Was first openly gay play drafted just a ploy to avoid Hard Knocks? A Chargers blogger shows us Myles Jack’s weaknesses. Smith Sr. calls out a fraudulent memorabilia dealer. New York Times gives scathing investigation of NFL’s concussion studies, but the NFL quickly fires back. The Browns are still expected to draft a quarterback.
Browns still expected to draft QB
In yesterday’s edition of links (good work, DA!), we told you that the Browns were picking up Robert Griffin III (whose nickname will become RGeeWhiz this year, because that’s what he’ll be saying as he thinks about what a terrible decision he made going to Cleveland). Later in the day, Adam Schefter reported that the Browns were still going to take a quarterback with their 2nd overall pick.
Signing RGIII not expected to have any impact on what Cleveland does in draft.
A QB still expected to be the pick.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 24, 2016
That is great news for Ravens fans, and not just because it means the Browns will have two quarterback failures join their team in the same year. If they were to take anyone besides a quarterback, it would take away from the Ravens’ options with the sixth pick. If they go quarterback, it widens the field.
I don’t blame the Browns for feeling the need for another option. With his injury trouble and limited understanding of coverages, he isn’t a good choice long-term. But it’s great news for the Ravens. Their decision to pick another quarterback gives the Ravens a shot at a player like Myles Jack, DeForest Buckner, or Joey Bosa.
Did the Rams Draft Michael Sam Just to Avoid Hard Knocks?
According to multiple sources at 590 The Fan in St. Louis, the NFL made a deal with the Rams so that they would draft Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to ever be drafted. The reports states that the Rams wanted to avoid being on HBO’s Hard Knocks so much that they were willing to throw away a draft pick to do so. In the same story, the writer, Howard Balzer, says the NFL is now “returning the favor” by putting the Rams on Hard Knocks.
If you’re thinking those two dots don’t exactly connect, I’m with you, and so is Barry Petchesky of Deadspin. I intentionally linked to Petchesky’s blog instead of Balzer’s for two reasons. 1.) I don’t enjoy giving writers and blogs clicks when they post conspiracy theory garbage. 2.) Petchesky’s theory actually makes sense.
“It’s very easy to picture the Rams willingly using their draft pick on Sam, but first informally reaching out to the league office to see if they could avoid doing Hard Knocks and bringing in a full documentary crew to cover a training camp that would have already been the furthest thing from normal. That would have been a real factor for Fisher and the Rams—we know they vetoed a planned Oprah Winfrey Network documentary on Sam that would have filmed in camp.”
Sounds much more logical, right?
For those unfamiliar with 590 The Fan (I’d guess 95% of you), their morning show host posted this tweet earlier in the week.
https://twitter.com/DINO590THEFAN/status/711762860129398784
Myles Jack: What if the San Diego Chargers drafted him?
The blog is written from a Chargers’ perspective because it’s written by Kyle Posey of Bolts from the Blue, SBNation’s Chargers blog. Still, it’s one of the more negative outlooks for Myles Jack that I’ve seen. The biggest aspects of Jack’s game that Posey doubts are his instincts and his strength.
It’s worth noting that Jack didn’t watch a ton of tape in college. That will have to change at the professional level.
Steve Smith calls out Twitter account selling fake autograph
Steve Smith recently called out a Twitter account selling his fake autograph.
https://twitter.com/89SteveSmith/status/712428793504391168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
As Clifton Brown of CSN Mid-Atlantic points out, many of his followers were very appreciative of him doing that. Twitter should probably ban that account.
In N.F.L., Deeply Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Big Tobacco
In a scathing criticism of the NFL’s concussion research, New York Times writers Alan Schwarz, Walt Bogdanich and Jacqueline Williams investigate the NFL’s omission of a number of prominent concussed athletes. After telling everyone that they had included all diagnosed concussions from 1996-2001, the NYT research found otherwise. It appears that they were trying to get the results they wanted. Peer reviews of the study noticed its flaws, too, and the NFL ignored them.
To conclude, the NYT team looks at the NFL’s connections with defenders of the tobacco industry who, for years, tried to cover up the effects of secondhand smoke. I find that argument to be, by far, the flimsiest, and the article even says so. For an article that largely based on facts, it could do without making that connection.
NFL response to New York Times’ concussion research story
If the Times article is scathing, then the NFL’s response is ferocious. Joe Lockhart, the VP of NFL Communcations, rips apart the two biggest allegations and the five ties the Times makes between the league and Big Tobacco. He uses the study’s notes of limitations to refute the Times’ arguments, which is significant if you’re diving into the research. But the statements the study does make like “all N.F.L. teams participated” and “all players were therefore part of this study.”
I can understand why they would be upset with the anecdotal ties to the Tobacco Industry, but the way they presented the study as comprehensive is hard to ignore. They are making strides to improve the long-term health of their players, but their history is shady. They’ve earned their reputation as an untrustworthy entity.
By the way, Mr. Lockhart, the way you ended this letter…
“The Times had the facts — now you do.”
Savage.
