SB Nation User Blog: iverson2169

Debating a Seahawks "Safe" List.

iverson2169 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:40:59 -0000

Coming off a season that will more than likely end 5-11, the notion of "safety" feels rather arbitrary; however, a changing GM, possibility of a new coach, and various contract situations, make certain scenarios more probable than others.

Here is a laymen's attempt at projecting the relative probabilities of certain starters wearing Seahawk blue next year.

The "Locks" (Will not go anywhere...too young, too much potential)

Lofa Tatupu (Mr. Seahawk)

Aaron Curry (Too young and talented to go anywhere)

Brandon Mebane (ME might be as untouchable as Lofa... could be dominant soon)

John Carlson (young, talented, cheap'ish)

TJ Houshmanzadeh (contract prohibitive to get rid of, still very talented)

Unger (young, talented, cheap)

Safe Bets (solid contributors with favorable contract numbers)

Tapp (best DE pass rusher)

Hill (considering Lofa's injury, probably the most consistent LB this year)

Hawthorne (lots of potential, but could be a trade piece at some point)

Wilson (only playmaker in the secondary, versatile)

Babineaux (quietly a solid year)

Trufant (down year after injury, but Tru isn't going anywhere).

Lo-Jackson (strong and versatile, needs another piece on the DL to "breakout")

Locklear

Sims (solid contributor)

Forsett (biggest ground threat at this point)

Spencer (versatile, young).

On the Fence (free agency and/or draft could determine their futures)

Redding (wasn't good or bad this year... take him or leave him depending on price)

Jennings (lack of quality DB options keeps Jennings from the list below)

Grant (probably should be in the list above, but I just cnt see any DB's as "safe" other than Wilson)

J. Jones (probably won't be back)

Hasselbeck (draft and or free agency will determine fate)

Burelson (not the same guy anymore)

Cole (contract prohibitive to cut.... but would love to be able to eat this contract)

Pack Your Bags (Just too much money to save here).

Kerney (way too much money for massive gaps in productivity)

Walter Jones (I hope I'm wrong, but he's finished a HOF career)

Branch (contract prohibitive to keep).

I have double checked my categorization and feel it's probably representative of most people's opinions, but I'd like to hear where there may be discrepancies.

Football Logic: 101

iverson2169 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:57:37 -0000

For those that have studied debate, it can be frustrating to entertain arguments that contain fundamental logical errors. Once understood, these fundamentals provide very tight structural frameworks for logical thought formulation. Debating those without this fundamental base, can be an exhausting excersize; however, the subtleties contained within the definitions of logical fallacy can be equally as frustrating to those without the base of knowledge to work from. At times, it appears that the other party is simply debating to hear themselves argue. It often comes off as "logical snobbery".

This Fan Post is simply meant to be a reference (I admit I dusted off some of the old college texts for accuracy and have various tidbits from that manuscript scattered throughout). I won't pretend to know any more than the next guy that has studied the topic, but I figured it would be a good idea to create some material which all Field Gulls could access when formulating arguments. When applicable, I have attempted to tie these thoughts back into real world NFL examples for clarity.

Some Basics

In short, a logical fallacy is an error of reasoning. These errors are broken into two different groups (formal and informal fallacies).

A. Formal Fallacies (deductive) are your "air-tight" arguments. With a well formed formal argument, it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Any deductive argument that fails to meet these qualifications is fallacious. Here is a classic, well-formed example with an NFL twist:

All Seahawks are NFL players.

Matt Hasselbeck is a Seahawk

Therefore... Matt Hasselbeck is an NFL Player.

B. Informal Fallacies (inductive) lend support to their conclusions, but don't establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true (even with 100% true premises). The following would be a fallacy:

Every Superbowl Champion has had a positive regular season turnover ratio.

Therefore... next years Superbowl Champion will have a positive RS turnover ratio.

All inductive arguments deductively invalid. The premises of an inductive argument do not entail the truth of the argument's conclusion, and so even the most solid inductive arguments fall short of deductive validity.

Fallacy Classifications: There are 17 basic types of logical error broken into 3 classes. There are many variations and sub classes of fallacious reasoning, but this should provide a good foundation.

CLASSIFICATION 1.

Logical Fallacies of Relevance:fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions.

A. Appeals to Force: Occurs when someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proposition.

"Either you agree with me on the Gus Bradley hiring or your banned from commenting on Field Gulls"

In this case, authority, or position of power, is never grounds for logical truth.

B. Appeals to Pity: Is exactly the opposite of an appeal to force. It o ccurs when a commenter points out negative consequences of not agreeing with their opinion.

"See?... this is why I never post on Field Gulls. Nobody ever understands me. I will stop visiting this website."

C. Appeal to Emotion: Relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion.

"Tim Ruskell is an antiquated relic, that rode the coat tails of a Tampa Bay Juggernaut that was already set in motion. He is an opportunist and is ripping the sinews of the Seahawks soul apart."

The problem is that although the fiery language of the premise can create strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, even an overwhelming support of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

D. Appeal to Authority: the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion.

Tim Ruskell believes that Colin Cole was worth the money and he's the GM of an NFL team.

You have never been in a Front Office of an NFL team, so I think Ruskell knows more then you.

This is a very common logical fallacy to fall into. Even in areas where someone may have special knowledge or skill we cannot accept the word of an individual as proof of anything. NFL execs are proven mistaken all the time. Their testimony is inductive evidence but never deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion.

E. Ad Hominem (personal attacks): Is the exact opposite of appeal to authority. This occurs when we are encouraged to reject a proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way.

Tim Ruskell believes Kelly Jennings was a good draft pick.

Tim Ruskell was wrong about Brian Russell.

Tim Ruskell was wrong about Colin Cole.

Therefore...Tim Ruskell is wrong about Kelly Jennings.

F. Appeal to Ignorance: proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise.

Brian Brohm has never succeeded in the NFL

Therefore... Brian Brohm cannot succeed in the NFL.

Obviously the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so. This is exactly the argument John was correctly making in the Brohm thread, when he said..."You cannot prove what you don't know".

G. Irrelevant Conclusions: Can be very distracting as an argument. This fallacy tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.

The Seahawks don't have a good running game.

NFL teams need good offensive lines to have good running games.

Therefore, the Seahawks should draft offensive linemen in the next draft.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about NFL running-game success in general, but do not secure the truth of a conclusion distributed between all the factors that contribute to a good running game (OL, RB's, Blocking scheme).

CLASSIFICATION 2.

Logical Fallacies of Ambiguity: are errors in reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language.

A. Equivocation: Stresses the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

Colin Cole is heavy.

What is heavy cannot be easily moved.

Therefore... Colin Cole cannot be easily moved.

If only it were this easy for our dear friend Mr. Cole.

B. Accent: is one of my favorites, and can be very subtle. The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis.

Matt Hasselbeck didn't throw many interceptions today.

Therefore... Matt Hasselbeck usually throws many interceptions.

Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy stress on the last word seems to imply the truth of the conclusion. Sneaky debaters can get away with murder on emphasis alone and always fall back on the validitiy of an un-stressed context.

C. Composition: involves an implication of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole). Basically this is an improper generalization.

The Seahawks offense is clicking on all cylinders and well organized.

Therefore... the Seahawks are well organized.

While the conclusion could very well be true, the problem is that the premise doesn't support it. There could be a dozen reasons that the Seahawks ARE well organized, but those reasons aren't part of the arguments structure. You often see this fallacy appear when talking about Seahawks defense and a potential switch to a 3-4. It usually goes something like this: "Most of the top defenses in the league are 3-4, therefore the Seahawks should find a way to switch to the 3-4." Whether switching to the 3-4 would actually help the hawks is irrelevant. The point is that using a general truth about a collective, and applying it as truth to a unit within the collective is fallacious.

D. Fallacy of Division: involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts). Similar of course to the Fallacy of Composition except in reverse.

Feature Running Backs are in decline in the NFL.

Minnesota Vikings use a feature back system.

Therefore... the Minnesota Vikings are in decline.

The important part of this fallacy of division is that even though something can be truly said in general of a whole group, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of any of its individual parts.

CLASSIFICATION 3.

Logical Fallacies of Presumption: fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions.

A. Fallacy of Accident: Tries to tie statements that are true as a general rule, into far more specific examples.

Quarterbacks are more important than Running Backs.

Mike Teel is a Quarterback

Adrian Peterson is a running back

Therefore, Mike Teel is more important than Adrian Peterson.

The truth of a general rule leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is a logical fallacy.

B. Converse Accident: Using a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way, and then attempting to derive from this case, the truth of a general rule.

Matt Hasselbeck is bald and an excellent passer.

Therefore, bald quarterbacks are excellent passers.

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general principle.

C. False Cause: Infers the presence of a connection between two events simply because the events appear to occur in correlation.

The Seahawks wore thier throwback uniforms on Sunday.

They went on to win the game.

Therefore, the Seahawks won the game because of the throwback uniforms.

D. Begging the Question: Is using your conclusion within the premises for that very conclusion. Sometimes known as circular logic as well.

"Since good draft picks must be strong steady leaders that produce on the field, it follows that Aaron Curry cannot be a good draft pick."

This argument is formally valid because it is impossible for their conclusions to be false if their premises are true. This is often a sticking point in an argument in that the conclusion cannot be false; HOWEVER , the real problem is that there is absolutely no support for their conclusion which has already been accepted without proof from the outset.

E. Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:

Do you expect the Seahawks to draft OL or DL? Either way, your admitting they are going to blow the pick.

Final Word

The definitions contained within should be correct and I have attempted to double check all my analogies for accuracy as well. Maybe if John has some time he can check and make sure I haven't overlooked something.

Hope this helps somebody.... sometime.

Field Gulls Needs a HOF

iverson2169 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:06:51 -0000

John... this might be a question for you to ask your developers if you like the idea... but wouldn't it be cool if Field Gulls had a comments HOF?

I guess the premise would be that any "Green-thumbed-Rec" would be an inductee. You could obviously set the Rec. threshold's at your discretion to capture only the best.

I have often reminisced about some of those great comments from past posts, and thought "Wouldn't it be sweet if John immortalized them in his own Field Gulls Comment Hall of Fame".

I would assume the DEV's could attach a custom field to the ajax comments that could be queried by a plugin and filtered by number of Rec's.

Food for thought...

Poll

Worth Exploring a HOF?

Great Idea

29 votes

Indifferent

29 votes

Bad Idea

14 votes

72 votes | Poll has closed

Blake Griffin Back in Play

iverson2169 — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:21:07 -0000

Just when you thought it was safe...

...to write off Blake Griffin, reports surface like this:

According to some reports, the Thunder and Clippers may swap picks (the Thunder draft third overall), enabling the Thunder to take Griffin and the Clippers to draft Spanish point guard Ricky Rubio. But again, a lot of that is contingent on the Clippers being able to find a taker for Davis.

The Thunder will need to offer more than #3 overall of course, but the deal will NOT include Durant, Green, or Westbrook. OKC sitting on (2) first rounders this year and (2) first rounders next year have the ammunition to get this done.

A league sources cites:

...Thunder do have is an abundance of future first-round selections. They own two potential lottery choices next season -- their own and Phoenix's -- and a first-rounder in 2011. Two of those choices and this year's No. 3 would likely be enough to land Griffin.

The ramifications of such a deal are clear. The thunder would be able to field a starting 5 capable of getting to the playoffs next year.

Matchup Problems

Talk about nightmares for opposing defenses. The flexibility of fielding both big and small lineups of equal quality from both an offensive and defensive standpoint is huge. Both scenarios offer a dynamic mix of slashers, scorers, and willing defenders.

Tough as nails 'Small ball': Griffin, Green, Durant, Sefalosha, Westbrook

Conventional 'Big Lineup': Kristic, Griffin, Green, Durant, Westbrook.

Fingers Crossed on this one.

So How About JaVale McGee and #5, for the 3rd Pick?

iverson2169 — Tue, 26 May 2009 03:01:34 -0000

There is something to be said...

...for holding onto the 3rd pick in this years draft. Historically, the top 3 picks dont bust, and rarely end up as role players. In terms of risk assessment, it makes sense that you take the remainder of Rubio/Thabeet. But how about value? Is there an deal out there that makes the Thunder a stronger team, faster?

There is speculation the Wizards could be shopping for Ricky Rubio, and would be willing to part with their #5 selection and Javale McGee to acquire him. I want to offer an opinion on this deal, and open up discussion on how it would affect OKC.

The State of Center in OKC

The signing of Nenad Krstic was a savvy move. Like most Eastern European centers, he offers an array of crafty low post moves and nice touch from inside 10 feet, on a team that has been searching for ANY sign of life from the position. He is surprisingly mobile, and has good length, but it doesn't translate well on the defensive end of the court.

It was evident last year that Krstic's lack of defensive toughness, created spacing issues in the post becasue Collison and Green (the only two REAL defensive presences on the blocks for OKC) tried to provide backside support but were overmatched at times. Collison at 6-10, and Green at 6-9 are too short and not quite "long enough" to scare anyone form running their offense through the post.

OKC Needs: Low post length, defensive toughness, a shot alterer, athleticism.

Enter Thabeet

Hasheem Thabeet is exactly what the Thunder need in the center position. An athletic defensive presence who will alter every shot in his zip-code. While his offensive game is rather raw, Thabeet is dominant enough at the defensive end, that a #3 pick validates his being a starter immediately...

but wait...

We are discussing value now, and a means to improve the Thunder quicker. Isn't Javale McGee a carbon copy of Hasheem Thabeet (less a year of college experience)? In addition to picking up the "spec" center OKC is looking for, they would also land the #5 pick.

JaVale McGee

McGee is more than meets the eye. At a legit 7-0 tall he also posseses a wingspan of 7-6. Prototype "Presti" length from a position where length is game-changing. Only a 2 year starter at Nevada, McGee showed shot blocking dominance in a short period of time.

Even more importantly (to my eyeball trade filter test), is the fact that he isn't a 'hard-gainer'. At 225 entering the league last year, he has legitimately added 12 pounds of mass and maintained a lean 6% body fat. This is the difference between him becoming a TRUE 260 pound defensive force, and not just a career shot blocker (ala Marcus Camby).

Here's a scout on him:

Rare physical specimen—has an almost unprecedented combination of size, length (7-6), athleticism and fluidity, packed on a frame that should easily be able to fill out nicely. Has excellent hands, runs the floor like a deer, and is extremely reactive off his feet. Has an intriguing variety of skills too—the ability to knock down 3-pointers, put the ball on the floor, and execute some incredibly smooth pivot moves in the paint, finishing elegantly off the glass with excellent extension and touch. Gets off the ground impressively and can really be a factor as a shot-blocker or on the offensive glass. —the sky is clearly the limit on his upside.

Thabeet vs. McGee (plus the #5) tilts the scales towards the latter from a value standpoint.

The #5 Overall Pick

James Harden fills out the Thunder Roster with an exclamation point. If ever a player had an obvious comparative upside, it 's Harden. He reminds me in every aspect of Mitch Richmond (starting with the tale of the tape... Both 6-5 215). HIs laundry list of scouted strengths is huge:

Offense: All-around offensive polish, Scoring instincts, Shot-selection, Ability to create own shot, Craftiness, Decision making, Efficiency, Mix between scoring and passing, Transition play, Versatility, Aggressive slashing mentality, Change of gears/Hesitation moves, 3-point shooting, Ability to catch and shoot

Defense: Ability to get in passing lanes, Commitment to playing defense, Off-ball defense, Assertiveness, Defensive rebounding,
Intangibles: Coachable, Fundamentals, Unselfishness, Winning mentality, Work ethic, Left-handed, Court vision, Balance, Body control, Solid frame.

The Thunder don't need this pick to be a superstar, as they already have Durant. Drafting James Harden would effectively give KD his "Pippen"... a solid 2nd scoring option, and more importantly, a heady decision maker that can help keep a young team grounded through work ethic and poise.

Future Lineup/Outlook:

C: JaVale McGee

PF: Jeff Green

SF: Kevin Durant

SG: James Harden

PG: Russell Westbrook

Bench: Krstic, Sefalosha, Collison, Weaver, #25 this year, (2) #1's next year.

This completes as young and as promising a starting 5 that the NBA has. Length, length length with a deadly mix of shooters and scorers that are willing to play defense make for a certain playoff team in the near future.

Add to the mix, a #25 overall pick this year (maybe a worker like Hansborough for toughness), and 2 first rounders next year... and you have the flexibility to take the best players available at ANY position. An extremely deep, ridiculously young, and ultimately talented team is a near certainty within 2 years.

Seahawks and Edge James??? ... I don't have ESPN insider but saw a link that said Seattle could...

iverson2169 — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:08:05 -0000

Seahawks and Edge James??? ... I don't have ESPN insider but saw a link that said Seattle could have a real interest. Anyone know about this?

Aaron Curry Scouted Incorrectly?

iverson2169 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:18:53 -0000

Note of Qualification

I'd like to qualify my post by saying that I do not pret end to know what will be, and I do not claim that the opinion I am about to express is fact. I will offer it up as a point of debate, in an attempt to discuss what skill set Aaron Curry truly brings to the table. I believe there is always more than meets the eye (or in this case... the stat sheet).

The Knock on Curry

It has been widely scouted that Aaron curry isn't an elite level pass rusher due to his low sack count. Others have suggested that while "solid" in all areas, his game isn't that dynamic in that he isn't a difference maker. His draft tags of "safe pick" and "solid" lead some to associate him with being "serviceable", "un-sexy", or lacking "playmaking ability". Phrases like durable, intelligent, and productive are used and may unfairly convey that Aaron Curry is not explosive. I believe a closer look may reveal the exact opposite.

Some Evidence

For a prospect who has been scouted as "less-than-spectacular" at creating pressure, there may be evidence that suggests the opposite. While at Wake Forrest, Aaron curry rang up some very impressive and productive stats. 332 tackles is huge for a collegiate LB by anyones standards, but here are some forgotten tidbits:

45.5 tackles for a loss! That ranks #1 all-time at GT and most certainly requires the ability to penetrate and finish. A QB going down behind the line (sacked) achieves basically the same goal as a RB going down behind the line. It forces the offense into uncomfortable (less manageable) down and distance situations.
3 career INT's returned for a TD: ranks #1 all time at GT. What's more, he returned 3 out of his 6 career INT's for TD's. When he gets his hands on a pass, he changes games. Alphonso Smith, the GT CB drafted this year with a first round grade didn't take that many to the house.

So why then does a guy with superior ability to penetrate into the backfield and drop RB's for a loss, not put up better sack totals where penetrating and dropping QB's is required?

A Word on Defensive Scheme and Sack Count

Unlike a Defensive lineman, a linebacker is somewhat limited to the context of the scheme he is playing in to register sacks. While a DE can pin his ears back on most passing downs, a LB is obligated to blitz when asked to. What were Curry's defined roles on passing downs? I hestiate to suggest the following because I lack evidence, but how do we know that Aaron Curry didn't rush the passer more so than Aaron Curry can't rush the passer? I would love to see a play by play assignment chart on AC.

A final Word

I want to stop short of making a conclusion here. My post is phrased as a question to encourage a group discussion about this. I am hoping that putting several heads together can help explain why a player so dynamic in some areas (RB stuffs and defensive TD's) can post such pedestrian sack totals.

Scheme?

Skill set?

The Unexpected Irony in Seattle's Offensive and Defensive Lines.

iverson2169 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:08:55 -0000

The Irony

In 2005, Seattle man-handled defenses at the point of attack. Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, Chris Gray, Robbie Toebeck, and Sean locklear were a man-on run blocking force of nature. Big, powerful, prototypical offensive linemen. Teams knew where we were running and when we were running, and could do nothing about it.

At the same time, Seattle implemented a defensive front 4 that were smallish in nature. Fisher, Bernard, Darby, and Wistrom were in the mold of the quick, gap penetrating D-lineman, focused on creating pressure in the backfield. Somewhat weak against the run at the point of attack, they made up for it with explosion off the ball and disrupted lanes.

The irony that I am seeing as the draft is approaching is that there seems to be a fundamental "flip-flop" in philosophy. Our defensive line is getting beefier, while our offensive line should be looking to get leaner and more athletic (zone blocking concept). I see this as a terrific move for the following reasons:

Offensively

From an economic standpoint, smaller, more athletic linemen are historically cheaper, and drafted more easily in the middle rounds. Teams pay for large immovable men. Fortunately for teams implementing zone blocking, that isn't the skill set most required of the scheme.

A switch to zone blocking also allows for a quicker learning curve. Zone blocking "rules" don't change depending on what the lineman sees in front of him. In a "man blocking" system, lineman are assigned defenders according to the desired running lanes. Defensive front changes, stunts and blitzes, create a need for an O-lineman to read the change, and adapt his responsibility. Zone blocking uses rules that do not change according to the adjustments on the defensive line. Since there isn't as much emphasis on reading defensive changes and stunts many of the mistakes caused by lineman misreads are eliminated.

As the Denver Broncos and KC Chiefs have proven, a team that successfully implements a zone blocking scheme becomes far less dependent on RB investment. A running back that may not possess the combine impressive numbers, yet possesses great field vision can succeed in a ZB system. This dramatically reduces a teams need to pony up big numbers for blue-chip RB's.

Defensively

The move toward larger defensive linemen solves two main problems. Firstly, the Seahawks become stronger at the line of scrimmage (a weakness over the past few seasons), and second, it keeps more offensive linemen from getting to the second level (where our LB's don't possess great shed and tackle ability).

As it pertains to the Draft

I can't help but feel that our new philosophies may cause some head scratchers come draft time. It has been widely accepted that OL depth (for example) is a need, but names like Monroe, Smith, Oher, and Britton may not even be in play. Fans may be left with that slack jawed "huh" feeling if names like Lydon Murtha or Andrew Gardner are called, but if this is the way it plays out, I fully support it. Both of these linemen are sub 5 second 40 O-lineman with mobility that I feel have much better value in a ZB system than their second day draft rankings suggest.

Although somewhat surprising (coming from 2005 units that drastically differ in concept) I love the new philosophies TR and Jr. are implementing. It allows us to allocate Seahawk investment into areas that historically win championships (QB, CB, DL), and away from areas that historically are able to be filled later in the draft (OL RB WR)

Washington Redskins Eyeing Seattle's #4

iverson2169 — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:28:52 -0000

I love the sound of the following story

Several sources have suggested the Redskins have begun to send out feelers on what it might take to get Seattle's pick, and the Seahawks, at this stage, would likely seek two first-round picks on the high end. That was a price the Redskins were willing to pay for Chad Johnson last year and Jay Cutler a few weeks back, although neither deal was completed.

1. With the Redskins 13th pick Seattle likely would still have a shot at either the OT they need in Oher, or a playmaker like Maclin, Wells, or Moreno. Andre Smith might also be sitting there.

2. Should the price be (2) firsts, the Seahawks could end up with another high pick next year (due to the strength of the NFC East and the Skins big needs at Tackle, Guard, Defensive end, and linebacker).

3. Next year looks to be a very strong year for QB's, and it could very well be the first capped year for rookies (adding to the value of the pick). Seattle could pass on Sanchez this year, and end up with an equally talented prospect at a much friendlier cap number.

Here's the link from the Tribune

When Harris approached Burress' SUV, the receiver said (via the Post), "F- - - you! You're going to...

iverson2169 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:11:25 -0000

When Harris approached Burress' SUV, the receiver said (via the Post), "F- - - you! You're going to be in a lot of trouble. I know the sheriff personally."

Police told the Post that Burress answered every communication from Harris with "F--- you."

Harris claimed he stopped Burress, who crossed several lanes of traffic to access an exit, "like he was going to kill somebody."

Burress claimed to know Broward Country Sheriff Al Lamberti and told Harris, "You're going to hear about this by the end of your shift!"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle/2009/04/police-burress-has-profanitylaced-tirade-during-latest-traffic-stop.html