SB Nation User Blog: UCrawford

Trent Green Subs For Peter King On MMQB

UCrawford — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:59:21 -0000

Trent Green Subs For Peter King On MMQB

Always nice to hear from former Chiefs QB Trent Green, who is apparently excited about the prospect of staying in KC for the full season with his family and who did an excellent job filling in for King this week. The piece also had a nice little story about his post-retirement life with family. We can only hope that Matt Cassel integrates into the community half as well as Trent.

Brett Favre Coming Back?

UCrawford — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:48:23 -0000

Looks like the sojourn of the NFL's second most-prolific team-killer is maybe not quite at an end.

Brett Favre is apparently considering a second return to the NFL (in two years) as he's been removed from the retired list and the Jets have waived him.

The move Tuesday night means the Jets no longer hold the rights to Favre, who spent one disappointing season in New York. The 39-year-old Favre had requested the move several weeks ago through agent Bus Cook, but insisted he has no plans to come out of retirement for a 19th season.

Favre said in a statement he had no intention of returning to football.

Yeah, right...and Favre was "done" with football at his teary press conference in early 2008. And he was "done" with football when he didn't want to get arthroscopic surgery on his arm last year (after killing the Jets' season down the stretch with shoddy and selfish play). And I'm sure he's "done" with football now...at a time when the team he wanted to sign with all along (the Vikings) is still in need of a quarterback and are being touted as championship contenders.

My prediction for this year is that unless the Vikings decide that Favre's too washed-up to play, we'll see him in a Minnesota uniform this season if Favre has anything to say about it. Only question I have is, does waiving Brett Favre release the New York Jets from their "poison pill" clause if Favre signs with the Vikings? Does anyone know if the terms of the trade included the possibility of Favre getting waived?

Chiefs Re-Sign Rudy Niswanger, Sign Tight End Tony Curtis

UCrawford — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:28:33 -0000

Per the Mothership, the Kansas City Chiefs re-signed starting center Rudy Niswanger to the restricted free agent tender and signed former Cowboys tight end Tony Curtis to a contract. Terms of the deals were not announced.

The details on Curtis (no, not that Tony Curtis):

Curtis (6-5, 251) has seen action in 36 games during his three-year NFL career with Dallas (2006-08). He has caught 11 passes for 80 yards (4.5 avg.) with three TDs and registered five special teams tackles to go with three kickoff returns for 27 yards. He has also played in one postseason game. Curtis recorded 14 receptions for 112 yards and three TDs for the Cologne Centurions of NFL Europa in 2007. He originally entered the NFL as a rookie free agent with Dallas in 2005 and spent his first NFL campaign on the Cowboys practice squad.

Curtis appears to be the type of tight end that Kansas City will supposedly want for its new offense...big, can catch a few passes, but not a guy who's going to end up getting featured. Curtis was undrafted out of Portland State in 2005 and was the third-stringer backing up Cowboys Pro Bowler Jason Witten and former Texas A&M player Martellus Bennett in 2008 (and Anthony Fasano before him in 2007 and 2006). Probably not a guy who's ever going to be that great, but I suppose there's an outside chance he could surprise...all three guys ahead of him on the depth chart in Dallas were talented athletes, so there's at least a slim chance he's a better-than-average second-stringer on a different team.

Niswanger, of course, had a non-descript but acceptable season for the Chiefs in 2008, starting 15 games, and his return brings some continuity to a Chiefs o-line that had its moments in 2008.

Moderator Note: Cutting-And-Pasting Articles

UCrawford — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:21:26 -0000

Just a heads-up guys, we've had to delete a couple of FanPosts over the last week for cutting-and-pasting articles in their entirety into a FanPost. This is a problem that pops up fairly frequently on AP.

The material that you'll see on ESPN or the Kansas City Star or Pro Football Talk is copyrighted material and as such cutting-and-pasting an entire article into a FanPost represents a copyright violation both on your part and Arrowhead Pride's (if we leave it up once we recognize the violation). Granted, the majority of the news we're going to get here is from other sites, and it's fine to link to most of those sites and cut and paste excerpts from what they wrote (clearly labeled as quotes) interspersed with your own commentary (except in the case of subscriber info, which I'll get to in a bit). But you can't just cut-and-paste the entire article into a FanPost. Doing so requires us to immediately delete the article to prevent the site from getting into trouble. Also, if you quote an article in your FanPost, you need to provide a link back to the original article as well for proper attribution.

There is also the issue of subscriber-only info (ESPN Insider, Scouts, Inc., Warpaint Illustrated). You can provide a link to these articles, but you cannot provide excerpts from it in a FanPost...and you must provide a link to that article if you refer to it at all. Basically, if the article requires a password or subscription to access, you can't take anything from it and you're probably best off not even doing a FanPost on it if that's your primary source of information (although hyper-linking to it in a story from another source is usually fine, as long as you don't lift and reprint material from that article). Even providing a full recap of what the article said in a FanPost in your own words is pretty sketchy and could cause us problems, so don't try to push the boundaries of copyright violation...the overwhelming majority of us aren't lawyers and aren't familiar with copyright law, so if there's any question about whether or not an article is okay to use, you probably need to err on the side of caution and not use it.

Again, this is just a heads-up and I'm not trying to single anyone out...the overwhelming majority of you guys understand the rules and do a good job of policing your own work to prevent this sort of thing. And most of the people who do cross the line do so unintentionally. But it's up to all of us to insure that we keep the site out of trouble with regards to copyright infringement so we have a place to come and discuss Chiefs info so your help and compliance are greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Former Chiefs Wide Receiver Will Franklin Claimed By Detroit Lions

UCrawford — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:07:30 -0000

It appears that Will Franklin's stint on the waiver wire didn't last very long.

The former Chiefs and Missouri receiver was claimed just a few days later by the Detroit Lions, who have been looking for a complement to All-World receiver Calvin Johnson.

Franklin could help Detroit get back on track. A 2008 fourth-round pick from Missouri, Franklin caught seven passes for 83 yards in his rookie campaign. Franklin, though, was deemed expendable by the new Scott Pioli-Todd Haley regime in Kansas City.

The Lions are seeking receiver depth after trading Roy Williams to Dallas last October and releasing Mike Furrey in February. Bryant Johnson, who caught 45 passes for 546 yards and three touchdowns last season in San Francisco, signed early this offseason.

If I were a Lions fan, I'd probably keep my expectations on this low, considering the absolute lack of production from Franklin last year...but still, as waiver pickups go he could end up being a pretty decent one. He's got similar physical tools to Marvin Harrison (average size, but outstanding speed) and if he can improve his skill sets and show production on the field, there's usually a place for guys like that as number two or three receivers in the NFL.

H/T Rotoworld

Would Jason Taylor Be Interested In Kansas City?

UCrawford — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:42:20 -0000

From the FanPosts. JayKC had a FanShot on this yesterday as well. -PT

Bill Williamson at ESPN's AFC West blog certainly seems to think it's a possibility...especially since the Chiefs just signed Taylor's long-time Miami teammate (and brother-in-law) Zach Thomas.

Yes, Taylor is older -- he will be 35 in September -- but it's clear new Kansas City general manager Scott Pioli wants to sprinkle his young roster with veterans at key positions. Pioli came over from New England, where adding older players was the norm. So far this offseason, he has traded for linebacker Mike Vrabel and agreed to terms with Thomas. Taylor would give Kansas City's green defense a third savvy veteran for the short term.

Taylor wouldn't simply offer experience as the Chiefs transition to the 3-4 defensive scheme. He'd give Kansas City a much-needed asset: A pass-rusher.

Normally I'm a "youth before experience" guy, but I've got to say that I wouldn't hate it if the Chiefs were able to bring in Taylor at a reasonable price (meaning not superstar dollars) on a one or two year deal. Taylor fits a need, he's a good veteran presence (although his refusal to participate in Washington's offseason program is somewhat troubling), and the Chiefs have money they need to spend. Granted, he's unlikely to be a sack master like he was in Miami, but his 3.5 sacks last year were due primarily to a freakish leg injury suffered early on, so 7-9 sacks this season wouldn't be out of the question (with 5-6 sacks probably being a more reasonable expectation...but still decent production if his contract looks at all like Thomas'). Best of all, he's an unrestricted free agent, so he's not going to cost the Chiefs anything in way of draft pick compensation.

If the Chiefs are looking to make the 3-4 the permanent base defense, they could do a heck of a lot worse than grabbing Taylor to help start it off.

For Everyone Who Thinks Michael Vick Is Worth Grabbing

UCrawford — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:47:13 -0000

He's priced himself into laughability.

Vick apparently spelled out in his bankruptcy filing what he thinks he's worth to an NFL team:

The embattled Atlanta Falcons quarterback is hoping to earn as much as $10 million a year or more, according to court filings in his bankruptcy case. Under the plan he submitted to the court, Vick would keep the first $750,000 of his annual income over the next five years. After that, a percentage would go to his creditors based on a sliding scale.

Uh huh...because teams love to give away $10 million a year (especially during a recession) to convicted felons who have never been good passers, who are constantly in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, and who haven't played a real game in three years...because they've been in a federal penitentiary.

Call me crazy, but I suspect that Vick's probably going to be lucky to find an offer totaling $750,000 a year, much less one that pays him that, plus enough to keep his creditors happy.

“He is hopeful to play quarterback,” Daniel Meachum, an attorney and business manager for Vick, said in an interview. “There is no person with his talent in that position in all the league.”

Well, except for Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, pretty much every other starting QB in the league, a fair number of the second-stringers, and Vince Young.

Gil Brandt, a senior analyst for NFL.com, predicted Goodell would give Vick another chance to play, possibly after sanctioning him again. But he said Vick, who holds the NFL single-season record for rushing yards by a quarterback, would stand a better chance of making a team at a different position such as running back.

“The guy is a talented player, but he is going to be away from football for at least three years,” said Brandt, former vice president of player personnel for the Dallas Cowboys. “I think it is very, very hard if you are a skill-position player like a quarterback to spend three years away from football and perform at the level that you performed before you were suspended.”

Which, if you look at Michael Vick's passing numbers before his conviction and incarceration, means you would probably be better off trying to draft Pat White in 2009 to play QB than giving a veteran's salary to Vick.

H/T: Yahoo Sports

On A Completely Unrelated Note To Football..."Watchmen" Sucked

UCrawford — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:13:15 -0000

via 4.bp.blogspot.com

["Zack Snyder stuck me in a crappy film"]

So I finally went to see "Watchmen" tonight, and since some of the guys here last night asked me to give my opinion on it I've got this to say about going to see it.

Don't.

If you haven't already read the deservedly acclaimed graphic novel (one of my all-time favorite books in any genre) by legendary author Alan Moore and illustrator Dave Gibbons, you probably shouldn't even consider going to see this two hour, forty-three minute debacle because a) you will have a tough time figuring out what's going on, b) you probably won't care about too many of the characters in the film (because they don't have enough time to properly develop the characters), and c) Zack Snyder might be a hell of a guy with visuals but he couldn't direct an actor on how to take a piss with credibility much less get them to say lines lifted directly from a comic book with any sort of emotional honesty.

Seriously, if you've ever wondered why until recently Hollywood tried to avoid comic book movies like the plague, then go see this movie just to see how ridiculous comic book dialogue sounds when it's lifted directly from the page and crapped out of some actor's mouth word-for-word without any attempt by the screenwriter to tailor it to a film. Computer-generated-imagery has been the primary reason for the plethora of superhero movies over the last decade because the dialogue from comic books sounds absolutely ridiculous and shallow when it's being spoken by real live actors (and the plots aren't much better). But even the CGI can't save a superhero movie when the director refuses to make any concessions to the limitations of the film medium (more on that in a second).

There were a few things about the movie that I enjoyed. The good points: As far as acting Jackie Earle Haley did an excellent job as Rorschach (his scenes were the high points of the movie), Billy Crudup was amazingly compelling underplaying the detached and alienated Dr. Manhattan (despite his director having absolutely no clue how to utilize Manhattan's speeches effectively) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan was engaging as The Comedian (despite having far too little screen time). And the CGI was top-notch...probably deserves an Oscar nomination in some of the technical categories next year.

The bad points: Everything else. Especially Carla Gugino and Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre I and II), who might very well be the worst pair of actresses I've ever seen star in a major film. Either that or Zack Snyder hasn't got a clue of how to direct women...which may be more the culprit. The female characters in "300" were cheesy and shallow eye candy and the female characters in "Watchmen" were cheesy and shallow eye candy. Gugino and Akerman had the worst lines and they might as well have been reading them for the first time with script in hand for all the emotional credibility they put into what they were saying. Whatever the case, I'm at least glad that Akerman looks good naked because she didn't do anything else in that movie that I found remotely interesting and she strikes me as the kind of actress whose future is in direct-to-DVD knockoffs of good films, likely co-starring with Lorenzo Llamas. Let's just say that Akerman shouldn't be expecting to go to the Oscars as anything other than a spectator.

Final assessment: This film should never have been made. It's impossible to cram Moore's work into a three hour film...especially "Watchmen". The storyline was too complex, everything in the book was essential to the main plot (and the main plot wasn't even the most important part of the book...the sub-plots and secondary characters were) so any cuts irreparably damaged the story, and you simply can't flesh out a large cast of complex characters enough in a three hour film to get anyone to care about them while still moving the film along. It's just impossible...that's always been the limitation of film (which is why Moore has always argued against transferring his work into movies). An HBO-style miniseries (where there's very little network censorship) might have been able to pull it off...given 10 hours this film could probably be made compelling. In fact, "Watchmen" could probably be adapted to a five or six season long television series (it would have to be on Showtime or HBO) following the full history of the "Watchmen" universe and given some capable writing it would be held up in the same rarified air as "The Sopranos".

But breaking down that book into a three hour film? Not even the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan could pull that off.

Taking A Wide Receiver In The First Ten Picks Is Usually Stupid

UCrawford — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:41:50 -0000

From the FanPosts. -Chris

"But he looked so good before he started playing for us!!!"

There's been a lot of talk the last few days about how the Chiefs should seriously think about drafting Michael Crabtree with the #3 overall pick in the 2009 draft. Leaving aside, for a second, the fact that Crabtree missed most of the combine with injury and just had major foot surgery, let's look at the folly of that line of thinking.

First, I can understand why people like the idea of having two excellent receivers on a team. Why do we like them? Because receivers are fun. They're probably the most fun position to watch on the field. Acrobatic catches, thrilling TDs, fun celebrations. Hell, when I played Madden 09 the first thing I did was trade for Calvin Johnson (who posted 2000+ yards receiving and single-handedly made Tyler Thigpen the top QB). Why? Because he's the most fun (and he's 6'4", has a 99 speed rating, a 99 spectacular catch rating, and there's not a DB in the league who can cover him). And a large part of why we love football is because we want to see things that are fun, so naturally we gravitate towards players that increase the level of fun.

But here's the problem...the NFL isn't the same as Madden and most of the time drafting a wide receiver in the top ten picks doesn't translate into wins, and to me seeing my team win is what makes football games the most fun. Don't believe me about top ten wide receivers not winning games? Just take a look at this list of all receivers drafted in the top ten since 1989 (20 years), listed with the best record of the team that drafted them and the players' contributions to their teams in those best seasons.

1) Herman Moore (#10, 1991, Lions) - best team record, 12-4 (1991); 11 receptions, 135 yards receiving, 0 TDs.

2) Desmond Howard (#4, 1992, Redskins) - best team record, 9-7 (1992); 3 receptions, 20 yards receiving, 0 TDs.

3) Curtis Conway (#7, 1993, Bears) - best team record, 9-7 (1994, 1995); 39 receptions, 546 yards receiving, 2 TDs (1994); 62 receptions, 1037 yards receiving, 12 TDs (1995)

4) Michael Westbrook (#4, 1995, Redskins) - best team record, 10-6 (1999); 65 receptions, 1191 yards receiving, 9 TDs.

5) Joey Galloway (#8, 1995, Seahawks) - best team record, 9-7 (1999); 22 receptions, 335 yards receiving, 1 TD.

6) Keyshawn Johnson (#1, 1996, Jets) - best team record, 12-4 (1998); 83 receptions, 1131 yards receiving, 10 TDs.

7) Terry Glenn (#7, 1996, Patriots) - best team record, 11-5 (1996, 2001); 90 receptions, 1132 yards receiving, 6 TDs (1996); 14 receptions, 204 yards, 1 TD (2001). One of only three receivers on this list to make a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him.

8) Ike Hilliard (#7, 1997, Giants) - best team record, 12-4 (2000); 55 receptions, 787 yards receiving, 8 TDs.

9) Torry Holt (#6, 1999, Rams) - best team record, 14-2 (2001); 81 receptions, 1363 yards, 7 TDs. Only receiver on this list to win a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him.

10) David Boston (#8, 1999, Cardinals) - best team record, 7-9 (2001); 98 receptions, 1598 yards receiving, 8 TDs.

11) Peter Warrick (#4, 2000, Bengals) - best team record, 8-8 (2003, 2004); 79 receptions, 819 yards receiving, 7 TDs (2003); 11 receptions, 127 yards receiving, 0 TDs (2004).

12) Plaxico Burress (#8, 2000, Steelers) - best team record, 15-1 (2004); 35 receptions, 698 yards, 5 TDs.

13) Travis Taylor (#10, 2000, Ravens) - best team record, 12-4 (2000); 28 receptions, 276 yards receiving, 3 TDs.

14) David Terrell (#8, 2001, Bears) - best team record, 13-3 (2003); 34 receptions, 415 yards receiving, 4 TDs.

15) Koren Robinson (#9, 2001, Seahawks) - best team record, 10-6 (2003); 65 receptions, 896 yards receiving, 4 TDs.

16) Charles Rogers (#2, 2003, Lions) - best team record, 6-10 (2004); 0 receptions, 0 yards receiving, 0 TDs, 1 game played.

17) Andre Johnson (#3, 2003, Texans) - best team record, 8-8 (2007, 2008); 60 receptions, 851 yards receiving, 8 TDs (2007); 115 receptions, 1575 yards receiving, 8 TDs (2008).

18) Larry Fitzgerald (#3, 2004, Cardinals) - best team record, 9-7 (2008); 96 receptions, 1431 yards receiving, 12 TDs; one of only three WRs to appear in Super Bowl with original team.

19) Roy Williams (#7, 2004, Lions) - best team record, 7-9 (2007); 64 receptions, 838 yards receiving, 5 TDs.

20) Reggie Williams (#9, 2004, Jaguars) - best team record, 12-4 (2005); 35 receptions, 445 yards receiving, 0 TDs.

21) Braylon Edwards (#3, 2005, Browns) - best team record, 10-6 (2007); 80 receptions, 1289 yards receiving, 16 TDs.

22) Troy Williamson (#7, 2005, Vikings) - best team record, 9-7 (2005); 24 receptions, 372 yards receiving, 2 TDs.

23) Mike Williams (#10, 2005, Lions) - best team record, 5-11 (2005); 29 receptions, 350 yards receiving, 1 TD.

24) Calvin Johnson (#2, 2007, Lions) - best team record, 7-9 (2007); 48 receptions, 756 yards receiving, 4 TDs

25) Ted Ginn, Jr. (#9, 2007, Dolphins) - best team record, 11-5 (2008); 56 receptions, 790 yards receiving, 2 TDs.

So basically, the patterns that appear to emerge from wide receivers in the top 10 are these. First, the Lions under Matt Millen were probably the most inept team ever at drafting. Second, most of these wide receivers rated as "top ten" draft picks don't become dominant players (4, maybe 5 out of 25) and a large portion of them don't even become good (almost half). Third, very few of them ever get their teams to Super Bowls (3 out of 25), much less win a Super Bowl (1 out of 25). In fact, you'll note that several of those players had off-years, mediocre years or flat out terrible years during the seasons when their squads had the most success, and you'll also probably notice that quite a few of them played for teams that stunk throughout the length of their stay with those teams...indicating that perhaps the value of the hot wide receiver prospect in relation to a team's success has been overstated by many (not least the wide receivers themselves).

That's not to say that a great wide receiver doesn't have value to a team, but more to say that teams drafting in the top ten who spend their picks on wide receivers don't usually build championship football teams with those wide receivers (12 percent chance of getting to a Super Bowl, 4% chance of winning a Super Bowl if we use this sample as the baseline). Which leads me to believe that perhaps drafting Michael Crabtree with the third overall pick is probably not the best idea when the Chiefs have holes at linebacker and offensive and defensive line. Especially when you consider that Crabtree is coming off of foot surgery, that he's only of average height, and we have no idea how fast he can run.

That's why I suspect that the Chiefs will be giving no serious consideration to Crabtree with that #3 pick.

Update: Missed one...there were actually four receivers to make Super Bowls with the teams that drafted them. Travis Taylor made it as a rookie with the Ravens when he chipped in 276 yards and 3 TDs that season.

Emmitt Smith's Analyst Contract With ESPN Not Renewed

UCrawford — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:25:27 -0000

To take a light break from all the great info coming in from the NFL combine, it appears that ESPN has finally decided to upgrade their NFL analysis by not renewing Emmitt Smith's contract.

Per Rotoworld (who offer the best summation):

An overdue move. Truly one of the worst personalities in sports TV history, Smith exhibited surprisingly weak knowledge of the game and consistently butchered the English language. He did give hope to those young children hoping to become Hall of Fame running backs despite lesser intelligence.

Yup...I honestly can't think of a former athlete who was worse at analyzing the sport they used to play than Emmitt Smith. Michael Irvin and Magic Johnson come close...and I think a case could certainly be made for Joe Theismann, who one writer I read described (accurately, I feel) as being like "a dumb, bitchy girlfriend who doesn't know anything about football and tries to make anyone watching the game miserable". But Emmitt was definitely worse...one of only two commentators (along with Tony Kornheiser) whose voice alone made me want to jump through the screen and strangle them. Or immediately change the channel and not come back.

So kudos to the Worldwide Leader on a smart move. And to celebrate, here's a medley of Emmitt's greatest hits:

Emmitt Smith Can't Speak Compilation (via dcmack1984)

Emmitt Smith's MNF Analysis is BANANAS (via tiricosuavefilms)

Emmitt Calls Al Harris, Al Jackson - Adrian Peterson Hit (via MK25toLife)