Thoughts from the McDonald's All-American Game
Two UNC recruits, G J.R. Smith (East team) and F Marvin Williams (West team) took part in the McDonald's All-American game on Wednesday. Williams never really got into the flow of the game (he finished with 3 points), while J.R. Smith was arguably as good as Dwight Howard (who'll probably be the first or second player taken in the June draft) in terms of making big-time plays (they ended up sharing the MVP award). Smith led all scorers with 25 points, was 5 for 10 from behind (way behind) the arc and had 4 nasty dunks.

This led to some speculation that Smith might now consider turning pro (but I think it was just that, speculation). Of course these types of performances must be taken in context -- and with the understanding that these guys are at an all-star game where a premium is placed on offense and defense is just an afterthought. Smith was also described on ESPN as having J.J. Redick range with Vince Carter hops (allegedly, Smith has a 44 inch vertical).

I'm sure Roy Williams watches these kind of games and cringes for a couple of reasons. As I mentioned, there is no defense and there are a lot of ill-advised shots. There also seem to be twice as many turnovers as assists, and one strong performance (and a misguided word) might tempt an player to take a shot at the NBA when college might be their best bet.

Hopefully none of the above will have a lasting effect on UNC's incoming class. In addition to Smith and Williams, UNC will also have point guard Quentin Thomas and perhaps (pending some legal problems) the all-time leading scorer in North Carolina high school basketball history, JamesOn Curry. The incoming freshman will add much needed depth to a very short bench and don't be surprised if Williams and Smith get a lot of playing time next year. If nothing else, Smith's presence should push Melvin Scott to work on his game and improve on his woeful assist-to-turnover ratio. The addition of Thomas should also take some of the pressure off Felton to carry this team.

If everyone's back, next year will be fun to watch.

A quick note on Livingston
My first thought after seeing Shaun Livingston, the 6'7" point guard slated to attend Duke (he scored 1 point), was that he looked really thin and there would be no way he would go pro. The commentators seem to believe that Livingston will base his decision on how well he plays in the all-star games. Apparently the pro scouts love this guy because he's tall with great vision and a great handle. The one knock on him (besides being skinny) is that he doesn't shoot very well. That said, I'm not sure that your all-star performance should be the determining factor on whether you go pro or not.

Here's a link to the East/West rosters for the game.

Moneyball vs. Academia
All this talk of Moneyball, Billy Beane and the young GMs he has inspired (Epstein, DePodesta, Ricciardi) has been too much for economist Steven Levitt (he received the 2003 John Bates Clark Medal -- given biennially to a person under the age of 40 who has made a "significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge."). This is what he had to say about Billy Beane and the A's in an interview with the Financial Times:

"There has been much hype recently about baseball clubs finding statistics to identify good players. Levitt read Michael Lewis's book Moneyball about the supposed innovators, the Oakland As, and is unimpressed. "If you look at all the stats they say are so important, the As are totally average! There's very little evidence Billy Beane [the club's general manager] is doing something right."

JC at Sabernomics.com talks about whether Levitt's claims are grounded in reality (it looks like Levitt's right, although some will probably disagree).

Cowher talks about the upcoming season
The Post Gazette reports some of Cowhers thoughts from the 2003 season and what he's looking for in 2004. Here are some of the highlights:

"There's room for more competition in the Steelers' backfield despite the presence of Jerome Bettis and Duce Staley.

..."I'm going in open-minded. I'm going to let them compete," Cowher said. "I like Verron Haynes. He's a guy no one's talked about. Verron, I think, is a pretty good running back. Jerome, I know he's anxious to compete. I know what Duce Staley can do. He's a three-down back, great hands, a player that Philadelphia's always kind of turned to in the playoffs. He's unselfish, a great blocker."

I hope this means that the Steelers are eyeing a RB in the early rounds. If RB Greg Jones (FSU) is available in the second round, let's hope the Steelers take him. He's been described as having Bus-like size, but faster. He has battled injuries in college, which is the main reason he may slip out of the first round.

No one has seen Verron Hayes finish a year without injury. The limited time he has seen, he's been effective, although he needs to minimize turnovers.

"There's no room for former Pro Bowl linebacker Jason Gildon, a starter since 1996 and their all-time sack leader. He will be traded or released...Linebacker Alonzo Jackson, a second-round pick who played only two games, is not a flop.

"He wasn't a disappointment... People say, why didn't you use him as a rusher? I would have if I had the luxury of a roster spot just to have him play on third down.""

This move is good for a couple of reasons. The Steelers can get rid of Gildon's big salary (even if they can't get anything for him) and Jackson will get a chance to quiet all of his critics. He played well in the Dallas preseason game in 2003, causing 2 fumbles, but of course that was against 3rd teamers. Hopefully we'll get to see what Jackson's learned from a year of watching from the sidelines.

"...there's still work to do, starting with the offensive line. He hopes things will settle down because many of the problems were caused by the ill health or injuries to tackle Marvel Smith and guard Kendall Simmons. Cowher wants more depth in the line, perhaps add a tackle, but is preparing to go with Oliver Ross as his starting right tackle."

I don't think that Oliver Ross is the long-term solution at right tackle. The Steelers should probably look to take an OT in the first three rounds, preferably someone that can come in and push for a starting job.

"Cowher gave quarterback Tommy Maddox a vote of confidence, explaining that his statistics suffered because of the problems with the offensive line and the running game, which Cowher promised would be much improved from its No. 31 ranking last season."

This year will tell if the problem is the offensive line or Maddox. I think Maddox will have a good year, and tend to agree that the porous offensive line made both running and passing a chore last season. Some 'experts' have said if the Steelers take a QB early, it will put added pressure on Maddox to perform, but I don't see a rookie QB playing one down next season (and they shouldn't take a QB in the first round unless than can get one of the top two)

""Hopefully he'll be able to get back to where he was," said Cowher [talking about Chad Scott], who expressed delight with the play last year of two other cornerbacks -- Deshea Townsend, who replaced Washington, and rookie Ike Taylor."

This can't be the Steelers answer to solving their cornerback woes -- hope. They still need to take a CB early in the draft and start phasing Scott out. I'm really surprised the Steelers haven't asked Scott to take a paycut.

The draft is 25 days away, and hopefully it will help clear things up.

Rivers with the 11th pick?
I really hope the Steelers are not trying to fool anyone by inviting draft eligible QBs Ben Roethlisberger and J.P. Losman to their facility next week, but conspicuously leaving out Philip Rivers. I prefer to think that they won't take him with the 11th pick because although he's 6'5", he throws side-armed -- effectively making him 6'0", he can't throw the deep ball and the Steelers have more pressing needs at CB and OT. And as I've said many times before, it doesn't always make sense to take a QB in the first round.

The Post Gazette is reporting that the Steelers are doing just that -- using the list of invitees as a smokescreen to outwit other potential Philip Rivers suitors.

There are a couple of ways to approach the draft. I think it's important to address team needs with the best available player. If Manning (and maybe even Roethlisberger) are gone by the 11th pick (and they will be), I think it's in the Steelers longterm interest to get the best CB available (which may be the first CB taken). If OT Robert Gallery is availabe at 11 (which he won't be) the Steelers have to take him. I'm no scout and no one ever asks my opinion, but the Steelers primary need isn't at QB, and I don't think it makes sense to take the third best QB with the 11th pick even though he may be only the 25th best player overall.

I really hope this is just a case of the Steelers not being interested in Rivers, but I have my doubts.

The Post Gazette also reports that other prospects visiting the Steelers' facility starting next week are two likely first-round picks, Ohio State cornerback Chris Gamble and Arkansas offensive tackle Shawn Andrews, both juniors. Andrews had weighed more than 360 pounds but has dropped about 20 pounds. Senior CB Ricardo Colclough of obscure Tusculum, considered a possible second-round pick, also will visit.

Gildon still on the block, Taylor gets a bonus
From the Tribune-Review:

"Steelers director of football operations Kevin Colbert said some teams have expressed an interest in trading for outside linebacker Jason Gildon.

"We are in discussions," he said. "We have had some teams that expressed an interest and they want to do their own further evaluation.""

Bonus for Taylor
Steelers cornerback Ike Taylor received a supplemental payment of $68,013 in the second year of the NFL's Performance Based Pay system.

Under the system, which was included in the extension of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2002, payment is determined based on a comparison of playing time to salary. It is given to players who are perceived to be outperforming their contracts.

And the Duhon lovefest continues
The New York Times has an article today about what an integral part Chris Duhon played in the the Blue Devils 66-63 victory over Xavier yesterday. I've heard more than enough about how Duhon 'does the little things' to help Duke win (since it appears he can't do the big things like score or minimize ill-advised passes).

I don't deny being a Tarheel fan, and I should be rightly accused of being biased (and maybe jealous), but come on, this guy ain't that good. Make a list of the top point guards in the ACC and Duhon finishes no better than fifth (John Gilcrest, Jarret Jack, Ray Felton and Chris Paul). Has he made some big plays this year? Sure. He beat UNC on a last second layup. But just because you dive into the stands and hurt your ribs, or you're able to jump into the air, catch the ball and call a timeout doesn't mean you're a great player. But don't believe me, take a look at the numbers:

NAME	SCHOOL	G	A/T ratio	Stl avg	Pts	FT%
Duhon	DUKE	32	2.1	2.3	9.9	0.726
Jack	GTECH	32	1.9	1.9	12.7	0.794
Gilchrist	UM	30	1.6	1.8	15.6	0.702
Felton	UNC	28	2.1	2.1	11.5	0.806
Paul	WAKE	28	2.1	2.8	14.2	0.842

Duhon is tied for first in assists-to-turnover ratio, third in steals, fifth in points and fourth in free throw percentage when compared to the four best point guards in the ACC. Am I missing something? These numbers are good, but they're certainly not great. Duhon has been a solid player for Duke, especially in that system, but why he's winning every award available isn't clear. He's a solid college point guard, but he shouldn't be a first team All-ACC or a third team All-American. Daniel Ewing was the only Duke starter left off the All-ACC teams, but I don't think anyone would argue that they would choose Duhon over Ewing.

Maybe I'm confused, maybe Duhon is terminal and this is an effort to make his last few days on earth pleasurable ones. If that's the case, then count me in -- I'm all for it. But if Duhon is a normal, healthy 21 year old, then I don't have any idea why he keeps winning awards and being named to All-Everything teams. And I admit it, I'm a biased UNC fan, but a quick look at his stats don't exactly offer resounding support either.

Is Sonny Vaccaro good for Basketball?
Sonny Vaccaro, the founder of the Roundball Classic, can't imagine why high school senior All-Americans Shaun Livingston and Marvin Williams (set to attend Duke and UNC, respectively) would choose college over the NBA. In a story reported in the Charlotte Observer last week, this is what Vaccaro had to say:

"...In these days of watered-down drafts and guaranteed contracts, anyone who knows he's a first-round pick is risking more than he's getting out of the college experience."

"...I think it's a no-brainer. They have to do it," said Vaccaro, who also represents a sports shoe company. "It's good that kid is getting an education. But that kid can put $3 million in the bank before he's 21 and still get an education later."

"...I think if you're guaranteed to go anywhere (in the first round), then you've got to go."

Vaccaro is generally acknowledged as a controversial figure in amateur basketball. The NCAA has been trying for years (unsuccessfully, I might add) to invent rules that make it more difficult for Vaccaro to do what he does best -- recruit young stars by providing perks that often appear to skirt the line between ethical and otherwise.

Vaccaro argues that providing benefits to players went on long before he was around and his primary concern is the players best interest -- "You can't find a kid I've hurt," he says.

While he may be a great judge of talent, I'm not convinced that just because a player might go somewhere in the first round they should forego college all together simply for a guaranteed NBA contract. First of all, the contract isn't guaranteed until you're drafted in the first round. And as it stands, there are 29 teams in the NBA and 12 high school seniors who have already declared for the draft. Conceivably, all 12 have every intention of getting drafted in the first round, otherwise it would be pretty risky to come out. And I'm not even considering all the college and international players who will make themselves eligible for the draft. At some point, you have to stop telling kids they should come out (preferably when you realize that there are more players who are worthy of being taken in the first round than there are teams with first round picks) and maybe encourage them to hone their skills in school for a year or two -- or at the very least, be honest with players who are marginal first round picks about their prospects of making it in the NBA.

By the way, what's so wrong with an 18 year old actually going to college? They're eighteen. Is it imperative that they grow up on the end of an NBA bench instead of on a college campus with people their own age? Is that so much more beneficial for their career in the long term? It's been widely reported that Kobe Bryant spent a lot of time alone when he was new to the league and that could have been due in part to the fact that he was a lot younger (and had less in common) than his teammates. Would Bryant have been better served going to college? Maybe, maybe not. At the very least it probably wouldn't have hurt his progress -- both as a player and a young adult. Granted, players like Bryant, Kevin Garnett, and Lebron James are exceptional talents. But don't forget that players like Tracy McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal struggled mightily their first few years in the league and it's not clear that going to college would have slowed their professional growth.

Don't get me wrong, I think players like Lebron James have every right to come out early. He was the best player in amateur basketball last year. But for every James story there are many more stories of players that were convinced they were better than they really were. Junior PF Mario Austin was convinced that he would be taken in the first round in the 2003 draft and left Mississippi State early. He ended up being taken in the second round by the Bulls, told there wasn't any room on the roster for him and not only didn't make it in the NBA, but he lost his last year of NCAA eligibility. Is Austin blameless? Certainly not, but the fact that he was 'guaranteed' to be a first round pick and it didn't materialize underscores how important the decision to come out early really is. And I don't think it can be dismissed cavalierly with a wave of the hand as Vaccaro suggests. And simply uttering, "If you're going anywhere in the first round it doesn't make sense to go to college," doesn't mean it's true.

When talking about Livingston and Williams Vaccaro went on to say:

""I think Shaun Livingston will be a 10-year all-star and a potential top-50 (NBA) player when it's all over. I think he is brilliant,"

..."I think Marvin Williams will be a 10-year all-star. He's so gifted, watching him run and handle.""

Vaccaro might be right, but I think his comments sound more self-serving that prophetic and unless every scout, GM and player personnel guy agrees, I'm not convinced Livingston or Williams should go pro (OK, maybe Livingston should forego college because he's going to Duke). I think it says something when 18-year old Livingston makes the most lucid point:

"It's all about timing. If the timing's not right, then college is probably the best decision."

Should Tommy get a raise?
Here's what ESPN's Len Pasquarelli wrote Friday:

"...Look for Steelers quarterback Tommy Maddox or his agent to start making noise again about the player's contract. Maddox was disappointed that Pittsburgh didn't upgrade his deal in 2003, but bit his tongue. That silence won't last much longer."

Here's what Maddox is scheduled to make over the remainder of his contract: $750,000 in 2004 and 2005 and $900,000 in 2006. Looking at list of quarterback salaries in 2002 (the last year I could find data), Maddox ranked 51st out of 103 -- and given that there are only 32 teams in the league, that means 19 backups made more than he did. In 2003 his QB rating ranked 18th out of 30 and his TD/INT differential ranked 17th best (plus 1).

I don't think anyone would argue that Tommy Maddox is overpaid and most people think he deserves a raise -- especially when he replaced a QB in 2002 that was making over $6 million. The question is whether the Steelers promised to rework his contract after they evaluated his 2003 season. And don't forget, Maddox signed with the Steelers in 2001, fresh off his MVP performance in the XFL with absolutely no prospects in the NFL. If he were still a backup, I'm sure his salary would be a nonissue, but given that he's now the starter -- and his backup makes more than he does (at least in base salary) -- he's sure to have a beef with the front office. But does he have a right to complain?

When thinking about what determines a QB's salary, the following are at or near the top of the list: TDs, INTs, QB rating and perhaps most importantly, winning percentage.

I took a look at data from the 2003 seasons to see if there was a relationship between salaray and performance at the QB position. Specifically, was salary a predictor of TD passes, interceptions, QB ratings or winning percentage. The thinking was that the more a QB is paid, the better his numbers should be. Of course there are other things to consider, like did the player improve over time, did the player switch teams (Plummer, for example), did the team overhaul personnel (i.e. rebuild) or did a big part of the offense miss a substantial part of the season (what would happen to the Vikings if Randy Moss went down, for example)?

In general, however, one would think that there should be a relationship between performance and pay, right? Well, when looking at the 2003 season, there was absolutely no correlation between salary and performance for the 32 starting QBs in the NFL. And when I say performance I mean TDs, QB rating, completion percentage, winning percentage and TD/INT differential. Now it could be the case that QBs have improved from one year to the next, and past performance certainly plays a part in salary. Knowing that, I decided to look at the 2002 statistics and compare any improvement/decline to the 2003 season. Again, no relationship between salary and performance.

Initially, I went through this exercise to come up with a model that would give an estimate of what Tommy should be paid based on his performance (and based on how his peers were paid for their performance). But given that there was no discernable relationship between salary and pay, it raises a new (and maybe more interesting) question, are QBs being paid what they are worth? I don't think anyone would argue that Peyton Manning is the most valuble member of the Colts, but why does Drew Bledsoe make over $5 million a year in Buffalo? And even though Mark Brunell enjoyed some success in the late 1990's, why has Joe Gibbs, in the minds of most NFL people, overpaid for his services -- especially when he has a young star-in-the-making, Patrick Ramsey making relatively little in comparison?

So getting back to the question of whether or not Tommy Maddox deserves a raise, I think the answer is probably 'yes.' If for no other reason than he's one of the lowest paid starting QBs in the league -- and he's been an above-average QB for the Steelers. I'm not saying the Steelers should break the bank, but maybe they should give him a contract with more performance incentives (which I think is better than upfront money anyway).

Of course, all this talk of more money assumes that the Pittsburgh front office promised to rework his contract at the end of last season. Now if that conversation never took place, the question becomes what would Maddox be doing now if the Steelers never gave him a chance? Or what if Kordell Stewart didn't go in the tank and was still starting in Pittsburgh?

I think the important thing to ask yourself if your Cowher and Company is, "How can we expect a player to go to battle every week (and after battling for the last two seasons) knowing that we don't think enough of his talent to pay him the median QB salary?" Of course if the Steelers don't think enough of Maddox to pay him more, that may be an indication they're willing to go with him one more season (or even go with Charlie Batch in 2004) and draft a QB early this April. Either way, this will be fun to watch.

How have Steeler opponents done this free agency? -- Part II
As the transactions slow this offseason, I'll take this opportunity to assess how Pittsburgh's opponents for 2004 have faired in free agency -- specifically, have these teams made themselves better than they were at the end of last season (with full knowledge that the draft in less than a month away). Technically, this could be called Part IIa because I'll first look at the Steelers home nondivisonal opponents and later in the week I'll look at the Steelers away nondivisional opponents (Part IIb).

This is part (2) in a series of (4). Part (1) looked at AFC North opponents improvements through free agency, Part (3) will look at AFC North opponents improvements through the draft, and part (4) will consider nondivisional opponents improvements through the draft.

Here's Part II -- The Nondivisional Home Opponents:

New England Patriots
Needs at the end of 2003:
Despite winning the Super Bowl for the second time in three years, the Pats have a very real need at RB. They have since released RB Antowain Smith, last season's leading rusher (even though he averaged only 3.5 yards per carry). New England re-signed third down back Kevin Faulk, but you can rest assured that they will take RB on the first day of the draft to fill that need for the next few years. C/G Damien Woody was a big loss upfront, but with four picks in the first two rounds, the Pats will fill that need as well. DT Ted Washington is now in Oakland and he was a big part of what made New England one of the best defenses in the league last season. Under the heading of 'one man's trash is another man's treasure': When the Steelers released P Josh Miller, it signaled the beginning of the end for Ken Walters. Miller is one of the best punters in the league and will bolster an otherwise pedestrian punting game. The Pats might also look to get more height on the outside. They've signed veteran WR J.J. Stokes, but this draft is very deep in talented receivers.

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
OG Russ Hochstein (re-signed)
WR J.J. Stokes (re-signed)
RB Kevin Faulk (re-signed)
LB Don Davis (re-signed)
DE Rodney Bailey (Steelers)
P Josh Miller (Steelers)
RB Patrick Pass (re-signed)
S Je'Rod Cherry (re-signed)

Players lost through Free Agency:
DT Ted Washington (Raiders)
OL Damien Woody (Lions)
S Chris Akins (Dolphins)
OL Mike Compton (Jaguars)
RB Antowain Smith

Even though Ty Law can't quit complaining how he's getting screwed (he'll make over $6 million this season), the Patriots are in an enviable position. They have a young, very competent quarterback, a young (albeit undersized and not including Troy Brown) group of receivers, a strong offensive line and a defense that was the best in the AFC. That said, Coach Bill Belichick will use the glut of draft picks to fill the few remaining holes on this team.

Draft picks in April:
The Patriots have 10 draft picks this April.
1(21), 1(32), 2(56), 2(63), 3(95), 4(112), 4(127), 5(159), 6(191), 7(223)

Likely first round pick:
It's no secret that the Patriots would love to have either RB Steven Jackson or Kevin Jones fall to them with the 21st pick. If it looks like that might not happen they may trade up, or draft RB Chris Perry or RB Greg Jones. The Patriots will probably use their second first round pick on Virginia Tech C Jake Grove (the best center in the draft) to replace Woody, who signed with Detroit this offseason.

Grade (through free agency):
The Pats lost two big parts of their team: C/G Damien Woody and DT Ted Washington, but Belichick has strengthened the punting game -- one of the weakest areas for the Pats last season. It looks like most of the action will take place in the draft. Grade: C -.

New York Jets
Needs at the end of 2003:
After a 6-10 season, the Jets had a lot to address. They released underachieving WR Curtis Conway, CB Aaron Beasley, S Sam Garnes, LB Marvin Jones and LB Mo Lewis. They're defense was porous at best and they should address this on the first day of the draft. Offensively, Chad Pennington will need more dangerous targets on the outside to complement a running game led by Curtis Martin.

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
OG Brent Smith (re-signed)
LB Eric Barton (Raiders)
CB David Barrett (Cardinals)
K Doug Brien (re-signed)
LB Quincy Stewart (re-signed)
SS Reggie Tongue (Seahawks)
LB Kenyatta Wright (re-signed)
WR Justin McCareins (traded 2nd round pick)

Players lost through Free Agency:
WR Curtis Conway (released)
OG Dave Szott (retired)
CB Aaron Beasley (released)
LB Mo Lewis (released)
S Sam Garnes (released)
S Tyrone Carter (Vikings)
WR Kevin Swayne (Redskins)
LB Marvin Jones (released)

The Jets gave up a second round pick to get WR Justin McCareins and that may sound steep, but McCareins is a solid receiver with height, speed and great hands. He will make Pennington's job a lot easier next season. There are still a lot of holes on the defensive side of the ball, especially after CB Antoine Winfield and S John Lynch spurned the Jets to go elsewhere (although in my opinion, Winfield going to the Vikings did the Jets a favor). These concerns should be addressed early in the draft, even though New York only has six picks.

Draft picks in April:
The Jets have 6 draft picks this April.
1(12), 3(76), 4(107), 5(138), 6(172), 7(203)

Likely first round pick:
There are some rumors that the Jets will take the best available CB with the 12th pick. Considering how volatile the player ranking have been, that could be DeAngelo Hall, Dunta Robinson, Chris Gamble, Will Poole, or whoever the flavor of the week is come draft day. They may also want to trade down and get more picks while still being able to get a topflight CB.

Grade (through free agency):
Getting McCareins is big for the Jets offensively, but after losing both Winfield and Lynch they still have a lot of work to do. Grade: B-.

Philadelphia Eagles
Needs at the end of 2003:
After watching the NFC Championship game it became painfully obvious that Donavan McNabb gets absolutely no help from his receivers. As a consequence, the Eagles made getting a high-profile receiver their number one priority. And they did just that when they acquired (although quite circuitously) Terrell Owens from the 49ers via the Ravens. That move alone would make for a great free agency, but Philadelphia addressed the defensive line situation when they signed Jevon Kearse. And while they may have paid too much for 'the freak,' he will certainly improve a defense that faired pretty well last season. RB Duce Staley is now with the Steelers, but Philadelphia is confident that Correll Buckhalter will have no problem picking up the slack.

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
DE Jevon Kearse (Titans)
LB Dhani Jones (Giants)
WR Terrell Owens (49ers)

Players lost through Free Agency:
LB Carlos Emmons (Giants)
RB Duce Staley (Steelers)
DE Marco Coleman (Broncos)
CB Troy Vincent (Bills)
CB Bobby Taylor (Seahawks)
OG Bobbie Williams (Bengals)
QB A.J. Feeley
DL Brandon Whiting (49ers)

Draft picks in April:
The Eagles have 6 draft picks this April.
1(28), 2(58), 3(89), 6(179), 6(186), 7(217)

Likely first round pick:
LB Carlos Emmons is now with the Giants, and both CBs (Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent) are gone so look for the Eagles to address these needs on the first day of the draft. Some draft boards have Philly taking a LB in the first round and a CB in the second round. At some point in the draft they will also hope to fortify the offensive line.

Grade (through free agency):
At least on paper, acquiring Terrell Owens will make Donovan McNabb's job a lot easier. Whether that is actually case remains to be seen. And although the Eagles overpaid for Jevon Kearse, he will bolster an already good defense. Replacing the defensive backfield will in part determine how successful the Eagles will be next year. Grade: A.

Washington Redskins
Needs at the end of 2003:
There's not enough space on this weblog to address all the problems the Redskins had at the end of the 2003 season. That said, new/old head coach Joe Gibbs has come in with guns blazing. New faces include QB Mark Brunell, CB Shawn Springs, LB Marcus Washington and RB Clinton Portis. They got rid of LB Jessie Armstead and P Brian Barker and perhaps the most selfish player in the NFL, all-time sack leader Bruce Smith. They still have needs at safety, defensive end and on the offensive line (don't forget QB Patrick Ramsey took more shots last year than Lebron James in the rookie NBA all-star game). Whether bringing in Brunell for veteran leadership was the right thing to do may also be questioned if he falters early and Ramsey doesn't see the field (personally, I think it's a bad idea).

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
DT Cornelius Griffin (Giants)
DE Phillip Daniels (Bears)
OL Lennie Friedman (re-signed)
LS Ethan Albright (re-signed)
LB Keith Mitchell (re-signed)
LB Marcus Washington (Colts)
TE Walter Rasby (Saints)
P Tom Tupa (Bucs)
C Cory Raymer (Chargers)
S Todd Franz (re-signed)
LB Lemar Marshall (re-signed)
CB Ralph Brown (Giants)
CB Walt Harris (Colts)
DT Joe Salave'a (Chargers)
WR Kevin Swayne (Jets)
QB Mark Brunell (Jaguars)
RB Clinton Portis (Broncos)

Players lost through Free Agency:
DE Bruce Smith (released)
LB Jessie Armstead (Panthers)
DT Lional Dalton (released)
P Bryan Barker (released)
DT Martin Chase (Giants)
WR Patrick Johnson (Bengals)

Draft picks in April:
The Redskins have 2 draft picks this April.
1(5), 5(134)

Likely first round pick:
Pro Football Weekly reports that rumors out of Washington suggest that the team has its sights set on two Miami (Fla.) players -- TE Kellen Winslow and FS Sean Taylor -- with its first-round pick if it chooses not to trade down to gather more picks. At first it appeared that the team would rather keep the pick, seeing as how owner Daniel Snyder likes star power, but the need for a defensive end is great enough that the team would consider trading down, since it doesn't view any DE prospect as being worthy of the No. 5 pick. Despite signing veteran Phillip Daniels, defensive end remains a bigger need than either free safety or tight end, but it will be tough to pass on two players who potentially could redefine the position.

Grade through (free agency):
The Redskins have outdone every other team in free agency, but not without a price. They only have two picks in April and they will feel the full force of their salary cap decisions in 2006. Until then, they will be competitive, but unless they win it all, I'm not sure it will be worth it.
Grade: A +.

Oakland Raiders
Needs at the end of 2003:
Where to start. The Raiders had more problems in 2003 than anyone would care to remember. The players basically gave up halfway through the season on a coach who gave up well before that. Norv Turner is now running the show and he's got a lot of work to do to get this team back to anything close their 2002 form. Gone are three LBs, including steroid-user and all-around nutcase, Bill Romanowski (was it any surprise that he was named in the whole BALCO thing?), DE Trace Armstrong and RB Charlie Garner.

Newcomers include DT Warren Sapp, DT Ted Washington and LBs Dwayne Rudd and Danny Clark. The Raiders still have huge questions at WR and QB if for no other reason than the average age at those positions is 56. RB is also a question after Charlie Garner moved to the Bucs. There has been speculation that malcontent Corey Dillion may end up in Oakland, but I'm not convinced that's a good thing. Unless Sapp can play QB (we know he can play RB), the Raiders might be in for another long season.

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
CB Charles Woodson (franchise)
OG Brad Badger (re-signed)
DT Ted Washington (Patriots)
OG Ron Stone (49ers)
CB Ike Charlton (Giants)
LB Danny Clark (Jaguars)
LB Dwayne Rudd (Bucs)
DT Warren Sapp (Bucs)

Players lost through Free Agency:
LB Bill Romanowski (released)
DE Trace Armstrong (released)
OL Matt Stinchcomb (Bucs)
DT Rod Coleman (Falcons)
LB Eric Barton (Jets)
RB Charlie Garner (Bucs)
LB Eric Johnson (Falcons)

Draft picks in April:
The Raiders have 8 draft picks this April.
1(2), 2(45), 3(67), 4(98), 5(129), 6(160), 7(195), 7(213)

Likely first round pick:
Barring any trades, the Raiders will probably take one of two WRs (Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Williams) or maybe a QB for the future (if available, Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger). And if they wanted to address a below average offensive line they could also take Robert Gallery. Basically because they have so many holes, whoever they take will certainly help this team -- if not next year, then in the near future.

Grade through (free agency):
Other than Charlie Garner, the other Raider departees were over the hill. The acquisition of DTs Washington and Sapp will immediately improve a poor defense, but both players have lost a step in the last few years. That said, the Raiders are moving in the right direction, but they still have a very long way to go to be competitive again. Grade: B.

Up next: Free Agent grades for the Steelers 2004 nondivisional away opponents.
*In case you missed Part I, find it here.

1 out of 4...is awful
Nice work. I was one for four last night in predicting the winners based on 'the model' (see below). I was wrong about Duke, Kansas and Texas. Note to self: you can do just as well by guessing. The good news is that I have a whole year to work on this model before I'll need to use it again. Now I'm just pulling for whoever plays Duke.

3 out of 4...is average
Well, I got three out of four games right last night using my "guaranteed to pick'em right" statistical model for the final 16 teams. Of course, just picking the favorites get's you three out of four too, but that's not the point. Anyway, the real test will come tonight when I have UAB beating Kansas and Illinois beating Duke. If I somehow manage to get those picks (which I even have trouble buying), I'll be in Las Vegas for the rest of the tournament.

Tarheel recruits take part in roundball classic
From Tony's Tarheel page:

"Tar Heel recruits Marvin Williams and J.R. Smith each participated - albeit on opposite sides - at the Roundball Classic in Chicago last night. Smith suited up for the east and earned MVP honors with his 16 point, 4 assist, 2 rebound effort while Williams contributed 15 points and 2 rebounds for the victorious West. Both players will also participate in the prestigious McDonald's All-Star game next Wednesday night as well."

Here's a story in the Charlotte Observer (free registration required) about the Roundball Classic MVP Shaun Livingston (he's going to Duke), Marvin Williams and J.R. Smith. Here's what Smith said about going straight to the NBA:

"I'm not going to say I won't turn pro," he said. "I want to be a college player. I want to play for coach (Roy) Williams. But it would be great to play in the NBA because that's everyone's goal out here.

"You only have so many chances to get there. If that's my chance, I'll take it."

Here's a look at the 2004 Roundball Classic rosters.

Has Pedro lost some juice?
Today's Boston Globe talks about how Pedro Martinez has had trouble hitting 90 mph on the radar gun during spring training. The story does go on to say that Pedro still puts up outrageously good numbers, but the fact that he's throwing in the high 80's does cause some to pause (at least for journalists looking for a story).

This is a prime example of people overvaluing raw velocity. Baseball is full of pitchers who are very successful because of how much movement they have and not how hard they throw (John Tudor when he was with the Cards, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux today). Baseball is also full of guys who throw lasers but when they pitch it often looks like it's snowing because of all the white orbs falling from the sky (my favorite John Rocker, for example).

Pedro makes the point much better than I did here when he says:

"Lost my fastball? . . . 90, 91, nobody lost a fastball. That's a good fastball. And if anybody wants to test it, let the scouts stand there with a bat, I'll beat them at 91 . . . You go to our minor league complex, you'll find a lot of guys at 95, 97 miles an hour and they're still in the minor leagues. Is that a coincidence? Why would that be?"

Exactly.

85 Years Without a Ring and Still Happily Married
In todays Providence Journal:

"An upcoming documentary about the agony and ecstasy of the 2003 Boston Red Sox season, scheduled to open in Boston on May 7 and go wider in following weeks, chronicles the relationship between the baseball team and its fervent fans. The film follows last season, from spring training to the American League championship series, in which the Sox were five outs away from beating the rival New York Yankees in Game 7."

That's something you'll definitely want to add to the collection. Right next to "The life and times of Bill Buckner," and "The Bucky Dent Story: How I hit a home run with a 20 inch bat and summarily crushed any hopes of the Red Sox going to the World Series, Vol. I."

Williams already gearing up for next season
The Raleigh News & Observer has a story today about what Roy Williams expects for next season. As I mentioned earlier this week, Williams expects all his players to return, but he also is confident that high school All-American Marvin Williams will choose Chapel Hill over the NBA. Here are some of the highlights from his press conference:

Roy Williams is excited about the prospects of Marvin Williams joining the Tarheels because at 6'9" he will provide some much needed support inside, perhaps freeing Sean May to play more as a power forward. The coach went on to say that he's been in contact with JamesOn Curry, but it is still too early to make any decisions about where he will be next season.

Williams mentioned that he's talked to several people about Matt Doherty getting back into coaching, although he didn't want to get too specific. Like Doherty or not, if Larry Eustachy can get another job (apparently Southern Miss will name him head coach today), there's no doubt in my mind that Doherty shouldn't be out of work for too long -- and maybe he's had time to reassess his coaching style during his time off.

Coach Williams says he plans on meeting with all players early next week, and this is what he had to say about players leaving college early to turn pro:

"... I've said many times if a guy can be drafted in the top six to eight picks, than I have zero problem. To hear someone say, 'If he's going to be drafted in the first round [then go],' well that's not very bright.

If a guy is drafted with the last pick [in the first round], that's $2.5 million. Taxes are going to take half of that, so now you've got $1.25 million. And then you're going to buy three cars, two mink coats and six houses and two years later, you're in debt $2 million. Just to say that anybody can be drafted in the first round -- in my opinion, that's not a good thing. Drew Gooden got $10 million. He was the fourth player picked. If they do what they're supposed to, that's enough to take them all the way out."

There is still no consensus, but Raymond Felton probably won't sneak into the top eight -- of course a lot can change between now and the end of June.

When asked how his players can get better defensively, Williams had a simple solution: "...you should never guard someone like you want to be guarded." He went on to show exactly how serious he is about this whole 'defense is really important' thing:

"I got mad last year when I came back from camp one night and there had been a pickup game where the old guys had beat the young guys. It made me mad, because I think winning is important. So I went around to every player and said, 'What happened?' They said, 'Well, we took bad shots and didn't guard anybody.' I said, 'Then change.'"

When asked if he needed a break after a very trying season, this is what Coach Williams had to say:

"I'm absolutely worn out, but I also want to start again. I'd like to start next year's team with the feeling that this year's team has right now -- with the knowledge and the experience that this team has right now. I don't want any of that to be lost over the summer."

PFW's mock draft
Pro Football Weekly has their most recent mock draft up and there are two encouraging things if you're a Pittsburgh fan (or more precisely, if you're this Pittsburgh fan), (1) The Steelers take a CB with their first pick (Dunta Robinson, South Carolina) and (2) the Steelers don't take Philip Rivers with their first pick (he's taken by Green Bay at 25).

What is surprising in this mock draft however, is that PFW has the Steelers taking another CB in the second round (Joey Thomas, Montana St.). That may be a stretch, especially with needs at offensive line.

A look at linemen in the draft
A primary concern for the Steelers entering this offseason was on the offensive line (particularly at the tackle position), and it looks like they will use the draft to address this concern. NFL.com's Pat Kirwan has a story about the available linemen in April's draft and how many scouts around the league rate them.

Here's what Kirwan had to say about the available offensive tackles:

"...The interest in linemen shifts back to tackle after Smiley, and the guys the coaches tell me they like as the second-round picks are Jacob Rogers of USC and Max Starks of Florida. Rogers is described as an athlete with a toughness coaches can see on film. Starks appears to have jumped a few tackles that were ahead of him a few weeks ago.

...The good news if you are hoping your favorite team can rebuild or upgrade their offensive line through the draft the late rounds have produced some pretty good O-linemen in the past. So, I asked my coaching friends for some long-shot candidates that intrigue them, and I got these names. Khiawatha Downey from Indiana (Pa.) who has overcome Multiple Sclerosis, tackle Marko Cavaka from Sacramento State who has measurable numbers to rival Gallery, and center Nick Hardwick from Purdue.

It's a well-known secret around the NFL that many line coaches like to get their players late in the draft and spend two years developing them with no pressure to play them early. Sometimes I think the coaches like to keep their excitement for the linemen down so they don't all get drafted too early."

It will be interesting to see what the Steelers do with their 9 picks in next months draft.

Be like Mike...Logan
Safety Mike Logan re-signed last week with the Steelers and by all accounts it was a good move for both sides. What's more important (and maybe more telling) is the reason Logan decided to stay in Pittsburgh even though he was being heavily recruited by the Green Bay Packers -- his loyalty to the team. And the loyalty Logan felt the Steelers had to him.

Being from Pittsburgh probably didn't hurt either, but there are more instances than not when a hometown boy skips out for the big paycheck somewhere else. In a time when people like Terrell Owens and Ty Law spend more time soapboxing about the injustices they have endured (who can live on $7 million a year, anyway?), it's refreshing to see players like Mike Logan make decisions based on loyalty first.

I haven't even mentioned the fact that Logan will again be a big part of a defensive backfield that is a cornerback away from being very, very good.

Here's what Logan said when he first signed with the Steelers in 2001 and I think it says a lot about who this guy is:

"My agent called and told me the Steelers wanted to talk to me," said Logan. "I was just, let's go, let's go sign. I don't even care what they're offering. I just wanted to get it done."

How well can you model the NCAA tournament winner?
I realize I'm not the first dope to use statistics to try and predict who will win the NCAA tournament. That said, I have taken the liberty of at least starting with the field of 16 to hopefully give myself a better chance of getting things right. For this exercise, I use a model that estimates a team's probability of winning based on team FT%, FG%, steals per game, rebounds per game and assist-to-turnover ratio (ATR) (I did a similar study estimating exactly how important FT% was when determining team winning percentage).

I'll break this down by games and see how well I can model (predict) the winners of Thursday's and Friday's games. So here goes (a note about the model -- this is just a quick and dirty attempt to see how well I can predict the winners. I realize there are many variables I left out, but I figure at the very least, it's a start):

*The winner of each game is in bold

Vanderbilt vs. UConn
(Thursday, March 25)

Vanderbilt's chance of winning: 75.8%
UConn's chance of winning: 83.8%

Pittsburgh vs. Oklahoma St.
(Thursday, March 25)

Pittsburgh's chance of winning: 70.9%
Oklahoma St's chance of winning: 79.1%

Alabama vs. Syracuse
(Thursday, March 25)

Alabama's chance of winning: 60.8%
Syracuse's chance of winning: 77.9%

Wake Forest vs. St. Joseph's
(Thursday, March 25)

Wake Forest's chance of winning: 75.9%
St. Joseph's chance of winning: 82.7%

UAB vs. Kansas
(Friday, March 26)

UAB's chance of winning: 76.6%
Kansas's chance of winning: 74.5%

Nevada vs. Ga. Tech
(Friday, March 26)

Nevada's chance of winning: 69.8%
Ga. Tech's chance of winning: 73.4%

Illinois vs. Duke
(Friday, March 26)

Illinois's chance of winning: 74.7%
Duke's chance of winning: 74.2%

Xavier vs. Texas
(Friday, March 26)

Xavier's chance of winning: 62.5%
Texas's chance of winning: 74.5%

So there it is, the final 8 -- UConn, OSU, Syracuse, St. Joe's, UAB, Ga. Tech, Illinois and Texas. The Thursday games are all won by the higher seed, but the Friday games have two upsets: UAB beats Kansas and Illinois beats Duke. Let's hope I do better here than I did in my NCAA pool (I think I have 5 teams left). I'll post the final four and champion tomorrow.

*If anyone is interested (and I doubt they are) in the model I used to get these results, let me know.

Heels reiterate intentions to stay in school
The Washington Post reports (again) that UNC plans on returning all three sophomores for at least one more season. Here are some of the highlights from the article:

"Prior to the season, there was plenty of speculation that this would be the last year in Chapel Hill for [Rashad] McCants, a 6-foot-4 sophomore, and sophomore point guard Raymond Felton. But the year was somewhat disappointing for the Tar Heels, who finished 19-11 overall, 8-8 in the ACC and lost in the first round of the ACC tournament and the second round of the NCAAs.

McCants was named first-team all-conference and averaged 20 points and 4.8 rebounds, shooting 40.8 percent from three-point range. But scouts in Denver didn't think he handled the ball well enough to play off guard in the NBA, and he's not tall enough to play small forward.

Felton, the ACC's preseason player of the year, was named to the all-ACC third team and averaged 11.5 points and 7.1 assists, but he shot just 31.2 percent on three-pointers.

"I expect to have all of them back," Coach Roy Williams said. "I really do.""

Let's hope Roy is right.

Alexander released
Free safety Brent Alexander was released by the Steelers yesterday. He would have been 34 when the season started. This now clear the way for Mike Logan to move to free safety (with Chris Hope vying for time) and last year's first round draft pick, Troy Polamalu to start at strong safety. It also gives the Steelers roughly $1 million in additional cap space.

Steelers preseason schedule set...kind of
The Steelers' preseason schedule:
Week 1 (Aug. 12-16) at Detroit Lions TBA
Week 2 (Aug. 19-23) Houston Texans TBA
Week 3 (Thur, Aug. 26) at Philadelphia Eagles 8 p.m. (ESPN)
Week 4 (Sept. 2-5) Carolina Panthers TBA

The regular season schedule has not been set, but the teams are known:
Steelers home games: Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, New England, New York Jets, Philadelphia, Washington, Oakland.
Steelers away games: Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, Miami, Dallas, New York Giants, Jacksonville.

Have AFC North Teams made Improvements through Free Agency? - Part I
As the offseason progresses, I'll take a look at what improvements the Steeler's opponents for 2004 have made through free agency acquisitions and April draft picks. I'll do this in four parts: (1) AFC North opponents improvements through free agency, (2) Nondivisional opponents improvements through free agency, (3) AFC North opponents improvements through the draft, and (4) Nondivisional opponents improvements through the draft. Here I'll discuss the AFC North free agent signings and next week I'll take a look at the nondivisional opponents free agent signings. Obviously, I can't discuss team draft picks until after April 25. And finally, I'll also take a look at what the Steelers have done to date.

Compared to teams like the Redskins and Eagles, the AFC North has been conspicuously quiet this free agency. Some of this may be intentional (Pittsburgh -- although some would vehemently disagree) while some may be the result of questionable judgment on the part of the free agents (Cincinnati and Warren Sapp, Troy Vincent), questionable judgement on the part of the front office (Cleveland and Tim Couch) or both (Baltimore with Terrell Owens).

I'll take a look at how each team did during free agency based on their needs at the end of the 2003 season and whether they have addressed any of those needs to date (with the understanding that some needs can be addressed during the draft). Let's get going with Part I -- The AFC North Division:

Baltimore Ravens
Needs at the end of 2003:
Defensively, the Ravens finished second in the league -- so relatively speaking, they are solid there. And they put the franchise tag on All-Pro CB Chris McAlister, so they have him for at least one more year. 'One-dimensional' does not even begin to describe the Ravens offensively, however. Head coach Brian Billick made clear on more than one occasion that the offense was built around 2,000 yard rusher, Jamal Lewis (He accounted for 42 percent of the offense and scored 14 of the team's 34 offensive touchdowns). Billick has been insistent this offseason that the Ravens are not looking to find a replacement for Lewis in the event his legal woes prevent him from playing next season (Currently they have capable backups Musa Smith and Chester Taylor).

That said, the Ravens still have glaring weaknesses at WR and to a lesser extent at QB. As I mention below, All-Pro TE Todd Heap led the team in receptions and QBs Todd Boller and Anthony Wright didn't have a consistent go-to target on the outside all season (WR Marcus Robinson, who did become Wright's primary target towards the end of the season will play in Minnesota next season). Of course, the Ravens did everything by the book to acquire Terrell Owens, and were summarily told to take a hike. As a result they got a fifth round pick for their troubles and the pleasure of trying to fill the WR void with the likes of Dez White, James McKnight, Curtis Conway, Bill Schroeder and Antonio Freeman -- the remaining free agent WRs. They chose (wisely) to do nothing.

Which leads me to the Ravens next area of concern -- QB. It's hard to tell if Boller progressed enough last season to be a reliable starter coming into 2004. He struggled for most of the season (which certainly isn't unexpected for a rookie) but a strong case could easily be made that he was better than both Anthony Wright (a perpetual NFL backup) and Chris Redman (who had one of the worst performances I've seen recently when he came in for the injured Boller against St. Louis). Given that Boller is entering his second year in the league, I'm sure Billick has no intentions of using either free agency or the draft to address the QB position. He'll get a few more years to prove he's not Trent Dilfer/Tony Banks/Elvis Grbac (and I mean that in a good way).

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
Orlando Brown, T
Matt Stover, K
Adalius Thomas, LB
Anthony Wright, QB
Chris McAlister, CB (franchise)
Mike Flynn, C

Players lost through Free Agency:
Marcus Robinson, WR (to Vikings)
Tom Knight, CB (to Tampa Bay)

Orlando Brown, although known for his anger management issues, does provide some level of stability at the tackle position. Matt Stover is one of the most consistent, clutch kickers in the NFL and would have not been easily replaced. It looks like Adalius Thomas will continue to backup both Peter Boulware and Terrell Suggs and serve as the special teams guru (after making the Pro Bowl for special teams last season). Anthony Wright, as we all know by now, had a serviceable season last year and helped the Ravens get to the playoffs (at least in the sense that he minimized mistakes at the QB position). He'll certainly be adequate as a backup to Boller. And of course Chris McAlister, when not letting Plaxico Burress or Hines Ward take him out of his game, can be an impact player.

Draft picks in April:
The Ravens have 7 draft picks this April.
2(51), 3(88), 4(119), 5(150), 5(155), 6(181), 7(212)

Likely first round pick:
The Ravens do not have a first round pick in the 2004 draft because they traded it to the New England Patriots last year for the right to draft QB Kyle Boller (taken with the 19th pick). There is some speculation that the Ravens will take a WR in the second round because their leading receiver last season was a TE (granted, Todd Heap is an All-Pro TE, but a TE nonetheless). Heap led the team with 57 catches (693 yds) and the next closer receiver was Travis Taylor who had 39 catches (632 yds). Fourth on the list: Jamal Lewis with 26 catches (205 yds). Wide receivers mentioned include Washington State's Devard Darling, Virginia Tech's Ernest Wilford and Wisconsin's Lee Evans, who all may be available in the second round.

Grade (through free agency):
Because TO's antics prevented the Ravens from addressing WR position, and because the remaining WRs were not impact players, the Ravens garner a C -. With TO the Ravens get an A.

Cincinnati Bengals
Needs at the end of 2003:
Even with Marvin Lewis as head coach, Cincinnati had an insufferable defensive backfield. They released CB Artrell Hawkins (who has since signed with the Panthers) and Jeff Burris. Tory James was surprisingly consistent, but he can't cover both WRs at the same time. The Bengals were spurned by Warren Sapp in favor of the Raiders and Troy Vincent chose to sign with the Bills. There are reports that Bobby Taylor is still on the radar screen after the Bengals made a more amenable offer. Marvin Lewis has made it clear however, that his goal is to build a consistently winning team without sacrificing the future by back-loading contracts. So this may indicate slow-going in free agency with the plan to stock the team through the draft.

The good news is that the Bengals plan to start second year QB, Carson Palmer and will have a solid backup in Jon Kitna (although there are reports that Dennis Erickson will be looking to get Kitna in San Francisco if he's available).

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
Rich Braham, C
Shayne Graham, K
Reggie Myles, CB
Kim Herring, S (from the Rams)
Patrick Johnson, WR (from Washington)
Nate Webster, LB (from Tampa Bay)

Players lost through Free Agency:
Mike Goff, OL (to San Diego)
Matt O'Dwyer, OL (to Tampa Bay)
Brandon Bennett, RB (to Tampa Bay)

As reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer the players who have signed and re-signed are keys to the team's fortunes in 2004: Kim Herring will be a starting safety. Nate Webster will start at middle linebacker and should make a difference in the run defense. Center Rich Braham will be invaluable to first-year starting quarterback Carson Palmer, and kicker Shayne Graham has added to the special teams' stability.

Draft picks in April:
The Bengals have 7 draft picks this April.
1(17), 2(49), 3(80), 4(113), 5(144), 6(177), 7(208)

Likely first round pick:
Since the Bengals lost out on Warren Sapp and have yet to sign Bobby Taylor, they will be looking to address those needs via the draft. Don't be surprised if they take a CB with the 17th pick. Who might that be? It's too early to tell for no other reason than as Pro Day's continue, players will move up and down the board as scouts adjust and re-adjust their player rankings. There could be anywhere from two to five CBs selected before the 17th pick, depending on which draft board you believe. Of course losing out on Sapp means that if DT Vince Wilfork (Miami) is available at 17 (which seems pretty doubtful right now), you can be pretty sure that the Bengals will take him.

Grade (through free agency):
If the Bengals had signed Sapp and Vincent or Taylor they would have gotten an A. Having yet to sign anyone that addresses their immediate needs, I'll give them a D. Of course, come April 24, if the Bengals are somehow able to get Wilfork at 17 and a CB in the second round, it'll be an entirely different story.

Cleveland Browns
Needs at the end of 2003:
Apparently Coach Butch Davis felt that the Browns had a need at QB because they now have Jeff Garcia penciled in as the starter and Tim Couch on the way out. Cleveland also has some concerns on the offensive line (a matter they had hoped to address through free agency). There are also rumors that Davis might used their first round pick on TE Kellen Winslow Jr.

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
Brant Boyer, LB
Frisman Jackson, WR
Michael Myers, DL
Terrelle Smith, FB
Ebenezer Ekuban, DE (from Dallas)
Jeff Garcia, QB (from San Francisco)

Players lost through Free Agency:
Chris Gardocki, P (to Pittsburgh)
Lewis Sanders, CB (to Jacksonville)
Jamel White, RB (to Tampa Bay)
Shaun O'Hara, OL (to Giants)
Barry Stokes, OL (to Giants)

Jeff Garcia should be an impact player and is undoubtedly an improvement over the Couch/Holcombe combo. Tracy Morgan and Andre Davis will need to have productive seasons to help the Browns improve a lackluster offense. Additionally, it looks like Lee Suggs will be the starter since White has signed with the Bucs and Green will probably be traded or released. The Plain Dealer reported today that the Browns are considering two players at the tackle position: Orlando Pace and Robert Gallery. If neither is acquired, Ross Verba would return to left tackle if healthy. There is no Plan C as yet. It looks like the 29-year old Pace wants too much money and to get Robert Gallery the Browns would have to give up some picks to move up in the draft.

Update:
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports this morning that the Browns have signed guard Kelvin Garmon, who started 16 games last season for the Chargers (He was part of the blocking effort that paved the way for LaDainian Tomlinson to rush for 200 yards against the Browns in a 26-20 San Diego victory on Oct. 19).

Draft picks in April:
The Browns have 8 draft picks this April.
1(7), 2(37), 3(68), 4(105), 5(136), 6(167), 6(170), 7(198)

Likely first round pick:
If Cleveland holds on to the seventh pick, it is still not clear who they will take. Davis came from the University of Miami and there have been reports that he's very high on TE Kellen Winslow, Jr. There are also some draft boards that have QB Ben Roethlisberger falling to the Browns. Even though Tim Couch is on the trading blocks (and soon to be on the waiver wire), Kelly Holcombe has been demoted to second string and 34-year old Jeff Garcia is the new starter, don't be surprised if the Browns take Roethlisberger. Garcia could start for two or three more years, and Roethlisberger could step in as the franchise QB for the next 10 years. Of course, the Browns have a glaring weakness on the offensive line and were unable to address this problem through free agency. There are reports that they are in love with LT Robert Gallery and might be interested in moving up to get him. Good luck with that.

Grade (through free agency):
So far, the Browns have done nothing to improve the OT position, but made a marked improvement in the QB position with the signing of Jeff Garcia. Grade: B.
Of course, if Garcia has no one to block for him it won't matter (see Tommy Maddox).

Update:
With the signing of G Kelvin Garmon, the Browns have addressed (at least in the short term) one of their major concerns. As a result, I'll now give them an A -.

Pittsburgh Steelers
Needs at the end of 2003:
It was pretty obvious that the Steelers still had some serious concerns in the defensive backfield (even though Deshea Townsend, Mike Logan and to a lesser extent Ike Taylor were all pleasant surprises), the offensive line, running back and to a smaller degree, linebacker and quarterback.

Needs addressed through Free Agency or Resigning:
Matt Cushing, TE
Chris Doering, WR
Clark Haggans, LB
Chris Hoke, DL
Dan Kreider, RB
Chukky Okobi, C
Mike Logan, S
Jeff Reed, K
Chris Gardocki, P (from Cleveland)
Travis Kirschke, RB (from San Francisco)
Duce Staley, RB (from Philadelphia)
Terry Fair, CB (formerly from Detroit)

Players lost through Free Agency:
Rodney Bailey, DE (to New England)
Mark Bruener, TE (to Houston)
Josh Miller, P (to New England)
Dwayne Washington, CB (to Jacksonville)

Duce Staley is the only marquee signing for the Steelers, and that may be by design. He's a tough RB who can catch coming out of the backfield and it looks like the Steelers plan on returning to the run for 2004. In all likelihood, Doering will serve as the 4th WR after one of his best seasons in 2003. It looks like Haggans will take over for Gildon (who will probably be released and will free up some cap room) and maybe last year's second round pick, OLB Alonzo Jackson will get some playing time in 2004. Kreider is a solid blocking FB who Staley will quickly come to appreciate. The safety position is solidified with the resigning of Mike Logan, who will probably start at free safety with second year player Troy Polamalu slated to be the strong safety. Jeff Reed needs to quit missing field goals from 25 yards and in (which may explain why Cowher has signed another kicker to compete with Reed during camp) and while Gardocki has never had a punt blocked, I'm not sure he'll be a marked improvement over Josh Miller. Kirschke will be a backup, but his signing actually saved the Steelers some cash and got them a sixth round pick as compensation for the loss of DT Rodney Bailey (signed by the Pats).

Draft picks in April:
The Steelers have 9 draft picks this April.
1(11), 2(44), 3(75), 4(106), 5(140), 6(171), 6(188), 6(from the Pats), 7(202)

Likely first round pick:
There certainly is no consensus on who the Steelers should take in the first round. Most boards have the Steelers taking a CB in the first round (with which I agree). The top CBs to date are Virginia Tech's DeAngelo Hall, South Carolina's Dunta Robinson, USC's Will Poole and Ohio State's Chris Gamble. Others however, have the Steelers taking QB Philip Rivers with the eleventh pick, which to me seems like a stretch. If Pittsburgh is dead set on taking Rivers then they should trade down, land some more picks and get him later in the first round. There are also some rumors swirling that QB Ben Roethlisberger might fall to 11, but I think the chances of that happening are very, very slim -- and if there's even a remote possibility he is available at 11, sit back and watch a bevy of teams make offers to trade up and nab Roethlisberger before the Steelers ever get a chance to pick.

Grade through (free agency):
It seems like the Steelers plan from the outset was to be cautious in free agency and try to stockpile picks and address needs in April. If that's the case, the Steelers seem to be on course. They signed Duce Staley, perhaps indicating they'll use the first round pick for either CB or OL help. That being said, they could draft a RB for the future with second pick (if Greg Jones is available, there's a good chance that the Steelers might take him) and address OL needs in the third round. Things should become clearer in the next few weeks.
Grade: B -.

Next week: Free Agent grades for the Steelers 2004 nondivisional opponents.

Steeler Draft News
Here's the Tribune-Review's weekly NFL Draft Q & A with Chris Kucharski. Some good stuff here.

PFW profiles RB Chris Perry
According to Pro Football Weekly, in one year Michigan RB Chris Perry has gone from "Good system player. Average speed. Good hands. Picks up the blitz well. Decent leader but perhaps a little self-absorbed. Not a gamebreaker. Tough. Big heart." to "Great production. Good speed. Great hands. Great blocker, especially on the blitz. Can turn the corner. Extremely tough." Couple that with a pretty solid Pro Day (his 40-time was in the 4.5's) and Kevin Jones's pretty lackluster Pro Day (three 40-times in the 4.6's) and some think Perry might now be the second running back taken after Oregon State's Steven Jackson. I'm still not convinced that he's better than Kevin or Greg Jones and there is also the concern that his heavy workload at Michigan might be a problem as his professional career progresses.

I'm still pushing for the Steelers to nab RB Greg Jones of Florida State in the second round.

Already thinking about next year
The Longhorns defeated the Tarheels last night 78-75, and while that loss provided a bitter end to a season filled with ups and downs, what transpires over the next few months could shape the course of the Tarheel program over the next few years.

In particular, guards Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants and F/C Sean May could all forego their last two years of college eligibility and turn pro. There is also the possibility that two Tarheel recruits may not make it to Chapel Hill. Marvin Williams, a 6'9" forward from Washington state is still entertaining the idea of going pro (29 ppg, 16 rpg). JamesOn Curry, who holds the NC state scoring record, was arrested in February on 6 drug-related felony charges (37 ppg, 7 rpg, and 5.5 apg). Roy Williams has yet to decide on whether he will still offer Curry a scholarship. The two other players comprising the class of 2004 include 6'5" swingman J.R. Smith (25 ppg, 7 rpg), and point guard Quentin Thomas (18 ppg, 9 apg).

Some good news however, is that Rashad McCants and Sean May have made it known recently that they have no intentions of leaving this year. In fact McCants has gone so far as to say that he wants to be a Tarheel for four years. That coupled with the fact that his sister will be playing at UNC next year should allow Roy Williams to sleep a little easier. Sean May described as "a lie" the rumor that he planned on turning pro after this season.

"I hope -- I hope -- that no one makes that decision and tries to go early, because no one on this team is ready for that next level...I would say the same thing for almost everybody in this league; this league is really young, and guys [have] got a lot to learn. I think that's the problem with the NBA is that everyone's trying to go so early just because everyone's trying to make the money so fast."

Ray Felton might be a different story however. He has said on more than one occasion that if he's a top ten pick he'll seriously consider leaving college for the NBA. There are some that believe he'll be back because although he started the season strong, he seemed to slump the last 15 games or so and that may have been due to the number of minutes he played and the responsibility he felt to carry this team. This could be an indication that at least physically Felton may need another year in college.

There had also been some talk at the beginning of the season that Jawad Williams might declare for the draft, but after a solid (but not spectacular) junior season, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that Williams would be a first round pick and could only strengthen his draft position by coming back for his senior season.

If by chance, everyone returns for next season and all incoming freshman make it to campus unscathed (by the draft or the law), the Tarheels will undoubtedly be a top ten team, with both experienced leaders and young talent coming off the bench. There is however, still the question of a big man in the middle that would allow Sean May to move to his more comfortable position of power forward. As of yet, Roy Williams has no true center coming in, but depending on what happens over the next few months (and if anyone decides to declare for the draft), some scholarships may be available and a center may be signed. Until then, I'll keep my fingers crossed in the hopes that everyone makes it back for at least one more season.

Update:
Monday's Raleigh News & Observer has a story on what (and who) Roy Williams expects from his team going into next year. Apparently Roy expects everyone back, and for the most part, so do the players.

DeAngelo Hall's Pro Day a success
I hope the Steelers were at CB DeAngelo Hall's Pro Day. The only thing that makes me think Pittsburgh might be hesitant to take him in the first round is that he's also a punt returner -- currently the job of Antwaan Randle El. But that certaintly shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not they take perhaps the best CB in the draft. Here's ESPN's report on Hall's Pro Day:

"The junior defender, who bypassed his final year of eligibility to enter the draft, had a 39-inch vertical jump and a long jump of 10 feet, 9 inches. But the clincher was an amazing time of 3.68 seconds in the "short shuttle," a drill that displays change-of-direction skills, and one that had scouts double-checking their stopwatches.

About the only negative scouts cite when discussing Hall is his lack of height. He was 5-feet-10 at the combine and weighed in at 202 pounds. On Thursday, his weight was down to 197 pounds, about where he played in college. This is a draft, though, in which few of the cornerbacks possess prototype physical dimensions, and scouts acknowledge Hall's vertical skills and innate aggressiveness will help him compensate.

While there is still more than a month remaining in the draft assessment process, the consensus seems to be that Hall and Dunta Robinson of South Carolina have distanced themselves from the pack. That doesn't mean that other players - like Chris Gamble of Ohio State, Southern California's Will Poole, Oklahoma's Derrick Strait and Ahmad Carroll of Arkansas - won't make a move on the top spot. Certainly each of those prospects has first-round potential. But at this juncture of the process, with scouts starting to narrow their focus, there is little doubt Hall helped himself immeasurably Thursday afternoon."

Other than Robert Gallery (and the Steelers would only get him if they trade up), I can think of no other pick that would immediately upgrade the team -- substantially.

Free Agent QBs finding it tough...in free agency
John Clayton writes that free agent QBs are having trouble finding work because (1) many teams are investing long-term in their quarterbacks -- and therefore don't need immediate free agent help and (2) free agent QBs are looking for big paydays -- and in the day of the salary cap, most teams (with the obvious exception of the Redskins) are tight with the purse strings.

Here's how Clayton described the Steelers QB situation:

"The Steelers have said "no" to every quarterback opportunity that cropped up -- Brunell, Ramsey, Henson, Couch, Garcia, etc. Anyone doubting the organization's faith in Tommy Maddox and Charlie Batch aren't in tune with what the Steelers are thinking. Maddox is the starter. Batch will compete from the backup job.

The Steelers offense is undergoing a change now that coordinator Mike Mularkey is in Buffalo as head coach of the Bills. The Steelers ranked 22nd offensively averaging only 299.5 yards a game, two thirds of it through the air. Bill Cowher plays power football, so the signing of Duce Staley and the retention of Jerome Bettis signifies a move back to the ground game. The Steelers averaged only 93 yards a game on the ground. No more. The Steelers will pound it next year and that means more handoffs by the quarterback.

Maddox is a good decision maker. He gets rid of the ball quickly and he's got a great group of possession receivers to make plays once they catch the football. It's not out of the question for the Steelers to draft a quarterback, but it's not a lock they would take Rivers with their first-round pick. For now, the Steelers aren't looking for their quarterback of the future. They want to concentrate on the present."

If Clayton is remotely on the mark here, then the encouraging news is that the Steelers aren't guaranteed to take a QB in the first round -- in which case they can address other needs (like OT or CB). I think he also makes the very good point that if the Steelers return to running the ball on a consistent and successful basis, it will make the passing game that much more effective. Let's hope the Steeler front office is on the same page as John Clayton (or at least with what he writes here).

What does Pro Day really mean?
I know this whole Pro Day thing is a big deal, but I'm not sure having a bunch of NFL coaches watching prospective draftees run sprints and partake in the long jump is a good measure of NFL success. I know it's important to get an idea of a player's physical strengths and weaknesses, but it seems like both players and coaches would be better served if other measures of future success were used (and to be fair, I've never been to a pro day so I don't know exactly what they do there -- it could very well be the case that they do much more than recreate the third grade field day experience).

Anyway, Kevin Jones, thought by many to be one of the first two RBs taken -- primarily because of his combination of speed and strength, ran a 4.61, 4.63 and a 4.65 40. I don't know if this means he will slip in his draft position, but maybe it does mean that he'll have to rely more on strength than speed as the strength of his game.

Daubach is planning to stick around
There's an article in the Providence Journal (free sign-up required) about Brian Daubach's second tour of duty with the Red Sox. And while he's a non-roster invitee with no guarantee of being in the big leagues on opening day, between him and Lou Merloni you've got two players that seem to somehow always find their way back to Boston (no matter how good or bad they play).

Welcome to our planet
The Globe has a good article on what "Manny's just being Manny" is all about. Here's what Grady Little had to say:

"Except for a few times when you have to keep him on the right track, this guy is no problem at all...I would manage Manny Ramirez again and be proud to do it. He's a superior talent who just loves to play baseball and have fun playing baseball. There's nothing wrong with that."

I think it's the "few times keeping him on track" comment that worries people. That said, I'm glad he's still in a Red Sox uniform.

UNC's back in the saddle
*box score
*tarheel.com
*tarheel insiders

Update:
Apparently Melvin Scott and Rashad McCants were the brains behind UNC shaving their heads prior to the Air Force game. I just hope the reserves have enough time to regrow their hair before they have to go on job interviews.

After a a two year absence, the Tarheels won their first round NCAA tournament game against Air Force and will now play Texas (3) tomorrow at 8pm. The final score was 63-52, but as the cliche goes, it was much closer than that. In fact Air Force led throughout much of the first 25 minutes with a combination of good defense and a motion offense that primarily produced three pointers or easy layups off of backdoor cuts.

UNC shot only 41% from the field, but that was more a function of Air Force's style of play. With no player taller than 6'8" and a coach from the Princeton school of "slow the game down," the Tarheels struggled early, but seemed to make adjustments at halftime that righted the ship.

Sean Mays led all UNC scorers with 14 points, and Jackie Manuel added 10 points and his usual strong defensive showing. Next up is Texas, and this game should be a complete 180 in terms of pace of play. It will also be a chance for the Heels stick it to Rick Barnes one more time for his anti-Dean Smith sentiments (from the perspective of a Heels fan, don't forget).

One other thing -- was it just me or did Costanza's long-time nemesis, Lloyd Braun, coach Air Force last night under the alias, Joe Scott?

Mike Logan comes back for 3 more years
I think this is a good thing -- and now it looks like Logan will move to FS and start alongside last year's first round pick, SS Troy Polamalu. This is from ESPN.com:

"On March 18, they reached a three-year agreement with safety Mike Logan for more than $1 million a season. Logan had been talking to the Green Bay Packers, but his desire all along was to stay in Pittsburgh. By Logan staying, though, free safety Brent Alexander becomes expendable. A similar move was made a few weeks ago when the Steelers re-signed outside linebacker Clark Haggans. This week, the Steelers gave starting outside linebacker Jason Gildon permission to seek a trade. Something similar may happen with Alexander."

To be fair, Alexander has been servicable, but he'll be 32 when the season starts and he's slow. Logan runs a 4.5 (before a couple of knee surgerys) and Polamalu runs a 4.4. I think it's time to see what a defensive backfield looks like that has speed, can stuff the run, and more importantly, can bolster the pass coverage (while it remains to be seen if Polamalu can cover effectively, I suspect he can do no worse than Alexander -- I guess the real question is, can he catch?).

From the world of the insane...
Terrell Owens is a great receiver -- no doubt about it -- but he is also misguided, has his priorities out of whack, and is generally considered an enigma. USAToday.com has a story detailing all the adjectives commonly used to describe TO -- and one that is rarely used: loyal. The article is referring the loyalty TO has to David Joseph, his woebegone agent, widely blamed for TO not becoming a free agent and subsequently becoming a Raven (when of course, he really wanted to become an Eagle). This is what TO had to say:

"It's been frustrating...I think the most important thing was for me to have my agent's back. I think he's really taken a big hit and he's probably been the most tarnished one. I had to call him a couple of times to keep his spirits up. I was pretty confident in the case that I had."

Here's the thing, since when did TO have anybody's back? And why is it the one time he does have someone's back, it's his agent -- who just screwed him out of a couple million? Why not have Steve Mariucci's back or Jeff Garcia's back? It seems to me that sticking up for these guys can be just as lucrative as having a competent agent to negotiate your contract. The funny thing is, TO neither stuck up for his coach/teammates nor had a competent agent. It's obvious he lost a few bucks because of his agent's latest gaffe, and antagonizing his former organization probably hurt him more than it helped him (maybe other teams would have been interested in his services if he wasn't considered such a pain in the arse).

And I don't buy the "NFL didn't have a leg to stand on" argument as to why David Joseph shouldn't be the scapegoat. This guy has one job and that is to do what's best for his client. It shouldn't be the other way around -- unless of course, you're in the bizarro world of Terrell Owens.

And another thing
I mentioned a few days ago that I thought the Ravens got the better end of the TO deal, but there is a strong argument for why they got the shaft (other than the obvious reason of not having TO).

Draft picks prove more valuable than grizzled vets
Don Banks has a good article on CNNSI.com about how teams prefer to keep their draft picks instead of trading them for veteran talent. He specifically points to the Steelers trying to trade Jason Gildon for a second round pick. His response: "Good luck." In regards to the Browns getting a second round pick for Tim Couch: "Dream on." What about the Bengals getting a second round pick for Corey Dillon: "Get real."

I think you get the point. Even with the salary cap, veteran players are still in a position, given a few good years, to get a big payday. Newly drafted players however, come relatively cheap -- at least for the first three years of their contract -- and as a consequence these picks are very important when trying to (re)build a team.

Banks goes on to point out that if players like David Boston (traded for a sixth round pick and a player TBNL), Terrell Owens (traded for a fifth round pick and a backup DE) and John Lynch (released outright because no teams were was willing to trade a draft pick for him) get only minimal interest in terms of trading picks for their services, then there is virtually no chance the Gildons, Couchs and Dillons will will garner any attention.

Because teams know each other so well, they also know that if a team can't trade a player, there is a good chance they will release him before the start of training camp -- which implies that the same talent will be available, but at cut-rate prices. Banks finishes strong with the following observation:

"That's why so many teams are stuck shopping so many high-priced veterans with so few bidders, and why the deals will continue to be few and far between. This isn't, after all, fantasy football. It's reality. And in the NFL, the reality is this: Trying to trade for big-name veterans is usually more trouble than its worth."

How Important is it to make your Free Throws?
As the NCAA tournament starts, and no doubt many games will be decided in the last seconds--by free throws, I thought I'd direct you to my previous post on how important free throws actually are.

Here's a sobering thought
From today's Raleigh News & Observer:

"...Only two people closely associated with the current Tar Heels -- assistant coach Jerod Haase, who played for California and then the Jayhawks between 1992 and '97 and administrative assistant C.B. McGrath, who graduated from Kansas in 1998 -- have played in the NCAA Tournament.

Does this guy sound bitter?
Bengals RB Corey Dillon spent a large part of last season on the bench, and for most of that time he was complaining. Last night, on the Best Damn Sports Show, Period, Dillon blasted Bengals OL Willie Anderson, RB Rudi Johnson and head coach Marvin Lewis:

"...Right tackle Anderson, Dillon's teammate of seven years, had said that if Dillon didn't want to be with the Bengals, he should be let go. "Bye, good riddance," Anderson said Dec. 29.

"Willie Anderson rode coach Lewis to a Pro Bowl," Dillon said. "I made (three) Pro Bowls even before coach Lewis was even thought of.

"And now, for this guy (Anderson) to have the audacity to speak on me to the media, I think that was kind of girlish on his part. Be a real man and come talk to me about your problems."

...Dillon was asked if he would play the same role as he did in 2003, sharing time with Johnson: "No, 'cause Rudi ain't Corey Dillon.

"I'm still young. I think I still can do some things in this league.""

When did athletes become such whiners? This year seems to have an especially strong crop with Terrell Owens leading the way. There are reports that Dillon could end up in Oakland and that's only a good idea if you hate the Raiders. I'd say that anything the Bengals can get in the way of compensation for Dillon is a plus. This guy is contentious and divisive and the Bengals were clearly able to win without him last year. I'm guessing things will turn out better for Marvin Lewis than for Corey Dillion.

Tarheels - Air Force Preview
Here are a couple of stories on the UNC (6) vs. Air Force (11) game from TarheelBlue.com

*Game Preview
*Roy Williams press conference

Steeler Draft News
Tribune-Review online sports editor Chris Kucharski does a weekly Q & A and here's a couple of Q & A's that caught my eye:

Q:...I noticed that in your mock draft, you don't project a CB going until number 16, then there are four in a row. I don't think I've seen the first CB go that late in the draft before. Is this a weak year for first line CBs? Is there a CB worth taking as high as #11, and could he be a starter right away?

Also, now that the Steelers have signed Staley, do you still think they will take a RB as their first pick, and would you now try to move down in the draft and if so, why? Thanks for considering my questions. I'm a born and raised Pittsburger now retired and living in a warmer climate and a die-hard Steeler fan.

Chris: Concerning the cornerbacks, there is not a Terence Newman in this year's draft. He came into the league and was an immediate impact with the Cowboys. If the Steelers want to take a cornerback with the 11th selection, they will have their pick of which corner they want. However, I would love to see the Steelers trade down and get a cornerback somewhere around 18 or 19. They could acquire another third round pick if they do that. The problem is that every team wants to trade down. It really comes down to the moment you are selecting. If there is a player someone wants bad enough, you can get a deal done. That would be the perfect scenario for the Steelers.

I don't think the Steelers will take a RB with the 11 pick. There are too many other holes to fill. I think they might have considered taking Stephen Jackson, but I don't think he makes it out of the Top 10. So, they went for the RB in free agency. They could still take one later on Day 1, especially if they acquire another pick. But if Kevin Jones is available at 11, the Black and Gold will pass.

Q: Chris, Could Ben Roethlisberger be a realistic option at #11? The only team in between who would have had an interest at QB was Cleveland, but they just signed Jeff Garcia for 4 years at $25 mil. I heard that Cowher covets Roethlisberger, but they didn't have the ammo to move up to get him. Could he possibly fall into their laps?

Chris: In my recent mock draft, I have Ben Roethlisberger falling to the Steelers. However, this draft is based on every team drafting where they are and no trades taking place. I think someone will trade-up to get Roethlisberger before the No. 10 pick. Will that be the Steelers?

Maybe. If they want him bad enough and get the right deal to move up several spots, it could happen. They might be leary giving up picks considering they have so many needs and they gave up picks last season to get Troy Polamalu. My gut feeling is if Ben is there at 11, the Steelers have their QB of the future. If not, they will not trade up to get him.

The Steelers and free agency, part 2
Ed Bouchette writes a good article in today's Post-Gazette about how the remainder of free agency is basically a staring contest between teams and players looking for teams. As draft day approaches, some good deals should be availalbe for the Steelers as the demand for players lessens. As an example, Bouchette cites how, a day before the 1994 draft, the Steelers acquired FB John L. Williams for $750,000; a few months earlier he was looking for $2 million a year. Pace wins the race.

Baltimore actually gets the better end of this deal
Being an avid Steelers fan it's a given that I despise the Ravens. When they originally acquired Terrell Owens a few weeks ago I was genuinely happy -- if for no other reason than I knew they didn't have anyone to throw him the ball and that TO would spend a lot of time throwing tantrums on the sidelines ultimately serving as a distraction to the team. Maybe TO also knew the former and realized the latter might get him a backhand from Ray Lewis.

Now TO is going to the Eagles and the Ravens get back their second round pick and get a "sorry you got screwed on this deal" fifth round pick.

Of course there still is the little issue of TO being a big baby and going to the Eagles will allow him to be who he really is, a 30-year old brat (something he may have realized he wouldn't be able to be in Baltimore). But the luckiest man in this whole deal is David Joseph, the world's most incompetent agent. The only thing worse than his ineptitude is his client's unwavering support. Here's a real conundrum: TO harangues anyone responsible (or within earshot -- whichever is easiest for TO) for not getting him the ball, but if you lose a couple million dollars of his money it's no big deal. This quote from ESPN.com doesn't make him sound any saner either:

"I'm so excited to be here and to play with D-Mac,'' said Owens, who has played with McNabb in the Pro Bowl three times. "I feel like I fit in real nice here. I'm comfortable with the West Coast offense. The touchdowns I've had in the Pro Bowl, Donovan has thrown them to me. That just comes with two athletes going out there and making plays, just chemistry in the making."

Chemistry? In a week that has little in the way of actual football, when do you have time to build chemistry? Maybe that's the point TO was making -- the less time you spend with him, the more you like him. Andy Reid should write that down.

Either way, I'll miss the fact that he won't be in Baltimore this year. Now the only drama surrounding the Ravens is if Jamal Lewis will be their running back.

Dean Smith once coached at Air Force?
Here's a story from today's Washington Post talking about the historical link between UNC and Air Force--first round opponents in this Thursday's NCAA tournament.

Pittsburgh media long on criticism, short on brains

CPW
I know it's the media's job to question why the home town team does what it does (both on the field and off), but when did using common sense and good judgement no longer become a requirement when writing an article? There's another half-baked story in today's Pittsburgh paper (this time it's the Post-Gazette) by Bob Smizik about how the Steelers "backed away from the free agent market too quickly." Here's my first question: Is this still news? Weren't people talking about this last week after the signing of Duce Staley? What else can possibly be said that hasn't been said before?

Smizik doesn't disappoint with the same, tired, regurgitated arguments that even Joe Starkey made this weekend (if you've taken to writing about the same stuff Starkey writes about--three days later--I would suggest you might be in the wrong line of work). Let's take a look at some of Smizik's concerns:

"Staley is an upgrade but the Steelers made no significant move to improve themselves at cornerback or the offensive line, generally believed to be their weakest positions.

The Steelers might have been better served by drafting a running back and using the money they gave Staley, a $4 million signing bonus, to go after a cornerback -- by far the team's greatest need."

Why do people (mostly people in the media) insist on signing average cornerback talent through free agency in a decidedly seller's market? Why would you overpay for average talent? The Steelers already have one overpaid cornerback. Antoine Winfield did Herm Edwards and the Jets a favor by bolting at the last minute to sign with the Vikings. Now, if they so choose, the Jets can get one of the top three cornerbacks in the draft (who are at least as competent as Winfield) at a much cheaper price (not to mention they're younger). In terms of offensive linemen, there wasn't much out their--either in terms of position or in the Steelers price range (Damien Woody is a G/C and Todd Steussie got a $20 million deal). Don't forget, the Steelers have nine picks in the upcoming draft and could also choose to trade down in the first round and get a few more picks.

Smizik goes on to write:

"The Steelers went hard after outside linebacker Marcus Washington, offering a signing bonus of about $5 million, before losing him to the wild-spending Washington Redskins. The move, the biggest the Steelers made in free agency, acknowledged what was widely known: The team has an acute weakness at outside linebacker.

The need to sign Haggans points out what a major mistake the Steelers made in taking outside linebacker Alonzo Jackson with their second draft pick last year. When they took Jackson with such a high pick, the Steelers clearly seemed to be saying Haggans, who had been a backup for three seasons, was not part of their future. But when Jackson showed so little and couldn't even get onto the field, the Steelers went back to Haggans, the man they had so much as written off 10 months earlier."

Why is it the case that because the Steelers took a OLB in the second round last year they were indicating that it was curtains for Haggans? At the start of last season the Steelers had Clark Haggans and newly drafted Alonzo Jackson backing up Joey Porter and Jason Gildon. Unless the Steelers were planning on carrying only three outside linebackers, I'm not sure how drafting Jackson was an indictment of Haggans. Resigning Haggans was a good move. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Who is Marcus Washington? Who new who he was before he visited Pittsburgh?

There appears to be an epidemic in the Pittsburgh sports writing community. Anytime that Mark Madden is made to look like the (relative) voice of reason, there should be cause for concern. Thank God people like Jerry Dipaola, Gerry Dulac and Ed Bouchette take their jobs seriously enough to research what they write about before they write it.

That Packer is one tough monkey!
Showing his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth, basketball commentator Billy Packer has done it again. From today's Philadelphia Daily News:

"Immediately after the No. 1 seeds were announced, CBS analyst Billy Packer said he didn't think St. Joe's belonged as No. 1, that the Hawks could not beat top teams such as Oklahoma State and Texas.

An emotional Hawks coach Phil Martelli was livid with what Packer said. He did not hold back.

"Being perfectly blunt, Billy Packer can kiss my ass...I think he's a complete jackass...For him to go on national television and talk about a team that he's never seen, he can kiss my ass.""

This is the same guy who in 1996 called Allen Iverson a "tough monkey" and who more recently had to apologize to two female Duke students for making the following sexist comments:

"...Packer made "inappropriate and derogatory remarks" to them (the two students) as they checked identification and press passes at the Cameron Indoor Stadium entrance.

When they asked Packer to show his press pass, the announcer allegedly said, "Since when do we let women control who gets into a men's basketball game? Why don't you go find a women's game to let people into?"

A stadium official who saw the interaction apparently guessed that Packer was just joking, whereupon Packer turned around and said, "No, that's just the kind of guy I am.""

Quick thinking Billy. Remove all doubt that you are indeed an insensitive curmudgeon.

Maybe college ain't so bad
William Rhoden writes a good article in the NY Times about how college basketball is as exciting as ever and having players stick around has something to do with it. This pretty much sums it up:

"As you look around the country at tournament games this season, a trend is emerging: senior leadership. The top four seeded teams--Kentucky, Duke, Stanford and St. Joseph's--are not loaded with pro prospects. What they have is solid senior leadership. That's the good news of this season, that college basketball has found its level. Not the C.B.A., not the N.B.A. College teams can't beat Olympic-caliber foreign teams and they struggle against touring teams like the Harlem Globetrotters. What these teams do is play pretty exciting basketball among themselves."

Maryland senior center Jamar Smith made the following observation:

"I go to a lot of Washington Wizards games, and when I'm in Philadelphia, I go see the 76ers...You watch the crowds there compared to the crowds in college, it's totally different. If you think an N.B.A. crowd is better than a college crowd, you got to be crazy."

I couldn't agree more.

In stark contrast to Starkey
Guy Junker writes a sensible article today about how the Steelers are wise to not break the bank in free agency. Note to Joe Starkey: making contentious claims without substantiation doesn't mean you're clever, it just means you're lazy.

It's on like Donkey Kong
The NCAA tournament starts Thursday and the Tarheels (18-10) will be heading west as the sixth seed. Their first round opponent: 11th seeded Air Force (22-6), a team that hasn't made the tournament in 42 years. Here's part of an article from today's Raleigh News & Observer:

"UNC's players were apparently looking a little nervous during the NCAA Selection Show because their team was one of the last to be announced. They were excited to get the sixth seed, (Roy) Williams said. But probably not more jubilant than 11th-seeded Air Force, the Tar Heels' first-round foe.

With a win in that Denver matchup, Carolina would meet the winner of Texas-Princeton, setting up a possible meeting with former Clemson coach Rick Barnes, now with the Longhorns.

The winner would then advance to the Atlanta Regional.

"I think Air Force is a little unique, and that's the part that scares you a little bit,'' Williams said. "Sixty [points] a game is all they average, but you look and they're 22-6. So whatever they do, they're doing it very, very well. And we don't have that many teams in the ACC that control tempo that much..."But the ACC prepares you for about everything.""

For a slightly different perspective, here's what's being reported in Colorado Springs.

Adam Hyzdu, jack of all trades, master of none?
Red Sox outfielder Adam Hyzdu has been to 15 spring trainings and has yet to make an opening day roster. Drafted in the first round by Giants (five spots ahead of Mike Mussina), and from the same high school that produced Ken Griffey Jr., Hyzdu has yet to have that breakthrough season that keeps him in the majors. If nothing else, the guy has good taste in movies (at least if you're going to play in Boston).

From today's Boston Globe:

"He also has a "disease," as he calls it: his extreme fascination with "Good Will Hunting," the film (Matt) Damon and (Ben) Affleck created about a couple of working-class kids trying to make their way in Boston.

Hyzdu knows the movie by heart, as he demonstrated yesterday in the Sox clubhouse by play-acting a bar scene in which Damon's character, Will, upbraids a smarmy Harvard student who tries to wow a couple of women with his scholarly wisdom. While Hyzdu's teammates at nearby lockers pulled on their uniforms and listened quizzically, Hyzdu reeled off a rapid-fire recitation of Will dissing the pseudointellectual:

"You're a first-year grad student. You just finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, and so naturally that's what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That'll last until sometime in your second year. Then you'll be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood about the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization."

Hyzdu continues rolling right through the final diss, when Will tells the smart guy he would sadly realize in 50 years that "you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you could have picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.""

I wonder if when Hyzdu was acting this scene out, Manny Ramirez played Ben Affleck and Kevin Millar played the wise professor, Robin Williams.

Will the real Chad Scott please stand up?
Here are a couple of articles from the Post-Gazette from yesteryear (1999 & 2001) that talk about what an effective (and sometimes game-breaking) player Chad Scott was. Maybe this is why the Steelers are keeping him around one more year. I would certainly think he's due for a breakout season after a string of mediocre ones.

Tuesday, August 24, 1999
Cornerback Scott raring to go after sitting out '98 season

Sunday, August 12, 2001
Chad Scott lifts hurt ego at corner

Duhon saves worst for last
Not really. Duhon had another in a long line of strong games as Duke lost to Maryland this afternoon in the ACC tournament finals. It seems like the more I disparage this guy the better he plays. He had 21 points today and made several clutch shots down the stretch to keep Duke in the game. I still think he's the most overrated player in college basketball, but I can't take anything away from his play of late. There is a silver lining however, Duke lost.

Beane after Moneyball
The New York Times has an interesting article on how Billy Beane continues to succeed in the big-money, guaranteed contract world of major league baseball.

Tribune-Review misses the boat on Steelers offseason to date
CPW
There are two articles in today's Tribune-Review, and to vary degrees they both miss the point when evaluating the Steelers offseason moves so far.

Sam Ross writes an article titled, "Why the rush to sack Maddox?," in which he argues that many fans are willing to get rid of Maddox in favor of retread, Tim Couch, or three-year project, Drew Henson. While many fans may have been frustrated with Maddox's play last season, I have yet to hear one knowledgeable fan advocate jettisoning Maddox in favor of the mentally fragile and physically comparable, Tim Couch. In fact, Ross points out that Maddox and Couch had similar numbers last season.

I tend to agree however, with Ross's following statement:

"But the people who felt Couch or Henson were desirable, are still fixated on quarterback. They have identified North Carolina State's Philip Rivers as a good first-round pick for the Steelers.

It's not considered out of the question that the Steelers would go that way. The argument is that the team needs to get a franchise-quality quarterback of the future on board.

Here again, there's room for argument. Tom Brady, who has quarterbacked New England to Super Bowl wins two of the past three seasons, was a sixth-round pick. The man he displaced, Drew Bledsoe, had been taken first overall in 1993."

From the questionable to the preposterous
In his article, Joe Starkey gets caught up in the "sign as many people as possible" hype as he denounces the signing of Staley because the Steelers won't use the draft to address the long term needs at RB (with either Kevin Jones or Steven Jackson). He writes:

"It now appears they will pass on their pick of talented tailbacks -- Kevin Jones or Steven Jackson -- in the first round. Jones is a striking specimen, standing 6 feet, 220 pounds with tree-trunk legs and sprinter's speed."

Maybe Starkey thinks the Steelers only have one pick in this year's draft because even a cursory perusal of any mock draft shows that Greg Jones (the beastly RB from FSU) should be available in the second round. Starkey goes on to write:

"If the Steelers were going to spend money on a second-tier, aging free agent, why not a cornerback such as Troy Vincent or Bobby Taylor? Either could have provided a nice stop-gap while Ike Taylor learns the trade."

That's the entire point of signing Staley. It allows the Steelers to get a good RB in the second round if they choose and also allows them to address the immediate need of an athletic CB in the first round. Starkey proceeds to prove that he hasn't been paying attention at all this offseason with the following observation:

"You'd think a team scrambling for cheap alternatives would have taken a look at quarterback Drew Henson, whom the Dallas Cowboys acquired for a third-round pick and guaranteed only $3.5 million.

Henson would have been a top-five pick in 2002 if he hadn't opted to play baseball. He's obviously a risk, but so was dealing a third-round pick to move up for safety Troy Polamalu, who got $5.26 million in guaranteed bonus money."

One question--why would the Steelers waste a pick on a three year project? If you're looking for a blueprint of how that will turn out, just look at Chad Hutchinson. Not only that, but Polamalu is certainly more likely to have a breakout season this year than Drew Henson will in his second year.

Starkey makes several other questionable claims. I would suggest he spend more time studying why teams make the offseason moves they do and maybe he'll be better equipped to make cogent arguments.

Steelers News
Jerry DiPaola writes about how many CB's got bigger paydays than their talent warrants this free agency, how the Steelers are interested in keeping SS Mike Logan and long snapper Mike Schneck.

Someone in the Redskins front office might want to write this down

"Our free agency was in part done last year when we did sign those guys. We're happy those guys didn't become free agents."

-Kevin Colbert, director of football operations, talking about how the resigning of guys like Marvel Smith, Aaron Smith, Joey Porter and Alan Faneca the past few years lessened what the Steelers had to do this offseason through free agency.

For the complete Q & A with Kevin Colbert, take a look at Steelers.com.

Tarheels season marred by not doing 'the little things'
Tony Hutchens has an interesting take on how the Tarheel's season has shaped up so far. He makes some startling realizations about how the Heels could have easily won six more games if it weren't for mental mistakes down the stretch. Here's part of the post (check out the entire article here):

Yet again, the Tar Heels broke down at the most critical juncture of the game, losing Jarrett Jack in the waning seconds and allowing an uncontested game-winning jumper at the last second. This has occurred with alarming frequency this season and shouldn't still be happening going into NCAA play. Consider that the following has happened to the Tar Heels at crunch time this season:

12-20-03 The Tar Heels missed five different game-clinching free throws in the final 35 seconds of play and also fouled Chris Paul attempting a desperation three pointer with one second remaining allowing a second overtime in a triple-overtime loss to Wake Forest.

1-22-04 Raymond Felton fell down and allowed Todd Galloway to sink an uncontested three pointer with seven seconds to play to send the game into overtime. The Seminoles completed their comeback from 24 points down with the victory in the extra period.

2-5-04 Raymond Felton and David Noel collide and allow Chris Duhon to score the game-winner on an uncontested layup with seconds to play in overtime in a two point loss to Duke.

2-24-04 Despite knowing that Todd Billet would be launching a potential game-winning shot for Virginia, Sean May and Raymond Felton failed to execute on a screen and allowed Billet an open look and he nailed a three pointer with just 15 seconds on the clock. Then after being allowed ten minutes to prepare for their own potential game-winning shot due to the officials reviewing the clock, Felton threw a pass away to Rashad McCants in the two point loss to the Cavaliers.

3-6-04 Rashad McCants turned the ball over with 4 seconds to play and was unable to get off a potential game-tying shot in a loss to Duke.

Tony points out that UNC has lost six games due to some blunder in the game's final 15 seconds of play. He goes on to make this very strong point:

I'm not sure that happened six times in Dean Smith's entire tenure as head coach of the Tar Heels. And I'm not talking about winning and losing here. It's one thing to execute a well-prepared play but a good shot just doesn't fall, or to play good, hard-nosed defense and cause your opponent to put up a tough shot, yet they still make it to beat you. But it's a completely different thing to fail to even get a shot off on offense, or to continuously allow uncontested game-winning shots by your opponents. This trait must be corrected immediately or the Tar Heels will be sent packing as early in the Big Dance as they were this weekend at Greensboro.

With all this bad luck, the Heels are due for a run of good luck--I just hope it starts sooner (next Thursday) rather than later (next October).

What exactly does Staley do for the Steelers?
On the surface, the signing of Duce Staley looks to immediately improve a moribund running game that finished 30th in the league last season--and I think it will. But one of the ancillary benefits is that the Steelers can now focus on other personnel needs in free agency and the upcoming draft. Specifically, they still need to address needs at cornerback, offensive line, outside linebacker, defensive line and quarterback. Staley will help the Steelers in two ways--by immediately upgrading the running back position (at least in the near term) and thereby mitigating any reasons to solve this problem through the draft.

Some fans and sportswriters alike have voiced their displeasure with the fact that the Steelers seemed asleep at the wheel as the free agency free-for-all began in early March. Some even described the Steelers offseason to date as 'pathetic' because while the Steelers were busy resigning fullback Dan Kreider for a million per, teams like the Redskins, Lions and Eagles were making moves that clearly improved their teams. I've said this before and I'll restate it here: teams don't win the Super Bowl in March. The last two offseasons the Redskins have made a lot of free agent signings (second only to the Houston Texans--and remember, they were an expansion team) and have managed to win only twelve games. Thus far, the Redskins have followed the same blue print--trying to solve their problems not through the draft, but through free agency. As a result, they have overpaid for (at least some) middle-aged talent and only have two picks remaining in the April draft to address their long-term needs. Not only that, but after spending $50 million in signing bonuses last week, the Redskins will be facing some serious fiscal questions in the next few years; and by trading all their draft picks, they won't be able to address any of their long-term needs anytime soon. And while this free agency has had a glut of cornerbacks, by most accounts they were average at best, even though several teams have overpaid for their services.

What does this have to do with Staley?
Because the Steelers didn't get caught up in the race to sign a bevy of average players, and with the addition of one player--Staley, the Steelers have positioned themselves to address other, perhaps now more pressing, needs in the April draft.

First things first, the Steelers need to address the cornerback position. And just as there were numerous cornerbacks available in free agency (all of whom were overpriced and undertalented), there are also a lot of cornerbacks in the draft--many of whom are very talented (if not very raw). I've said before that if the Steelers were going to cut someone it should have been Chad Scott instead of DeWayne Washington (but that is all water under the Clemente bridge now). Either way, they are still weak in the defensive backfield and that should be the first need they address come draft day. I think it's important that Polamalu and Chris Hope are starting as strong safety and free safety, respectively come September. The Steelers would also be well served to resign Mike Logan and maybe return him to his role two years ago--nickel and dime back who can cover and who is also tough against the run.

The next glaring need is at offensive tackle. The duo of Todd Fordham and Oliver Ross certainly weren't the answer last year, and using an early round pick to address this need can quickly alleviate a lot of the Tommy Maddox sandwiches we were grew accustomed to. And don't forget, one of several benefits of restocking a team through the draft is that the players are young and relatively cheap (apparently this lesson has been lost on the Redskins).

Jerome Bettis and Staley should split time this season (with the knowledge that Bettis will retire as a fan favorite at season's end), and Staley should still be productive for several years thereafter. The Steelers could still choose to pick a back like Greg Jones (FSU) in the second round this year and work him into the offense over the next few years. They could also opt to keep Verron Hayes and groom him to be a big part of the offense in the future (of course, he should first prove that he can get through an entire season without getting injured).

Director of football operation, Kevin Colbert, made it clear last week that Tommy Maddox is not going anywhere (and Tim Couch won't be getting anywhere near Pittsburgh), and Charlie Batch is still firmly entrenched as the backup. The real question is what, if anything will Brian St. Pierre do to someday be an adequate NFL quarterback. It could very well be the case that he's destined for a career of third-string and scout team gigs, but he could also show marked improvement (as have several late round quarterbacks of late--see Tom Brady and Billy Volek) and be a valuable part of the Steelers future. Any projections on St. Pierre's future will probably determine in what round the Steelers draft a quarterback. Even if they think St. Pierre is not the answer, they still should not take a quarterback before the third round (and that may still be too early). Of course, I'm still in the, "Trade a second round pick for Patrick Ramsey" club, even though there's no way possible it will happen.

When the Steelers chose not to match the offer made by the Patriots for defensive linemen Rodney Bailey, they not only got a sixth round draft pick as compensation, they also signed Travis Kirschke from the 49ers, whose contract actually saved the them money when compared to what they would have had to pay Bailey. Kirschke will be used as a backup, and the Steelers may choose to address the defensive tackle position later in the draft (they currently have nine draft picks--three in the sixth round).

After losing out on outside linebacker Marcus Washington (who of course was signed by the Redskins), the Steelers resigned Clark Haggans. To many, this was the straw that broke the camels back--another free agent that used Pittsburgh as a pit stop to a bigger payday. My first question after Washington signed with the Redskins was, "Who is Marcus Washington?" I imagine this was the same question many people were asking when they found out he was scheduled to visit Pittsburgh. And if that's the case, who cares that he signed somewhere else? How many games did anyone see this guy play, anyway? I saw Clark Haggans play the last two years and he did a pretty solid job. Resigning him was a prudent move on the part of the Steelers, and hopefully they will at the very least restructure Jason Gildon's contract to free up some more cap room.

There is also the second round pick from last year, Alonzo Jackson. Last year he was lost in the shuffle, and hopefully this year he will see more action (the Steelers could certainly stand more of a pass rush from the outside)

So while all of this is probably nothing new, I think it's important to emphasize that although the Steelers haven't made many moves this offseason, the moves they have made have been practical (and some might even say far-sighted). The point is, the Steelers, by being conservative early on in this process, have left themselves with options in April. So far, so good (unless of course, they draft a quarterback in the first round).

Red Sox notes
Here are a couple of interesting articles from the Boston Globe:

*McCarty gives up his dream of being a LH reliever...kind of
*Damon's (purported) partying set him at odds with Grady

Madden's way off...again
Mark Madden is way off when he describes in his weekly Post-Gazette article that the Steelers have had a pathetic offseason so far. He seems to think that because Josh Miller was cut, he was implicitly responsible in the eyes of Steeler management for a 6-10 season. Additionally, he still laments the fact that Bettis and Gildon (at least for now) are back for one more year, while free agent superstars like Marcus Washington are signing with other teams.

First of all, Bettis restructured his contract and will make only $1 million dollars this year and was certainly more than adequate during the final six games of last season. You also have to consider that Staley will probably get most of the carries and, because he can catch coming out of the backfield, will serve as the third down back. Moreover, the Staley signing allows the Steelers to address other needs in the draft--like cornerback and offensive line, for example. Finally, who knew who Marcus Washington was the day before he visited Pittsburgh? If no one knew who he was, why is it such a big deal that he signed with the Redskins? And don't forget, teams don't win the Super Bowl in March. The last two seasons the Redskins have spent like drunken sailors during free agency and have 12 wins to show for it. In the last two offseasons, there is no correlation between winning percentage and the number of free agents a team signs (see Redskin example above). In fact, what seems to most impact winning are the players taken through the draft (why that's the case is another question entirely).

Madden ends his diatribe with the following sentence:

"Even with the signing of Staley, this has been a pathetic off-season for the Steelers. An off-season full of bad moves, botched moves and meaningless moves. What makes them think they can get away with it? Every ticket being sold in advance, for one thing."

I think it's a little premature to call this offseason "meaningless" especially since the draft isn't until April 24. In terms of Madden's implication that the Steelers can get away with this because of season ticket sales, I would argue that the Steelers, in being conservative in free agency (and not overpaying for average cornerback talent, for example), are giving themselves the best chance to return to the playoffs next year by addressing their needs through the draft. But as usual, Madden likes to make outrageous claims first, and think about what he said much later down the road.

Maddox, Burress staying
From today's Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

Keving Colbert, director of football operations, indicated that the Steelers are not trying to replace starting quarterback Tommy Maddox with a veteran from outside the organization. "I'll say it on the record: We are not interested (in a veteran quarterback)."

Colbert also refuted reports that the team is trying to trade wide receiver Plaxico Burress, who is entering the final year of his contract. "There's nothing to those," he said.

Gildon here for now
For now, the Steelers are able to keep veteran outside linebacker Jason Gildon and his $4.9 million cap charge on the payroll. Asked about Gildon's status, Colbert said: "He's still with us."

Staley excited about being a Steeler
Ed Bouchette writes in today's Post Gazette:
Staley's signing eliminates the Steelers' need to pick a running back high in the April draft. He and Bettis could share the duties on first and second downs, and Staley, a good receiver, could handle all the third-down assignments.

"I lick my chops when I see the ball run as many times as these guys have run it in the past," Staley said. "I'm just happy to be a part of it, but that played a big part in it."

"I told my agent on the way up here, you hear about the history of the Pittsburgh Steelers. I'm a man, of course, and I said I'm not going to break down. But I did get a few chills walking through the door, you know, because growing up that's all you hear about, the Steelers. I'm proud."

-Duce Staley explaining why he's happy to be in Pittsburgh

"He's a terrific kid. He's a warrior as far as player, gives you everything he's got. He's the kind of guy who fits Pittsburgh's style of running back -- a break-tackle runner, a downhill runner. His yards after first contact have always been good. He's that style of runner. He doesn't make just one long run and sit back, he keeps grinding and grinding and grinding."

-Tom Modrak, who became Philadelphia's general manager one year after the Eagles made Staley a third-round draft pick in 1997, called it a perfect signing.

Coach Bill Cowher promised big improvement in the ground game over their No. 31 ranking in the NFL last season and said Staley and Jerome Bettis will play a part in it.

"I think you have two quality people and I know we have some quality backs...He's a winner. We're out to try to kind of re-establish that next year."

-Bill Cowher, on his plans for the running game next season

Steelers want no part of Couch
Here's what Kevin Colbert, the Steelers director of football operations had to say about acquiring Couch:

"You can kill that Couch stuff...I'll say it on the record: We're not interested; we're not interested in any free agent or soon-to-be free agent quarterbacks. We're not interested ... in any veteran quarterbacks."

I don't think he could have been any clearer. The Browns have given Couch's agent permission to work out a contract and possible trade with any other NFL team other than those in the AFC North Division. It seems to me that if the Browns really wanted to get an advantage on their division rivals, they would allow Couch to only be traded to AFC North Division teams.

Zereoue cut
With the signing of Duce Staley, the Steelers, in a move that surprised no one, cut Amos Zereoue yesterday. It's also reported that they cut reserve running back Dee Brown.

Does your 40 time really matter?
Len Pasquarelli writes an interesting article about how some teams may be too enamored with raw speed and as a result may overpay for it. An example that I'm reminded of is Anquan Boldin, the 2003 Sporting News Rookie of the Year, who fell to the 51st pick in last years draft because of a slow 40 time at the combine. The first game of the season he has over 200 yards receiving and you have to ask if 40 times are that important. If you're Carl Lewis, straight-away speed is important, but if you're a receiver who just caught a slant on a safety blitz, the cornerback on your hip isn't wondering what your 40 time is. And that's the point. A football field is only 100 yards long, and the difference between a WR running a 4.5-40 and a CB running a 4.4-40 is minimal when considering the short distances involved and the fact that a CB usually has to change directions to make a play on the ball.

I think a more important measure might be quickness; quickness off the line of scrimmage for WRs, quickness breaking on the ball for CBs.

I think this quote sums up how the reliance on raw speed is overemphasized, especially over such short distances:

"We time players in terms of straightline speed, but the reality is that our game isn't played in a straight line. So there's a bit of a fallacy there. And our game isn't played unimpeded, like a track meet, where you're just going to run and no one is in your way."

-Buffalo Bills general manager Tom Donahoe

Staley reminiscent of Bettis
From today's Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

"This isn't bull just for the newspaper...He reminds me of Jerome (Bettis)...He has the endearing personality where everyone in the organization loves him. Everyone in the city loves him."

"When it comes to toughness...Jerome is one of the toughest guys I've ever worked with. Jerome had those groin pulls that he played with and I had no idea how he did it, but Duce is just as tough."

-Eagles head athletic trainer Rick Burkholder, who worked in Pittsburgh for six years, commenting--without hesitation--on the player that most reminded him of Duce Staley.

Ugh
The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is reporting that the Steelers have shown preliminary interest in quarterback Tim Couch, who will either be traded or released by the Cleveland Browns.

I don't think Couch is the answer in Pittsburgh and he certainly didn't do much in Cleveland. Let's hope the conversation between the Steelers and Couch's agent goes something like this, "We'll give you some practice footballs for him." Otherwise they should pass--and quickly.

It was also reported that the Steelers have shown interest in former Brown and current Raven RT, Orlando Brown, he of the anger management issues.

Steelers sign Kirschke, get a sixth round pick
The Steelers also signed Travis Kirschke on Wednesday to a four-year contract that totals nearly $6.4 million and includes a $1.1 million signing bonus.

Kirschke started at defensive tackle for the San Francisco 49ers last season, but he will be used by the Steelers as a backup end in their 3-4 defensive alignment.

This also means that the Steelers won't match the offer made by the Patriots for DT Rodney Bailey. If the Pats do end up with Bailey, the Steelers will get a sixth round pick out of it.

Who is the most prolific home run hitter of all time? Well it depends.
As opening day approaches, and Barry Bonds advances on the all-time home run record, I got to thinking about different ways of determining who the most prolific home run hitter of all time is. To answer that question, I'll need to be more specific and define 'prolific.'

A quick look at the record books and you can find home run leaders by season, career and home runs per at-bat. As I looked through the numbers I realized that there wasn't a statistic for how many home runs a player hit relative to other players in a season (or over a career). Let me explain what I mean. In 2003, Alex Rodriguez and Jim Thome led the major leagues with 47 home runs each. Now 47 home runs falls well short of the single-season record of 73 set by Barry Bonds in 2001, but how much better is 47 HRs in 2003 when compared to how the rest of the league did that year? Likewise, how much better is 73 HRs in 2001 when compared to how the rest of the league did that year? Or in broader terms, what players, over the course of their careers, were marginally more productive than their peers? The method I'll describe below not only allows you to answer these questions, but it also allows you to compare players across seasons and careers.

Historically, baseball statistics have focused primarily on averages (batting and on-base, for example) and sums (total home runs, RBI, runs scored). Who is tenth on the all-time HR list? Look it up and you'll find that it's Sammy Sosa (539 HR). Who was tenth for the 2003 season? Coincidentally, it was also Sosa (40 HR). The point is, finding this information is a pretty easy exercise. But my question is how much better is A-Rod than Sosa in 2003 or Babe Ruth than Sosa over the course of their careers when compared to all other players? That required a little more work than opening the baseball almanac and here's what I found.

Looking at all the HR data from 1914 to 2003, on a yearly basis I normalized HRs hit to something called z-scores. (I should note that I only used players hitting at least 10 HRs in a season and having at least 100 ABs in a season). This conversion gives you an idea in percentage terms, how much better player A is when compared to player B (If you're really interested in the details, send me a note and I'll forward them on to you).

I looked at how HR leaders compared by season for the years 1914 to 2003. I also looked at how players compared when considering their career HR statistics (for example, how did Babe Ruth, who played 16 seasons, compare to Carlos Delgado, who has played eight seasons, when talking about HR production?).

First, let's look at the single-season HR leaders:

Single-Season HR Leaders

Rank	Player	Year	HR
1	Barry Bonds, SF	2001	73
2	Mark McGwire, STL	1998	70
3	Sammy Sosa, CHI	1998	66
4	Mark McGwire, STL	1999	65
5	Sammy Sosa, CHC	2001	64
6	Sammy Sosa, CHI	1999	63
7	Roger Maris, NY	1961	61
8	Babe Ruth, NY	1927	60
9	Babe Ruth, NY	1921	59
10	Mark McGwire, OAK/STL	1997	58
11	Jimmie Foxx, PHI	1932	58
12	Hank Greenberg, DET	1938	58
13	Alex Rodriguez, TEX	2002	57
14	Luis Gonzalez, ARI	2001	57
15	Ken Griffey, SEA	1998	56
16	Hack Wilson, CHI	1930	56
17	Ken Griffey, SEA	1997	56
18	Ralph Kiner, PIT	1949	54
19	Babe Ruth, NY	1920	54
20	Mickey Mantle, NY	1961	54
21	Babe Ruth, NY	1928	54
22	George Foster, CIN	1977	52
23	Mark McGwire, OAK	1996	52
24	Willie Mays, SF	1965	52
25	Mickey Mantle, NY	1956	52

No surprises here. Now what happens if we revisit the single-season HR leaders, but this time instead of measuring success by the raw number of HRs, we instead measure success by how many more HRs a player hit when compared to other players for a given year. For example, Barry Bonds leads the single-season HR list with 73, Mark McGwire is second (70) and Sammy Sosa third (66). However, if we convert HRs to z-scores we get a better idea of how much better, marginally, a player is compared to others for that season. Looking at the z-scored table for the above players, Bonds is still first (73 HRs is a lot of HRs), McGwire is still second (in 1998, the McGwire/Sosa race helped distance them from the rest of the pack), but Babe Ruth is now third with 54 HRs. Fifty-four HRs is nothing to dismiss (it would have won the title last year), but in 1928, 54 home runs was a mammoth feat. Because it was so much better than other top players that year, it caused Ruth's z-score to be very high (in case you're interested, Sosa ranked ninth on the z-scored list--see the table below). So, based on seasonal success, we can then see how players stack up from different seasons (like McGwire in 1999 and McGwire in 1998 or Cecil Fielder in 1990 and Babe Ruth in 1921).

Here is the z-scored table of single-season HR leaders:
(A quick note on z-scores: A z-score basically tells you, in standard measurements, how far a player is from some average value. For this post, a z-score of 1.00 means that a player is better than 84% of all players, a z-score of 2.00 means that a player is better than 95% of all players and a z-score greater than 3.0 means that a player is better than 99% of all players).

Z-scored HR Leaders

Year	Player	Zscore	z rank	HR	hr rank
2001	B. Bonds	4.62	1	73	1
1998	M. McGwire	4.41	2	70	2
1928	B. Ruth	4.37	3	54	17
1965	W. Mays	4.29	4	52	21
1921	B. Ruth	4.16	5	59	9
1990	C. Fielder	4.13	6	51	27
1980	M. Schmidt	4.12	7	48	54
1999	M. McGwire	4.11	8	65	4
1998	S. Sosa	4.04	9	66	3
1977	G. Foster	4.03	10	52	21
2002	A. Rodriguez	3.95	11	57	12
1989	K. Mitchell	3.95	12	47	62
1949	R. Kiner	3.95	13	54	17
1999	S. Sosa	3.92	14	63	6
1961	R. Maris	3.85	15	61	7
1997	K. Griffey	3.82	16	56	14
2001	S. Sosa	3.82	17	64	5
1926	B. Ruth	3.74	18	47	62
1978	J. Rice	3.74	19	46	81
1932	J. Foxx	3.70	20	58	10
1946	H. Greenberg	3.66	21	44	112
1971	W. Stargell	3.66	22	48	54
1995	A. Belle	3.65	23	50	31
1920	B. Ruth	3.63	24	54	17
1994	M. Williams	3.63	25	43	136

When compared to the single-season HR leaders table a few things stick out. First, all the z-scores are extremely high, but that's to be expected. More interesting though, is that using z-scores allows you to compare how Willie Mays ranks when compared to Barry Bonds (he ranks 4th using z-scores; using the single-season HR table he ranks 21st). Kevin Mitchell, who in 1989 hit 47 HRs, ranks 12th using z-scores but only 62nd using the single-season HR table. Seeing this, one question you might be tempted to ask is, "A-Rod hit 47 HRs in 2003, why isn't he in the top 25?"

Well, remember z-scores are based on how all other players did in that season. In 1989, there were fewer players hitting close to 47 HRs than in 2003. In fact, A-Rod ranks 81st on this list with a z-score of 3.00 (he's of course tied with Mitchell on the single-season HR list at 62nd). Using that same reasoning, we can see why Sosa fell from 6th (on the single-season HR list) to 14th (on the z-score list)--there were many more players closer to 62 HRs in 1999 and as a result it made his z-score lower (it was 3.92 in 1999) than it would have been in say 1921 (where it would have been about 4.20).

Next, let's look at the all-time HR list:

All-time HR Leaders

Rank	Player	HR
1	Hank Aaron	755
2	Babe Ruth	714
3	Willie Mays	660
4	Barry Bonds	658
5	Frank Robinson	586
6	Mark McGwire	583
7	Harmon Killebrew	573
8	Reggie Jackson	563
9	Mike Schmidt	548
10	Sammy Sosa	539
11	Mickey Mantle	536
12	Jimmie Foxx	534
13	Rafael Palmeiro	528
14	Ted Williams	521
15	Willie McCovey	521
16	Ernie Banks	512
17	Eddie Mathews	512
18	Mel Ott	511
19	Eddie Murray	504
20	Lou Gehrig	493
21	Fred McGriff	491
22	Ken Griffey	481
23	Willie Stargell	475
24	Stan Musial	475
25	Dave Winfield	465

This also looks pretty familiar. But what happens if we use z-scores for all-time HRs leaders like we did for single-season HR leaders? More specifically, I averaged, over the course of a career, the number of HRs hit by each player and converted that number to a z-score. This z-score value gives an idea of how dominant a HR hitter each player was when compared to other players during their career.

Here's what the z-scored table looks like (same z-score rules apply as above):

Z-scored All-time HR Leaders

Player	Zscore	Zrank	Tot. HR	Hrrank
B. Ruth	2.67	1	688	2
M. Schmidt	2.23	2	541	9
M. McGwire	2.23	3	562	6
A. Rodriguez	2.14	4	340	67
R. Kiner	2.09	5	362	52
S. Sosa	2.05	6	527	11
A. Belle	1.96	7	373	43
J. Foxx	1.96	8	516	12
B. Bonds	1.85	9	658	3
H. Killebrew	1.82	10	557	8
A. Pujols	1.82	11	114	416
H. Greenberg	1.74	12	328	73
J. Thome	1.71	13	371	45
L. Gehrig	1.68	14	492	20
W. Mays	1.67	15	642	4
H. Aaron	1.64	16	755	1
F. Thomas	1.62	17	407	35
Ju. Gonzalez	1.60	18	416	33
C. Delgado	1.54	19	292	93
K. Griffey	1.51	20	473	23
R. Calovito	1.48	21	358	55
R. Palmeiro	1.46	22	509	14
T. Helton	1.44	23	214	188
D. Kingman	1.42	24	421	31
M. Ramirez	1.41	25	345	62
T. Williams	1.39	26	507	16

What immediately stands out is that players like A-Rod and Ralph Kiner rank very high on the z-scored table but only rank 67th and 52nd, respectively, when looking at the all-time HR list. Again, this is because A-Rod and Kiner hit a lot more HRs during their careers than did their peers, and as a result, had high z-scores. Also notice that the length of career is unimportant--all that matters is how many HRs a player hits in relation to his peers. A glaring example is Albert Pujols. He ranks 11th on the z-scored table but 416th on the all-time list for no other reason than he's played only three seasons. But in those three seasons, he's been very productive. (This could be a strength or a weakness of using z-scores depending on who you ask).

It's also interesting to note that Hank Aaron only ranks 16th on the z-score list even though he is first on the all-time HR list. This is due primarily to the fact that he was so consistent over such a long time (23 seasons) but never had a season in which he hit an inordinate number of HRs--at least when compared to his peers. On the other hand, because Babe Ruth hit so many more HRs than his peers, he's now regained the top spot (at least on this list).

Using z-scores allows you to now compare HR hitters to their peers; z-scores also allow you to compare players across different seasons. This method now offers insight into why Willie Mays had a better season than Sammy Sosa even though Mays hit 52 HRs and Sosa hit 66 HRs (Mays had a z-score of 4.29 while Sosa's z-score was only 4.04; the reason Mays season was more impressive was because there were far fewer players hitting close to 50+ HRs in 1965 when compared to players hitting close to 60+ HRs in 1998).

At the very least, I hope this post will encourage discussion and serve as a good starting place for more research.

I said extra cheese!
Reviled by Red Sox fans and chubby to everyone, former Yankee and current Met, Karim Garcia was accused of roughing up a local pizza deliveryman last week. The Washington Post reports:

Garcia and Shane Spencer gave statements to police yesterday at the Mets' spring training complex in Port St. Lucie, but as of yet no charges have been filed. Police are investigating an allegation of misdemeanor simple battery by Eric Vidal, 20. In his report, Vidal told two officers he wanted to pursue criminal charges against the New York outfielders because "that's the only way they'll be forced to pay" any medical bills he might incur.

From there things didn't get any better; the story goes on to report that:

OF Karim Garcia's day began with a visit from police. Then he hit a fly ball that conked a fan in the head. Moments later, a foul liner shattered the window of his Hummer SUV.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer jerk.

More on Staley, other Steelers news
Staley article from the Post Gazette:
"By signing him, the Steelers do not have to use their first-round draft pick on a running back and can fill another need, such as cornerback or offensive tackle."

Staley article from the Tribune Review:
"The Lions offered more money in their proposal, said Derrick Harrison, who also represents Staley. Harrison said the deciding factor may have been Staley's meeting with Cowher.

'They struck an immediate bond,' Harrison said. "

Steeler Notes:
Travis Kirschke, a defensive tackle from San Francisco, visited the Steelers yesterday. If the Steelers sign Kirschke, who also played for the Detroit Lions, it likely would mean they would not match the offer the New England Patriots made to defensive end Rodney Bailey. If the Steelers decline to match the $1.3 million, one-year deal for Bailey, they would receive New England's sixth-round pick in the April draft. ... CB Dewayne Washington, released by the Steelers, signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars yesterday. ... The Steelers are trying to trade P Josh Miller and will release him if a deal can not be worked out. ... CB Artrell Hawkins, who visited the Steelers on Monday, was close to signing with the Carolina Panthers last night.

Pace wins the race
Until this afternoon, the Steelers had only signed one free agent from another team--punter Chris Gardocki. That all changed around 4pm today as free agent running back Duce Staley signed a five-year, $14 million deal with the Steelers. Staley, 29, received a $4 million signing bonus and his presence immediately upgrades the running back position.

The signing now means that Amos Zereoue will be released, but many view this as a short-term fix, and as a result the Steelers may still draft a running back high in the April draft.

For now, the signing is welcome news as the Steelers look to bolster a running game that finished 31st last season. It also allows the Steelers to address other needs, like offensive line, cornerback and maybe linebacker and quarterback either through more free agent signings or through the draft. Read the ESPN story.

It's OK, he's looking for the murderers
After having not done anything really dumb in a while, O.J. Simpson was accused yesterday by DirecTV of stealing satellite television signals. The Washington Post reports:

"The El Segundo, Calif.-based company wants the former football star to pay $20,000 for the use of illegal electronic devices and attorneys' fees...Federal agents removed satellite television equipment from Simpson's house in the Miami neighborhood of Kendall during a search Dec. 4, 2001. DirecTV claims the devices were two pirate access devices known as "bootloaders."

The raid occurred as the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Miami-Dade County police were investigating Simpson and others in an alleged Ecstasy and satellite-theft ring. Simpson was never charged. DirecTV claims Simpson bought, made or distributed the devices and other equipment to steal the broadcasts."

Well I guess the good news is that Simpson wasn't involved in the Ecstasy ring. Whew! That really could have impeded any progress made in finding the real killers of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

McCants named to first team All-ACC
Not surprisingly, Rashad McCants was named to first team All-ACC today, along with Julius Hodge, Tim Pickett, Justin Gray and Chris Duhon. Sean May was named to the second team (along with J.J. Redick, B.J. Elder, Marcus Melvin, and Shelden Williams) and Ray Felton was named to the third team (he was joined by Chris Paul, Luol Deng, John Gilchrist, and Jarrett Jack).

I'm now convinced the voting was rigged (maybe they voted in Florida using the butterfly ballot--I think Pat Buchanon got more votes than Ray Felton). I want to meet the coach who would rather have Chris Duhon running their team instead of Ray Felton, Chris Paul, John Gilchrist or Jarret Jack. I've already made two posts about why Duhon is an average collegian and would make a subpar pro, but apparently I can't mention it enough.

Not only that, but how is it possible that Duhon is on the first team while teammates Redick and Williams are on the second team and Deng is a third teamer? If Duhon, Redick, Williams and Deng were all available for the draft, I have a good idea who would be drafted last (or maybe not at all).

Maybe Duhon is good and I'm blinded by my loyalty to UNC, but I have a hunch that's not the case. Maybe Duhon will get drafted and be a servicable NBA point guard, but this too I also doubt. Of course, we'll just have to wait and see--but as I've mentioned before, I suspect Duhon is training for his real future profession--assistant coach at Duke University.

They can't even give the job away
It looks like that even though the Cleveland Browns have offered Jeff Garcia a contract (and presumably a starting job) he has opted to sign with Tampa Bay (or will shortly) and compete with Brad Johnson. How bad a feel does one get when visiting the Browns that instead of being assured a starting job, they instead opt to sign with a team with a pretty good starting QB?

Not only that, but the Browns are low-balling Tim Couch (at least in Couch's opinion) and barring any deals for Drew Henson may be back at square one with Kelly Holcombe.

ESPN is reporting that Couch remains optimistic he'll be able to work out a new deal and remain with the Browns.

"I still want to be here...I still want to be part of this organization. I still believe in my teammates here and believe they can get it done."

-Tim Couch, after working out at the team's training facility.

Two things: 1) Good luck with that, and 2) I'm just glad I'm not a Browns fan.

Update: Maybe I spoke too soon. ESPN is reporting late Monday night that Garcia has agreed to a four year, $25M contract, which will leave Tim Couch out in the cold.

This guy is unbelievable
Even after all the antics we've endured over the last few years--both on the field and in the faces of Steve Mariucci and Jeff Garcia, Terrell Owens has even outdone himself. As a Steelers fan, some part of me thinks this whole saga is pretty funny, but as a rational adult, it's also very pathetic. On what planet is it OK to blame everyone but yourself (and your bumbling agent) when you (and your bumbling agent) screw up?

Look, this isn't brain surgery. TO's rep didn't file the proper paperwork to become a free agent. By all accounts, it wasn't a ruse by the 49ers front office, but instead a dereliction of duty by his agent. If this was some conspiracy, why was he the only victim (besides marginal WR, Dennis Northcutt). If the answer to that question is that, "They're out to get me because of my onfield antics," then the response to that answer is, "stop singling yourself out and play football."

So now TO has duped himself out of a big signing bonus and a pretty hefty salary. That said, he'll still make $5M+ over the next three years and the Ravens even expressed interest in trying to restructure.

But as of this afternoon, TO refused to report for his physical with the Ravens in the hope that the trade would be rescinded.

Furthermore, Gene Upshaw, executive director of the Players Association, has asked the league to overturn the trade and have Owens' contract voided so he can be declared a free agent.

I'm not sure how setting this precedent is a good idea. To me it's very simple. TO screwed up and now he wants a do-over. Even though the 49ers left the Eagles in the lurch, you can't blame them for opting for a 2nd round pick from the Ravens in lieu of a 5th round pick from the Eagles and James Thrash (I think if I were the 49ers, I'd rather have a 5th round pick sans Thrash). Anyway, this all precipitated TO to say the following:

"I'm going to fight it to the end until I can't fight it anymore," Owens told WCAU-TV. "This is not to disrespect the Ravens organization by any means. I just want a fair shot at my free agency.

"If it comes down to the point where I can't win, I'll be a Raven."

Gee, thanks. That's like saying, if every girl in school says no, then sure, we'll go to the prom together.

The good news is that it looks like TO doesn't have a leg to stand on:

A league source told The Baltimore Sun for Monday's editions that the union has little chance of succeeding in its efforts, since it will concede that Owens' agent made a mistake by missing the paperwork deadline to make Owens a free agent. The Ravens expect the matter to be cleared up by the end of the week and are certain that Owens will play for them this season. Judging by his comments over the weekend, Owens conceded that his next catch could be in Baltimore.

Let's hope this thing gets resolved in a sensible manner and if TO doesn't want to be a Raven, then the Ravens should be able to decide what to do with him. And if they decide it's in their best interest to keep in, then I'll see you Baltimore, TO.

Baby steps in free agency
The Steelers signed Punter/Kickoff Specialist/Holder, Chris Gardocki over the weekend to a 5 year, $6.3 million contract. Shortly therafter, the Steelers incumbent punter, Josh Miller, received a call from Bill Cowher, letting him know his services were no longer needed. What's funny, is that this is news--at least in the sense that it garners more than one sentence on the back of the sports page. On the surface, Gardocki and Miller are pretty similar--both punters are in their early 30's and they both averaged 41.9 yards per punt last year. But there have also been well publicized differences between Miller and Cowher. Couple that with the fact that Gardocki is know for getting rid of the ball quickly (while Miller has had a few punts blocked in the last several years), and it becomes clearer why Miller is out. Additionally, the Tribune Review reports that Gardocki was a favorite of new offensive coordinator, Ken Whisenhunt and special teams coach, Kevin Spencer. Miller's response: "If they think they are closer to the Super Bowl, wonderful."

Well, this ain't Champ Bailey or even Marcus Washington, but it's a start. While the Steelers measured steps in signing free agents frustrate some fans, remember that this is usually when the Redskins shine--six months before the season starts.

Manny has a new press secretary
I guess Kevin Millar realizes his baseball career won't last forever, because he also serves as Manny Ramirez's unofficial press secretary (think Shannon Sharpe speaking for Ray Lewis during Super Bowl week 2000). Yesterday, Manny held a rare, impromptu Q & A with reporters in the clubhouse before the much-publicized, completely meaningless spring training game with the Yankees--and Millar stood diligently by his side to deflect questions, protect his client and generally keep things moving. Here are the exchanges as reported in the Boston Globe:

A reporter asked if Ramirez still wanted to play for the Yankees.

Millar: "No, you can't ask horse [expletive] questions. Next question."

Reporter: "Is it hard for you to hate the Yankees having grown up there?"

Manny: "Not really, man. This is just a game, man. Everybody is so mad at the Yankees because they win all the time. They're the best team out there. We're just trying to go out there and compete."

Millar: "Next question."

Reporter: "Is your swing where you want it?"

Manny: "I don't know. I don't want to peak too soon."

Millar (elaborating): "Last year, he peaked too early in spring training...He hit about .560. This year, we don't want him around that area."

Reporter: "Are you looking forward to 19 games with the Yankees this year?"

Ramirez: "Not really, man. I don't even think about playing the Yankees that much. If we have to play them 26 times again, we'll just go and play."

A ridiculous reporter: "If [Yankee starter Jose] Contreras throws behind you today, will you charge the mound?"

Millar: "That's not a good question. Stupid question. Next question."

Reporter: "How do you feel about batting third this season?"

Ramirez: "I don't know, man. I haven't done it in a while. I'm just going to go out there and have my confidence on and keep going."

Reporter: "Are you looking forward to the season?"

Ramirez: "We're family here. Everybody is trying together to reach the same goal, that's to win the World Series. Whatever happened in the winter, that's in the past."

Millar: "One more question. Then we're going to go eat."

A reporter asked for Ramirez's reaction to the Yankees acquiring Alex Rodriguez.

Ramirez: "I think that was good for him because he was trying to get out of Texas somehow. Now he's with the best team in the American League. That's good for baseball, especially because he was born in New York, so it's going to be real good for him."

Finally, a reporter asked about Ramirez saying he felt in December as if he had nine toes in Texas.

Millar: "He's a Red Sox. That's a dumb question. He's got 10 toes right here."

Just a thought, but shouldn't Millar be more concerned about not hitting in the .250s in the second half of this season than about what he and Manny are going to eat?

UNC falls short--again
Andy Katz has a good recap of the Duke-UNC game last night. I'll save the analysis for him, but after last nights game (and as a biased UNC fan), Rashad McCants might be the most gifted player in college basketball and Ray Felton might be the toughest.

Yeah, this was a really good idea
Terrell Owens has already worn out his welcome in Baltimore, without ever being in town. Apparently TO wanted to be an Eagle, but the 49ers pulled a fast one on him and his agent and now he's a Raven. Anyway, he ain't happy:

"I'm a Raven for now, but not for long...The deal was set [in Philadelphia] and then the unthinkable happened. Not sure of what Philly was giving in exchange, but I was happy for all of about five minutes."

-Terrell Owens about five hours after the trade.

Say what you want about TO's ability, but he's without a doubt the biggest baby in the league. It's pretty funny how the NFL is responsible for his agent's ineptitude. Note to TO: You are an adult. You are responsible for your actions. You still make over $5 million a year. Fire your agent.

I should work for ESPN
Yesterday, Dan Pasquarelli wrote:

"Even the personnel men leaguewide who feel Clinton Portis is a terrific young back are in agreement that the Washington Redskins got hoodwinked on the trade that sent corner Champ Bailey and a second-round draft choice to Denver. Even as a straight-up deal, one-for-one, the Broncos would have had an edge, because cornerback is one of the most premium positions in the league, by any measure. But to have thrown in a second-round pick along with a four-time Pro Bowl cornerback who is just 25 years old was viewed as ludicrous..."

Well this is exactly what I wrote on Monday. Of course, every other person not buying into the 'Joe Gibbs Philosophy on Winning' was saying this too, but that's beside the point. The Redskins have been signing free agents with an urgency reminiscent of recent Skins teams that have floundered come September. And since the Redskins have traded away all but two of their draft picks, there are reports that they might sign Dexter Manley to replace all-time sack leader, and maybe one of the most selfish people in football, Bruce Smith.

Is there a better measure of team defense in pro football?
After hearing every week during the NFL season how Bill Belichick, often described as a defensive mastermind, was terrorizing opposing offenses with his innovative schemes, I got to thinking, "Is New England really the best defense in the AFC?" At first glance I wasn't convinced. Their roster is filled with players taken from teams that didn't think twice about letting them leave. And while Ty Law, Richard Seymour and Willie McGinest are all impact players, other teams weren't clamoring for the Teddy Bruschis, Mike Vrabels, and Asante Samuels--despite their importance to the success of the Patriots.

Was the Patriots defense that much better than other teams? That's what I aimed to find out.

When thinking about what makes a defense successful, for me four things come to mind. First, how many yards do they give up; second, how long are they on the field; third, how many turnovers do they create; and finally, how many points do they allow?

Currently, the NFL ranks team defense by looking at total yards allowed per game (YPG) and total points allowed per game (PPG). While this lets you to compare one team to another, it doesn't offer any insight into why some defenses are successful and others struggle. I hope to shed some light on this problem.

Every week during football season, most newspapers publish NFL team defensive rankings by both YPG and PPG. Without much thought, it certainly seems reasonable that defensive rankings should probably entail more than these two statistics. So what statistics provide a good measure of a defense's success?

Yards allowed per Game
First, let's start with YPG. This is pretty simple--the more yards a defense allows, the more likely it is the offense will score. In 2003 for example, for every seven points allowed, AFC defenses gave up 100 yards, on average.

But what if it was the case that a defense known for giving up huge chunks of yards routinely stopped the offense from scoring (maybe through turnovers, missed field goals or loss of downs)? For example, the New York Jets allowed 323 YPG (seventh highest in the AFC), but only gave up 18.7 PPG (fifth lowest in the AFC). Is there one statistic that gives us an idea of how many yards a defense allowed that resulted directly in points for the opposition?

If we take the yards allowed per scoring drive and divide it by the total yards allowed per game, we have an idea of the percentage of yards directly resulting in points (I'll call it Yards Given Up Resulting in Points--YGURP). For example, in week one, the Pittsburgh Steelers defense allowed 228 total yards against the Baltimore Ravens offense. However, only 82 yards contributed directly to Baltimore points (the Steelers won 34-15).

The Steelers YGURP = 82/228 = 0.36

Stated differently, 36 percent of all the yards allowed by the Steelers resulted in points for the Ravens. Now, instead of just having the raw number of yards a defense allows, we can see what percentage of yards contributed to points being scored. YGURP has its shortcomings, however. What if a team has an YGURP of 0.90--that means 90 percent of all yards allowed contributed to points being scored. On the surface that sounds horrible. But let's say a defense gives up one 90-yard drive and then plays stifling defense the rest of the game and only gives up ten more yards. You have an YGURP of 0.90 (90/100), but any defense that only gives up one score and 100 yards has put forth a pretty solid performance.

One way around this problem is to also consider the defense's average starting field position. Including field position in the YGURP calculation helps account for situations cited in the example above. Revisiting that example, let's assume that the defense's Average starting Field Position (AFP) was 68 yards from their own goal line (which was the AFC's average starting field position in 2003); we will still assume that they gave up 100 total yards, only one 90-yard scoring drive and have a YGURP of 0.90 (I divided AFP by 100, to get a number between 0 and 1).

If we recalculate YGURP when now considering AFP we get the following:

YGURP*AFP = 0.90*0.68 = 0.63

This new number now represents the yards given up that result in points when accounting for the average starting field position. 0.63 seems much more reasonable (and probably more reliable) than the 0.90 estimated above. I'll discuss this in more detail later.

Time on the Field
The total time a defense spends on the field is very highly correlated with the number of points they allow, but it is seldom mentioned when discussing good defenses. We can take an approach similar to the one used to estimate YGURP when talking about getting a meaningful metric for time on the field.

If we take the ratio of the time on the field during scoring drives to the total time on the field, we have an idea of the percentage of time on the field directly resulting in points (call this Time on Field Resulting in Points--TOFRP). Revisiting the week one game between the Steelers and the Ravens, the Steelers defense was on the field a total of 27:20. Of that time, only 3:00 were on scoring drives.

The Steelers TOFRP = 3:00/27:20 = 0.11

That means that 11 percent of the time spent on the field was directly related to scoring drives. Just like YGURP, TOFRP also has some drawbacks. One can create a scenario where a defense is consistently starting at its own 10-yard line and as a result the offense scores quickly. This will lead to very high values of TOFRP, but would not necessarily be indicative of defensive performance--especially as it related to time on the field. I will come back to ways around this limitation of TOFRP.

Turnovers Created
Surprisingly, turnovers do not correlate that highly with PPG. You would expect that the more turnovers a defense created, the fewer points they would allow. San Diego's defense allowed almost 28 points per game in 2003 (highest in the AFC), but were third in the AFC in turnovers created (30). The New York Jets's defense was fifth in the conference in fewest points allowed (18.7), but was 12th in the league in turnovers created (18). Why this might be the case raises some interesting questions, but I'll save that discussion for another time.

(I should note that even though turnovers were not highly correlated with PPG, team winning percentage was pretty highly correlated with turnovers. This indicates that turnovers do contribute team wins, but it doesn't necessarily reduce the number of points the opposition scores.)

Points Allowed per Game
The statistic that most obviously portrays how well a defense is performing is PPG. San Diego gave up an AFC worst 28 PPG and finished at 4-12. New England gave up an AFC best 15 PPG and won the Super Bowl. So it's probably safe to say that the fewer points a team allows, the better their chances of winning. But is PPG the best measure to compare defensive effectiveness?

What if the San Diego defense had an average starting position on their own twenty yard-line and the New England defense had an average starting position on their opponents twenty yard-line? That would mean that offenses would in all probability score more often on San Diego's defense than on New England's defense. So part of the blame for San Diego's high PPG should fall on San Diego's offense and special teams (since they are responsible for the lousy field position).

Is there a way to account for field position when determining PPG? If we weight the points allowed per game by where on the field the defense starts, we will have a much more accurate portrayal of PPG. The formula I used to obtain the Weighted Pointe Per Game (WPPG) is as follows:

(Points scored per Drive*Yards Allowed per Drive)/100

Returning to our ubiquitous week one example, the Ravens had thirteen offensive drives. Of those drives, they scored on two of them. Their first scoring drive was 80 yards and resulted in a touchdown. There final scoring drive was two yards and also resulted in a touchdown. To estimate the Steelers WPPG using the formula above, we get:

Drive 1: (7*80)/100 = 5.60

Drive 2: (7*02)/100 = 0.14

Because drive 1 went 80 yards and resulted in a TD (and an extra point) we multiply the yards allowed by the defense by the points scored by the offense. This number divided by 100 gives us a weighted score of 5.60. Drive 2, on the other hand started at the Steelers two yard line but also resulted in a TD. Doing the arithmetic shows that the weighted score is only 0.14.

The benefit of WPPG is that the score is now dependent on where the defense starts. The Ravens second scoring drive was a result of a Pittsburgh turnover deep in their own territory. Weighting the ensuing touchdown by field position prevents the Pittsburgh defense from being 'penalized' by the Pittsburgh offense's miscue (as would be the case with the traditional measure of PPG).

Creating an Overall Measure of Team Defense
We now have three statistics that give us some insight into yards allowed, time on the field and points allowed. But how can we aggregate these numbers into one meaningful statistic of team defense? I took several steps to arrive at one measure, so let's go through them, one-by-one:

First, by multiplying YGURP by TOTYDS we get the total yards given up resulting in points (let's call this TYGURP). For example, New England gave up 290.9 total yards per game (6th fewest in the AFC), but their TYGURP (this is simply 0.46*290.9) is 135.0 (which was a league best). TYGURP gives us a better sense of how many yards, of the total yards allowed, resulted in points. Next, we multiply TYGURP by AFP (call it T_TYGURP). Remember, AFP accounts for the defense's average starting field position. This metric will alleviate the problems detailed earlier concerning spurious values of YGURP.

We can also use the same methods for TOFRP. Multiplying TOFRP by TOT_TOF gives the total time on the field that resulted in points being scored (call it T_TOFRP). For example, New England's defense averaged 29:10 minutes on the field per game (this ranked fifth lowest in the AFC). However, New England's T_TOFRP was 9:49 minutes per game (ranking them second lowest in the AFC). The calculation, as above, is straightforward (0.34*29:10).

With these new statistics, we're almost there. We still need to account for the weighted score. We can do this by multiplying T_TYGURP*T_TOFRP*WPPG (call it ADM--Aggregated Defensive Metric). ADM now gives us a way to look at several important variables that contribute to team defensive success with one number. These numbers, by themselves aren't very intuitive, but we can rescale them and make them more meaningful. Using a 0.0-100.0 scale where 100.0 is a defense that gives up 0 PPG, 0 YPG and 0 TOFRP (the most dominant defense possible) and 0.0 is a defense that gives up 10 percent over the: maximum PPG, maximum YPG and maximum TOFRP (a sufficiently bad defense that allows for variation with the worst 'real' defense in the AFC. Also specifying the scale this way allows for comparison of team defenses across years). Here are the results:

team	adm	nflavg	ypg	ppg	wppg
BUF	84.3(4)	2.5(1)	276.6(2)	17.4(3)	9.3(4)
BAL	89.1(2)	2.5(1)	271.6(1)	17.6(4)	7.9(2)
NE	91.0(1)	3.5(3)	290.9(6)	14.9(1)	7.3(1)
DEN	81.8(5)	4.5(4)	277.6(3)	18.8(6)	9.9(5)
MIA	86.3(3)	5.5(5)	304.1(9)	16.3(2)	8.8(3)
CLE	78.2(7)	7.5(6)	299.1(8)	20.1(7)	10.1(6)
JAC	75.9(8)	7.5(6)	282.6(5)	20.7(10)	11.0(9)
NYJ	72.1(11)	8.0(8)	322.9(11)	18.7(5)	11.0(8)
PIT	81.4(6)	8.0(8)	295.6(7)	20.4(9)	10.7(7)
IND	75.3(9)	8.0(8)	279.1(4)	21.0(12)	11.9(11)
TEN	74.8(10)	9.0(11)	304.3(10)	20.3(8)	11.3(10)
KAN	69.0(12)	11.5(12)	339.5(12)	20.8(11)	12.7(12)
CIN	52.2(14)	14.0(13)	340.9(13)	24.0(15)	14.2(14)
OAK	53.3(13)	14.5(14)	364.8(16)	23.7(13)	13.8(13)
HOU	43.7(16)	14.5(14)	362.9(15)	23.8(14)	14.4(15)
SD	50.1(15)	15.0(16)	342.4(14)	27.6(16)	14.9(16)

The table above lists ADM, NFL AVG, YPG, PPG and WPPG, with each team's ranking in parentheses (notice that the teams are ranked in ascending order by NFL AVG and all other categories are compared to this one). For example, in the PPG column, Tennessee ranks 8th (20.3 PPG), but in the WPPG column, Tennessee ranks 10th (11.3 WPPG). Additionally, I took the average of the rankings for PPG and YPG as kind of an ad hoc measure of defensive success (Note: the NFL has a total team defense statistic--I've called it YPG here, but I'll use the NFL AVG for the sake of comparison).

A couple of things stand out as you look at the table. First, PPG and WPPG are for the most part very similar. In fact, their correlation coefficient is 0.95 (where 1.0 means two variables are perfectly correlated). The largest difference in rankings when looking at PPG compared to WPPG is with the New York Jets; they go from fifth in PPG (18.7) to eighth in WPPG (11.0). The fact that PPG and WPPG are very similar implies that field position across teams was relatively similar. Houston's defense had the best AFP (their opponent's 29-yard line) while Jacksonville's defense had the worst AFP (their opponent's 35-yard line). Six yards separates the best team from the worst team when comparing AFP and because of the similarities, PPG and WPPG turn out to not be that different. Nonetheless, WPPG is a more precise measure of points allowed, because it also accounts for field position.

ADM also correlates highly with NFL AVG. But what is important when considering ADM is how each team obtained its ADM ranking. For example, the NFL AVG ranks Buffalo and Baltimore as the two best defensive teams (based on YPG and PPG), with New England ranked third. ADM however, has New England ranked first and Buffalo ranked fourth. Why? Well remember that ADM is made up of several variables (YGURP, AFP, TOFRP, TOTYDS and WPPG) that account for defensive success. One reason the ADM ranked New England ahead of Buffalo was that New England led Buffalo in all the categories that comprise the ADM. In fact, when looking at the NFL AVG, Buffalo only faired better than New England in YPG (see the table above). To be more specific, out of all the AFC teams, New England ranked first in TYGURP and WPPG, second in T_TOFRP and third in AFP, while Buffalo ranked fourth, fourth, seventh and fourteenth, respectively.

Another team that dropped in the rankings when using ADM was the New York Jets. Their NFL AVG was eighth and the ADM rank was eleventh. This was primarily the result of the Jets being eleventh in the AFC in YPG, tenth in TYGURP, twelfth in T_TOFRP, eighth in WPPG and ninth in AFP. Despite the Jets being fifth in the conference in PPG, all of the factors contributing to the ADM resulted in their defense being no better than eleventh overall.

So after going through all this, what's the big deal about ADM? Well, on the surface there doesn't seem to be much difference between the ADM and the NFL AVG. But it's important to consider a couple of things:

First, ADM offers a more precise estimate of team defense because it considers variables that determine how successful a team performs. Yards given up that result in points, time on the field, average starting field position and weighted points per game are all important factors that affect how a defense will perform. Finding a way to incorporate all of these factors into one measure is a good thing (although it can certainly be argued that there are better measures than ADM).

Next, it's important to remember that the ADM estimated above looks only at AFC teams for the 2003 season. Perhaps looking at both conferences, or looking at data from previous years might yield more variation between the ADM and the NFL AVG (I'll put this on my to-do list). But as I stated above, the ADM does consider many variables when constructing a measure of team defense. Additionally, it more precisely portrays the overall effectiveness of team defense when compared to the statistical measures used before.

So to finally answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post: "Is New England really the best defense in the AFC?" Well, based on the ADM, New England gets a score of 91.0 with the Baltimore Ravens close behind with a score of 89.1. So as an unbiased observer (in reality I'm a Steelers fan so I don't even like the Patriots) I guess New England can claim the crown as the best defense in 2003. While the Patriots ranked near the top in most defensive categories, they also did the little things that translated into wins on the field. For example, they were sixth in the AFC in YPG, but were first in the conference in TGURP. They ranked fifth best in time on the field, but ranked second best in TOFRP. They ranked ninth in turnovers created, but ranked first in WPPG. Maybe Belichick new all of this years ago and fashions teams that emphasize these parts of the game. Whatever the case, the Patriots have proven over the last few years that a defense can be great without a surplus of great players--apparently what's more important is great strategy.

[A quick note: Hopefully this exercise had shed some light on new ways to measure team defensive success and has offered some insight into why some defenses succeed while others continue to struggle. Please send me an email about any questions or comments you might have because this is version 1.0 (like why did I include 'X' or exclude 'Y' in the estimates). I'm sure there are a lot of ways this metric can be improved.]

Garciaparra has a problem with steroid testing
Nomar Garciaparra says that if MLB decides to test him for steroids he's also going to get his doctor to test him as well because he 'does not trust tests.'

"I don't trust testing...I don't know where [the sample] is going or who's doing [the testing], or what they are looking for. Testing is just not the answer."

So then the question becomes, 'if testing is not the answer, what is?' How does one go about finding out if a player is using steroids? The NFL tests its players and there hasn't been much in the way of complaints (or even cries of false-positive test results). Any time a player offers resistance when it comes to testing, it immediately raises questions (whether that's right or wrong is another discussion--although prejudging people is usually a bad idea). I don't think there is anything wrong with Garciaparra insisting on being tested twice--in fact, it's probably a smart move. But if he doesn't have a solution to the current testing situation he might be better off not saying anything--especially when two of his teammates are more than willing to be tested to prove they're not on the juice.

Terrell Owens impact may be overstated
The Baltimore Ravens landed one of the best wide receivers in the NFL yesterday when they traded their 2nd round draft pick to San Francisco for the services of Terrell Owens. On the surface this looks to change the dynamic in the AFC North that now proclaims the Ravens as favorites. But before everyone gets too far ahead of themselves, first consider two things:

1) If Jamal Lewis can't play in 2004, the Ravens are back to square one--a one-dimensional team on offense with a great defense. But now, instead of relying on Lewis's legs, Billick must rely on Boller's ability to get TO the ball (FYI, Boller had surgery on his non-throwing shoulder yesterday). I'm sure most defensive coordinators would rather game plan against stopping TO than trying to stop Jamal Lewis.

2) If last year was any indication, Boller has a long way to go in terms of throwing the ball down the field. Granted, he really didn't have anyone to throw to other than TE Todd Heap, and Billick made it clear to anyone that would listen that he was going to run the ball. But the times that Boller did drop back he was largely ineffective. To be fair to Boller last year was his rookie year, but don't forget that TO spent a lot of time in Jeff Garcia's face for being inept (and Garcia has been to the Pro Bowl three times in the last five years) and the only reason that might not happen this season is because of Ray Lewis.

So depending on what happens to Jamal Lewis, and what kind of progress Boller makes, this could be virtually the same team as last year, but now utilizing a different weapon.

Jeff Garcia visits the Browns
In related news, Jeff Garcia is scheduled to visit the Browns as they decide what to do with Tim Couch. They also auditioned Drew Henson last week and may try to acquire him via a trade or draft him April 24. Whatever happens, it looks like Kelly Holcombe is out of the picture as starting QB.

Marcus Washington opts for Redskins
As soon as free agent LB left Pittsburgh yesterday, he flew to Washington and signed on the dotted line. The Skins gave Washington a $7 million signing bonus while the Steelers were only willing to give him $5 million.

"I'd be lying to you if (I said) money wasn't an issue," Washington said after signing with the Skins (at least he's honest, but don't forget that SS Dexter Jackson spurned the Steelers last year to play with the Cardinals for a few million more and look how that turned out).

That leaves the Steelers without a free agent signee and holes to fill at CB, RB and LB (and eventually QB). This also means that Jason Gildon won't be going anywhere (at least for now) although the Steelers will visit with Carlos Emmons today.

Steelers sign Kreider, and meet with other free agents
The Steelers resigned FB Dan Kreider to a 4 year $4.04 million contract yesterday. They also met with Indy OLB Marcus Washington, who could possibly replace Jason Gildon (they're the same size, but Washington is five years younger). On a more curious note, the Steelers plan to have three cornerbacks in for visits, but all three (Reggie Howard of Carolina, Fernando Bryant of the Jacksonville and Fred Thomas of New Orleans) are considered average at best. Couple that with the fact that (at least for now) Chad Scott will again be a starter, and you begin to wonder why they cut DeWayne Washington (or at least didn't give him a chance to restructure). I can't say this enough (to be fair, free agency is only a day old) but it is imperative that the Steelers get a quality cornerback. It relieves so much pressure on the linebackers and safeties when they don't have to help with double coverage because the cornerback is ineffective. And for a position that requires this 'Me against the world attitude', I'm not sure if Scott measures up. So before this is all said and done, let's hope the Steelers make some moves in the right direction.

Here's a mini-profile of the cornerbacks scheduled to visit Pittsburgh
From the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

"...the Steelers also have shown interest in free-agent cornerbacks Fernando Bryant of the Jacksonville Jaguars, Reggie Howard of the Carolina Panthers and David Barrett of the Arizona Cardinals.

Bryant, a No. 1 draft choice in 1999, has been a starter for the Jaguars since his rookie season, but he is not expected to return to Jacksonville.

Howard, 6-foot, 190, has a reputation as a strong tackler. He started 15 games last season for the NFC champion Panthers, recording two interceptions in the regular season. In the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl loss to the New England Patriots, he intercepted a pass in the end zone.

The Steelers have shown only lukewarm interest in Barrett, who is 5-10, 198 pounds and has been a starter for the Cardinals for the past three seasons. He might visit with team officials in Pittsburgh next week, but the Lions, Houston Texans, New York Jets and Seattle Seahawks also may bid for Barrett."

Tommy Maddox--no raise yet
In related news, Agent Vann McElroy said there has been no dialogue about restructuring the contract of Steelers quarterback Tommy Maddox, who is due to earn only $750,000 this year. "It's not a good time to go there," McElroy said.

The question then becomes, should Maddox hold out? Which should be immediately followed by the question, will he make more if one of the following happens: a) hold out (maybe, but probably not--Batch is the backup), b) gets cut and signs with another team (maybe, but that may be risky), c) complains but doesn't hold out (that will probably lead to b)).

Should Maddox be paid more? Probably. But remember, when he signed this deal, he was fresh off of his MVP season in the XFL and was looking for any opportunity in the NFL--no matter how small the contract. Now if Cowher or Rooney promised him a raise, that's another story, but I'm not sure that conversation ever took place.

Did steroids really help Randy Velarde?
Poor Randy Velarde. Known primarily as a utility infielder who spent the majority of his career with the Yankees, Velarde was yesterday identified as one of six major leaguers who received steroids. His last year in the majors was 2002, when in 133 at-bats he hit .226 (his best year was 1999 when he hit .317-16-76). Many have since questioned how beneficial steroids may have been for Velarde, who was probably best described as a mediocre player (Let me state up front, that these players were accused of 'receiving' steroids, not using them--and in fact some of them are denying it. This post will work under the assumption that Velarde did in fact use steroids--even though that has not yet been proven).

Upon first glance, Velarde's name certainly seemed out of place among the likes of Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield (I won't even mention Marvin Benard). This raises the question, "Did steroids keep Velarde in the league longer than he would have been otherwise?" I decided to see if in fact, Velarde was out of place on this list. I looked at five players (Bonds, Sheffield, Santiago, Giambi and Velarde and the overall MLB average) using four statistical categories (AVG, HR, RBI & R) for the years 1987 to 2003. My first task was to see how many standard deviations each player, in each category differed from the MLB average. I then converted the standard deviations to percentiles (I included actual player averages in parentheses) which is what you see below:

Batting average
MLB avg: .263
Bonds: 87th percentile (.303)
Sheffield: 80th percentile (.293)
Santiago: 50th percentile (.262)
Giambi: 85th percentile (.299)
Velarde: 61st percentile (.272)

(A quick note about interpreting percentiles: For batting average, Bonds had a percentile rank of 87;this can also be stated as, "Bonds's batting average over his career was better than 87% of all major leaguers).

Home runs per game
MLB avg: .090
Bonds: 99th percentile (.265)
Sheffield: 92nd percentile (.189)
Santiago: 61st percentile (.110)
Giambi: 95th percentile (.204)
Velarde: 44th percentile (.079)

RBI per game
MLB avg: .406
Bonds: 95th percentile (.693)
Sheffield: 91st percentile (.640)
Santiago: 64th percentile (.469)
Giambi: 95th percentile (.694)
Velarde: 38th percentile (.349)

Runs per game
MLB avg: .429
Bonds: 98th percentile (.765)
Sheffield: 87th percentile (.611)
Santiago: 38th percentile (.382)
Giambi: 90th percentile (.634)
Velarde: 65th percentile (.491)

These numbers don't paint a very convincing picture in terms of steroids benefiting Velarde. In fact, he finished below the MLB average in two of the four categories. So this again raises the question I posed earlier. Namely, did steroids keep Velarde in the league for several years longer than he would have been otherwise?

What happens if we make a few assumptions and then look at the numbers again? Let's assume that Velarde didn't use steroids until 1997 (I have no idea when he first used steroids, but we'll use 1997 for the purposes of this discussion). If we revisit the estimates above, but this time view them as a 'before and after snapshot', we can see what, if any impact steroid use may have had (this raises a whole litany of other problems--like even if his output did increase, it could have been a result of: a) him getting better, b) a new weight training regime or c) luck--not necessarily steroids. I'll try to address this below). Here are the before and after numbers:

Batting average (before 1997, after 1997)
MLB avg: (.261, .266)
Bonds: 83rd, 92nd percentiles (.295, .314)
Sheffield: 76th, 85th percentiles (.285, .301))
Santiago: 52nd, 54th percentiles (.263, .262)
Giambi: 64th, 85th percentiles (.273, .306)
Velarde: 55th, 70th percentiles (.265, .284)

Home runs per game (before 1997, after 1997)
MLB avg: (.082, .100)
Bonds: 98th, 99th percentiles (.219, .330)
Sheffield: 90th, 94th percentiles (.168, .213)
Santiago: 71st, 53rd percentiles (.119, .094)
Giambi: 75th, 96th percentiles (.127, .226)
Velarde: 44th, 45th percentiles (.073, .090)

RBI per game (before 1997, after 1997)
MLB avg: (.391, .425)
Bonds: 93rd, 97th percentiles (.645, .761)
Sheffield: 89th, 92nd percentiles (.601, .684)
Santiago: 69th, 56th percentiles (.479, .452)
Giambi: 76th, 96th percentiles (.514, .746)
Velarde: 34th, 43rd percentiles (.321, .392)

Runs per game (before 1997, after 1997)
MLB avg: (.415, .447)
Bonds: 97th, 99th percentiles (.716, .836)
Sheffield: 83rd, 90th percentiles (.568, .658))
Santiago: 48th, 26th percentiles (.406, .342)
Giambi: 80th, 90th percentiles (.550, .658)
Velarde: 50th, 83rd percentiles (.417, .602)

I next used t-tests to see if Velarde's before-and-after numbers were statistically different (we can think of statistical significance this way: each hitter's batting average varies from year to year. By comparing before-and-after averages, we can see if the 'after' averages are so different from 'before' averages that it seems like an anomaly. For example, if Wade Boggs hit .200 his last year in the league, we'd be pretty certain that was an anomaly, because his lifetime average was well over .300. On the other hand, if he hit .315, we'd think nothing of it because that is pretty much in line with his past performances).

Velarde increased his batting average from the 55th to the 70th percentile, but statistically, the two averages were not very different (even though his average increased by 20 points, it was not a 'significant' increase).

He increased his home run production from the 44th to the 45th percentile. And while this increase seems minimal, it is statistically different. This is because prior to 1997, Velarde hit an average of 0.07 HRs per game--but with a range of 0.04 to 0.10. After 1997, Velarde hit an average of .092 HRs per game--but this time with a range of 0.07 to 0.12. Because his average after 1997 is very close to the upper range before 1997 (the upper range was 0.10), statistically, his HR production is notable.

For RBI and Rs, Velarde also improved significantly when comparing before and after statistics (His RBI production increased from the 34th to the 43rd percentile and his R production increased from the 50th to the 83rd percentile).

So all things being equal, it would seem that Velarde might have benefited from using steroids (please realize that when I say 'benefited', I'm referring to his output on the field, not any health-related side-effects). So maybe an argument can be made that Velarde extended his career by using steroids, because after 1997 (assuming that is when he started using) all of his numbers except batting average increased significantly.

Now I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit that this analysis doesn't consider many variables. For starters, I don't account for other things that increase player output--like practice, maturity, experience, legitimate weight training and some good bounces. Furthermore, a better method for comparing before and after numbers might be to take Velarde's statistics for his first ten years in the league and then project what his numbers would have been for 1997 to 2003; then compare these numbers to his actual numbers (and this is something I'll pursue in the coming weeks--and in case you're curious, one way to predict his statistics from 1997-2003 is to find players with similar numbers across offensive categories, run a regression, and then predict his output based on the regression model).

So while this analysis certainly isn't the last word, it's a good place to start, and it gives some idea how steroids may have affected Velarde's numbers. And even though we often associate steroids with high profile, all-star power-hitters, Velarde's case may be one of a mediocre player looking to get enough of an edge to hang around a few more years--and maybe it worked.

Quotes from yesterday's action

"He was talking about how he has a tape on all the hitters...I asked him if he had my big blast against him. It went about 330 feet and barely cleared the fence."

-Kevin Millar, talking about Curt Schilling. Schilling answered Millar's question a little later. When Millar stepped in against him for batting practice, Schilling whistled his first pitch of the day just behind Millar's neck. "My heart dropped," said catcher Jason Varitek. "It scared the crap out me."

"Rashad is the big story of the game...he continues to play like one of the best players in the league, and I think he's one of the best players in college basketball. He's made some big time shots for us all year."

-Roy Williams, on Rashad McCants' 30-point performance last night against Clemson.

"Get out of my locker."

-Barry Bonds, when asked about a report that he had received steroids and human growth hormone from a nutritional supplements lab implicated in a drug-distribution ring.

April 1, 1996, Riverfront Stadium, umpire John McSherry calls time from behind the plate and collapses on the field with a massive heart attack and dies. The popular McSherry, a veteran of 21 seasons, had been suffering from a series of medical problems, aggravated by his weight of 328 pounds. The game, just seven pitches old between the Reds and Expos, was called.

"Snow this morning and now this. I don't believe it. I feel cheated. This isn't supposed to happen to us, not in Cincinnati. This is our history, our tradition, our team. Nobody feels worse than me."

-Marge Schott, owner of the Cincinnati Reds, who died yesterday. Schott, who later apologized, said it with flowers instead. But the Dayton Daily News reported that the flowers she sent were given to her by a television station covering the Reds.

Start the clock, free agency begins today
Pro Football Weekly lists some of the top free agents available and where they might end up. On that list are five cornerbacks (Antoine Winfield, Ahmed Plummer, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor and Shawn Springs), and the Steelers are not mentioned once as having interest in any of them. Of course that doesn't mean the Steelers don't have interest in them; but if they don't land a CB in free agency and then take a QB and RB in the first two rounds, they are headed down the same road they've traveled the last three seasons (this road is at the intersection of defensive pass interference and missed tackles).

But their is good news. The Post-Gazette reports that the Steelers have signed backup fullback Matt Cushing. Maybe he can play cornerback too.

This can't be a good idea
The Steelers are announcing their 2nd annual 'Men's Fantasy Football Camp Weekend' set for this summer. Here's the sales pitch, straight off the website:

"Guys, you have been drafted! It is time to get off the couch and on to the playing field for an experience of a lifetime"

Before you rush to sign up, be sure to first read the following disclaimer (it's at the top of the page):

"Be sure to print and complete the registration form at the bottom of this page and also print and complete the MEDICAL WAIVER."

Right. Now I remember why I enjoy sitting on my couch watching football on television. This is one of those situations that sounds great at one in the morning over a few too many beers, but once you're on the field in your new 'uniform' you start to get second thoughts. Your fears are confirmed when you're doing blocking drills across from Butterbean. Actually, I'm sure it's not that bad, and in fact, there are some photos posted from last years camp--and their pretty funny.

How many bad decisions can one team make?
Maybe Joe Gibbs and Daniel Snyder know something the rest of us don't. Is it just me or are the Redskins seemingly the most impulsive team in football. They've just signed Clinton Portis to a $50.5 million contract (including a $17m signing bonus) making him the highest paid back in the league. They gave up Champ Bailey, one of the best cornerbacks in the league, and a second round draft pick. Since when does a team give up a top five cornerback and a 2nd round pick, for arguably one of the top five running backs in the league when the upcoming draft is full of quality runners?

I guess the answer to that question is, right after the new ol' ball coach comes out of retirement, promptly demotes the 2nd year, star quarterback-in-the-making, to trade for an over-the-hill, oft-injured Mark Brunell--just to say he now has a veteran quarterback. Note to Joe Gibbs: There could be more good news--Vinny Testaverde is retiring and will soon be availabe to replace Brunell as the veteran, veteran quarterback.

Here's an idea if you're in the Washington front office--keep Champ Bailey, trade down in the first round (they currently have the 5th pick), draft either RBs Kevin Jones or Steven Jackson and the second round pick is still yours. Don't get Brunell and start Patrick Ramsey, and the third round pick is still yours. As it stands, the Redskins now have two picks in the upcoming draft. That's a great way to rebuild a team that won five games last season.

Buy hey, what do I know--maybe Gibbs has a few more tricks up his sleeve--I hear Mark Rypien might be available by minicamp.

McCants has a Big Game against NC State

"Yeah, I heard all that. I love it. Stare at me, try to psyche me out. I'm too strong mentally for that. And they didn't have much to say at the end."

-Rashad McCants,who scored 22 points, commenting on how he was unaffected by both Julius Hodge's trash-talking and the raucous fans at the RBC Center.

Adam Lucus writes in more vivid detail about how intenese this rivalry really is.

David Ortiz accomplishes Goal before the Season even Starts
I guess it's important to aim high. This is from today's Boston Herald:

"It always helps to set a goal, and David Ortiz reached one during batting practice. After days of egging each other on, Ortiz impressed himself and batting-practice mates Millar, Manny Ramirez and Jason Varitek by launching a missile that landed approximately 100 feet beyond the right field fence. The ball shattered the right tail light of a green Oldsmobile Intrigue, one of about 20 cars at which the players had taken aim.

'I told them I was feeling strong today,' Ortiz said.

One ball hit and shattered the windshield of media relations savant Peter Chase's car."

Bettis is Back
The Steelers will probably announce today that Jerome Bettis will be back for one more season at a restructured salary of $1 million.