I won the prediction contest on thebiglead before the Super Bowl. I guessed Giants 17, Patriots 13. Seriously. So I wrote this post: League of Awkward Quarterbacks. I wanted to write something funny, and it had been a long time since I had done a made-up story on an athlete. However, given the 250-word limit and my own inability to set a scene to save my life, it was rather mediocre. That's ok; can't succeed without failing has always been my motto, since 7th grade. Err, the FIRST time I was in 7th grade, that is. I reprint the column below:
League of Awkward Quarterbacks (LAQ), Phoenix Denny’s, Sunday night…
GROSSMAN: Two more hours before Eli comes back in tears like me last year. I’m glad we decided not to watch.
RIVERS: While we wait, let’s get updates. Brady?
QUINN: I had another photo shoot for a men’s magazine! They provided me with a delicious platter of shrimp, too. The photographer asked me to take off my shirt for 4-5 pictures, but that was it. I’m finally not going to be that guy who takes awkward pictures anymore!
RIVERS: Let me guess…the article will have 4-5 pictures in it?
QUINN: Why yes, and…Oh no, Brady, Brady, there’s no such thing as free shrimp! And the magazine people seemed so nice! I never heard of their magazine, but those legal advocates love football!(Awkward silence)
GROSSMAN: Um, Brady…they’re not lawyers…
RIVERS:(hastily interrupts) Where is Vince?! How can he continue to refuse his membership in LAQ that Merrill sent? I want to return to when quarterbacks were judged by the color of their skin and their play-off games won, rather than by the content of their character!
GROSSMAN: Then why don’t Peyton and Ben attend meetings?(Eli walks in, hands hidden)
MANNING: (holds out one hand): At least Mommy finally bought me that antique Russian Samovar for being so brave…
ALL: Poor Eli!
MANNING: (holds out trophy): LOMBARDI, BI-(Ok, no way Eli would say that)
MANNING: Lombardi be ours!
ALL: LONG LIVE THE LEAGUE OF AWKWARD QUARTERBACKS!
EDIT: By the way, my thanks to the blogs who've chosen to link to MCBias articles in the last 30 days:
http://www.deadspin.com
http://www.thebiglead.com
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com
http://www.awfulannouncing.com
http://www.1530homer.com/pages/mo.html
Showing posts with label Brady Quinn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brady Quinn. Show all posts
Friday, February 8, 2008
Monday, December 24, 2007
Class Bias: Derek Anderson Gets Coal for Christmas
I am annoyed by how yesterday's Browns loss is being spun by several writers to suggest that Brady Quinn should be starting instead of Derek Anderson, or that Brady Quinn is the QB of the future. Derek came from Oregon State as a low draft pick. Brady came from Notre Dame as a high draft pick. Thus, it seems to me that writers will always support Brady first. It's class bias; the blue-collar guy will always come up short compared to the big name from a big school.
The article that most annoyed me is the normally very well-informedMichael David Smith from the Fanhouse. He starts the article by stating
There's no question that Derek Anderson, like many first-year starters, has gotten a little less effective as the league got used to him. But the numbers that MDS presents are biased. Before the Bengals' game, if you took Derek Anderson's numbers from the last 6 games, Derek had 9 TD's and 5 interceptions. Those are not the numbers of a struggling QB! But toss in Derek's awful game from yesterday, and now MDS can write a post about how Derek is struggling and how the Browns should look at Brady Quinn. This is only possible because of MDS's cherry-picking statistics.
And what about that terrible loss to the Bengals' yesterday? Lost in all the boo-hoo-ing about Derek Anderson was the performance of Carson Palmer. Buried deep in the ESPN.com recap, here's what Carson Palmer had to say:
Where was that quote in stories about DA's poor performance? How about mentioning that the conditions were so bad that a Pro Bowler like Carson Palmer, playing with a lead the whole game, couldn't complete 50% of his passes on the same field? (For the record, Derek Anderson completed 60% of his passes on Sunday). How about mentioning that Carson Palmer turned in a QB rating of 44.8, the second-worst of his career according to Bengals.com? And that he put up these poor numbers against a suspect Browns defense? No, that shouldn't be mentioned in stories about Derek Anderson; that might give the stories context! That would take away opportunities to post pictures of Brady Quinn!
All right, I know it's Christmas Eve, and I should go easy on my blogger brethren. MDS is usually an excellent blogger, and he certainly isn't the only one to take the "Derek sucks" approach to the story. Munilot.com took a similar angle, as did the ESPN write-up and Mary Cabot Lodge of the PD in a radio interview. And yes, Derek did have a terrible game. But I hate the implications that the last 14 weeks, in which Derek played well, are worthless just because of one bad game. Here's the stat that matters to me about Derek Anderson. In the second half of games this year, he has thrown for 13 TD's and 4 INT's. And that includes yesterday's game! Think about that, Browns fans and sports writers, before you start calling for Brady Quinn.
The article that most annoyed me is the normally very well-informedMichael David Smith from the Fanhouse. He starts the article by stating
In the Browns' first nine games, quarterback Derek Anderson had 20 touchdowns and nine interceptions. In the last six games, Anderson has eight touchdowns and nine interceptions.
There's no question that Derek Anderson, like many first-year starters, has gotten a little less effective as the league got used to him. But the numbers that MDS presents are biased. Before the Bengals' game, if you took Derek Anderson's numbers from the last 6 games, Derek had 9 TD's and 5 interceptions. Those are not the numbers of a struggling QB! But toss in Derek's awful game from yesterday, and now MDS can write a post about how Derek is struggling and how the Browns should look at Brady Quinn. This is only possible because of MDS's cherry-picking statistics.
And what about that terrible loss to the Bengals' yesterday? Lost in all the boo-hoo-ing about Derek Anderson was the performance of Carson Palmer. Buried deep in the ESPN.com recap, here's what Carson Palmer had to say:
Like Anderson, Carson Palmer also struggled with the gusting wind, going 11-of-21 for 115 yards with two interceptions and one touchdown.
"I never really got a good sense of which way it was blowing," Palmer said. "It was really swirling. It was an ugly game, and a tough one to play in if you're trying to throw the football."
Where was that quote in stories about DA's poor performance? How about mentioning that the conditions were so bad that a Pro Bowler like Carson Palmer, playing with a lead the whole game, couldn't complete 50% of his passes on the same field? (For the record, Derek Anderson completed 60% of his passes on Sunday). How about mentioning that Carson Palmer turned in a QB rating of 44.8, the second-worst of his career according to Bengals.com? And that he put up these poor numbers against a suspect Browns defense? No, that shouldn't be mentioned in stories about Derek Anderson; that might give the stories context! That would take away opportunities to post pictures of Brady Quinn!
All right, I know it's Christmas Eve, and I should go easy on my blogger brethren. MDS is usually an excellent blogger, and he certainly isn't the only one to take the "Derek sucks" approach to the story. Munilot.com took a similar angle, as did the ESPN write-up and Mary Cabot Lodge of the PD in a radio interview. And yes, Derek did have a terrible game. But I hate the implications that the last 14 weeks, in which Derek played well, are worthless just because of one bad game. Here's the stat that matters to me about Derek Anderson. In the second half of games this year, he has thrown for 13 TD's and 4 INT's. And that includes yesterday's game! Think about that, Browns fans and sports writers, before you start calling for Brady Quinn.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Discounting Draft Picks: The Deal for Brady Quinn
I found the deal for Brady Quinn fascinating because it involved valuing unknown quantities over different time spaces. What rationale did the Browns have for risking such a high future draft pick on a star which at least 13 other teams (picks #9-#22) passed on? I grouped some assumptions about discounting draft picks, and tried to think it over below.
Assumption #1: Short-term team performance is the only thing that matters
Assumption #2: Long-term team performance is the only thing that matters
By #1, the Browns absolutely made the right decision in trading for Brady Quinn this year. A cynic would point out that both Phil Savage and Romeo Crennel risk being fired if this year is not a success, and thus they are putting themselves ahead of the team in making this deal. But rookie QB’s from the draft rarely transform a team (with the slight exception of Vince Young). More importantly, the Browns have been losing for years, and the other teams in town are starting to win again. If the Browns don’t improve soon, Cleveland could become a baseball or basketball town instead.
By #2, the Browns made the wrong decision, because they have substantially hurt their prospects for next year. It’s doubtful that the Browns will have a winning record next year, and thus next year’s pick to Dallas will be higher than the #22 pick they got this year. Worse, they gave up a 2nd round pick as well.
I think #1 is closer to the truth than #2; so I’ll give the Browns a pass because of their desperate situation in terms of fan and owner impatience.
Assumption #3: The draft contains 10-15 star players at the top
Assumption #4: The draft contains 40-50 star players at the top
If most drafts aren’t that deep, as in #3, then the Browns made the right choice. (And Mel Kiper should be out of a job, then, if the talent pool is that shallow.) I am not sure that Brady Quinn was top 5, but I am pretty sure he was ranked a top 10 player. And it’s unlikely that the Browns will have two terrible seasons in a row; the law of averages should work in their favor. Their pick will probably be in the teens next year, as it was in 2006. Thus the Browns traded two average picks for a star; any team would make that move.
However, I believe in #4 in this situation. Here’s a handy rule of thumb for drafts in pro sports. To know the number of stars in the draft, take the number of players on the field (22 for football, not counting special teams; 5 for basketball) and multiply by two. So then, the NBA draft usually has 10 good players and the NFL draft thus has 44. The Browns traded two picks in the top 44 for one pick in the top 44. They did use it to select the second-ranked QB, which softens the impact of making that deal. There’s a bigger upside to success than there is at other positions. On the other hand, QB’s tend to fail more than any other position. (ESPN had a study on this; I believe QB failure was around 50%?).
I believe the Browns made the wrong decision here; #4 makes more sense than #3 to me.
Assumption #5: The key to escaping the NFL basement is fixing weak positions to become average: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is adding stars.
Assumption #6: The key to escaping the NFL basement is adding stars: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is fixing weak positions to become average
Which comes first, the chicken, or the egg? The superstars, or the solid role players that allow the superstars to look good? It’s a great question in this salary cap era, and one that I don’t think enough teams seriously consider.
I think it’s fair to say that QB is a weakness on the Browns. They have former 3rd and 6th round picks fighting for the starting job, with no veteran QB’s. However, #5 would say that they just needed to go out and get a Trent Green or Daunte Culpepper for a year. Drafting a rookie QB is not making a weak area average. It’s actually making it worse at first, as many rookie QB’s can’t keep up with the NFL game. And if he is a star, he’s just going to get pummeled because of the weak offensive line. However, the Browns have invested heavily in the line lately, so perhaps the line would be average in a year.
By #6, though, the Browns absolutely made the right decision. Sure, maybe Brady takes a bit of a beating for a few years, and runs for his life on some 8-8 teams. But if he’s a star, he’ll make the players around him better, and the team can stay competitive and fill in the holes in the team to get to the top.
I don’t know whether I believe in #5 or #6. Is it really a good idea to get your stars first, when you’ll have to trade them or risk them getting injured if the team around them is really bad? But without any stars, what about attendance? Teams underperform when they have no stars, as well, because they lack game-breaking talent. What do you think?
In the end, I think the draft graders have been a little quick to give the Browns an A on this pick. The only reason it makes sense is because the Browns are desperate. But if not, they shouldn’t have done it, because they essentially traded two for one and aren’t one player away from anything. As to whether you build with stars or role players, or with imported talent vs. homegrown, that’s a good post for another time. I want to come back to that question in the context of NBA, where it’s even more of a dilemma.
Assumption #1: Short-term team performance is the only thing that matters
Assumption #2: Long-term team performance is the only thing that matters
By #1, the Browns absolutely made the right decision in trading for Brady Quinn this year. A cynic would point out that both Phil Savage and Romeo Crennel risk being fired if this year is not a success, and thus they are putting themselves ahead of the team in making this deal. But rookie QB’s from the draft rarely transform a team (with the slight exception of Vince Young). More importantly, the Browns have been losing for years, and the other teams in town are starting to win again. If the Browns don’t improve soon, Cleveland could become a baseball or basketball town instead.
By #2, the Browns made the wrong decision, because they have substantially hurt their prospects for next year. It’s doubtful that the Browns will have a winning record next year, and thus next year’s pick to Dallas will be higher than the #22 pick they got this year. Worse, they gave up a 2nd round pick as well.
I think #1 is closer to the truth than #2; so I’ll give the Browns a pass because of their desperate situation in terms of fan and owner impatience.
Assumption #3: The draft contains 10-15 star players at the top
Assumption #4: The draft contains 40-50 star players at the top
If most drafts aren’t that deep, as in #3, then the Browns made the right choice. (And Mel Kiper should be out of a job, then, if the talent pool is that shallow.) I am not sure that Brady Quinn was top 5, but I am pretty sure he was ranked a top 10 player. And it’s unlikely that the Browns will have two terrible seasons in a row; the law of averages should work in their favor. Their pick will probably be in the teens next year, as it was in 2006. Thus the Browns traded two average picks for a star; any team would make that move.
However, I believe in #4 in this situation. Here’s a handy rule of thumb for drafts in pro sports. To know the number of stars in the draft, take the number of players on the field (22 for football, not counting special teams; 5 for basketball) and multiply by two. So then, the NBA draft usually has 10 good players and the NFL draft thus has 44. The Browns traded two picks in the top 44 for one pick in the top 44. They did use it to select the second-ranked QB, which softens the impact of making that deal. There’s a bigger upside to success than there is at other positions. On the other hand, QB’s tend to fail more than any other position. (ESPN had a study on this; I believe QB failure was around 50%?).
I believe the Browns made the wrong decision here; #4 makes more sense than #3 to me.
Assumption #5: The key to escaping the NFL basement is fixing weak positions to become average: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is adding stars.
Assumption #6: The key to escaping the NFL basement is adding stars: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is fixing weak positions to become average
Which comes first, the chicken, or the egg? The superstars, or the solid role players that allow the superstars to look good? It’s a great question in this salary cap era, and one that I don’t think enough teams seriously consider.
I think it’s fair to say that QB is a weakness on the Browns. They have former 3rd and 6th round picks fighting for the starting job, with no veteran QB’s. However, #5 would say that they just needed to go out and get a Trent Green or Daunte Culpepper for a year. Drafting a rookie QB is not making a weak area average. It’s actually making it worse at first, as many rookie QB’s can’t keep up with the NFL game. And if he is a star, he’s just going to get pummeled because of the weak offensive line. However, the Browns have invested heavily in the line lately, so perhaps the line would be average in a year.
By #6, though, the Browns absolutely made the right decision. Sure, maybe Brady takes a bit of a beating for a few years, and runs for his life on some 8-8 teams. But if he’s a star, he’ll make the players around him better, and the team can stay competitive and fill in the holes in the team to get to the top.
I don’t know whether I believe in #5 or #6. Is it really a good idea to get your stars first, when you’ll have to trade them or risk them getting injured if the team around them is really bad? But without any stars, what about attendance? Teams underperform when they have no stars, as well, because they lack game-breaking talent. What do you think?
In the end, I think the draft graders have been a little quick to give the Browns an A on this pick. The only reason it makes sense is because the Browns are desperate. But if not, they shouldn’t have done it, because they essentially traded two for one and aren’t one player away from anything. As to whether you build with stars or role players, or with imported talent vs. homegrown, that’s a good post for another time. I want to come back to that question in the context of NBA, where it’s even more of a dilemma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)