Mark Madden wrote about a couple of things in Saturday's Pittsburgh Post Gazette, some of which I agree and some of which is off the mark. Either way, here are the parts of his article in question:
Don't question the Steelers if they take North Carolina State quarterback Philip Rivers with the 11th pick. It would be a slight reach, but the Steelers need to address that position in a serious vein for a change. If Miami of Ohio QB Ben Roethlisberger is still available when the Steelers take Rivers, however, it will touch off debate that will last the better part of a decade.This is the pick you have to question above all others. Especially when Rivers is probably no better than the 25th best player in the draft. I know he's the third best QB, but he throws sidearm, can't throw the ball deep and has taken the majority of his college snaps out of the shotgun. You have to question this pick at 11 -- and if Steelers choose Rivers with Roethlisberger still on the board, they better go undefeated the next few seasons -- otherwise that will be all anyone hears about.
Given a choice between the two, I'd take Roethlisberger. Better arm, better mechanics.
ESPN draft expert Mel Kiper Jr. projects Pitt cornerback Shawntae Spencer as a first-round pick because of a great workout for pro scouts. Spencer didn't make first- or second-team all-Big East. If Spencer goes in the first round, we should cancel the college season and go straight to the post-campaign workouts because the ability to actually play will have ceased to matter.I couldn't agree more. Why is it that guys contiually move up and down the draft board based on their combine / pro-day workouts? They've played between 30 - 45 college games against arguably some of the best college players in the country. Should that be more of a determining factor in future worth to a team than whether he cut 0.1 second off his 40 time? This method of evaluating talent seems to overvalue straightaway speed and pure strength and put less of an importance on football smarts. This is probably why teams like the Patriots can get quality players at bargain prices -- other teams undervalue their abilities.
Big East teams went 24-8 in the past two NCAA men's basketball tournaments. Big East teams have won the past two NCAA titles. How could anybody still think the ACC is better?In one sentence: strength of schedule. One more sentence: depth of good teams. I don't think anyone would argue that, from top to bottom, the Big East is better than the ACC.
The one tangible difference between Tiger Woods when he won the "Tiger Slam" and the struggling Tiger Woods of today is his equipment. Phil Mickelson called Tiger's Nike clubs "inferior." You've got to wonder if Mickelson isn't right. And you've got to wonder if Tiger might soon pick glory over endorsement money and switch back to Titleist.I've never talked about golf here before, but this statement is so patently ridiculous, I couldn't pass it up. First of all, anyone who thinks that Tiger Woods is slumping because of his equipment is a dope. Anyone who thinks that Tiger chose endorsement money over glory is also a dope. I'm guessing if Tiger called Titleist on the phone and said he'd be willing to come back for X dollars, Titleist would have the contract on his desk by the close of business (and why are Titleist the best clubs, anyway?). Woods' clubs were designed by Tom Stites, one of the best club designers around -- with a lot of input from Woods. In fact, he didn't put certain clubs into his bag until Nike got them exactly like he wanted them. It wasn't like he went to KMart, grabbed a set and went straight to the course.
I have no idea why Tiger is struggling (has anyone seen his fiance? -- that might have a lot to do with it), but I know it's not because he uses Nike's when he used to use Titleist (he won three amateur championships using Mizunos -- should he go back to those too?).
