SB Nation User Blog: iverson2169

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

QB Draftees and the Completion Percentage Correlation.

iverson2169 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:22:57 -0000

Hypothesis: Completion percentage is the single best statistical indicator of NFL QB success.

There hasn't been a more discussed draft topic lately than the annual debate about what types of college quarterbacks translate into successful NFL quarterbacks. Opinions seem to differ as to whether the quintessential "gunslinger", or the more cerebral "accurate" passer is a safer 1st round pick.

Specifically, as it relates to the Seattle Seahawks, the debate over whether or not the Seahawks should draft Stafford (or Sanchez for that matter) is complex to say the least. Conventional wisdom would lead us to believe that any single statistic cannot predict success in a draftee. I thought the theory deserved to be tested and found that, as odd as it seems, there may be a statistical category that can predict NFL QB success better than others.

After some research, there does seem to be a very interesting correlation between QB completion percentage and subsequent success in the NFL. The premise is that collegiate QB's that complete more than 60% of their passes in their final season, have a better chance of NFL success, while QB's that complete LESS than 60% are substantially more likely to fail.

The following group of QB's drafted in the first round (1997-2004 ... stopped in 2004 to allow for a development window) completed LESS THAN 60% of their passes during their final collegiate season. This list is complete .

1997: Jim Druckenmiller, Virginia Tech (Completion Percentage: 54 percent)

1998: Ryan Leaf, Washington State (Completion Percentage: 55 percent). The (1) QB taken in Round 1 with better than 60% (Manning).

1999: Akili Smith, Oregon (Completion Percentage: 58 percent); Cade McNown, UCLA (Completion Percentage: 58 percent). The three QB's taken in round 1 with better than 60% (Couch, McNabb, Culpepper)

2000 Only 1 QB selected in Round 1. Pennington had higher than 60% completion percentage.

2001: Michael Vick, Virginia Tech (Completion Percentage: 54 percent)

2002: Joey Harrington, Oregon (Completion Percentage: 59 percent); Patrick Ramsey, Tulane (Completion Percentage: 57 percent. The (1) QB taken in Round 1 with better than 60% (Carr).

2003: Kyle Boller, California (Completion Percentage: 53 percent); Rex Grossman, Florida (Completion Percentage: 57 percent). The two QB's taken in round 1 with better than 60% (Palmer and Leftwich)

2004 J.P. Losman, Tulane (Completion Percentage: 59 percent). The three QB's taken in round 1 with better than 60% (Manning, Rivers, Rothlisberger).

10 out of the 21 QB's completed less than 60% of their final collegiate season:

Legends: None

Pro Bowl: Michael Vick

Stars: None

Some Success: Rex Grossman

Limited to No Success: Kyle Boller, Patrick Ramsey, Cade McNown, Joey Harrington, JP Losman

Failure: Ryan Leaf, Jim Druckenmiller, Akili Smith

11 Completed more than 60% of their passes in their final collegiate year.

Legends: Peyton Manning

Pro Bowlers Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb, Ben Rothlisberger, Eli Manning, Chad Pennington, Dante Culpepper

Stars: Philip Rivers

Some Success: Byron Leftwich

Limited to No Success: David Carr, Tim Couch

Thats a staggering 80% of the "Less Than 60%" group that have experienced little or no NFL success (based on a subjective common sense filter)

. . . and an equally staggering 73% of the "More Than 60%" group that are stars or better (Obviously there is some room for debate as to which categories I have ranked them in, but they should be fairly representative of the collective consensus).

With this is mind:

What do this years 1st Round Draft Picks bring to the table?

Mark Sanchez: 65.8%

Matt Stafford: 61.4%

Josh Freeman: 58.6%

Time will tell if this Statistical Model holds up for these 3.

Seahawks (NFL) Look A-likes.

iverson2169 — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:22:48 -0000

Offseason Fun:

I was looking through some old CD cases and realized how much Marcus Trufant looks like Slim from Boyz II Men.

via cache.daylife.com

via i4.photobucket.com

At any rate, there are alot of great (intellectually heavy) pieces out there now, so I figured I'd post some fun. Also, the Seahawks are a fairly specific category so I figured opening it up to the NFL would be better. I have a couple more I will post below.

What else can you find?

NFL to Tinker With the Draft Order?

iverson2169 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:35:59 -0000

I used the search tool and didn't see anything come up for this topic and thought it was interesting. Apologies if this is redundant.

Competition Committee to evaluate a new Method of Ordering Draft Picks.

The proposal: would keep non-playoff teams seeded as they normally would be, but would re-order the playoff teams according to performance.

At face value it seems like a step in attaining fair draft ordering, but discounts some factors such as lower quality teams riding a hot streak, and upper echelon teams suffering injuries.

This from the Full Article

"A team can win a playoff game and yet get to draft before the team it beat," Rich McKay, the committee chairman, pointed out yesterday.

That situation will occur next month when the Eagles get to pick 21st while the Giants pick 29th.