Jump to content

NFL Draft (ESPN)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

291 replies to this topic

#31

Colonial Philistine

Colonial Philistine

Posted Apr 24, 2004 @ 10:53 PM

Okay?? It's a draft. The purpose of the draft is that the worst teams get the best draft picks. You can't control who drafts you because then what is the point of the draft.

Yeah, fine, that's the purpose of the draft (and yes, I do understand what a draft is) - but it's not necessarily something Eli has to sit and take. Elway didn't, so are you going to call him a whiny bitch too? (And, no, Elway's "baseball option" was bogus, unlike Bo Jackson's, as the commentators noted at the top of show.)

There is a slippery slope and what if next year, the top pick holds out until the Super Bowl champs draft him. The top pick isn't some divine right from God, you can't control everything you want.

Won't happen, because there isn't that much of a slippery slope. You needed a rather fortuitous confluence of circumstances here for this to have happened in the first place. The Chargers weren't sure who to take. They liked another quarterback almost as much. Manning (correctly or not) was the consensus number one pick. Finally, the team that really wanted Manning (and the team Manning really wanted), was close enough to make a trade do-able. If the Patriots had really, really wanted Manning, there's no way this happens. A 21 and a 32 plus a number one next year still wouldn't have gotten it done.

Manning didn't control everything - but he did control as much as he could, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It is a LOT different. His brother did that after his junior year and that was alright, he could go back college. Eli Manning and his daddy chose to be bitches.

Exactly how is that different? Please explain - because right now, all you're doing is name-calling without any explanation. Which is your right, but you can't have a rational discussion with that as a starting point.

You know the Colts were pretty bad when they drafted his son, but he had no complaints there. You know what that says to me? That Archie has no faith in his son and doesn't believe he's good enough to play and turn around a team like his son. That all said, Eli not only was a bitch, but he hurt his future team's future because they traded away a better QB and a shitload of picks to the Chargers and the Chargers got a QB they wanted all along.

The Colts may have been coming off of a 3-13 record, but as Kiper and Mortenson and Berman pointed out, the management staff they had in place (coach, GM, team president) were people that Archie knew and trusted, and who had good reputations in the league. The Chargers, on the other hand, have a relatively untested group in the front office, a coach who is somewhat of a lame duck (unlike Mora at that time, who was secure), and little more than LaDainian Tomlinson to point at as team positives. Add to that the uncertainty about the stadium and the Chargers staying in San Diego, and you have a much different situation than with Indianapolis back in 1998.

Archie might have faith in his son, but he probably doesn't want to watch Eli suffer as he did (which means that Archie, rightly or wrongly, is equating today's Chargers with the Saints of the 1970s). Rivers being a "better QB" is an open question (and will continue to be for five years), so that's a wash. And you are right - the majority of analysts are saying that the Giants paid too much for Manning. But that doesn't automatically hurt the Giants' future - for comparison, take a look at Atlanta (who gave up quite a bit for Michael Vick) and the Chargers. Which one of those teams has a brighter future, right now?

Edited by Colonial Philistine, Apr 24, 2004 @ 11:02 PM.


#32

Elliot

Elliot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 24, 2004 @ 11:43 PM

Did I really see a woman in the audience wearing nothing but a couple strategically place bumper stickers?


You sure did. That was my WTF moment of the draft...eerily similar to how I felt the first time I saw the unexpected bouncing breast scene in Airplane.

Detroit did a really good job today.

Still on the fence about the whole Manning situation as an observer, though if I was Archie, I would've done exactly the same thing for my son.

The key to the Manning trade is how the Giants do this year. It won't surprise me to see Charger fans rooting as heavily for the Giants to lose as they will for the Chargers to win. I felt the trade was one of those good-for-both-sides deals. Kerry Collins is so gone, though.

#33

RubbaBandMan

RubbaBandMan

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 12:29 AM

Yeah, fine, that's the purpose of the draft (and yes, I do understand what a draft is) - but it's not necessarily something Eli has to sit and take. Elway didn't, so are you going to call him a whiny bitch too? (And, no, Elway's "baseball option" was bogus, unlike Bo Jackson's, as the commentators noted at the top of show.)


Yes, yes it is something he has to take. It's part of the NFL rules and guidelines and if he doesn't like it, take ya bitch ass to the XFL(haha) or the CFL. Elway's baseball option was bogus in that it wasn't a major league contract, like Bo's, but he still coulda played ball for a year and then re-entered the draft. And guess what? Elway was a bitch too, except he came out in the media and said he didn't want to play for the Colts and not behind closed doors and not through his daddy.

Won't happen, because there isn't that much of a slippery slope. You needed a rather fortuitous confluence of circumstances here for this to have happened in the first place. The Chargers weren't sure who to take. They liked another quarterback almost as much. Manning (correctly or not) was the consensus number one pick. Finally, the team that really wanted Manning (and the team Manning really wanted), was close enough to make a trade do-able. If the Patriots had really, really wanted Manning, there's no way this happens. A 21 and a 32 plus a number one next year still wouldn't have gotten it done.

Manning didn't control everything - but he did control as much as he could, and there's nothing wrong with that.


The Chargers knew who they were taking, it was Manning for two reasons. He was a great quarterback and he was a name. If they didn't draft Eli Manning, the fans would have turned on them so fast, it wouldn't have been funny. Plus, their division rival Raiders would have drafted him and that would have been trouble.

Exactly how is that different? Please explain - because right now, all you're doing is name-calling without any explanation. Which is your right, but you can't have a rational discussion with that as a starting point.


Well, Peyton could have come out after his junior year and been drafted, but he didn't like who could have drafted him, so he came back, completed his education and came out the following year. In no way, shape, or form did he make any demands or threats and he was well within his right to do what he did. Eli chose to be a punk ass.

Well Larry Fitzgerald grew up around the Vikings and knew all their personnel so maybe he shoulda been a bitch and held out till then. All I know is that Manning had no right to blackmail the Chargers, which is what he did. The fact that he did so and then CRIED to the media that "It was supposed to be behind closed doors," just screams out bitch to me. The league COMMISIONER called Eli Manning's dad to go talk to the Chargers and his son so that this whole ridiculous situation could be worked out. Even Tagliabue thought this was a horrible thing to do. I hope he get his cranium cracked by the Eagles and Philly fans cheer it.

#34

Colonial Philistine

Colonial Philistine

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 12:57 AM

I guess we disagree, then. I don't think it was something Manning had to take. If he (and his father) really, really didn't want to go to San Diego, then he has every right to do everything in his power to avoid it. It's not part of any written rules or guidelines that Manning had to obey - if it were, then we wouldn't be talking about Bo or Elway.

Not sure how your response to my bit about "this won't happen every year, and it certainly won't be a slippery slope" actually demonstrates how there will be a slippery slope.

Well Larry Fitzgerald grew up around the Vikings and knew all their personnel so maybe he shoulda[sic] been a bitch and held out till then.

Actually, from the stories, his closest connections are to Dennis Green (his new head coach), Cris Carter (retired), and Randy Moss (the Viking). Which means he ended up in just the place where he wanted. And, like I said above (regarding your slippery slope assertion) - there's no way Fitzgerald would've been able to get the Vikings and the Cardinals to switch even if he'd wanted to, mostly because the Vikings were too low in the round to make it happen.

All I know is that Manning had no right to blackmail the Chargers, which is what he did.

Actually, he has every right (legal/contractual) to do so - so did Bo and Elway. Was it "right" (morally) for him to have done so - the question the commentators seemed to split on, when they addressed it at all - that's another question. I think it's fine for him to have done so. You don't.

The fact that he did so and then CRIED to the media that "It was supposed to be behind closed doors," just screams out bitch to me.

Why? Why does that scream out "bitch" to you? And I don't remember any tears - or were you talking about a different kind of crying?

The league COMMISIONER[sic] called Eli Manning's dad to go talk to the Chargers and his son so that this whole ridiculous situation could be worked out. Even Tagliabue thought this was a horrible thing to do. I hope he get his cranium cracked by the Eagles and Philly fans cheer it.

Has Tags ever said that he thought Manning did the wrong thing? I don't think so. Now, as commissioner, it's his job to solve problems like this - so if he did do anything to help get this trade done (and it's not clear that he did - in his interview with Berman, he said that he had little part in the deal), that does not necessarily mean that he disapproved of Manning's actions.

We seem to disagree on a fundamental level. You seem to support the position that draftees get no say in where they go, or what happens to them, and that's a good thing. I think that it's generally a good thing, but it's something imposed on them without draftees getting any say in the matter. The best they can do is have their agents talk to certain franchises in order to get deals done (trading of picks) so they go to someplace more as opposed to less preferable. This situation really isn't much different - Eli Manning just took a harder line than most picks, because he had the ability to do so (confluence of circumstances, etc.).

Frankly, it seems like the Chargers have done a very good job spinning this to make the Mannings (and Eli's agent) look bad. This, from a franchise that traded up to draft Ryan Leaf, that traded away Michael Vick for a quarterback they're going to bail on (Drew Brees) and a less-than-stellar receiver (Tim Dwight), that can't nail a stadium deal down in a great market, that might move to LA shortly, that hasn't drafted anyone of more-than-average quality except Tomlinson in almost a decade, and that's also been in the division basement for as long as anyone cares to remember. There are probably other things wrong with the Chargers - that's all I can come up with on short notice. But when you let Junior Seau leave, and leave on bad terms, and he's still one of the best defenders you've got (even if he's lost a step), then something's wrong.

#35

Hasbro

Hasbro

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 1:55 AM

With all the Manning intrigue today and the tons of trades this could have been on of the best draft televised ever, but Berman and Irvin just dominated the coverage too much. They took too much time away from Mortinson and Kiper.

And you know who finally struck me as missing: Tom Jackson. Why would ESPN not have a teammate of John Elway's from his rookie year to his ascendency to the Super Bowl to give some insight on Eli Manning. Instead we get ESPN's answer to Deion Sanders. The question being is there a studio host more annoying, egotistical, towel snapping, unlikable and dumber than Deion.

I hope ESPN isn't pushing out TJ for standing up about Jabba the Rush last year.

I'm sure the first draft telecast was 1982 when Barry Sims went no. 1. I don't know about the NBA.

#36

cutecouple

cutecouple

    Stalker

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 2:12 AM

Did I really see a woman in the audience wearing nothing but a couple strategically place bumper stickers?

Is this her? Apparently her name is Sondra Fortunato, and she makes a living at this.

Edited by cutecouple, Apr 25, 2004 @ 2:17 AM.


#37

yb125

yb125

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 3:19 AM

As a charger fan I 'm almost glad Manning didn't want to come here, I had wanted Gallery and at first was hoping to trade down and get him, but rivers and the picks is good enough, and IMNSHO better the Manning. I expect both the Chargers and Giants to sux this season giving the Bolts two high picks next year, assuming they don't use one in the possible supplemental this year.

#38

Elliot

Elliot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 6:10 AM

Did I really see a woman in the audience wearing nothing but a couple strategically place bumper stickers? 

Is this her? Apparently her name is Sondra Fortunato, and she makes a living at this.


Yes, it was! The pan across her was fast enough that all I saw was blond hair and the bra-sized cardboard sign across her chest. The pink outfit underneath fooled me, as it was probably supposed to.

#39

zooropa

zooropa

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 9:01 AM

With all the Manning intrigue today and the tons of trades this could have been on of the best draft televised ever, but Berman and Irvin just dominated the coverage too much. They took too much time away from Mortinson and Kiper.

Yeah. The draft is Mel Kiper's day. It's what ESPN has him on contract for. But every year they add more and more commentators and interviewers and roving reporters and end up with less and less Mel. This year was the worst yet with that idiot Irvin in there. ESPN needs to understand that sometimes less is better. Continuing to add more people and more flash to the broadcast does not mean a better broadcast.

I hope he get his cranium cracked by the Eagles and Philly fans cheer it.

I'm a Giants fan but I am so looking forward to whiny boy's first game in Philly. C'mon Eagles fans, don't let me down. Boo him like you've never booed before!

One thing that keeps getting mentioned in defense of the Mannings is that Archie was just being a good dad looking out for his little boy because he didn't want Eli to end up spending his whole career with a bad organization like Archie did. The NFL today is not like the NFL of Archie's time. Players have a lot more freedom of movement from team to team. Eli could have signed a short three or four year contract and then, if the Chargers were still terrible and had not shown any inclination to improve the team, he could walk away and sign with another team of his choosing. Yes, he would probably take a beating in those first years, but not really any worse that what will happen to him with the team of his dreams, the Giants, who are not much better at protecting QBs right now than the Chargers are. Just ask Kerry Collins.

#40

VeronicaNC

VeronicaNC

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 10:17 AM

Elway didn't, so are you going to call him a whiny bitch too?

Yes, actually I do. I still hate John Elway to this day.
I figured Tom Jackson refused to kiss the Mannings' asses, so ESPN wouldn't let him work, since kissing the Mannings asses seemed to be a requirement to work at ESPN yesterday

#41

RubbaBandMan

RubbaBandMan

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 12:58 PM

Actually, he has every right (legal/contractual) to do so - so did Bo and Elway. Was it "right" (morally) for him to have done so - the question the commentators seemed to split on, when they addressed it at all - that's another question. I think it's fine for him to have done so. You don't.


It's not right, morally or whatever, to blackmail anyone.

Why? Why does that scream out "bitch" to you? And I don't remember any tears - or were you talking about a different kind of crying?


Of course he didn't cry, there are multiple meanings to the word cry. It's like if I sleep with your girl and then tell you because I'm your friend. You break up with her and then she tells everyone how pissed she is at me for telling her ex, how I'm the reason they broke up when she was clearly in the wrong. That's a bitch.

Has Tags ever said that he thought Manning did the wrong thing? I don't think so. Now, as commissioner, it's his job to solve problems like this - so if he did do anything to help get this trade done (and it's not clear that he did - in his interview with Berman, he said that he had little part in the deal), that does not necessarily mean that he disapproved of Manning's actions.


Tags asked Archie to talk to the Chargers so that they could get past this "I don't wanna play for the Chargers" because it is wrong and looks bad for the league. Of course he had little to do with the trade because it came from a bitch situation and it would be seen as tampering.

We seem to disagree on a fundamental level. You seem to support the position that draftees get no say in where they go, or what happens to them, and that's a good thing. I think that it's generally a good thing, but it's something imposed on them without draftees getting any say in the matter. The best they can do is have their agents talk to certain franchises in order to get deals done (trading of picks) so they go to someplace more as opposed to less preferable. This situation really isn't much different - Eli Manning just took a harder line than most picks, because he had the ability to do so (confluence of circumstances, etc.).


Yes we do. I support the full way of the draft as set up by both the NFL and the NFLPA. You don't. The purpose of the draft is so that the worst team gets the best player in order to rebuild. If Manning doesn't like the agreed upon rules, he can try to sue, like Clarett, and change them. What other rules doesn't he like?

Frankly, it seems like the Chargers have done a very good job spinning this to make the Mannings (and Eli's agent) look bad. This, from a franchise that traded up to draft Ryan Leaf, that traded away Michael Vick for a quarterback they're going to bail on (Drew Brees) and a less-than-stellar receiver (Tim Dwight), that can't nail a stadium deal down in a great market, that might move to LA shortly, that hasn't drafted anyone of more-than-average quality except Tomlinson in almost a decade, and that's also been in the division basement for as long as anyone cares to remember. There are probably other things wrong with the Chargers - that's all I can come up with on short notice. But when you let Junior Seau leave, and leave on bad terms, and he's still one of the best defenders you've got (even if he's lost a step), then something's wrong.


There was nothing to spin. The Mannings look like dicks because they were/are dicks. So is Eli's agent. When they traded up to get Leaf, they needed a quarterback badly, he didn't work out, it happens, hindsight is 20/20. What other team hasn't gotten a bust? And when they traded away Vick, they got a running back, which they also needed, for a quarterback they didn't. And LaDanian is the Best All-Around Running Back in football. And he's had a hell of a better pro career than Michael Vick. The Chargers won in the trade. Junior Seau was old and wanted Young Stud money which he didn't deserve.

And I bet Tom Jackson had better things to do, Hasbro, for hours on a Saturday and kiss ass.

And WORD to zooropa about the turnover ability of teams in the NFL. That's the purpose of the draft.

#42

prophetreturns

prophetreturns

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 1:06 PM

Let me add my voice to the Eli hate.

Eli wasn't even a member of the NFL before yesterday's draft and yet he thought it was okay to whine about refusing to play for San Diego?!? He had no right to bitch and moan. The rules were made and agreed upon by people who made the league great long before he was born. If he didn't like it he always had the option of NOT playing in the NFL and taking his skills to Oh, Canada! Or maybe he could have played minor league baseball somewhere. He's spoiled. The draft is determined ultimately by the teams, not the players. You play for the team that picks you, regardless of whether or not you like the organization. I hate it when any player of any sports thinks he's actually above the sport and wishes to change the rules of a draft. You would think what happened to Pat Tillman would have made Eli realize that getting millions to play in San Diego is not all that bad. There are a lot worse jobs out there (not to mention more dangerous ones) that pay a whole lot less. Get over yourself, Mr. Manning. The media seems almost unified on Maurice Clarette (sp?) but too many are giving Eli a free pass even though his choice to me is just as reprehensible.

#43

Gimme Stitches

Gimme Stitches

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 3:02 PM

Is it possible for ESPN to fit a few more factoids and updates on my TV screen while the draft is going on? My god, I was at work yesterday, and I got to steal a glance at the TV for a second to try and find out who the Bucs selected in the first round, but after staring at the endless parade of information scrolling across the TV for a few minutes, I came away more confused than anything else.

As was already said, sometimes less is more, ESPN.

#44

cronox5

cronox5

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 3:36 PM

I bet when anything goes wrong at Giants camp, Coughlin's gonna hear nothing but:

"I'm ELI MANNING, BITCH!"

8-)

#45

Elliot

Elliot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 7:08 PM

And so it ends. Nice to see the Giants as Draft Day players for a change.

#46

TracyT37

TracyT37

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 7:57 PM

I agree with Colonial. If the Chargers were selecting Eli, the Chargers would of use him as a promotional tool. No one blackmailing each other. Oh, everyone, you forgot one component to the situation: Marty Schottenheimer. Coach Marty wanted Rivers all the way. He had the same delivery as Marty's first QB: Bernie Kosar. He became successful and lead the Browns into the playoffs. That was from day one when the Senior Bowl began. With no Eli Manning (who was suppose to be in the Senior Bowl, but opt-out), Rivers replace him and impress Marty. The confrontation between Manning and the Chargers is bascially the FO trying to draft Manning for promotion. Eli didn't want to be part of it and that's why there's arguments. I agree that if you draft someone, its your property, but If you have turmoil between the organization (The FO and Marty), someone is giving mixed signals. That person was AJ Smith, who acted like The Spanos mascot. Although he got the deal done at the end, he was the true prick of the whole situation. I believe The Mannings knew Marty wanted Rivers and I think they ask AJ and the org to not draft him because to be honest, Marty didn't had a good look at Eli. Yeah, he's a great QB, but not in Marty's system, and if Eli were been drafted, I can see the clashes between Marty and Eli, since Marty loves goofy deliveries. AJ wanted to protect the Spanos investment and wanted something for the fans (really bad move). Eli had a right at the time because the coach didn't want him in the beginning. It was about Eli being a dill-do for SD for the FO. And if Eli was been drafted, the organization would of been down the drain for a long time. With extra picks, the Chargers reduce the rebuilding process by two years. The trade worked out on both teams. Oh, let me correct myself, someone did get blackballed and that was Marty.

#47

bettymojo

bettymojo

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 8:02 PM

The Giants did give up two draft picks too many for Manning.

But WTF is the matter with the Eagles? You trade your first and second round picks to San Fran and then take a Tackle? Whose idea was this?

#48

Hasbro

Hasbro

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 8:30 PM

Yeah, he's a great QB, but not in Marty's system,

The only QB that worked in Marty's system was John Elway. When Marty and all of his family are fired next year he can go back to his job of appearing in Elway documentaries talking about giving up come backs to Elway.

#49

bettymojo

bettymojo

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 9:09 PM

Never mind. I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

Edited by bettymojo, Apr 25, 2004 @ 9:09 PM.


#50

Elliot

Elliot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 10:33 PM

With extra picks, the Chargers reduce the rebuilding process by two years.


In theory, yes, but the Chargers have been such a poorly run organization (something the Mannings evidently were well aware of), that even the additional picks might not be enough to make a significant dent.

#51

BewareThePhog

BewareThePhog

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 10:57 PM

And I love the Draft because of 3 little words:

Mel. Kiper. Jr.

You forgot something. It's not Mel Kiper, Jr. It's Mel Kiper, Jr...draft expert!

Yeah. The draft is Mel Kiper's day. It's what ESPN has him on contract for. But every year they add more and more commentators and interviewers and roving reporters and end up with less and less Mel. This year was the worst yet with that idiot Irvin in there. ESPN needs to understand that sometimes less is better. Continuing to add more people and more flash to the broadcast does not mean a better broadcast.

Best point I've seen. ESPN just does not get it. The people who tune into the draft are the hardcore fans, who want to see analysis of the players being chosen. What does that mean? Lots of tape with MK, Jr voice-overs.

We don't need Andrea Kramer and her round-table of players. But of course, ESPN is trying to cross-promote their lame morning show by having them on the set of that pathetic show. (It's all about the 18-34 male demographic, you know..)

We don't need to have the Edge NFL matchup bunch, particularly when they chime in with general commentary on NFL moves that have taken place weeks ago. ("Let's talk about Terrell Owens' move to Philadelphia". Guys, that's OLD news by now. A little focus, please...)

We really don't need Michael Irvin at the draft. People have said that Eli's moves in the wake of Tillman's death came off poorly - how about ESPN shoving Mr "Don't you know who I am?" down our throats? Why they give this ass even a second of air time is beyond me. Any time an ESPN commentator expresses dismay at the behavior of modern athletes, I'm just amazed at that network's hypocrisy.

We don't need to have the videoconferencing of endless people analyzing the Mississippi Moron's manipulation of the draft. When they do use the videoconferencing, they need to do so judiciously, and time it so that it won't disrupt the other aspects of the draft.

And as you can tell from the paragraph above, no, I'm not an Eli fan. That was just one more demonstration of the fact that only one faction in sports is getting screwed. The owners get theirs. The players get theirs. The sleazy agents get theirs. And the fans just have to take it every time. Of course, this draft coverage was another example - ESPN was more concerned about branding their other broadcast assets and kissing up to potential interview subjects/network endorsers than they were about the quality of their coverage. It's a pity that the competition is in terms of the amount of $$ that is paid for coverage rights - because if multiple networks got to cover the draft, ESPN just might realize that they're not as great as they think they are.

Edited by BewareThePhog, Apr 25, 2004 @ 10:58 PM.


#52

Berm

Berm

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 11:02 PM

A big fat word to all the crap on the screen during the draft. I hate that! ESPN's gotten increasingly worse about this over the last couple years. During Baseball Tonight they seem compelled to put the topic being discussed onscreen every couple seconds... dude, I'm WATCHING the show. I can HEAR. I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'm divided on the whole Manning issue, but I did hate Berman's ass-kissing and his repeated "classy move, classy move." Classy move?! He walked to the podium, shoved the hat under his arm, half held up the jersey, and looked like he was at a funeral. I hate it when athletes who do what they're SUPPOSED TO DO get treated like they just did something earth-shattering. Atleast pretend you're happy that you got picked number one, okay?

As much as Archie may have wanted to protect Eli during draft weekend, I think a lot of the backlash was because it really should've been Eli doing all the interviews on ESPN on Wednesday and Thursday and not Papa Manning. It definitely gave the impression that Eli is just a kid hiding behind Daddy to avoid the big, mean press machine. Archie should've patted him on the head and said, "Welcome to the NFL, son."

I still love Peyton, though. I was actually relieved to see him onscreen briefly instead of Archie and Eli.

#53

Colonial Philistine

Colonial Philistine

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 11:19 PM

Honestly, the most awesome part of the coverage was when Mr. Irrelevant got drafted, and Mel immediately goes into a detailed breakdown of who the guy is, his numbers, his stats, his brief bio, and his projected status. Golic was sitting there with this "holy shit, is he really doing this off the top of his head?" look on his face.

Yeah - definitely get rid of Irvin. He has the most annoying habit of wanting to get the last word in, even when he hasn't done the work the other guys have to get ready. Give me Kiper, Mortenson, and maybe an ex-head coach. That's it.

Hearing from the players is kind of interesting - but they overdid it. Jansen, just like last year, seemed the most prepared. He's definitely going to have a job somewhere doing commentary/play-by-play after he retires, if he wants it.

#54

zooropa

zooropa

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 8:26 AM

ESPN was more concerned about branding their other broadcast assets and kissing up to potential interview subjects/network endorsers than they were about the quality of their coverage.

I wonder if ESPN isn't still trying to make amends to the NFL for 'Playmakers'. I don't think they really expected both players and league officials to come out so vehemently against that show and now they're afraid of further offending the NFL cash cow. I can accept Berman being a colossal ass-kisser because he pretty much always is when it comes to the NFL. But I just find it hard to believe that not a single one of the dozens of ESPN commentators there uttered even a tiny peep of criticism about how manipulative the Mannings were. I am really starting to believe that they were under orders not to possibly offend the NFL by criticizing the league's #1 draft choice.

At least not all the media is afraid of telling the truth: http://www.usatoday....-saraceno_x.htm

#55

cheesesteak

cheesesteak

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 8:41 AM

If I counted correctly, Eli Manning has been called a "bitch" 387 times in four pages. Keep up the good work.

My take on the issue is that Eli Manning wasn't willing to put in the effort to make a bad team better. He wanted to have a ready made good team waiting for him. Or maybe he didn't feel he was good enough to make a bqd team better. He could have been a savior in San Diego but chose to be another cog in New York. I live in Philadelphia. This can be a vicious sports town. I think New York is worse. Eli better not fuck up or he'll wish he had signed with the Chargers.

Oh yeah, the Giants got *ripped* off.


But WTF is the matter with the Eagles? You trade your first and second round picks to San Fran and then take a Tackle? Whose idea was this?

Well, Andy Reid is a great big fat guy. I think he wanted somebody fatter than him on the team.

#56

GooberPyle

GooberPyle

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 8:57 AM

the Giants got *ripped* off.


By trading Heath Schuler for Heath Schuler?

#57

jjfc

jjfc

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 9:40 AM

What got lost in the whole Eli saga is when did Philip Rivers become an NFL caliber QB? He was projected as 2nd-3rd round in January. There hasn't been any football since then, and he moved up to the 4th pick.

How upset did Roethlisberger look when he dropped to 11th? Which really wasn't his fault. There just happened to be a spate of bad teams with stable QBs which is rare.

#58

Elliot

Elliot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 10:19 AM

Not sure about the Rivers love myself. He really skyrocketed seemingly out of nowhere.

There seems to be more and more evidence appearing that the QB isn't the be-all-and-end-all of a good football team (and, conversely, that great QBs don't necessarily raise a bad team). I liken it to starting pitching in baseball. Bad teams can have good starting pitching, and championship teams can win without good starting pitching, but the percentages say that the starting pitching has to be there to compete at a high level on a regular basis. The Eagles may not have won yet, but McNabb gets them in a position to win every year. That's why I like the Manning trade.

#59

Colonial Philistine

Colonial Philistine

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 10:38 AM

RubbaBandMan et al,

You might want to check out this piece from SI.com's Phil Taylor. I don't always agree with the man, but he makes the point far better than I did.

If what he's saying is true, then the "blackmail", "how can he do this when Pat Tillman just died a hero" and other remarks might be just a bit off-base.

Also, I haven't noticed that many sports reporters/columnists doing the virulent Eli-bashing - just the fans, which might mean something.

Edited by Colonial Philistine, Apr 26, 2004 @ 10:44 AM.


#60

cheesesteak

cheesesteak

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 11:49 AM

the Giants got *ripped* off.


By trading Heath Schuler for Heath Schuler?


By trading Heath Shuler, a 1st and a 5th for Heath Schuler.

Methinks young Manning may regret his power play to the Giants when he's playing in windy, subfreezing weather at the Meadowlands and the Eagles D is blitzing everybody but the cheerleaders on every other play.

Edited by cheesesteak, Apr 26, 2004 @ 11:54 AM.