Jack’s Blog

The overwhelming majority of people in and out of football - from those who know just a little something about the game to the “experts” claim that quarterback is the most important position on the team.

If that’s so (and who out there says it’s not?), then using a draft pick - especially a high one, e.g. the first three rounds - must take considerable thought and planning.  Yet, a number one overall pick like Peyton Manning threatens to break every record for that position in the history of football, while a number two overall pick (the same year) like Ryan Leaf threatens seemingly everything (and everyone) else.  Tom Brady gets drafted late and several other QB’s go before him.  I’d imagine there was considerable reevaluating the draft decisions that year. 

Bill Parcells, legendary coach and now president of the Miami Dolphins, seems to have found the “Rules to Draft by” when it comes to picking future signal callers.  These were announced during last night’s Dolphins-Jets Monday Night Football game and, while they may seem rather restrictive, Parcells (and his track record in the game) are not to be scoffed at, lest the “scoffer” be ready for battle, as Parcells has be known to threaten a time or two.

Whatever the case, here are the Tuna’s rules for drafting a quarterback:

1) He must be a senior.  (Bill’s not known for his patience and, usually, the younger the QB, the more time he takes to properly master the job).

2) He must be a graduate.  (Hey, if you’re paying your guy a lot of money and he’s going to handle the ball on every offensive play, he’d better not be a quitter.  Rather, you want someone who takes his responsibilities seriously, e.g. no blowing off the spring semester to get ready for the combines).

3) He must be a three-year starter.  (Once again, a lot of dough, as well as a good portion of the game plan, goes to this guy and it would be awful to get stuck with a “flash-in-the-pan,” someone who waited, got his opportunity but what was overlooked, was that he took over a veteran team that only needed someone to keep a ship from sinking, not one to direct it to the shore).

4) He must have at least 23 wins.  (It’s too easy to put up big numbers with a losing team who chucks it 50 times a game). 

Very stringent demands and not every year will they be met.  That must be exactly what’s behind the big guy’s thinking.  And if no one meets the standards, there’s always a trade, or easier yet, free agency.

After watching the show Chad Henne put on last night - in a game that Steve Young called the best duel he’d ever seen between two young QB’s (and Steve’s someone with the creds to judge quarterbacks), the Dolphins seem to have found their quarterback of the future - and maybe, the present.  Then, again, one-year-starter Mark Sanchez (whom even his own college coach, Pete Carroll - also no stranger to success - said he needed another year of college) looked mighty promising.

Yet, one of the qualities a leader must have is decisiveness and Parcells certainly qualifies in that category.

I have no idea who Eric Langmuir is, but, when his quote is put in the context of drafting a quarterback, it becomes one of the greatest understatements of all time:

“A decision without the pressure of consequence is hardly a decision at all.”

A week or two ago, on the ESPN show, PTI, co-host Michael Wilbon emphatically stated that Tiger Woods was a better athlete than Roger Federer.  This occurred shortly after Federer won at Wimbledon, passing Pete Sampras for the most wins in tennis’ four major championships.  Wilbon, never short on opinion, said there was absolutely no argument that Woods was the better athlete.  What would possess Mike Wilbon to say this?

Could prejudice be behind his absurd comparison?  Certainly, but prejudice of what kind?  Racial?  Hardly.  He has more respect for the sport of golf than that of tennis?  Possibly.  He knows Tiger and is more influenced by his enormous endorsement income and international celebrity than Roger’s?  More likely.  To boost the show’s ratings?  Even more probable.  Because he has irrefutable proof?  Impossible.

Debates about who’s the best is one of the American fan’s favorite pasttimes.  Wilt vs. Russell, Mantle vs. Mays, Brady vs. Manning are fun for many to argue.  Kareem vs. Shaq, Butkas vs. Ray Lewis, Pele vs. Beckham may also be, but are more in the foolhardy category because of the time difference between their careers.  But athletes from different sports?  Ridiculous.  Enjoy their dominance.  Envy their superiority.  But to attempt to place one above another?

Examine some facts regarding Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and their respective sports.  One competes against humans, while the other also has a field of human competitors with which to contend, but in reality, is playing against a course.  One competes against opponents one at a time and is favored in every match (with the possible exception of Nadal at the French), yet could lose to an opponent who happens to have a “career day.”  Should one of the other’s competitors have such a remarkable day, it only accounts for 1/4 of the tournament score.

A tennis player can lose a set here and there (actually one or two per match) and still capture the championship, while a golfer doesn’t have to win any of the four days, but can still be the champ if his overall four-day total is better than anyone else’s.  In one of the sports, a player can catch a break if a rival is beaten and hence, is knocked out of the competition. Nothing like that happens in the other sport.  One of the two sports requires tremendous physical conditioning, where the other is much more mentally taxing, mainly because there’s so much more time to think - especially about the bad shots. 

Both can overcome a bad day, although it usually only takes one to crush the hopes of winning the title - the rest of the competition, at that elite level, is that good.  In tennis, Roger can win if his opponent plays poorly.  Tiger doesn’t have that luxury.  But, on the flip side, Federer can do something to cool off a sizzling hot opponent, whereas in golf, Tiger can only watch the leader board (or his playing partner) as the competitor’s score goes deeper and deeper into the red numbers.  Finally, in golf, more than any other sport, one thing for certain, you lose more than you win.

But to say the (arguably) greatest golfer of all-time is better than the (arguably) greatest tennis player of all-time is both foolish and something that will get a totally unknown blogger to stay up way too late posting a response.

The only statement that can be said regarding golf and tennis than can’t be argued is:

“It takes bigger balls to play tennis than it does to play golf.”  Â

In this country, controversy sells.  Whether it’s because others enjoy seeing someone (else) fight authority or because they secretly admire gumption (even when the person on the attack is wrong), or some other reason, we’re a nation drawn to others doing what, deep down, we’d like to try (even, or maybe especially, if it’s only once).

Jay Cutler has been in the NFL for three seasons (following a spectacular career at Vanderbilt) and has been a starter for approximately two and a half of those years.  This past season he made the Pro Bowl as the third quarterback for the AFC.  His numbers have been very good, e.g. he’s thrown for over 9,000 yards, half of those this past year, but his record is a shade under .500 (17-20) and his overall QB Rating has fluctated between 86.0 and 88.5, somewhat pedestrian.  Of greater significance is the fact that the Broncos have yet to make the playoffs.  In summation, Cutler has been a rather effective quarterback on three pretty average Denver Bronco teams.  

When owner Pat Bowlen shocked the NFL world by releasing, i.e. firing his good friend, Mike Shanahan, and hiring Josh McDaniels, an assistant coach from Bill Belichick’s staff at New England, “experts” and fans (to some, that’s redundant; to others, an oxymoron), one of the first moves McDaniels made was to attempt to acquire Matt Cassel, the signal caller who filled in (more than servicably) when Tom Brady went down and was out for the Pats’ the entire season.  Denver expressed interest in New England quarterback, yet with the trading deadline rapidly approaching, there wasn’t much speculation going on.  It looked like everybody was going to shy away from a blockbuster trade.

Apparently, Cutler hadn’t heard about any proposed trade and, it was at that point when he became upset.  The new coach said he had talked with his starting (or was he?) QB, to which Cutler claimed he hadn’t been aware of any such communication.  Coach Mac assured JC (as some Denver fans - and even more Chicago Bears fans - are referring to him) that he would not be traded.  Now, not only did Cutler believe the Broncos wanted to trade him, he proposed (demanded) they do just that. 

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, a bombshell dropped.  The Bears were to get Jay Cutler and  the Bears’ fifth round pick in the upcoming draft, while the Broncos got Kyle Orton, the Bears’ first and third round picks in the draft and the Bears’ first round pick in the 2010 draft (and I think, one of those cute Chicago Bears form fitted sheets).  Those choosing to occupy the side of McDaniels are using words to describe Cutler like aloof, comes with baggage, spoiled (imagine that, somebody who went to Vanderbilt being accused of being spoiled), while those who side with Cutler respond by saying McDaniels had a private agenda when he moved in, no two people working together can function successfully if one doesn’t trust the other and with Orton, plus what the Broncos can get with those picks in the first round, will more than make up for the loss of Jay Cutler.

Did Cutler change dramatically after he started having some success in the League?  We’ll have to let it all play out, but Barbara Walters line regarding success may be the deciding factor.  Ms. Wah-wah said:

“Success can make you go one of two ways.  It can make you a prima donna, or it can smooth the edges, take away the insecurities and let the good things come out.”

My book on tape ended and I didn’t have another so I tuned into sports talk radio which, from time to time, can be quite interesting.  (I, for one, ought to be promoting sports talk as I used to have several shows myself and am currently the co-host of “The Jerry Tarkanian Show” on Fox Sports Radio 1340 and 1400 out of Fresno).  The topic being discussed was which player would you want on your team, Matt Cassel (who was portrayed as the ultimate “team player,” a guy who would just as soon defer to Tom Brady instead of trying to go elsewhere so he could have the chance to start) or Anquan Boldin (who was upset - and let anyone who’d listen know it - because he didn’t play a bigger role even though his team won the game that put them in the Super Bowl)?  Naturally, as typical of today’s society, the host of the show and the majority of the callers sided with Boldin.

Those in favor of Cassel (sounded like they) were of the older, there’s no “I” in team group.  They want a teammate who understands and accepts his role because, heading into the dream game in any football player’s career, it’s mandatory that every team member focus on the task at hand and subjugate their individual ego for that of the team.  This group went on to characterize Boldin as “today’s brand of player” (also leading me to believe they were from an earlier era), who only thinks about himself and places his personal goals above that of the team.

The pro-Boldin callers brought up that here was a guy who broke his jaw and had screws put in to his face so he could compete, showing his loyalty to the team was beyond reproach.  All he wanted was for his team to win and he knew the best way for the Cardinals to do that was to make him an integral part of the game plan.  Plus, why would anyone want to count on a guy like Cassel as a teammate?  Someone who could go and show what he was made of, but, instead, was willing to accept a huge pay raise, and be satisfied sitting and holding a clipboard behind Tom Brady.

As with most arguments about whose opinion is right, i.e. an argument with no definitive answer, people get themselves all lathered up when they probably don’t know all the facts (which, to these people, is of little consequence).  Maybe Cassell found out, after being pressed into action and performing admirably, that he loved the New England system, felt it was most conducive to his skills and that the organization (or possibly even Brady himself) confided to him that the Super Bowl winning QB wasn’t going to be ready to go at the beginning of the year and the job was his.  Or, how about the wild idea that, after this season, Cassel might just be playing coy (he remembers that he didn’t start at SC in college but still made the NFL) and is saying the right things (because that’s how he was raised or that’s the strategy he’s using) but, deep in his heart, he feels he can beat Brady out.  Just give me a chance to compete against him, now that we’ve both shown we’re NFL capable quarterbacks.  I plan on coming into camp in the best shape of my life, have hired a personal workout guy and, now that I got a lot of game experience, I’m working on the things the coaches told me throughout the year I needed to improve.  I’ll be ready to earn the big money (franchise tag?) the Pats are offering and then you’ll see the method behind my madness.

Boldin’s side of the story might be that he realizes that Larry Fitzgerald is the new prototype of an NFL receiver, but with all the attention he’s going to receive, he finally will have the chance to go up against a defense that’s not geared toward stopping him and if those guys would throw it his way, they’d all attain the same goal - to become World Champions!  It’s not a selfish attitude as much as it is a practical one.

What separates talk radio (sports, news or politics) from normal conversation are the whack jobs who call in - the people who, rather than forming a logical pattern of thought from their head before they speak, blurt out something idiotic from their heart (or out of their … another body part, located about the same distance from the heart the head is, just in the other direction).  These people are not only incapable of seeing a situation from both points of view, they feel that only one side can be right, so the other one must be wrong.  Then they go about trashing the “opponent” by showing how foolish or cowardly or misinformed they are, thus proving their side to be the “the winner.”  They usually succeed in doing just that, but it’s themselves who wind up looking foolish and misinformed.  If you favor one side over another, does it mean the one you didn’t select has to have no positive qualities?

Usually, the host of the show is one of these types of guys.  Ever since Jim Rome showed how many “wannabees” and “never was’s” there are out there in “Listenerville,” and how bitter they are that other people make a ton money to play a game while they themselves have to work long and hard to barely scrape by, and, how, if the host will give them a platform to criticize these “prima donnas” by doing exactly that as the host, how loyal they’ll be to him and how outrageous his show will become … and what a hit it will be because, in today’s misguided world, this is what sells - and, in radio, selling’s the name of the game.

All of this is based on the principle my late mentor, John Savage, used to say so often it’s burned into my skull: “You don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”  And, how much, in the times we’re going through now, do I miss him because, in addition to being a close friend, I learned something everytime we’d speak - about selling or investing (he was an insurance salesman/speaker and is the only person, I believe he still holds this record, to speak at the insurance industry’s Million Dollar Round Table twelve years in a row) or simply about life.  John’s brilliance was a very basic type, the kind that’s not in vogue today, mainly because it’s based on accepting responsibility for your own actions.

His advice was similar to that given by John Hancock:

“The greatest ability in (life) is to get along with others and influence their actions.  A chip on the shoulder is too heavy a piece of baggage to carry through life.”

     �