Jack’s Blog

In the April 28, 2008 addition of Sports Illustrated - yeah, five years ago - there was an article about the NFL draft.  Not surprising, since it was the same time of year as the one held a few days ago.  The article was about the 1998 draft, the one with Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, and with the #5 pick (Curtis Enis, who retired from the league two years later) and the #92 pick (Hines Ward, who became the Super Bowl XL MVP).  A couple of the people quoted in the piece were New Orleans coach Sean Payton and former Green Bay Packers general manager, and current San Diego Chargers consultant, Ron Wolf.

Their discussion was, naturally, about the “science” of drafting football players.  Their comments, however, rang just as true as if they were discussing the NBA draft.  Payton’s comment was, “You get excited about a guy because of his tools and projecting his ability, but so much of this is looking beneath the surface.”  As the NBA playoffs continue, it’s impossible not to look at the “nobodies” who slipped through the draft cracks and the high profile picks which have yet to live up to pre-draft hype.  Everybody knows the Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan gigantic  mistake and Greg Oden before Kevin Durant humongous error.  Another interesting example would be the 2009 draft in which the Minnesota Timberwolves were in the market for a guard (several as it turned out).  They took Ricky Rubio, Spain’s version of “Pistol” Pete Maravich, with the fifth pick.  They also had the sixth pick and, because most thought Rubio would be difficult to sign, they decided to go with an additional point guard.  Their choice was Syracuse’s Jonny Flynn - whose career mostly has been in the NBA, although last season he played for the Melbourne Tigers in Australia.

What Payton meant can clearly be seen in that selection.  Not only did Minnesota select Flynn over the next pick, Stephen Curry, whom the T-Wolves are constantly being reminded went to Golden State but they also passed on #10 Brandon Jennings, #17 Jrue Holiday, #18 Ty Lawson (they actually did draft Lawson but it was only to trade him to Denver for a future first round pick) and #19 Jeff Teague.  It’s more than a stretch to say that guys picked in the first round “slipped through the cracks” but it does show how the draft is such a crap shoot for a team when its name comes to make its draft selection.

Other classics?  How about the Clippers, a year after they wisely (OK, that year, a three-year-old would have) picked Blake Griffin at #1, they felt they needed to get a small forward with the ability to get his own shot.  They chose Al-Farouq Aminu with the eighth pick.  The Jazz took Gordon Hayward next, just before the Pacers who grabbed (and has never let go of) Paul George.  Why would the Clippers pass on Paul George for Al-Farouq Aminu?

For the answer, listen to the eerie crossover similarity between football and basketball, as told by Ron Wolf:

The fascinating thing about pro football is, no matter how long you’re in it, you can’t predict how guys are going to handle the pressure, the limelight, the money.”

After inexplicably allowing the Ravens’ Jacoby Jones to get behind . . . everybody, the Broncos found themselves in a tie game.  It should never have happened.  Denver was up seven and in the proper defense.  It’s just that Rahim Moore misjudged Joe Flacco’s Hail Mary and Jones hauled in the ball, underthrown as it was.

Still, there were 41 seconds left in the game.  And the Broncos were at home and had . . . Peyton Manning.  The Broncos’ coaching staff decided the best move was to kneel down and take their chances in overtime.  Then the Ravens won the toss and, of course, took the ball.  If they scored a touchdown, the game would have been over.  Imagine how the fan base would have reacted to the “take a knee” decision then!

But the Ravens didn’t score and Denver got the ball, needing only a field goal to move on to the conference championship game.  Manning, then, did the unthinkable.  He threw an interception.  A pick.  In (almost) field goal territory.  Sure enough, it didn’t take long for Baltimore to kick the game winner, ending the dream season too early for the Bronco faithful.

The post game phone lines were lit and more were holding.  “Why did we take a knee with 41 seconds to go?  Peyton had just driven us for a score on the last series?  We only needed a couple (few) first downs.  Peyton had more than enough time.  Our guy should have ended it with a kick.”  It’s surprising a riot or two didn’t occur.  The entire Bronco Nation was up in arms over coach John Fox’s cowardly call with 41 seconds to go.

The guy who saved Denver from mass destruction was the very same who gave them their greatest thrills.  John Elway, at yesterday’s press conference, spoke like a true football man.  He talked about how stunned the Broncos were, the look in their eyes after the Jones’ TD and how taking a knee was the right move.

What the average fan seldom takes into consideration is that, although Peyton Manning has performed miracles on several previous occasions, can anyone imagine if the Broncos had not taken a knee and Manning threw an interception similar to the one he did minutes later?  The second guessers would have had a field day.

Jocelyn Murray summed up a situation like this best when she said:

“Do not bother yourself with what ifs.”

If you were trying to accomplish something you love, and had worked extremely hard, over a long period of time - and finally got it - imagine how thrilled you would be.  Then you got hurt and the person who wasn’t quite as good as you took over.  While you’re working to get back in tiptop shape, your “understudy” is performing really well.  So much so that your group wins.  Without you.  In the field in which you work, people outside of it have short memories.  They loved you when you were doing well but criticized you when you weren’t, especially when your company wasn’t winning.

Answer honestly, are you be hoping the “next guy in line” 1) does great, 2) does just well enough so that your team wins, 3) flops, but somehow your team wins or  4) does horribly, independent of whether the team wins or loses?  That is the test of every first teamer who lost his job because of injury.

It happened to the San Francisco 49ers starting quarterback Alex Smith.  Keep in mind that Smith was the overall #1 pick in the 2005 NFL draft.  You can’t get drafted any higher and the expectations mirror your selection, only more so.  Smith had to learn the offensive philosophy from the offensive coordinator because in the pros the head coach really coaches the coaches.  The assistant coaches coach their respective position players, with the coordinator in charge of the offense or defense.  If that sounds a little complicated, consider that Alex Smith had five different offensive coordinators in his first five years.

The NFL is the college game on steroids.  Everyone is bigger, stronger, faster.  The defensive coordinator is trying to make the game so difficult for the opposing QB - especially a young one - and the game has become so sophisticated that not only do teams change defenses, e.g. from a 3-4 to a 4-3, they change defensive looks within the same defense.  Worse yet, players have become so specialized that there are third down and long defensive linemen, nickel backs and guys who function so much better in one blitz package over another, their PT is limited to just such situations.  It’s nearly impossible for an inexperienced QB to succeed early in a career.  Ask Peyton Manning.

Alex Smith did not succeed.  Some fans didn’t think he was the guy to lead the 49ers back to championship contenders - and they were the ones who liked Smith.  The others ridiculed him - and the club - for wasting a #1 pick on someone so incompetent.  In walked Jim Harbaugh who, when asked what college QBs he’d like to get for his new team said he thought Alex Smith would be fine.  The fans thought he as kidding.  Maybe he was but it was the beginning of the Harbaugh-Smith-49er fans love affair.

Then Smith went down with a concussion.  It wasn’t diagnosed immediately.  When Smith was not cleared, Harbaugh had to go to the bench for a substitute.  He chose a second year QB, Colin Kaepernick.  Wouldn’t you know it?  Kaepernick led the Niners to victory.  After the win, Smith was asked about how he felt watching his backup play?

Remember the hypothetical question an four choices at the beginning of this blog?  Here was Alex Smith’s reply:  “If you can’t be happy for your teammate’s success you’re playing the wrong sport. Go play tennis or golf or something … That doesn’t belong in team sports. It’s the quarterback position. It gets a lot of attention. We’re going to get talked about.”

Would that have been how you felt?  The difference between players who are legitimately happy for the team, regardless if the teammate they’re competing with outplays them, as opposed to those who want the team to win - but only if they’re the major part of it - is probably going to determine whether or not your team will win or lose.

During my first year of coaching, in the early 1970s, we were losing and I had a kid who wanted to ask me a question.  After I said of course, he kind of stammered, but went on “Well, I want to know why I’m not playing more.  Mark is ahead of me and he can’t shoot, can’t pass, can’t dribble (”handle” hadn’t made it’s entrance into the hoops vocabulary yet) and can’t rebound.”

I looked at him and said, “I completely agree with you.  Mark isn’t a good shooter, passer, dribbler or rebounder.  But he does all of them better than you!”  This led to a mantra we would use throughout the rest of the season:

“Just because someone else is doing poorly doesn’t mean you’re doing well.”

P.S. Harbaugh named Kaepernick the starter for the Niners’ next game.  Will Smith continue taking the high road?  My money’s on him - after all he’s endured.

Another trip to Stanford today, this time to get my pain pump refilled.  Trips there aren’t so bad anymore since I can now stop by to check up on #2 son, Alex, who’s loving life at Cal State Monterey Bay.  The blog will return Wednesday.

The Indianapolis Colts did to the Green Bay Packers what the Pack did to the Saints.  Except they had a greater cause than “We got one taken away; let’s get one back.”  Head Coach Chuck Pagano had checked in for leukemia treatments and offensive coordinator Bruce Arians took over on an interim basis.

Beating the Packers, especially coming off the dismal season they had last year, wouldn’t have been something they expected.  Yet, it’s undoubtedly because of last year that this victory was possible.  Winning the Andrew Luck sweepstakes was, for the short and long term, a franchise maker.  Although Peyton Manning might be the best quarterback ever and certainly looks like he’ll be around for a while longer, Andrew Luck is as close Indy could get to Manning so, as the saying goes, it was time.

Anytime a family member gets the news that Chuck Pagano received about his health, it’s a traumatic situation.  When it happens to your leader and spokesperson, it’s almost numbing.  Faced with this situation, the person bravely says that it’s not about him and everyone should just go on with business as usual.  Not so easily said, not so easily done.

In any case, the Colts trailed late and got a touchdown pass from Luck to win it (before the Pack missed a 51 yard FG to tie).  How much could emotion have played a part of the victory?  Analyst Chris Carter was asked and came up with an answer only someone with his experience could have:

“You can’t win a game for a person but you can have a fine focus for him.”

Many times I have heard the statement, “There’s no such thing as a born leader.”  Technically, this is true.  Otherwise, there would be an article in some paper saying, “Yesterday, a leader was born to Mr & Mrs.——.”  Leaders are people who climb the proverbial ladder of success and don’t give up until they get where they want to go.  Unless it’s inherited success, the entire ordeal takes quite a bit of time, often measured in decades.

For football players, once they get to the top, they have to compete with others in their field, or, rather, on the field.  The ultimate goal in football is the National Football League and, if the majority of people in the world were polled as to who the leader of an NFL team is, the answer would most likely be the quarterback.  People love arguing about sports.  Therefore, if the leader of the team is the quarterback, the majority of those disagreements are going to be about the QBs.

Many fans will claim that quarterback is the toughest position of any in any sport.  Especially during football season.  Then it’s the point guard (but that’s a blog for another time).  In any discussion where there’s no true way of measuring what’s right, it’s impossible to have a “winner.”  Case in point: I asked a friend of mine who played Division I football and coached on the college level to give me the three best quarterbacks in the NFL.  After some thought, his reply was, “Aaron Rodgers and the two Mannings.”  When I said, “Not Tom Brady or Drew Brees?” he smiled and thought about changing his answer until I brought up how many other regional fans would put on their list: Ben Roethlisberger, Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Robert Griffin III, Andrew Luck, Sam Bradford, Alex Smith, Mark Sanchez, Tony Romo, and probably others.  After last week, maybe not Sanchez or Romo but a good performance - and a win - next week and they make their way back into the discussion.

These guys are the best of the best at their position.  Are they successes?  Everyone who’s chasing success because they want to be happy ought to heed the advice of Albert Schweitzer:

“Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you’re doing, you will be successful.”

Heading to SoCal for an AAU tourney this weekend.  Blogs will return Tuesday.

One player who has opened eyes of fans, commentators, coaches and players alike is Marc Gasol of the Memphis Grizzlies.  Naturally, because he is the brother of Pau Gasol of the Lakers, there are, and probably always will be, comparisons of their games.

This, however, is unfair - to both brothers.  Their styles of play are quite different.  Which is the better player?  As my headline states, Marc Gasol is a better player - than he used to be. If he weren’t related to Pau, people would simply be gushing over the magnificent improvement he’s made, not the least of which are the improved conditioning and body type he now possesses.

At the risk of stating the obvious, he’s more of a power player, his bro a finesse baller.  Does their play have to be scrutinized in terms of what one does the other doesn’t?  If they weren’t siblings, people would never compare the two since their games bear no resemblance to each other.  Of course, human nature dictates they be placed side by side and everybody vote for which is superior.

Why not let each’s skill set speak for itself?  Treat them as their family undoubtedly does - appreciate each for his abilities and hope they continue to improve.

I harken back to the Sports Illustrated article on the Harbaugh brothers, currently NFL head coaches.  When asked to compare the two, brother John made a very poignant statement.  It applies to the Gasols (and the Mannings and the Weavers and the Matthews - entire family on the last one) as well:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are two of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.  One obvious reason is their skill.  Another, and possibly a greater, reason they are in an elite class is the amount of information they process and time they put in before the game.  They possess uncanny knowledge of the opposing defense and its schemes that can only come from a week long dedication of intense study.

It was always known how much video work Manning did and what a true professional he was.  Part of his work ethic includes spending quality time with his offensive linemen (and expensive gifts he’d purchase for them) and the extra practice he demands from his receivers.  Undoubtedly, this is why the Colts persevered during a season in which he lost his favorite targets for all or part of the campaign.

Brees, too, puts in an extraordinary amount of time preparing for each game.  It took last year’s run to the championship for the nation to understand that a great deal of the Saints’ victory was due to his work ethic.

In addition, both Manning and Brees are quality human beings.  In a world where seemingly everything a celebrity does is instantly public knowledge, neither of the QBs has been implicated in any kind of scandal.  On the contrary, the camp the Mannings (dad, Archie, and brothers, Cooper and Eli) run for aspiring quarterbacks has been lauded for its quality instruction.  The donations of money and, more importantly, time that Brees has provided for the ravaged New Orleans area has had as much of a positive impact as FEMA.

Yet, in spite of each man’s (weekly) Herculean effort, their respective teams have been bounced from this year’s NFL playoffs - for reasons neither could control.  In Brees’ case, it was an awful effort by the Saints’ defense and for Manning, it was a letdown by the Colts’ special teams, allowing Warren Cromartie to return the kickoff 47 yards after Indy’s Adam Vinateri nailed a clutch field goal with under a minute to play.

Granted, there were plays the quarterbacks could have made that would have swung the game in their favor but, as coaches continuously have reminded players through the years, it’s a team game and everyone is expected to perform to their max.

Independent of the mega-money that Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are paid, these guys remain two role models in a world where such types are vanishing.  As a parent of two boys, it’s refreshing to be able to talk to my sons about two wealthy, successful guys who earn their money and respect.

Paraphrasing Brooks Robinson:

“Whether you want to or not, you do serve as a role model.  People will always put more faith in (athletes) than anyone else.”

Who’s better - Oregon or Auburn?  Boise State or TCU?  Peyton Manning or Tom Brady?  Or Drew Brees?  Tim Lincecum or Roy Halladay?  Or Cliff Lee?  The Lakers or the Celtics?  Or the Heat?  Michael or Kobe?  Or LeBron?  George W. or Barack?  Rush or Michael Moore?  Let’s delete the last pair since each has an agenda to get personally wealthy while dividing the country beyond salvation.

In each instance, there are numerous - and loud - votes cast for each.  Any of the above comparisons will elicit extreme emotion from the debaters.  Yet, everybody can’t be right.  Or wrong.

Every time I hear one of those topics discussed - or when I used to participate in them when I was younger and (thought I was) wiser, one tactic would invariably creep into the discussion.  That tactic was demeaning the opposition.  Hey, maybe we shouldn’t delete Limbaugh vs. Moore after all.  Demeaning the opposition is at the core of each of their messages.

As an example, let’s look at the top two teams in the current college football poll.  Oregon supporters will argue they’ve blown away everybody (except Cal).  Auburn backers will talk of how their team plays in the nation’s toughest league.  Before long, however, UO people will be saying that Auburn is a one-man show and that one man probably is  ineligible.  AU folks will counter with the Pac-10 being nothing but a bunch of soft teams and that if Phil Knight ever pulled his support, the Ducks would shrink to mid-major status.

I was guilty of this type of immaturity - when I was a teenager.  Maybe even a few years (decades?) beyond.  But after reading an article on the Harbaugh brothers in Sports Illustrated, I’ve come to the same conclusion that my friend Jeff Van Gundy stated on an NBA broadcast a couple weeks ago.  After reading the same article, Jeff says he has sworn off comparisons because of something that John Harbaugh said in that interview:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

If people would follow the “somebody is going to be devalued” rule, the world of sports would be less fun for the fanatics and void of talk radio, but a lot more sane for others.

The Dallas Cowboys got thrashed (again) and, watching America’s team play, it’s apparent they have other things on their minds.  A game as violent, and as cerebral, as football needs total focus in all areas in order to succeed.  When it’s being played at the highest level, teams can get awfully embarrassed - which is what the Packers did last night to the Cowboys.

When intelligent fans tune into shows like SportsCenter, they appreciate analysis that a guy like Trent Dilfer brings.  One reason is because he was in the thick of it.  He was on bad, average and good teams, including the Baltimore Ravens squad he quarterbacked to a Super Bowl (XXXL) championship.  Maybe he didn’t do for the Ravens what Drew Brees or Peyton Manning did in their championship years, but he managed the game well enough for his side to win it.

Linda Cohn has been lauded as a great anchor for SportsCenter.  While I’m not sure what her background in football is (according to her bio, she excelled in hockey), I imagine it’s less extensive than Dilfer’s.  During their recap of the Dallas-Green Bay game, Trent gave his post game thoughts, to which Linda replied (seemingly speaking for every fan out there), “OK, but you have to blame somebody.  Who’s to blame?“  Dilfer made the comment that it started at the top and that head coach Wade Phillips was certainly to blame (which seemed to be the answer Cohn was looking for) but that there were a myriad of reasons Dallas lost - and continues to lose.

Mental, psychological and physical were three factors in a team’s makeup that Dilfer mentioned, and he stated he thought Dallas was lacking in all three.  When responding to her obvious inference that Phillips be dismissed, Dilfer’s answer was that of a true pro.  He said as far as what he’s observed in all his years in and covering the NFL that in-season firings don’t work unless the team has the guy they want to be their next head coach presently on the staff.

As far as last night’s ESPN coverage was concerned, viewers got to see two people showing precisely why they were hired - Linda Cohn representing the average fan and Trent Dilfer providing analysis for the knowledgeable one.

When Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones was asked to put his finger on his team’s troubles, his answer was:

“I don’t have enough fingers.”

Since everybody seems to weighing in on whether Brett Favre should start for the Vikings this weekend, I figured I’d cast my ballot.  Hey, it’s an election year and I might as well practice for next Tuesday.

There’s no doubt that football players are tough guys.  Maybe not as crazy as the guys of the MMA, but still a group who put the pads on with the express intent to inflict punishment on their opponents (and receive the same).  The position that gets the most glory - and is the most vulnerable, independent of the fact that seemingly every year there’s another rule passed to further protect these guys - is quarterback.  Talented gladiators who stand tall in the pocket, going through their “reads,” knowing that the opposing D line broke their huddle with some form of the chant, “Meet you at the quarterback.”

Brett Favre has started more consecutive games than any other QB and unless Peyton Manning stays injury free and desires to play six or so more years, the record is safe.  Until scientists find a way to clone him.

Favre’s had a laundry list of injuries in the past and still managed to answer the bell - every time.  In this case, though, there are a couple extenuating circumstances.  One is the record.  Actually, both are the record, with the first one being the consecutive game record while the other is the Vikings’ win-loss record.

The story of Favre wavering on retirement is well-documented, except after last season, it was a near certainty he’d hang up his cleats.  Then, his teammates flew down to Mississippi (if you want to show how much you want a guy, going to Mississippi is . . . well, let’s just say it’s well down the list as far as vacation destinations go) and, according to “sources,” begged him to come back for one more year.  The type of guy - and teammate - Favre is, he acquiesced and flew to Minnesota to suit up again.

Sure, he did it for his “boys,” but don’t think he would have left the cozy confines of home if he didn’t believe, as close as they came last year, that the Vikes had a legit shot at making a run to the Super Bowl.  Now, that would be the perfect ending. 

Not all dreams come true, however, especially when critical pieces to the championship puzzle get hurt and can’t play.  So, here are the Vikings at 2-4 and not looking like a threat to do anything but pull off an upset here and there.  Yet, to leave now would be against everything Brett Favre stands for.  So he will do everything in his power, including play on one good leg (as if the game’s not difficult enough on two good ones), to not let down his buddies.  And, let’s not overlook the “streak factor.”  Brett knew that record would eventually end, but he wanted it and his retirement to coincide - at the end of a season.

My vote, although meaningless, is that Brett Favre go against his manly instinct (maybe he’s being influenced by what seems to be the election year slogan of “Man up!”) and shut it down.  For however long it takes. 

No one would accuse him of laying down on his team, of being soft.  The Vikings aren’t going anywhere anytime soon anyway and once the streak ends, it’s over.  Maybe another week or two would return him to 100% - whatever that is for his age and all the collisions he’s endured.

Look around at all the retired NFL vets and what it takes for them to simply get out of bed in the morning.  Favre might have already done irreparable damage to his body, but playing in his current condition will do nothing but aggravate an already dangerous situation.  Common sense would tell him to sit this one out, but as Voltaire said:

“Common sense is not so common.” �