay Packers. I can't think of one either. I am sure someone will sign Russell and try to transform him. It says a lot about how bad Russell and the Oakland QB situation is that Jason Campbell is a big upgrade.
Rulebook, that is a wonderful chart. I just bookmarked it. I find it surprising TMQ can't seem to find that chart because he doesn't mention it in today's column. I think it is pretty easy to prove high draft choices are generally better players than lower draft choices...at least in terms of the volume of each.
Fred, Terry Bradshaw just wins games. Because his defense was better that makes him a better QB. It is this type of logic that sometimes irritates me. I think Aikman should have the spot over Bradshaw.
BGF, I think the reason Reilly didn't have Harrison on the list is that he was only going back to the '97 draft.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if someone picked up JaMarcus. That's the one thing I always wonder with draft busts: how much things would have been different had they gone somewhere else. I don't know that he would have ever justified #1 overall, but he may have become a serviceable QB.
Good for Sicko. I think he would have been passing up more of an opportunity by going back to school than taking a shot in the NFL. There's nothing saying he has to stay around for a few years if he's only a practice-squad type player.
That's a good point, for some reason I thought Harrison was 98 draft, but that was Manning. I even looked it up and double checked, then I had a list of which players made the Pro Bowl for the Colts. Apparently I suck at double checking and fact checking.
Either way, the idea of using Pro Bowls doesn't work too well.
NFL teams have huge egos and will think they can turn around Russell. Good luck with that.
Yeah, if Sicko doesn't like where he is at, he can just quit the practice squad. It's worth a shot for him, but I did find it funny it took him just a couple days to change his mind.
Hindsight is just wonderful. If we had a Wayback Machine, we could take our knowledge back in time and make some amazing draft choices. Although there are some times, like the Raiders and the Lions, who have made dubious picks, few of the "busts" were seen as such at the time. Tim Couch was highly regarded coming out of college, and to be far, suffered a long string of injuries through his career that may have contributed a lot to his mediocre stats. (Also, giving him grief for praising another player picked by the Browns is ludicrous. Why wouldn't he say nice things about a future teammate?)
Using hindsight, we can tell that every NFL team sucks at draft picks by using Tom Brady, since every team, including the Patriots, passed him over multiple times.
It's a shame sportswriters don't get called out for their bad draft opinions, as well.
Post a Comment