Newsflash: if he is Uncovered, Julio Jones Can Score Touchdowns!

Doug Farrar, you aren’t making me feel any better about the Julio Jones ransom with this article.  Farrar’s theme is that the Falcons were terrible at hitting big plays in the passing game and Jones will address that weakness.  As evidence for his claim, Farrar diagrams Jones’s touchdown against Auburn, a play on which he was totally uncovered.  I remember watching the play and thinking “holy crap, Auburn’s pass defense is even worse than I thought.  They just left Alabama’s best receiver alone in a deep zone.”  I did not think “wow, that Julio Jones really is something” and I doubt that anyone else had the same thought.  Jones may turn out to be worth the stiff price that the Falcons paid, but it won’t be based on his ability to score when opposing safeties ignore him.

Contra Everything I’ve Written Since the Draft…

This ($) is how you make an argument in favor of the Julio Jones pick.  KC Joyner notes that the Falcons were terrible in the short passing game last year, most likely because none of their receivers could break a tackle or make a defender miss.  Jones was excellent in the short passing game at Alabama.  In fact, he was better than AJ Green in this department, so he answers a major need for the Falcons.  If Jones lives up to his college numbers, then he’ll be able to take some of the load off of Roddy White and he’ll also open up the deep passing game.

Speaking of which, Joyner’s article raises an interesting issue with the oft-criticized Mike Mularkey offense.  Joyner notes that the Falcons were both bad in the short passing game and they barely ever threw deep.  This raises two possibilities.  The defense of Mularkey would be that the Falcons were bad at the deep passing game, so he had to call a number of short and intermediate routes.  The less charitable explanation would be that Mularkey’s conservative tendencies – either through play-calling or through drilling a “don’t make a mistake under any circumstances – allowed opponents to sit on the short passing game.  Again, I find myself asking the question “how did this team win 13 games without being very good at anything?”

Pesky Numbers

The more I think and read about the Julio Jones pick, the more skeptical I become. Football Outsiders has created a statistical formula to analyze receivers and before the Draft, they wrote that Jones only came out as the 13th best receiver in the class ($) based on his college numbers. Anticipating the claim that Jones played in a run-first offense in a great conference and that it is to be expected that his numbers will be low, take a look at FO’s criteria:

The exact formula behind Playmaker is too complicated to get into here, but it is based on six factors:

• Receiving yards per game
• Receiving touchdowns
• Average yards per catch
• The team's yards per pass
• The team's passes per game
• The conference the receiver played in

In short, Playmaker accounts for both the style of the offense and the level of competition. Jones’s pedestrian numbers go into that system and come out with the projection that he’ll be a pedestrian receiver in the NFL. As FO acknowledges, their system is by no means perfect. We are simply talking about probability here. Combining the history of receivers taken in the top ten spots in the Draft and Jones’ numbers leaves us with the conclusion that the odds are against Jones producing at anywhere near the level that would justify his price tag.

Speaking of the list of top ten receivers, look at the college numbers of Jones and the three receivers who have lived up to their lofty draft positions as exceptions to the "don't take receivers at the top of the Draft" rule:

	Catches	Yards	TDs	Yds/R
Andre Johnson	92	1,831	20	19.9
Larry Fitzgerald	161	2,677	34	16.6
Calvin Johnson	178	2,927	28	16.4
Julio Jones	179	2,653	15	14.8

None of these four receivers played in pass-heavy spread offenses and they did not play with quarterbacks who would go onto success in the NFL. With that groundwork out of the way, there are two issues that jump off of the table. First, Jones’s yards per catch is lower than any of the three receivers on the list. Second, he caught fewer touchdowns. The touchdown issue is especially worrying when you account for the fact that Andre Johnson - the only one of the three whose TD total is close to that of Jones - only started for two years in college, whereas Jones started for three. Those 15 touchdowns look a lot more like Troy Williamson (13 TDs in three years as a starter at South Carolina) than they do Johnson & Johnson or Fitzgerald. Thus, we have to go on faith that Jones was a decoy for most of his time at Alabama and that he will thrive when he has Roddy White on the other side of the formation as opposed to Marquise Maze. I’d rather have more than faith in my corner when trading five picks for one guy.

One last thought: for the first time, I’m a little anxious for the NFL owners and the NFLPA to reach a deal. Previously, I was ambivalent about the prospect of a lockout eating some or all of the season. I do like watching NFL games, but on the other hand, a fall where college football doesn’t have the share the spotlight is an appealing thought. Now, I’m so interested to see how the Jones gamble pays off that I want a resolution so we can start getting reports on how the Falcons’ passing game looks in August.

The History Books Tell it / They Tell it So Well

This is not Mark Bradley’s strongest effort. Bradley is, by nature, an optimist and wants to think that a major move by the Falcons is going to pan out. Thus, in his column yesterday, he started grasping at straws, like this one:

Before we leave the NFL draft, we need ask a simple question: Were you the Falcons, would you rather have had the second-best-at-worst receiver in this class or the eighth-best defensive end? Because the rationale for trading up to take Julio Jones lies therein.

Gee, if only it were so simple. The Falcons were not choosing simply between taking Julio Jones or one of the defensive ends who would have been available with the #27 pick. No, they were choosing between those two options, only with four additional picks, including a first-rounder and a second-rounder behind door number two. One can just as easily make a simplistic argument in the other direction by saying that the Falcons made the wrong decision in a choice between one player or five. Bradley also assumes without evidence that the Falcons are going to have a late first-round pick in next year’s Draft. He is overrating a team that was outgained on a per-play basis and then lost by 863 points in its first playoff game.

And then this argument by Bradley ignores all recent evidence:

Julio Jones will start as a rookie. That’s a given. It’s all but a given he won’t be a bust. He’s too gifted and too focused. Jones was a high school star and played college football at the highest level, so he’s accustomed to the pursuit of excellence.

I told myself that I wasn’t going to be condescending to a columnist whose work I’ve enjoyed since I was in middle school, but I can’t help myself. Mark, in case you haven’t been watching the NFL for the past decade, wide receivers have a disturbingly high bust rate. Here is the list of wide receivers who have gone in the top ten spots in the Draft since 2000:

Darius Heyward-Bey
Michael Crabtree
Calvin Johnson
Ted Ginn
Braylon Edwards
Troy Williamson
Mike Williams
Larry Fitzgerald
Roy Williams
Reggie Williams
Charles Rogers
Andre Johnson
David Terrell
Koren Robinson
Peter Warrick
Plaxico Burress
Travis Taylor

By my informal count, the number of busts (Ginn, Williamson, Mike Williams, Reggie Williams, Charles Rogers, David Terrell, Koren Robinson, Peter Warrick, and Travis Taylor) outnumber the stars (Calvin Johnson, Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson) who have been taken in similar positions. (Neither Crabtree, nor Heyward-Bey are off to starts in their careers that indicate that they will be anything other than busts, but for the sake of argument, I’ll give them grades of incomplete.) If the recent past is a guide, then it is three times more likely that Jones will be a bust than it is that he will be the player that Bradley describes.

If Bradley is thinking clearly, then he will counter with some variation of the following: “Michael, none of the busts on your list had a quarterback throwing to them with anything close to Matt Ryan’s ability. Most of your busts are the victim of circumstance.” That may be true, but there are two problems with this argument. First of all, if their lack of success was a function of teammates, then one would expect one or more of those receivers to have flourished when they moved to different teams. The only guy who could possibly be described in that manner is Mike Williams. Second, if wide receivers are simply a function of their quarterbacks, then it makes no sense to invest five good picks into one receiver. Rather, you would simply bide your time and wait for the chance to take your version of Desean Jackson, Mike Wallace, or Wes Welker later in the Draft. You know, like the good teams do.

Thomas Dimitroff: Mr. Jones and me Tell Each Other Fairy Tales

Here is the abstract of Cade Massey and Richard Thaler’s academic article regarding the value of NFL Draft picks:

A question of increasing interest to researchers in a variety of fields is whether the biases found in judgment and decision making research remain present in contexts in which experienced participants face strong economic incentives. To investigate this question, we analyze the decision making of National Football League teams during their annual player draft. This is a domain in which monetary stakes are exceedingly high and the opportunities for learning are rich. It is also a domain in which multiple psychological factors suggest teams may overvalue the chance to pick early in the draft.. Using archival data on draft-day trades, player performance and compensation, we compare the market value of draft picks with the surplus value to teams provided by the drafted players. We find that top draft picks are overvalued in a manner that is inconsistent with rational expectations and efficient markets and consistent with psychological research.

Massey and Thaler conclude that the most valuable picks in the Draft are second round picks because the players taken with those picks are closer to first rounder than one would think in terms of quality and they are significantly cheaper.  (Note: changes to the salary scale for rookies might alter the analysis.  Always in motion is the future.) 

Massey and Thaler’s conclusion is consistent with what our own senses can tell us about the most and least successful teams in the league.  Which teams are the best run teams in the NFL?  The Patriots and Steelers immediately come to mind.  Do those teams trade up into the top ten?  No.  The Steelers generally stay put and take players in the late first round spots that they invariably occupy; the Patriots actively try to trade down, as they did last night.  Conversely, the Redskins are probably the worst run team in the NFL and what is their usual strategy?  Mortgaging a quantity of picks for a few stars.  How does that work out for them?

With that context in mind, I have a simple question for Thomas Dimitroff: what the f*** are you doing?  You just traded two first round picks, one second round pick, and two fourth round picks for one player?  It’s painfully clear that the Falcons’ brass went down to the dealership, fell in love with one particular car, and let the salesman jack them for it. 

This approach would make sense if the Falcons were truly one player away from being a Super Bowl team, but their brass are letting a lucky season cloud their judgment.  The Birds were outgained on a per-play basis.  At best, they were a ten-win team masquerading as the #1 seed in the NFC and they were ruthlessly exposed as a pretender by the Packers.  There are needs all over the roster, starting with the fact that they have only one defensive end who can generate pressure and he is about to turn 33 years old.  Assuming for the sake of argument that the Falcons would have batted 50% on the fourth round picks, the Falcons just traded four players for one.  In the modern NFL, this is a smaller scale equivalent of the Herschel Walker trade or Mike Ditka giving up the Saints’ entire Draft for Ricky Williams. 

And the worst part is that Dimitroff is a good evaluator of talent.  I wouldn’t care about the Hawks giving up draft picks because they are going to waste those shots anyway.  Dimitroff knows how to grade players.  Unfortunately, it also appears that he didn’t learn everything about pick value from his former employer.

Look, I’m the same guy who thought that the Falcons were making a huge mistake when they drafted Matt Ryan, that Arthur Blank was overreacting to Vickkampf by rolling the dice on a great white hope because Ryan made good eye contact in his interview.  Three winning seasons later, it’s safe to say that that assessment was wrong.  However, I’m also the person who didn’t jump on the bandwagon when the team was winning in November and December.  I think I have a good handle of where the Falcons are as a team and they are not at the stage where they can sacrifice five picks for one player. 

Blast from the Past

Remember when Jeff Schultz claimed that recruiting is overrated because college teams miss on players even more than NFL teams do? I thought about that last night when the news broke that the Eagles had traded Donovan McNabb for a second round pick in 2010 and a third or a fourth in 2011. The Draft is a crapshoot and yet the Eagles just sent a cornerstone player to a division rival for two picks, neither of which are in the first round. Either Schultz is right or everyone in the NFL, save for the Raiders and Redskins, is right.

One Thought on Tebow's Draft Status

I can feel the "if you do one more soccer post, Mr. Trotsky" stare that you're giving me right now...

I agree with the general consensus in the college football blogosphere that Urban Meyer shouldn't care that NFL types are running Tim Tebow down because of his technique. Meyer is a whopping six years removed from producing a quarterback who went #1 in the Draft (and who, as it turns out, isn't a total bust). The notion that he cannot produce a pro quarterback is idiotic because it relies on an incredibly small sample size and it requires forgetting a significant portion of that sample size. Yes, opposing coaches may try to use Tebow in recruiting, but how effective are those claims going to be coming from Florida's recruiting rivals? You think that Jimbo Fisher and Les Miles are going to try to sell JaMarcus Russell's NFL success? (Yes, he went #1, but so did Alex Smith, which is my point.) What does Mark Richt have to sell prior to Matt Stafford? Two Heisman winners who amounted to nothing in the NFL (one of the two didn't even enter the Draft because of his low stock) and Brad Johnson, whom Richt and Bobby Bowden consigned to being a back-up for most of his career? Does Nick Saban want to tout his history with producing NFL quarterbacks? How about you, Coach Spurrier?

I don't see why we can't accept the notion that Tebow may very well turn out to be a great college quarterback who isn't suited for the pros. We never had much trouble making this distinction before. No one seemed outraged when Danny Wuerrfel and Chris Weinke didn't make a stir on Draft day. I suppose that the massive build-up that Tebow got from the media led to a notion that he was a great quarterback period, as opposed to a great college quarterback who was in the right offense for his skill-set, and now we're seeing the deflation of the massive edifice.

I also think that we're seeing a misunderstanding as to what the spread 'n' shred offense really is. People see shotgun formations and multiple receivers and think that the offense is designed to throw the ball. Some versions of the offense are pass-based (such as the version that Florida might use with John Brantley), but Meyer's current version isn't. Tebow has been at the helm of the modern day version of the wishbone. Meyer's offense is better than the wishbone because of the enhanced passing threat, but it is still an offense that is based around the principle of making the quarterback a running threat to create a numbers advantage on running plays. Yes, Tebow had outstanding passing stats in college, but how much of that success in the air was derived from having open receivers as a result of: (1) Florida's superior talent; and (2) defenses being stretched as a result of the running threat? Because there is such a misunderstanding as to what the spread 'n' shred does, there is a misunderstanding as to what Tebow has been doing for the past four years and therefore, what his college experience bodes for his professional career.

Drafty Stuff

1. I completely agree with this statement from Andrew Perloff regarding the NFL's current character obsession:

In Moneyball terms, it seems that “character issues” are another opportunity for the wise teams to get more value out of a pick. The Patriots are better at choosing personnel than anyone, and they seem to add a character risk every year now (Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, Brandon Meriweather, etc.). This year they chose North Carolina WR Brandon Tate, who reportedly failed a marijuana test at the combine, in the third round. If a team has strong enough leadership, adding character issue players is clearly not a problem.

This thought occurred to me as I was doing a grocery run on Saturday afternoon and was subjected to John Kincaid ranting about the Bengals making a terrible decision taking Andre Smith. Kincaid is an extreme example of the sports radio tendency towards moral judgments in place of actual sports analysis. It's not easy to evaluate Andre Smith as a left tackle. It's easy to get up on the soap box and attack him for showing up to the Combine fat.

There are two possibilities here. One is that certain NFL teams (but not the Patriots, who are one of the three best-run franchises in football) have become obsessed with the moral judgments that are normally the province of media personalities who are seeking to push emotional buttons for ratings or clicks. The other is that NFL teams have not gone in that direction, but any time they say something remotely related to the character issue, the media picks it up and runs with it. I'm going with the latter explanation.

The whole "he's got bad character!" thing drove me especially crazy with two players this year: Andre Smith and Percy Harvin. Both were huge recruits when they came to college. Both started from day one, the latter at a program full of talent. Both performed at an extremely high level in the best conference in the country for three years. Both were subject to criticism on grounds that had nothing to do with their resumes as three-year starters at major programs. In the end, both went higher than most mock drafts had them going, which is evidence that the "he smoked weed! He's not in great shape!" hyperventilation is more media creation than actual factor in decision-making. It's almost like NFL teams remember that Warren Sapp and Randy Moss both plummeted out of the top ten for character issues and are both going to end up in the Hall of Fame.

2. I'm not enamored with this statement from Perloff:

Atlanta's Matt Ryan and Baltimore's Joe Flacco were able to transcend expectations as rookie quarterbacks because they had strong running games and defenses around them. The three first-round QBs in this year's draft (Stafford, Sanchez and Josh Freeman) don't have that luxury. Sanchez is the only one with even a slim chance of playing for a playoff team.

At this time last year, no one thought that Matt Ryan was going to be in a good situation in Atlanta. The offensive line was a disaster and the receivers were underwhelming. Is there any reason why the Jets or Bucs won't be similarly surprising on offense? And Perloff is overstating the case a little bit when he says that the Falcons put a strong defense around Ryan last year.

3. NFL teams are catching onto the fact that Big Ten running backs are not a great investment. You would have thought from the in-season hype last year that Beanie Wells and Javon Ringer were the best running backs in college. In the end, Wells barely made the first round and Ringer went with the last pick of the fifth round. If I were to pick a diamond in the rough among the running back picks, I'd go with James Davis, a good athlete and big recruit who suffered at Clemson because of a bad offensive design, a suspect offensive line, and a carry-splitting situation.

4. I like the Falcons' Peria Jerry pick. I was not wild about William Moore over Rashad Johnson, mainly because the rap on Moore seems to be that he's a safety who makes bad decisions and that's a little like a surgeon with the shakes.

5. Based on my current theory that NFL teams should be very careful spending high picks on quarterbacks from elite college programs because those quarterbacks never have to learn how to throw to covered receivers under intense pressure, I'm not overly enthusiastic about the Stafford or Sanchez picks. I don't think that either guy will be terrible, but they won't be top shelf in the NFL. Then again, I thought that the Falcons were making a colossal mistake taking Matt Ryan last year, so what do I know?

6. The NFL Network's coverage of the Draft was WAY better than that of ESPN.

Matt Stafford, by the Numbers

ESPN has their own measure for predicting the success of college quarterbacks in the NFL and it looks amazingly similar to the measure that Football Outsiders created. FO's measure, which is based on testing quarterbacks from years past to determine which stats correlate to NFL success, looks at completion percentage and starts. ESPN's measure looks at the same two stats and then adds in TD/INT ratio for good measure. When run on the top three quarterback prospects in this year's Draft, Matt Stafford does not come off well. In fact, he would be wedged between Akili Smith and Cade McNown, which is not a place that a quarterback prospect wants to be.

The article does acknowledge that Stafford lags because of a freshman year in which he threw seven touchdowns and 13 interceptions. I suspect that most Georgia fans are willing to cut Stafford some slack for 2006 because Stafford was a true freshman starting on a team with a mediocre running game and receivers who dropped everything that was thrown their way. If Stafford didn't start in 2006, then his numbers would be better, although he would then suffer in the games started category.

Not surprisingly, Bill Barnwell of FO runs its test on Stafford and finds him wanting. He makes an interesting point in comparing Stafford to Greene:

One of the arguments against a statistical-based system for projecting college quarterbacks is that a system quarterback such as former Hawaii star Colt Brennan would put up inflated numbers that weren't true indicators of his NFL ability. Although scouts should sniff that stuff out and encourage teams to avoid taking such players in the first two rounds (something Lewin built into his system), another easy way to control for system quarterbacks is to compare the quarterback to the previous starter at his school.

Stafford was directly preceded at Georgia by the recently retired David Greene; both spent their entire college careers under head coach Mark Richt in similar offensive systems. Stafford's college numbers are actually worse than Greene's, with the latter completing 59 percent of his passes and averaging 8.01 yards per attempt to Stafford's 7.83. If Stafford was really a star in the making, wouldn't he have put up better numbers, in the same system, than a guy who washed out of the NFL without taking a professional snap? If it was our $25 million guaranteed, the answer would need to be yes.

Personally, I wouldn't spend a pick in the top half of the first round on Stafford, not because of the "maturity" concerns that are nebulously asserted about him. Rather, his technique is inconsistent, which causes him to have accuracy problems. The ESPN article nails the issue:

College quarterbacks don't typically improve their accuracy in the NFL. If his decisions were at all suspect against SEC opponents, then it's reasonable to wonder how he will react to professional defenses.

If Stafford didn't have consistent footwork as a junior in the SEC with two seasons of experience under his belt, then one has to wonder whether he's really driven like a great athlete. In other words, he might be like you, me, and the vast majority of humanity in that he isn't obsessed with mastering his craft to a microscopic level of detail. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the reaction of most Georgia fans to Stafford at the end of his career was "he was good, but there was always something missing?"

If Football Outsiders is right about Knowshon Moreno being a suspect prospect because of his speed score and FO and ESPN are right about Stafford being overrated because of his accuracy issues, then isn't the corollary that Georgia's 2008 season wasn't really that disappointing? We were excited all summer in large part because the Dawgs had bona fide stars at the offensive skill positions. What if we were just wrong about that strength? Isn't the implication positive for UGA in 2009? And does this mean that my conclusion from the season that Richt is behind Saban and Meyer is faulty?

Speaking of the Gators, I'll be interested to see how Tim Tebow is evaluated before the Draft next year. On the one hand, you're going to have scouts bagging on him as having a slow release and being a product of a great college scheme that cannot be duplicated in the NFL. On the other hand, Tebow will come into the Draft as a three-year starter. He's currently a 65% passer with 67 career touchdowns against 11 picks. If his numbers hold steady, he should be off the charts in terms of ESPN's three measures. Then again, so would Graham Harrell. As Barnwell notes above, the FO test for quarterbacks only applies to the first two rounds, thus relying on scouts to screen out system quarterbacks. If Tebow goes in the fourth round despite sterling numbers, then the scouts will have done their work.

SEC Speed!!! Or not?

I have a default presumption that SEC running backs are faster and make better pros than Big Ten running backs. I was all ready to bang this drum for the month leading up to the Draft in comparing Knowshon Moreno and Beanie Wells. This piece from Football Outsiders is giving me second thoughts. It turns out that Knowshon isn't very fast:

Knowshon Moreno, regarded as the draft's top back, ran a disastrous 4.6 40-yard dash that yielded a speed score of only 96.9. Even if you go with the time of 4.55 that has also been unofficially reported for Moreno, his speed score would be only 101.3, putting him just below Chris Perry (102.7).

Going back to 1999, that would be the lowest speed score posted by a first-round pick; the only two backs selected in the first round to post a speed score under 100 are William Green (98.7) and Trung Canidate (99.3). Only one back in the 11 seasons we've got speed score data for made it to the Pro Bowl after posting a speed score below 98.0: Brian Westbrook.

In his defense, Moreno's regarded as having elite agility, which goes unmeasured in the 40. Agility is measured in other drills, though, so if Moreno's agility was really at an elite level, we'd expect to see as such in the three-cone drill and the two shuttle runs.

In the three-cone drill, Moreno's 6.84 seconds were second to Abilene Christian back Bernard Scott. Scott also topped the leaderboard in the 20-yard shuttle with a time of 4.08 seconds, while Moreno was eighth at 4.27 seconds. (In the 60-yard shuttle, which we don't track data for, Moreno finished fourth out of the six who attempted it.) Over the past ten years, the average back who's been drafted has been 5'10" and weighed 216 pounds -- almost a mirror image of Moreno's 5'11", 217-pound frame. Those same backs have averaged a 20-yard shuttle time of 4.20 seconds and a three-cone drill time of 7.07 seconds. While Moreno's three-cone drill score was better than average (and would rate as the fourth-best time for drafted backs), success in the three-cone drill actually bears a slightly inverse correlation to NFL success, while the shuttle, which Moreno was below-average in, has a much more positive relationship.

While Beanie Wells' 4.59 40-yard dash almost perfectly mirrored Moreno's, the fact that he did so with 18 extra pounds on his frame produces a speed score of 105.9 (below-average for a first-rounder, but passable for a day-one pick). He actually profiles as rather similar to another Big Ten back: Larry Johnson, who was 228 pounds and ran a 4.55 40 at the 2003 combine, yielding a speed score of 106.4. Unfortunately, Wells doesn't come with the 2006 Chiefs offensive line.

I'm not a fan of Wells because he is a classic Big Ten runner. He's great in a straight line, but he's not especially good when he has to make a cut in the backfield. He's used to running through big holes at slow linebackers. He's a slightly better version of Anthony Thomas, who was good in front of a Steve Hutchinson-Jeff Backus-Maurice Williams-Jonathan Goodwin (NFL starters, all of them) offensive line, but not so good in the NFL (after a good rookie year, it must be said). The problem is that I said the same things about Johnson and he's had an excellent NFL career.

It might be hard to argue in favor of Knowshon if he's neither fast in a straight line, nor quick in the shuttle. The Knowshon-Beanie debate might play out like the JaMarcus Russell-Brady Quinn debate from two years ago, with neither guy being a terrific selection high in the Draft. Knowshon was very productive in college despite playing behind average offensive lines (by Georgia's standards) against excellent defenses. Then again, if Stacy Searles is as good as we think, then I'm underrating Georgia's offensive lines and possibly explaining why Knowshon was so productive despite non-elite speed and quickness. If Searles is indeed the explanation, then that's good for Georgia's future, but bad for Moreno's.

One other thought on the speed scores: if Andre Brown and Cedric Peerman are indeed two underrated Draft prospects, then this would be further evidence that the ACC is the worst-coached conference in the country, at least on the offensive side of the ball. The ACC has been roughly on par with the SEC at the Draft for the past several years, but its teams haven't come close to the SEC's teams in terms of on-field success. If it turns out that Brown and Peerman were good running backs in hiding (not unlike Willie Parker and Leon Washington), then we have further evidence that ACC coaches just aren't maximizing the resources available to them. And then that minimizes Frank Beamer's accomplishment in winning the league repeatedly, which is pretty much how half of my posts end [/still bitter about Vick, DeAngelo, and Jimmy Williams].

Five Thoughts on the Falcons

7-4! Meaningful games in December! WTF!?!

1. Mike Smith, thank you for giving Professor Romer a tingly feeling by going for fourth and goal to ice the game. Thank you for putting the game in the hands of Michael Turner and the left side of the offensive line as opposed to your suspect defense. Thank you for making the decision favored by both balls and brains. After Turner's clinching touchdown, I had a good time imagining Smith reciting Tony Montana's "all I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break 'em for no one" speech.

2. One aspect of the game against Carolina that annoyed me: letting the Panthers throw the ball to Steve Smith at will. It's no secret that Smith is easily the most dangerous weapon on that Carolina offense. Smith reminds us all of this fact by gesticulating wildly and pointing to the roof of the Georgia Dome every time he makes a catch. So why is it that the Falcons didn't devote extra attention to him. I understand that the Falcons play a lot of zone and it's not as if they can double-cover a guy in zone. That said, there has to be a way to modify a cover-two to take into account the fact that an opponent has one great receiver. For instance, Carolina got a big third-and-long conversion on their drive to cut the Falcons' lead to 24-21 in the fourth quarter. Smith ran a post pattern into the gap between the linebackers and the safeties in the cover-two. He was wide open and Jake Delhomme had an easy throw for a long gain. In those circumstances, why wouldn't the Falcons' linebackers take deeper drops in Smith's area to prevent him from getting open behind them? This is all obvious in retrospect, but doesn't it make sense to force Delhomme out of his comfort zone?

3. Matt Ryan's success is causing me to do a little re-evaluation of the way I view college quarterback prospects. In retrospect, when I was proclaiming that Ryan was unimpressive at Boston College, I was not taking into account his mediocre receivers and running game. Those conditions forced him to throw the ball under pressure into tight spots. In other words, his college experience was not unlike what most pro quarterbacks face. The lesson might be that pro teams should stay away from quarterbacks from major college powers who are used to great protection and open receivers. The April 2006 Draft class backs this up. Jay Cutler is doing very well; Vince Young and Matt Leinart are not.

Now, you might be thinking the following: "Michael, as a Michigan fan, shouldn't you realize that your alma mater is both a college power and a quarterback factory?" It's true that Elvis Grbac, Todd Collins, Brian Griese, Tom Brady, and Chad Henne were surrounded by excellent receivers and offensive linemen. However, Michigan fans have often joked about the Wolverines' incredibly predictable offense forcing quarterbacks to make throws into tiny windows. That would be great preparation for the NFL. Brady was probably overjoyed in his first years in the league to come up to the line without hearing opposing linebackers announcing the play that Michigan was about to run.

4. Please tell me that I wasn't the only one who read Sports Illustrated's profile of Albert Haynesworth and thought to myself "linchpin of the best defense in football...native of South Carolina...free agent at the end of the year...plays a position of need for the Falcons...reservations at Bones?" Arthur Blank, I'll take back all the jibes about you falling in love with Keith Brooking and paying him twice his value if you can charm Haynesworth into black and red.

5. There are three historically bad teams in the NFL this year: Detroit, St. Louis, and Kansas City. The Falcons play all three at home.

Three Final Thoughts on Matt Ryan

1. By drafting Ryan, the Falcons are falling back into the exact same trap they faced with Mike Vick. With Vick, the Falcons faced the problem that they had committed a huge amount of money, including an enormous signing bonus, to a player who produced decent, but not outstanding results. The team was paying Vick to be Brady or Manning, but he was far short of that level. The Falcons could only win with Vick if they surrounded him with great talent, but Vick's cap number, combined with less than stellar drafting from Rich McKay, prevented that possibility.

With Ryan, the Falcons are going to pay an arm and a leg for a quarterback who will almost certainly not produce initially (rookie quarterbacks so rarely do) and whose upside is almost certainly not Brady/Peyton Manning and very likely isn't Roethlisberger/Eli Manning. Even if Ryan turns into a pretty good quarterback, he's going to be paid like a star, which means the Falcons are right back at square one. And that analysis ignores the opportunity cost involved with passing on an excellent defensive tackle to take a decent quarterback.

2. Ryan is not coming into a good situation with the Falcons. Leaving aside the mediocre receiving corps and substandard offensive line, Falcons fans are not happy with the drafting of Ryan. Speaking in broad stereotypes (always a recipe for disaster), the Falcons' fan base is primarily composed of two groups. The first group are African-Americans, some of whom still like Mike Vick and most of whom are well aware of the racial coding that goes on when the media slobbers all over Ryan for being a "leader" and "polished." They aren't going to be overly excited for a great white hope, given the circumstances. The second group are college football fanatics who view Falcons games as dessert after the main course on Saturday. (I would put myself in this group. I would also assert that there isn't tremendous overlap between group one and group two because college football unfortunately tends to be a white sport, especially in the South. I digress.) Southern college football fans, almost universally, view Ryan as an average college quarterback who has been hyped beyond his merits because he played in the Northeast. This group is also not happy with the Ryan selection.

Whereas most top five picks are greeted with unabashed, oft-irrational enthusiasm by the fans of the teams that draft them, Ryan is not going to get the same love in Atlanta. Atlanta fans tend to be a lot more positive and forgiving than, say, Philly fans, but the particulars of Ryan's drafting mean that he is going face an especially empathetic fan base. This is why the purported rationale of the Falcons to take Ryan for marketing purposes is so weak. I am promising myself that I am going to root for Ryan, even if his success will mean that I will be spectacularly wrong about the decision to pick him, but my leash will be short. OK, that's a bad choice of words when discussing a Falcons QB.

3. Steak Shapiro was, as one could expect, insufferable this morning when discussing the Ryan pick. He was totally dismissive of the idea that Arthur Blank had anything to do with the selection, even while admitting that Blank wanted the Falcons to take Ryan. Gee, if the managing partner of my firm didn't order me to take a particular course in a case, but expressed an opinion that I should do something, do you think I might do it? Steak then naturally started his defense of the Ryan selection with the subjective analysis that most support of Ryan takes. He cited his "leadership," as if players are going to follow a young quarterback if that quarterback doesn't produce on the field. For the cherry on top of the sundae, Steak was mortified when a caller compared the pick to David Carr and pointed out that Ryan just wasn't that good in college. His two defenses:

a. Ryan's 67% completion percentage. For the record, Steak, Ryan completed 59.3% of his passes last year, not that it's your job to know about sports or anything. Maybe you picked the wrong name for the bar your station partnered.

b. Ryan played well against Georgia Tech. So did Sean Glennon (22/32, 296 yards, 9.3yards per attempt, 2 TDs, no picks) and I'm not going out on a limb by saying that Glennon isn't going to be a top five pick in the Draft any time soon. Ryan was poor for 115 of the 120 minutes he played against Virginia Tech and just about the entire game against Florida State. I would say that he ran up his numbers against bad teams, but he was mediocre against N.C. State and UMass. I guess BC's receivers must have been so bad that they couldn't get open against the Minutemen.

Peter King has a Feeling!

You'll never guess who Peter King thinks he thinks the Falcons are taking on Sunday:

3. Atlanta. QB Matt Ryan, Boston College. Did everyone get the hint nine days ago when Falcons GM Thomas Dimitroff borrowed owner Arthur Blank's G-4 jet for the day and took coach Mike Smith over to Baton Rouge for a love-in with Dorsey ... and then Dorsey visited the Falcons' facility last week to see everyone else in the organization?

How's this for a surprise: I say Atlanta will take Ryan even if Dorsey's on the board. Then everyone will say it was the owner's pick. Not so. With Dimitroff's background in football, I'm convinced he'd never have taken this job if he felt Blank's heavy hand on his shoulder for the first pick. It's logical to think Blank wants Ryan for the billboard-on-I-85 factor. But if this pick is Ryan, it will be because Dimitroff and Smith think it's best for the franchise.

Now for Ryan. My buddy Don "Donnie Brasco'' Banks is always telling me how gullible I am. Brasco likes baseball, and I called him a couple of years ago after seeing Juan Acevedo pitch in a spring-training game and told him, "Juan Acevedo's gonna win 15 games this year.'' He didn't come close. I admit to getting sucked in a bit by players I like. So write this down, you who keep records of how badly I screw up predictions: Matt Ryan is going to be a star in the NFL. You can feel it being around him -- he's got that I-won't-be-denied demeanor Peyton Manning had 10 years ago. He's got a plus arm, he knows how to get players around him to play better, and he loves having the ball in his hands with the game on the line.

A couple thoughts:

1. Consistent with his pattern of relying upon entirely subjective, fuzzy reasoning when it comes to all matters Matt Ryan, Peter King thinks that Matt Ryan is going to be a star because "you can feel it being around him" and he apparently has Peyton Manning's demeanor. You know what else Peyton Manning had, Peter? Good stats. A productive college offense. He did not provoke universal reactions of "meh" from everyone who watched him play in college.

2. Here's my concern about the Arthur Blank dynamic here. If we are all assuming that Blank wants to take Ryan because he is smitten with the young man (and Blank's affections for his franchise quarterbacks have always led to such good results; why can't he be the jilted lover who gets burned by a cheating spouse and vows to never date again?) or because he wants to do so for marketing purposes (because what more would an African-American-heavy fan base like more than a quarterback with the nickname "Matty Ice"?), then that presents problems for Thomas Dimitroff. If Dimitroff takes Ryan and Ryan is a bust, then Blank can always excuse the mistake by saying "I was wrong about Ryan as well." If Dimitroff takes Glenn Dorsey and Dorsey is a bust, then Blank will raise an eyebrow and say "I told you so." It's always safer to follow the boss's lead, even if the Boss is not explicit in his interference. If I were Dimitroff, I'd play off of Blank's love for Keith Brooking and sell the Dorsey pick as a pre-requisite to making Brooking a passable option at middle linebacker.

3. As if you needed any more confirmation that taking Ryan would be a bad move for the Falcons, Beau Bock heartily endorsed the move on the radio this morning because the "Falcons need a quarterback." Beau, the Falcons need a lot of things. The mere fact that you have a need does not lead to the conclusion that you should take a player about 40 picks too early because he plays a position of need.

Random Thoughts while Watching Arsenal-Liverpool

For all the bitching we all do about sports coverage these days, if you told me when I was a kid that I would be able to watch a recorded soccer game from England while writing an online journal, keeping track of the Braves and Hawks games, and monitoring my work messages, I would have been pretty impressed by the future.

We're 19 minutes in and nothing has happened other than a mistake by each keeper. Did I mention that Liverpool is playing? Or that I hate them?

I am seriously trying to find a single hardcore college football fan who thinks that Matt Ryan should be a top ten draft pick. Just one.

Bergkamp would have scored on that long ball, Robin.

Good for Emmanuel Adebayor. Other than the fact that I'm rooting for Arsenal to save the world from another 180 minutes of shit on a stick, I'm happy that Adebayor scored because he looks better with the new hairdo and I don't want the new style to be blamed for an extended goal drought.

Did I really just say that nothing was happening? 1-1. These styles do mesh nicely with one another.

A reminder for people who don't think that English football is crap: in this game between Arsenal and Liverpool, there are two English players (Carragher, Gerrard), as compared to three French players (Gallas, Flamini, Clichy), three Dutch players (Kuyt, Babel, Van Persie), and five Spaniards (Fabregas, Almunia, Alonso, Torres, Reina).

I'm liking the first four innings of the Jair Jurrjens era. I also like his name.

Am I the only one who watches pitchers pitch from the stretch and immediately thinks of that one year when the umpires went nuts calling balks for not coming to a complete stop at the belt? I'm imagining what would happen if SEC refs suddenly called 15-yard penalties every time a coach got a toe over the sideline.

I h8 Xavier Nady. We have put him on pace for a triple crown.

Is it me or has Mike Bibby single-handedly turned the Hawks into a Western Conference team? Even when we lose (as we're losing tonight to the slumping Raptors, but a four-game winning streak does buy you a little grace), we do so in high-scoring, entertaining fashion. Speaking of the local pro basketball collective, one of their ticket reps e-mailed me the other day to tout the Hawks being on the verge of their first playoff "birth" in "centuries." Atlanta Spirit, you inspire confidence with every e-mail your minions send. I'm going to check out the end of the Hawks game...

The last four seconds of regulation of the Hawks game were CRAZY. Mike Bibby hits a three to tie the game with a half a second to go after pump-faking. The Hawks then allow T.J. Ford to get an unmolested alley-oop for the win...only the ball sits in Ford's hand for sixth-tenths instead of five and the basket does not count. As best we can tell from the replay, Josh Smith was supposed to switch to protect the front of the rim and he just stood at the foul line, doing absolutely nothing. J-Smoove then makes amends with a "no, no...yes!" three to give the Hawks the lead with two minutes to go in OT. I'm quite captivated right now. Bibby hits another three for the lead after Bosh had a three-point play, then Smith hits another three for a four-point lead. There can't be many people watching, but this has been a fantastic game. 127-120! Five in a row! Boston, beware! We might not get swept!

Opening segment of Baseball Tonight: extended highlights of the Blue Jays-Yankees game that had just been broadcast on ESPN2, followed by highlights of the final out of the Angels 1-0 win over the Twins, followed by extended highlights of the Mets' 11-0 win over the Marlins, followed by extended coverage of Pedro Martinez's hamstring. Paging Captain Louis Renault...

I accidentally caught the final score of the two matches today on ESPN's bottom line, so here are my thoughts after watching the second half of Arsenal-Liverpool and all of Fenerbahce-Chelsea on fast-forward:

1. Typical Liverpool. They get their goal 26 minutes in and then don't create a chance the rest of the game. Naturally, one of their "forwards" was in the box to foul Alexander Hleb for a penalty that everyone at the Emirates save the ref saw. I can't tell you how much I dislike this Liverpool team.

2. I like Arsene Wenger and all, but what does it say when you put Nicklas Bendtner on as a sub and that sub not only fails to score, he clears off the line...the opponent's goal line. Tommy Smyth insists that Bendtner was offsides when there was a Liverpool player behind him on the line and a second over the goal line. (Can we get a ruling on whether a player out of bounds can keep an attacker onside?)

3. ESPN, I was most looking forward to the Fenerbahce game because of the atmosphere, so you naturally pulled a GolTV and took all of the crowd noise out of the feed. Great move.

4. If you love footie, sports, or screaming Turks, then please watch this clip:



Wow. If all it takes to produce successful, attacking football is signing a bunch of Brazilians and appointing a member of '82 Brazil as manager, then what's the rest of Europe waiting for? Where is Falcao, anyway?

Memo from Turner

You're a lashing, smashing hunk of man;
Your sweat shines sweet and strong.
Your organs working perfectly, but there's a part that's not screwed on.

So much for the Patriot Way. The Falcons went out and signed the top free agent running back on the market, inking Michael Turner to a deal that includes $15M guaranteed and a total of $34M over six years that Turner, like just about every other NFL player on a long term deal, will never see. The deal doesn't strike me as prohibitively expensive in light of the silly money that is being thrown at players like Bernard Berrian. Turner likely came a tad cheap because of the glut of quality running backs available in the Draft. Supply goes up, price goes down, as the purveyors of the dismal science like to graph.

I like Turner a lot. He has a very good reason to have been a back-up for his career:


You remember the guy whom the Falcons effectively traded for Leavenworth inmate no. 45659603643, don't you?

His career as a back-up has been marked by relatively limited carries (low mileage!) and excellent productivity. (5.5 yards per carry!) The Pro Football Prospectus described Turner thusly this summer:

On a per-play basis, Turner has been more effective than LaDainian Tomlinson, which may say more about the Chargers' offensive line than it does about either Turner or Tomlinson...He's going to be a big prize as an unrestricted free agent in 2008.

The Prospectus also hits on my primary concern regarding the Turner signing: an excellent running back behind a crap offensive line is pearls before swine, or Edgerrin James in Arizona if you prefer. The Falcons' offensive line was not good last year and Turner isn't going to give the team competent tackles or make Justin Blalock into the guy who dominated at Texas. Could I reiterate my request for this guy?


Anyone know of a homoerotic Stones tune about a guy named Jake?

That said, I suspect that Glenn Dorsey or Sedrick Ellis are going to be the pick. The heart of New England's defense is Richard Seymour and his buddies on the defensive line. The heart of Jacksonville's defense was John Henderson and Marcus Stroud. Both Dimitroff and Smith know the importance of quality defensive tackles and there are two premium DTs at the top of the Draft.

And since I often gripe about Arthur Blank in this space, let's have some kudos for the guy who signs the checks. Assuming that Thomas Dimitroff and Michael Smith identified Turner as a primary target, then Blank performed his perfect role: the charming closer. If Blank isn't falling in love with players and affecting personnel decisions with his whims, but is instead used to charm players into coming to Atlanta, then everyone wins. Unlike a lot of owners, Blank has charisma and can be an asset to his organization by using that charisma instead of his amateur scouting skills. Let Peter King decide who can play football across a conference room table.

Free-Form Airport Blogging

I have been freed from the work prison that kept this brotha (note: I'm not actually Black, but I'm so in love with Obama that I'm feelin' it, especially after yesterday's jihad on Peter King) down for the last two weeks, so this post will be brought to you by the lovely free wireless at TPA and as much Bass as the Wharf Brewhouse can supply before a 7:39 flight back to the 404. (See! I've got soul! And I'm superbad!)

OK, so in no particular order, here are my thoughts on the last couple weeks:

Hawks

I really dug watching the games against Golden State and Utah. The Golden State game was pure pleasure, mainly because the Hawks do well against teams that can't defend and because it was nice and new to see the Hawks put two dead-eye shooters on the court at the same time. Joe was on, Bibby showed why we traded for him, and Salim Stoudemire gave the team some good minutes. What the hell happened to him? I forgot that he played for the local professional basketball collective. You would think that a team that can't shoot threes would play its best shooter, but Woodson and Knight might have been so cowed by the "you don't have a point guard!" criticism that they refused to play their 6'1 guy who is least like a true one. The thing is that Salim punishes opponents for doubling, which none of the other points did (with the exception of Tyronne Lue, especially late in games).

The Hawks fought like hell against Utah. Going into the game, I was smelling a blowout because of the combination of the team's road record, Utah's terrific home record, our abysmal record at the Delta Center, and the fact that the team only made it to SLC around lunctime of the game. Despite all of that, the Hawks were right in the game at the end. It was great fun to watch. I did not see the San Antonio game, so I couldn't be titilated by the fact that we allowed five points in the first quarter and still managed to lose by 15, but it's a roadie against the defending champions, so mulligan there.

I'll play Thomas Friedman and proclaim the next few games as critical. No one expect the Hawks to take off on the road against five Western Conference playoff teams, but they need to rally back in their home games coming up. It goes without saying that they ought to beat Sacramento and the Knicks in the next two games. Hell, they shouldn't just win those games; I want to see them play well. Is that too much to ask? Eh? (I'm channeling Chris Farley from the Herlihy Boy skit on SNL with Adam Sandler. Just laugh along.)

Barca

Holy hell! I know it was just Celtic and an unpaid Levante side that narrowly decided to actually show up for the match, but the verve is back! The Celtic match was outstanding. I honestly can't tell you how much credit to give to Barca's midfield finally linking up properly, the strikeforce being healthy, or Messi showing Cristiano Ronaldo what a big game performance looks like. (Incidentally, I don't buy the argument that Ronaldo doesn't perform in big games. He was Portugal's best player on the pitch in the World Cup semi against France.) I don't know if Barca's performance was the result of Gordon Strachan being either naive or desperate because of Celtic's dreadful road record in Europe and thus allowing his side to permit Barca spaces that its domestic opponents know not to surrender. In any event, Celtic-Barca was thorougly entertaining. Although the score was a respectable (for Celtic) 3-2, Barca made them look like a pub team. The Blaugrana had constant possession and were creating chances with that possession. Every time that Celtic got the ball, Barca's front six pressured them into a turnover. Celtic may be crap, but they have beaten Milan and Manchester United at home in the last two years and Barca basically had their way with the Hoops.

(Note: I'm writing this without knowing what happened in the Copa del Rey first leg against Valencia. My opinion might change after the DVR produces its bounty.)

Der Draft

While I respect the opinion of guys like Peter King on draftable players as much as I trust Jim Traficant on proper fashion, I do pay attention to the opinions of guys like Mike Mayock and Todd McShay because of their scouting backgrounds. McShay and Mayock are less likely to be persuaded by the "He's White! He's from the Northeast! He went to Doug Flutie's school! He fits with out limited ideas of what a quarterback should be!" line of thinking. So what gives here? I'm honestly wondering.

Hossa

The Thrashers weren't going anywhere with their wretched defenseand Hossa has been underwhelming in his contract year. This is no different than the Braves unloading Andruw if they would have been bereft of hope at the MLB trade deadline. The Thrashers need a new GM who can identify competent defensemen, they need to spend some money on free agents, and they need to build a better base of talent.

America's Wang

If a Dawg fan has a little tolerance for esoterica, then he/she should make a sign for the Cocktail Party next year with the following quote from a soldier stationed here during the Seminole Wars:

"If the Devil owned Hell and Florida, he would rent out Florida and live in Hell."

This is what I'm trying to do when I'm Wailing on Peter King or Stewart Mandel

I'm a big fan of Fire Joe Morgan, and this might be their apex. Mocking the mainstream media is one thing, but when you can work in mockery of Derek Jeter, Yankees fans, and stupidity in general, you've really accomplished something. Salut!

Paging Captain Louis Renault: Peter King Hearts Matt Ryan

You'll just have to trust me that when I glanced at SI.com this evening and saw that Peter King was going to offer a Matt Ryan-Jamarcus Russell comparison, I was literally twitching with excitement. The combination of work and a dearth of interesting goings-on in the world of sports have kept my blogging produce down over the past couple weeks, but if there's one thing that can draw me out, it's the prospect of King on this topic. Let's look at the factors we're working with here:

1. King doesn't watch college football, partially because it's not really his job to do so and partly because college football isn't popular in Jersey. (I'm assuming here.) Thus, he will be unaware of the critique offered by, oh, I don't know, every college football nut on the Internet that Ryan is a slightly above- average quarterback. King also won't be bothered to, you know, look at Ryan's numbers.

2. King has been known to fall victim to a little racial profiling from time to time. I wonder what he'll say when comparing an African-American from the Deep South with a clean-cut kid with an Irish name from King's neck of the woods? I wonder if we'll have a little discussion of clothing and mannerisms when trying to decide whether Ryan is a better prospect than Russell...

Russell was a normal college kid, trying to adjust to life as an icon with everyone trying to grab a piece of him, a little awkward in the bright lights. He was being led around by his uncle, Ray Russell, who was involved in the interview throughout. Ryan was Joe Cool, Joe Prepared, looking me in the eye, answering questions in complete and thoughtful sentences. His agent, Tom Condon, sat way in the back of the suite, out of earshot of the interview.

Bingo! The white guy from a Philly suburb that has a median income over $80,000 per year is more comfortable talking to other upper middle class white people than the brother from Mobile. Ergo, he must be better at throwing an 18-yard out than Russell.

Russell dressed like all the players at the combine, very casually. Ryan dressed like none of the players at the combine, in business attire.

It's like the stuff just writes itself!

Russell said that he was "fixin' to have some dinner." Who says that? Ryan's elocution was leaps and bounds better. He'll totally command the huddle better. I want to have all of his babies.

OK, King didn't really write that.

The guess here: Ryan will be a better pro than Russell.

Obviously, based on his eye contact with a chunky writer, his clothes, and the fact that Jamarcus showed up to camp carrying a few extra pounds. Who doesn't when they're reporting for duty to Oakland? Is a little extra cushion for the pushin' from opposing defensive ends after the Raiders' turnstile line really that bad a thing?

To King's credit, he does link to a post by El Pollo Loco that demolishes the claim that Ryan was a very good college quarterback. Peter then tries to defend Ryan without referring to his performance in a hotel suite:

1. I believe JaMarcus Russell wasn't projected to be a first-round pick before his last year at LSU either.

Uh, Russell was a five-star (or at least high four-star) recruit who had been touted for his physical skills prior to his 2006 season. College football fans generally thought highly of him, at least in terms of potential, and he was viewed as one of the top quarterback prospects in the country. No one thought that Ryan was anywhere near the Brohm-Woodson level until Brohm and Woodson lost a bunch of 45-41 games this year and Ryan was unbeaten because BC had a good defense and had the good fortune to play in the ACC, the conference that offense forgot.

2. Eli Manning, Tim Couch and Peyton Manning also skipped the Senior Bowl and the combine workouts, and it had nothing to do with their lack of confidence in themselves. Their agent, Tom Condon, doesn't think it helps the leader in the clubhouse to work out a lot before the draft, except on campus or in individual team workouts.

Couch and the Mannings were all consensus #1 picks in the Draft who had hugely successful college careers. They had nothing to prove. Ryan is trying to convince NFL scouts that BC scoring 14, 17, 20, and 16 in its games against Virginia Tech, Florida State, and Clemson is somehow consistent with the fact that they had a top-three pick under center.

Aw, who the hell am I kidding. If the rumors that Arthur Blank is in love with Ryan are true, then all Ryan needed to do is sprinkle a little of the properly manicured white guy Spanish fly that made Keith Brooking the third-highest paid linebacker in the NFL in Blank's drink and he'll be the #3 pick. Kill me now.

3. No quarterback in this draft is scar-free. They all have zits. Ryan forced too many passes, leading to his 19 interceptions. His completion percentage dropped to less than 60 percent this year. He doesn't use his checkdown receivers enough. Now, you might argue Joe Flacco or Brian Brohm is better, and it would be a valid argument.

And this is an argument in favor of Ryan? He might be inferior to Brian Brohm (I whole-heartedly agree) or Joe Flacco (who the hell knows?), so that supports the notion that Ryan is better than Jamarcus Russell? All those interceptions and problems moving off of his primary read are a good thing? Those aren't zits; those are Manuel Noriega at 12.

4. In defense of Ryan, I write in SI this week that Ryan was playing with skill players who will never make a 53-man roster in the NFL; one scout's words, not mine. And he's about as polished a kid as you'd ever meet at that age. I think he's an intriguing prospect. But in the end, you're right. There are plenty of questions about him, and the washout factor for high-round quarterbacks is about 50 percent. So he may bust.

So at position with a wash-out rate of 50% and every indication that Ryan isn't any better than the other quarterbacks in the Draft, Ryan should not slip below #8 and he's better than last year's #1 pick. Makes perfect sense to me. As for the argument that Ryan's supporting cast wasn't very good, a couple thoughts. First, Ryan is playing in the ACC, which means that the teams that BC is playing aren't exactly loaded with talent, either. Second, the scout conveniently neglects to mention BC's offensive line, which happened to be anchored by Scouts, Inc.'s #5 offensive line prospect. Third, average skill-position talent doesn't mean that BC should have been playing defensive struggles with every good team they played last year. BC's performances on a weekly basis were not at all what anyone would expect from a team with a top five pick under center, but why care about pesky things like actual production and performance when we can marvel at Matt Ryan's suit?

Who?

That was my first reaction to the news that the Falcons have hired Mike Smith, the Jacksonville defensive coordinator, to be their new head coach. When I was driving to work, the consensus on the radio seemed to be that Steve Spagnuolo of the Giants would be the pick. By lunchtime, Smith was the guy, despite the fact that he hadn't been mentioned before. Anyway, kudos to the Falcons for running a quiet coaching search.

In terms of the hire, I'd be lying to you if I claimed to have a good sense for Smith's merits. Jacksonville usually seems to have a good defense, so that's nice. Whether they have a good defense because of the coordinator or because of two blue chip defensive tackles and a variety of talented high draft picks surrounding them is an open question. As I complained previously in the context of the NFL's decision to bombard the Atlanta market with Jacksonville games, I don't know a single Jags fan, so I'm not sure where to go for guidance. I will say that Jacksonville seemed to take the right defensive approach against New England, so that's something.

The main factor I like about this hire is that Arthur Blank resisted the urge to go for the big name. My biggest criticism of Blank's meddling as the owner is that he has always gone for the splashy hires and player acquisitions. Having seemingly learned his lesson (other than the Pete Carroll flirtation), Blank has hired a quality talent evaluator to be the general manager and an unheralded coach who comes recommended around the league. Len Pasquarelli makes this point well:

In a city where the Falcons have become irrelevant, which is Blank's worst nightmare realized, this is a franchise that needs to win games in order to win back some fans.

Mike Smith knows about winning football games. In five seasons as the Jacksonville coordinator, the Jaguars won 46 games, counting postseason victories. The Falcons have won 55 games this millennium.

Although the group that Jack Del Rio assembled in Jacksonville featured five former NFL or college head coaches, Smith was arguably the staffer most responsible for the franchise's success over the past half-decade...

In hiring the third different head coach during his time as owner, Blank actually got out of the way a little bit, a difficult thing for the spotlight-seeking owner to do. Once he brought Dimitroff aboard, he afforded him considerable input. And why not, since Dimitroff and Smith will confront the daunting task here together. Blank did have his moments of weakness -- not so much in chasing Bill Cowher and Bill Parcells, but more in his flirtation with Southern Cal coach Pete Carroll -- but in the end he deferred to the recommendation of his new general manager.

And given Blank's history and his penchant for sometimes over-reaching for the headline-making candidate, that's not an altogether bad thing.

So we have a general manager and coach in place. The next step is to start obsessing about every little bit of misinformation that comes out in regards to the Falcons' plan for the Draft. Over/under on my overreactions to "the Falcons should take/are interested in Matt Ryan as their 'franchise quarterback'": 429. (A brief digression: is there a more overused term that "franchise quarterback?") I'm not sure if I've been clear about this, but I'm firmly in the "take Jake Long or Glen Dorsey" camp. If neither are available, then take the next best offensive or defensive tackle. There are no quarterbacks in this Draft who merit a top ten selection (with the possible exception of Brian Brohm) and, as the Giants have illustrated, quality running backs can be found later in the Draft, especially this year with so many early entrants at the position. I could also live with the Falcons taking Aqib Talib, although that would be an admission that the Chris Houston pick was a waste. Talib seems a logical fit for New England if they can't trade down and he's on the board.

College Football: Possibly the One Topic about which Gregg Easterbrook Knows Very Little

Anyone who has read Gregg Easterbrook's work for The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, ESPN.com, Goatherding Quarterly Digest, and See Sevastopol! Magazine knows that he fancies himself as something of a Renaissance writer, opining about just about everything under the sun. Interestingly enough, Easterbrook apparently is unfamiliar with college football, but that doesn't stop him from offering up the following gems in his Draft Review:

Here's the passage that motivated me to write this piece:

Lawrence Timmons looked good at Florida State in 2006, but he's a one-year wonder, only starting as a senior. A year ago in the draft, Philadelphia used the 14th overall selection on another one-year wonder from the Florida State defense, lineman Broderick Bunkley, who spent much of his rookie season on the inactive list, totaling six tackles. Florida State front seven guys tend to look good because the Seminoles overload-blitz so much; every member of the front seven gets a couple highlight-reel plays, and those long touchdowns allowed, well, blame them on the safeties. Miami and Florida both had safeties taken high this weekend; these schools play conventional defenses. Florida State plays a gambling defense that makes the front seven look good and the safeties look bad. Something for Steelers' coaches to consider if they discover Timmons has no idea what it means to drop into coverage.

All statements in this paragraph guaranteed to be wrong! Timmons left Florida State after his junior year, after seeing action as a true freshman and then seeing significant action as a sophomore. Florida State rotates so much that looking at starting experience for a defensive player is simply fruitless. Easterbrook cites Broderick Bunkley's lack of production for the Eagles and conveniently ignores Kamerion Wimbley, the Nole linebacker taken one pick before Bunkley who merely led the Browns in sacks with 11 as a rookie. He also ignores Ernie Sims, who was taken five picks before Bunkley and led the Lions in tackles last year. But Wimbley and Sims must be the only Florida State front seven players who ever experienced success in the NFL...except for that Derrick Brooks guy who is going to end up in the Hall of Fame. And that Corey Simon guy who was so good for the Eagles for years. Oh, and Darnell Dockett, who has started for the Cardinals at DT since being drafted. And then there's Tommy Polley, who started for the first five years of his career before injuring his knee last year. And Orpheus Roye, who has had an 11-year career. And Greg Spires, a nine-year veteran who has 17 sacks in the past three seasons.

And that's before we get to the complete mischaracterization of Florida State's defensive style. Might I recommend that Mr. Easterbrook crack open a tape of Mickey Andrews' vintage defensive schemes against Steve Spurrier's Florida teams? They're actually excellent illustrations of defenses that work without blitzing. Andrews dropped numerous players into coverage, sometimes rushing only two. Florida State's defense worked for years not because it gambled too much, but because the defensive linemen were unblockable and FSU could rotate them all game to maintain a rush into the fourth quarter.

Conversely, I don't know how anyone could have watched last year's Florida team and concluded that they play a conventional defense. Perhaps Mr. Easterbrook missed that subtly named National Championship Game, when Florida blitzed from the word "go" and cost Troy Smith millions of dollars in the process. Florida's defensive coordinators are Greg Mattison, who introduced the concept of the blitz to hidebound Michigan in the mid-90s, and Charlie Strong, who innovated the 3-3-5 defense at South Carolina.

Other than that, how was the play, Ms. Lincoln?

Here's an instance of a normally rational analyst engaging in talking head-esque hyperbole:

Quinn's a fine quarterback who was fired up for Miami and has the confident swagger no one since Marino has shown in teal.

I thought that this argument went out the window around the turn of the century when it was revealed that "Ryan Leaf should go ahead of Peyton Manning because he has more swagger" was a less-than-airtight basis for a draft strategy.

This one doesn't have anything to do with college football, but it is so inconsistent with the rest of the column that I had to mention it:

The most striking and original draft analysis came from Page 2's Ted Kluck, who broke down many years of first rounds and found that quarterbacks, running backs and wide receivers (in that order) were most likely to be busts, while safeties, linebackers and cornerbacks (in that order) were least likely to become draft flops. First-round safeties, defensive tackles and linebackers had the best odds of reaching the Pro Bowl, while first-round cornerbacks, offensive linemen and wide receivers the longest odds to receive ticket to Honolulu. Kluck's conclusions were striking on several fronts. One is that quarterback, running back and wide receiver -- the positions that produce the most statistics, and hence the players you'd think we knew the most about -- were most likely to disappoint in the pros. Maybe the stats generated by "skill players" tell you more about their teammates than about them.

Easterbrook kills the Jags, Texans, and Dolphins for not taking Brady Quinn and then promptly touts the conclusions of an article that claims that first round quarterbacks are more likely to end up as busts than players at any other position. Easterbrook then guesses that quarterbacks' stats are really a reflection of the surrounding skill position talent, but in the instance of Quinn, he might want to consider the role of the system and coaching as leading to players being overrated. And keep in mind that Easterbrook dismisses the role of stats in evaluating college skill position players mere paragraphs after making the following claim:

Nobody took Chris Leak, who just led Florida to the BCS title. Sure Leak is 5-11, but in college and high school he threw for 26,086 yards -- most of those throws coming over the outstretched hands of guys just as big as NFL defenders.

For a guy who does a nice job of showing Mel Kiper changing courses every five minutes before the Draft later in his column, Easterbrook sure seems to do a good imitation of a Japanese carrier in sub-infested waters himself.

And this one has nothing to do with college football, but I thought it would be fun to correct Easterbrook on a matter of economics:

Actually, by the draft value chart, the Bolts won the trade, obtaining a choice worth 530 points for picks worth 500 points -- remember, you must divide by two the value for that 2008 selection, in order to discount to present value.

There is no rational way to discount for present value with draft picks. Future dollars are discounted for present value because of inflation. My $10 bill will be worth less in 20 years because wages and prices will be higher and there will be more money floating around in the economy. Draft picks, unlike money, do not change in value because the number and value of picks do not change from year to year. The #10 pick in the Draft is worth the same amount next year and the year after as it is this year. The picks might have diminishing value to general managers because they have the incentive to spend as many picks as possible in the present to preserve their jobs, but that's not a legitimate justification for teams treating future picks as being less valuable than present picks.

Dumb Things Said on the Radio, Take 11

On the Rude Awakening this morning, the fact that Atlanta ranked sixth in terms of TV ratings for the NFL Draft was discussed. Where most Atlanta sports fans would enjoy that statistic and revel in another piece of evidence that the "Atlanta sucks as a sports town" meme is worthless, Perry Laurentino used the opportunity to argue that the NFL is surpassing college football in the Atlanta market. And the evidence for this argument? Naturally, Perry used the ratings for the Braves-Rockies game, which was not in the same timeslot and which was also equivalent to the ratings for the Draft (the ratings at the time when the Falcons picked were significantly higher), an NBA playoff game, an NHL playoff game, and a Busch Series race. That makes total sense. Of course college football is declining relative to the NFL, since there was so much college football content on in the same timeslot with which to compare. It also didn't occur to Mssr. Laurentino that college football fans might actually like watching the Draft since they, you know, actually know something about the players and can gain great enjoyment from the suffering of players from their rivals.

Incidentally, the issue of Atlanta as a sports town raises a couple additional thoughts:

1. Why isn't Detroit being labeled as the worst sports town in America in light of the thousands of empty seats at the Joe for the home playoff games of the top-seeded Red Wings? You mean it's possible for fans to get playoff fatigue when their team makes it year after year after year?

2. This article($) is simply outstanding. In a nutshell, Nate Silver took a stab at analyzing the true size of each Major League Baseball team's market, both in terms of the size of the metropolitan area as well as the surrounding states, to get a better sense as to which teams are truly big market teams. Here is the section on the Braves:

Atlanta Braves
Attendance Sphere: 5.5M (93, 13th)
TV Sphere: 15.6M (176, 2nd)
MSA: 5.2M (90, 12th)
Mike Jones: 6.5M (102, 11th)
States Won (TV): Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Mississippi

Note that the Braves rank 13th in their attendance market but 2nd in their TV market--it’s no accident that Ted Turner invented the Superstation. There are huge numbers of people in the South that are closer to the Braves than any other club, but not close enough to drive to games regularly. Atlanta itself has grown by 20 percent since the 2000 census, but that growth is along the city’s periphery rather than in its center, and the traffic in the region is terrible, so the Braves remain a television team.

This analysis goes a long way to explaining why the Braves' attendance lags behind the team's popularity: the Atlanta metro-area is far-flung and the Braves, not unlike the Cardinals, are a regional team that has a number of fans in the surrounding states. Given the love that the Red Sox get as a regional team, the Braves deserve a little credit for having similar characteristics.