Picking up the slack

Cassel is still a work in progress, however, signs are encouraging..

I'm not going to post the Brady-Cassel comparison this week - mostly because the Boston Globe has already done it. But it is interesting to note that other media outlets are finally getting that comparing Cassel to Brady '07 isn't the appropriate comp to make. They're finally figuring out that the appropriate comp is for the late-round pick, career back-up getting the start is to compare him to when Brady was the late-round pick, career back-up.

Its about freakin' time.

While I'm not going to repost the numbers here, having provided the link above, I am going to say that it's interesting to note that the numbers through seven games are remarkably similar, and with the exception of in the area of sacks, touchdowns, and interceptions, Cassel leads Brady version .01 in almost every other category - and neither leads the other by any sort of significant number in any category.

It's creepy.

Other thoughts and observations...

The Giants front office is gutless.

Plaxico Burress won't start the game against the Steelers as punishment for actions detrimental to the team - harassing officials last week, not showing up for treatments, and other petulant actions are at issue. Sure, he plays and collects all his salary. Wow. What a punishment.

Would the Giants have just benched Burress for the first couple of plays of the game had the team been playing the Lions? Or would they have suspended him again? I'm guessing the latter.

But against the mighty Steelers? No. It's all hands on deck for that, discipline be damned.

I notice they had no problem suspending him for a game against the lowly Seahawks.

Other boneheads...

Former Jets receiver Don Maynard said some dumb things this past weekend.

"You have 106 coaches in the NFC that's never played pro ball, you got 126 in the AFC that's never played pro ball," Maynard said. "You got 64 coaches that never played college football, so now you know why the knowledge of pro football has gone downhill. They don't even do what we did in offenses and defenses."

Never mind the fact that three of the last five Super Bowl winning coaches never signed a contract to play in the NFL (Bill Belichick, Jon Gruden, Tom Coughlin); never mind the fact that the man for whom the championship trophy is named, Vince Lombardi, never played a down of professional football; or that Maynard's own NFL coach with whom he won a ring - Weeb Ewbank, never played professional football (that's eight rings from five coaches who obviously have no idea what they're doing by Maynard's reckoning - more if you include Green Bay's pre-Super Bowl Championships). Never mind all of that.

Let's just talk about one of the biggest differences in the game - the playbook. When I was in high school in the mid 1980's, we ran a pro-style offense...from the late 1960's and 1970's, with a dash of the 80's thrown in. The closer we got to current day, even then, the more complicated the plays became. This guy probably couldn't decipher today's playbook- so, yeah, he's right, they're not playing the offenses and defensed they did then - they're playing much more complicated schemes.

On second thought, I think I am going to address the boneheaded thought that someone who never played pro football is less qualified. There have been 42 Super Bowls, of those 42 championships 26 rings/trophies went home with 15 (head) coaches that never played pro football. There are only 26 coaches that even have earned the right to wear Super Bowl rings, and 15, essentially 58 percent, haven't played a down in the NFL. They account for 62 percent of the wins in the big game.

More impressively, eight of those coaches that Maynard thinks lack the requisite background account for 19 rings. Thirty-five percent of the coaches on the list account for 45 percent of those wins. Some of the names of the unqualified (Maynard's complaint, not mine):

Vince Lombardi
Weeb Ewbank
Bill Walsh
Joe Gibbs
Bill Parcells
George Seifert
Jimmy Johnson
Mike Shanahan
Bill Belichick

Lombard, Ewbank, Walsh, and Gibbs are all in the Hall of Fame for their coaching acumen. All the others are, at worst, in the discussion.

So what have we learned?

That Don Maynard is a total ass-clown with the football IQ of a brain-dead platypus.

Sigh.

From Don Banks -

Before he would let our conversation end, the veteran personnel evaluator made
one more point, and said it was something he thought a lot of people within NFL
circles have felt as Vick's long, sordid dogfighting saga has played out the past four months.
"I don't know what's going to happen to Michael Vick, and I don't care,'' he said, slowly and with emphasis. "The guy has embarrassed the NFL and embarrassed the game that a lot of us care about greatly. He's not worth any more time and energy and attention. It's his problem now.''

Banks in his article at si.com talked to a number of personnel people around the NFL about Vick's future in the NFL based on speculation that the earliest Vick could return would be for the 2009 season - really a best case scenario for Vick. There's a fair chance he could receive a lifetime ban from the NFL for the gambling aspect of his recent issues.

Realistically, I'm guessing a two year suspension which can only be served while he is on a roster. Assuming he remains on the Atlanta roster until June so they can minimize the salary cap hit, we're probably looking at ten games this season before he starts his jail term which will eat into next season. That means Vick will likely still be looking at 22 games - and that's only if he can get onto a roster, a team that is willing carry close to a season and a half of dead money before this guy can play. That would be after a four season layoff.

At best, he would come back as a back-up quarterback, or maybe a wide-receiver or running back. I doubt anyone would consider one of the statistically worst quarterbacks in the league for a starter after a four year layoff. But there's a chance someone might look at him for another position.

But who would take a flyer?

The following teams are unlikely to take him due to being set at QB and because Vick doesn't fit what the team does - or his reputation for not being a hard worker will also hurt him with the following -

Patriots - QB
Jets - not a hard enough worker for Mangini and probably are set at QB
Colts - QB
Bengals - QB
Chargers - QB
Saints - QB
Seahawks - QB
Packers - Green Bay just plain won't accept him
Rams - QB
Falcons - Arthur Blank will have burned that bridge
Giants - Mara family unlikely to take a flyer on Vick
Steelers - Ditto for the Rooneys

The following recently addressed QB issues and hope they won't have to address the position in four years -

Raiders
Browns
Redskins
Cowboys
Eagles
49ers
Cardinals
Texans
Chiefs
Broncos
Titans
Bills
Dolphins
Vikings

Teams that might be in most need of help at the QB position, or might address it between now and then -

Jaguars
Panthers
Ravens
Lions
Bears
Buccaneers

Personally, I think that the suspension will operate like a scarlet letter. No one is going to want to invest money in a player that can't earn the money for a year and a half. It's why no team, no matter how deficient on defense, has signed Tank Johnson.

A lot of people are speculating that Vick will one day return to the league, but I think that the suspension is tantamount to the end of his career. I wonder if he actually has enough saved up to sustain himself while he finishes his degree. If not, I think he needs to get used to the words, "would you like fries with that?"

Roger Goodell's gonna need shackles and a cattle prod before this is all over...

A banner day for the NFL -

Pacman Jones is trying to work out with the Titans (I'm sure Bud Adams is thrilled), franchised malcontents Lance Briggs and Asante Samuel failed to agree to contract terms with their respective teams, and now what every blogger has been waiting for - Michael Vick has been indicted on federal charges.

With an indictment now hanging over the head of the "league's most exciting player," Goodell will be forced to act. He cannot stand idly by when one of the league's most over-rated star players faces federal charges when he has handed out a one-year suspension to Jones who has had multiple run-ins with the police, but no convictions...and no federal indictments.

How Goodell handles this will send very clear signals to the press and to the NFL-fandom about who he really is. It's one thing to suspend a cornerback, a number three receiver, and a defensive tackle. It's another thing altogether to nail one of the league poster-boys to the proverbial wall.

Of course, in light of Vick's last year, Goodell might very well be happy to serve notice that being a poster boy is not...shall we say, a right for the highly talented. This might become the single most interesting decision to come out of league offices during the Comish's brief tenure.

Quick hits...

Stripped...
Pacman Jones gets his appeal today. Of course it has come out that the night before his last meeting with Roger Goodell Jones was at a New York strip club.

He's appealing the suspension based on the idea that the punishment is unprecedented. His lawyers need to look a little deeper into league history. In 1963 Detroit Lions Paul Hornung and Alex Karras both served season long suspensions for gambling on the game.

Spitting the bit...
The Yankees had an opportunity to move above .500 for the first time in I don't know how long this season (...maybe since the first week?). Everything appeared to fall in their favor. They were playing a mediocre Texas squad in the friendly confines of Yankee Stadium. Chien-Ming Wang, last year's ace, was on the mound against a pitcher who's ERA was somewhere north of 6.00.

What did the Bombers do? They bombed. Wang gave up seven runs in less than seven innings, and then the bullpen gave up another seven leading to a 14-2 loss in the Bronx. Currently they are half a game below .500 and a season high seven games behind the Red Sox.

Sure, the cavalry is on its way, but will it arrive in time?

USADA is losing cred...
According to an AP report:

Floyd Landis claims the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's lead attorney approached his lawyer offering "the shortest suspension they'd ever given an athlete" if Landis provided information that implicated Lance Armstrong for doping.

This calls into question why USADA's rep failed to show for the test of the B sample recently (Landis' reps could only be present at the World Anti-Doping Agency's test of the reserve sample if USADA's reps were present).

If the doping agencies are collaborating to go after Armstrong, whom WADA president Dick Pound views as his own personal white whale, it just makes this whole thing smell like a set-up in order to get Armstrong's one time domestique to offer up...well, anything that might implicate the seven-time Tour-du-France champ. USADA officials have implied that the allegation is ridiculous, however, it would appear that the offer came through Landis' lawyer, and I have a hard time buying that Landis' lawyer would risk his license in a gambit that could potentially have him in front of legal ethics boards with his license at stake.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out.