Post by TheShadow on Jun 6, 2006 17:03:27 GMT -5
www.sportsmemo.com/handicappers/ted/articles/609/
By Ted "Teddy Covers" Sevransky
I’ve been blogging here at sportsmemo.com for nearly a year, but I’ve never experienced anything like the feedback that I’ve gotten from my blog on the Oakland Raiders last week. In that blog entry, I wrote a negative opinion about the Raiders' chances for pointspread success in the upcoming season.
Emails literally flooded into the Sports Memo office after the blog entry got posted at some Raider Nation fan sites, and the vast majority of those emails were highly critical of my opinion. I thought that, due to the overwhelming response, it would be worthwhile for me to write a rebuttal of those criticisms levied against me by the Oakland Raiders fan base.
Let me start my rebuttal with two key points. First, I am not a journalist. It is not my job to take an even-handed approach to every blog entry and every article that I write. I get paid for my opinion on games, picking pointspread winners. If I wasn’t able to win more often than I lose, and produce a profit for my clients, I wouldn’t have lasted in the handicapping business in Las Vegas since 1998.
Secondly, in this line of work, you cannot afford to have any loyalty as a fan. My favorite team is the one that covers the pointspread for me; my least favorite team is the one that fails to cover the number. In that regard, I am a ‘blackheart’ and not a loyal fan by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, I grew up in New York, and I have some modest residual affinity for the Mets, Jets and Knicks. Yes, I graduated from the University of Michigan, leaving me with an alumni’s support for the Wolverines' football and basketball teams. But the reality is that I’m quite comfortable betting against all of the aforementioned teams. I care about only one thing – cashing tickets when I make correct decisions about who to bet on and who to bet against.
With that being said, let's revisit my blog on the Raiders' chances this season. In the process, I hope to answer the criticisms leveled at me from Raider Nation.
Here are some of the criticisms:
From ‘Harnes’
Your article is a joke. Get your facts straight before writing this stuff. Only ONE person was offered the Raiders head coaching job before Art Shell and that was Whisenhunt. He wasn't the "latest" to decline the job, he was the ONLY one to decline the job because his child didn't want to move. Why would you lead people to believe differently unless you have some bias, in which case you are a miserable sports writer.
The truth is you have no idea how the Raiders will do this season. The defense will be much improved and you have no more idea than I do what Aaron Brooks will do. Think back to how Jim Plunkett played BEFORE he was a Raider and then look at what he did AS a Raider. For all YOU KNOW Aaron Brooks could pull of the same thing. Yes it's unlikely, but before publish some opinionated article with bad facts, perhaps you should do some actual research to find out what really happened instead of just posting up your bias-laden garbage of an article. You have no credibility when your article is inaccurate.
From ‘DD’
I must comment on your obvious slam against the Raiders in the article entitled, "The Oakland Raiders Will Fall Behind In Tough AFC West"...
Did you not read anything about the Raiders before writing that drivel? It is quite evident that YOU know nothing about the organization. To say Art Shell has not coached in the league for over a decade when in fact, he was an assistant coach for both KC and Atlanta, is very ludicrous. Further you comment that "Dick Vermeil went 4-12 in consecutive seasons in St Louis upon his return to football following more than a decade out of the game. Yes, he took the Rams to a Super Bowl title in his third year at the helm, but that’s irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion". The only reason it is irrelevant is that it blows your opinion out of the water, doesn't it?
You go on with, “Brooks wasn’t a winner at Virginia in college," again not bothering to read anything before commenting like this is very unprofessional and quite the hater. Aaron Brooks actually was 16-7 as a starter, does that qualify as being a winner? He also led NO to a playoff win and a winning record (overall 35-33) so there goes your slant on him not winning at NO.
Of all that you have spewed forth in your article I take umbrage with this the most, “Just about every key player they have has some character issues”. If you would for the record please explain what the hell you mean by it. And please try not to use players of whom are dead, no longer with the team when the acts occurred or played for other teams before or since.
This is quite possibly the worst piece of, and I use the term loosely, professional journalism I have read this offseason about the Raiders. It is quite evident you are on the Raider Hater bandwagon and really don't know what you are talking about, which in effect shows how terrible your reporting is .I can't believe this article even got past your editor, which also shows that the company you work for has lost all credibility. In conclusion, I hope you will read up more on a team before you blast them again in the future. And not from the message board haters but from real, factual sources.
From ‘Mike'
"Theodore, if you wrote the piece on the Raiders, it appears you seem to be talking out the side of your neck, blathering on with inaccurate statements and predictions that really serve no purpose other then to fill the pages with ink.
The least you could do is get your facts straight when bestowing your insightful knowledge upon us. VERY MICKEY MOUSE!
Now, let’s take a look at what I actually wrote. My criticism began with a look at Oakland’s coaching change this past offseason
“Al Davis is a tough owner to work for, and the Raiders head coaching job was probably the least attractive opening of the ten available positions this past offseason. We’ve seen Davis shuttle through coaches at a near record clip since he fired Art Shell following the 1994 season, including successful coaches like Jon Gruden. Guess who got the job for 2006 after the truly dismal Norv Turner-era was mercifully cut short. Why, Art Shell of course!
“It’s surely worth noting that Shell got the job only after Pittsburgh offensive coordinator Ken Whisenhunt was the latest to tell Davis that he didn’t want it. Shell was the Raiders coach for a six-year span, guiding them to a 54-38 regular-season record and a trip to the AFC Championship game in 1990. Oakland has had only three winning seasons since Shell was fired, including that 4-12 debacle in 2005.
“But we’re talking about a guy that hasn’t been a coach in this league for more than a decade. Dick Vermeil went 4-12 in consecutive seasons in St Louis upon his return to football following more than a decade out of the game. Yes, he took the Rams to a Super Bowl title in his third year at the helm, but that’s irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
“Nor can we look at Joe Gibbs driving the Redskins back to the playoffs last year – we have to consider Gibbs 6-10 mark with the ‘Skins in his first season back on the job in 2004. It’s no easy task to have success with a new head coaching gig after an extended period of time away from that level of responsibility.
“But it gets worse than Shell for the Raiders coaching staff. New offensive coordinator Tom Walsh has been running a bed and breakfast resort in Idaho for the past five years. Walsh’s last season in Oakland back in 1994 cost Shell his job. Walsh might be the single most mystifying offseason hire in all of football, more bizarre, even, than Terrell Owens agreeing to play for Bill Parcells in Dallas. This guy is primed to fail.”
I stand by every single statement in those five paragraphs. Yes, Shell is not like Vermeil or Gibbs, who were completely out of football for an extended period of time prior to their return to the NFL. But the bottom line is that Shell has not been a head coach for more than a decade. It’s not like he didn’t try to get a head coaching gig. No other owner or GM was willing to give Shell a second opportunity.
Al Davis wouldn’t have given Shell a second opportunity either had his first choice been willing to take the job. To say that Ken Whisenhunt didn’t take his first NFL head coaching job because he didn’t want to move his family is, quite frankly, living in complete denial.
The more attractive coaching prospects – those with multiple opportunities – all looked elsewhere. Davis has a well-deserved reputation around the NFL as being a meddlesome owner. Norv Turner, Bill Callahan, Jon Gruden, Joe Bugel and Mike White have all left town following relatively short stints as Raiders head coaches during the past decade.
The situations with Gibbs and Vermeil are perfectly relevant in this case. Both were experienced, long-time coaches that had been out of the game for an extended period. Both went through very trying times upon their return before leading their respective teams to postseason success. All I’m concerned with here is the upcoming 2006 season. Given the track record of previous head coaches in relatively similar spots, it’s not hard to make the case that Shell is more likely than not to struggle in his first year back on the job.
It’s surely worth noting that there was absolutely nothing from the numerous Raider Nation emails about Tom Walsh. I pointed out last year that Steve Mariucci’s hire of Ted Tollner to be the offensive coordinator in Detroit last year was a complete joke. And the year before, I leveled all kinds of criticism of Herm Edwards bringing in Paul Hackett as the Jets' offensive coordinator. They were bad hires on paper and proved to be bad hires in reality. Walsh’s hiring has that exact same feel.
I then criticized the signing of free-agent quarterback Aaron Brooks.
“Free-agent signee Aaron Brooks was a coach killer in New Orleans, no improvement whatsoever over Kerry Collins. Brooks has the talent, no question about it, but he fits the classic Raiders profile – raw talent, poor on- field execution of that talent. Brooks wasn’t a winner at Virginia in college and he was never a winner for the Saints. Why should that change here?”
Yes, Brooks went 16-7 in two years as a starter at Virginia. In his first year as the starter, the Cavaliers didn’t make a bowl game and went 3-7 against the spread. It’s surely worth noting that Virginia lost three of its four games as an underdog by double-digit margins that year.
In 1998 Brooks led Virginia to a 9-3 record. However, Virginia faced a cupcake schedule that year, favored in 11 of its 13 games. Brooks lost his only bowl game, as a favorite to .
Brooks has continued to underachieve at the professional level. He has been a starter for the Saints since the 2000 season. In six years as the starter, Brooks guided the team to a grand total of two winning seasons and one playoff victory. His best year was probably 2003, when he threw for more than 3,500 yards with a 24:8 touchdown-to-interception ratio. He demonstrated intelligence, arm strength and athleticism on a consistent basis that year.
But since the 2003 season, Brooks’ numbers have dropped to the point that he was benched at the end of last year’s debacle. Questions about his work ethic, consistency and focus popped up repeatedly during his final two years in New Orleans. Comparing Brooks to Jim Plunkett? Please – that’s simply another Raider fan living in denial. It’s certainly worth noting that in a recent article at NFL.com, Vic Carucci asserted that Brooks will be on a very short leash if he gets off to a bad start, and could be quickly replaced in the starting lineup by the untested Andrew Walter. Head coach Shell was quoted as saying, "Nothing is promised to anybody.” That article can be found HERE.
Mea culpa for the following excerpt from my analysis of Oakland: “Just about every key player they have has some character issues.” Brooks, Warren Sapp and Randy Moss have well-documented character issues. I don’t see a locker room leader like, say, Tedy Bruschi in New England, or Joey Porter in Pittsburgh on this roster.
But my bold, blanket statement about the character of the whole team was probably a reaction to the fact that the Raiders have absolutely quit down the stretch in each of the last three seasons. Last year, the Raiders went 0-6 straight up and against the spread after Thanksgiving, including three straight-up losses as a favorite. Teams that quit on themselves, their coach and their season are not loaded with quality character guys. Look at what Nick Saban did in Miami last December as the opposite example. Last year's Dolphins was a team with character guys like Zack Thomas that played their hearts out down the stretch, without a chance to make the playoffs.
I’ll stand by this statement as well, without any reservations: “The AFC West is loaded – Denver, San Diego and Kansas City all have legitimate Super Bowl aspirations. That should leave Oakland as the prime contender for last place in this division once again in 2006.”
It's my opinion, the opinion of a handicapper, and not that of a journalist or a hater. I made calculated deductions about the Raiders' chances this season based upon my observations of their team in comparison to the rest of the league. It's not an attack. It's my judgment, and it's how I make my living.