2007 NFL Draft Moves that Didn't Make Sense

The top of the first round didn’ t live up to the hype. The swirling rumors of multiple team trades and top three upheaval never happened. The first eight picks went by and the only eyebrow raisers were Brady Quinn’s notable descent, and Adrian Peterson falling out of the top five. But, even those weren’t too crazy. Peterson was still taken in the top ten and surely the Dolphins, with huge questions at quarterback would take the highly touted Notre Dame quarterback off of the board.

Then, with the ninth overall pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, the Miami Dolphins select Ohio State wide receiver Ted Ginn, Jr. My jaw hit the floor. Is Cam Cameron much more comfortable with Daunte Culpepper or Cleo Lemon than ANYONE could possibly believe?

I have said in the past that if anyone can bring Culpepper back to top form, a guru like Cameron can. But Cameron likes his quarterback to be quick, confident, decision makers. Culpepper hasn’t made a quick decision since Randy Moss exited Minnesota. However, talk of Cameron being disenchanted with Culpepper had to be premature. Given the status of Culpepper’s rehab, Cameron has yet to see Culpepper in action - at least from the perspective as Culpepper’s head coach.

And what of Cleo Lemon? Sure, Cameron made no secret that he liked the kid when the two were in San Diego. But does he have enough confidence in a kid who’s yet to prove anything on the field that he would pass up a top prospect like Quinn?

The passing up of Brady Quinn aside, why Ginn, Jr.? Forget for the moment that the Dolphins have issues at quarterback. Forget the question of drafting a receiver when you have no one to deliver the football. Look at the Ginn selection in its own right. The Dolphins selected a receiver who shows inconsistency catching the football and will likely be nothing more than a replacement for Wes Welker in the return game. Sure the return game is important and Ginn Jr. has the potential to be an even better returner than Welker but do you address the return game with a TOP TEN PICK? The Dolphins weren’t so stacked that they had no other needs that could have been addressed here. I certainly can't believe that they passed up a player who would touch the ball on every offensive down for one that would probably only touch the ball around 7 times a game.

Thirteen picks later, the Dallas Cowboys take advantage of how the Mighty Quinn hath fallen and engineer a trade with Cleveland. The Cowboys take the #36 overall (4th pick of round 2) in this year’s draft and Cleveland’s first round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft to allow the Browns to grab Quinn at 22 before the Kansas City Chiefs have a chance to take the clock at 23. Dallas appears to have made off like bandits with no immediately pressing needs. But then the Cowboys negate the move by handing the #36 overall pick they wrangled from Cleveland to division rival Philadelphia along with their 3rd and 5th round picks to move back into the first round and take Perdue defensive end Anthony Spencer.

Now, Anthony Spencer is a great player who is NFL-ready. He’s got the tools and the ability to make an immediate impact at outside linebacker in Dallas’ 3-4 defense or at defensive end in their 4-3 nickel set. I recognize this. But did Dallas really need to trade away THREE picks for a player at a position where they are already very strong? With DeMarcus Ware, Greg Ellis, Kevin Burnette and Bobby Carpenter all playing well at outside linebacker and Ellis, Ware, and Burnette already great options in nickel, why did Dallas give up so much? If Dallas had an absolute NEED to get back into the first round, you’d think they would at least address positions where they had questions or lack of reliable depth. Auburn guard Ben Grubbs, Central Michigan tackle Joe Staley, Texas tackle Justin Blalock and Arkansas Guard Tony Ugoh all come to mind. Blalock and Ugoh were all available when Dallas would have picked at #36.

Dallas got a great player in Spencer. Dallas did a pretty good job with the picks they had left overall. But that trade back into the first round to take a player in a position that they did not have need surprised me.

Speaking of the #36 overall pick … Kevin Kolb? Kolb was a four-year starter at the University of Houston. He has a strong arm and is very intelligent. I don’t know that he was the best value for the Eagles who have Donovan McNabb and just resigned back up AJ Feely. Even if they wanted to start grooming a player for life after McNabb, Michigan State’s Drew Stanton, Stanford’s Trent Edwards, even BYU’s John Beck and Ohio State’s Troy Smith were still available.

But the Eagles overall draft - as always with Andy Reid at the helm - was very good. Taking Penn State running back Tony Hunt in the third round was an absolute steal. Hunt will be a perfect compliment to Westbrook. I just thought the selection of Kolb - not because he is not good - that high was perplexing.

Quite possibly the second biggest reach, right behind the Dolphins taking Ginn Jr., was the selection of Arizona running back Chris Henry by the Tennessee Titans in the second round. Obviously banking on Henry’s smokin’ time in the 40 yard dash at the combine, the Titans grabbed him to give underachieving LenDale White a run for his money. The Titans allowed Travis Henry and Chris Brown to exit via free agency.

The problem I had with this pick in the second round wasn’t because the Titans didn’t need a running back. But with Tony Hunt and even Rutger’s Brian Leonard still on the board, they had guys they could have picked who had actually carried the load at running back. Henry didn’t get much playing time at all his first three season. His senior year, off-the field issues resulted in a suspension. He didn’t actually start a game his entire NCAA career until the final four games of his senior season. Hunt carried the load at Penn State showing he could move the pile, had excellent hands, and while he didn’t exhibit Henry’s blazing speed, his 4.57 40 time is good enough. Leonard has sub 4.5 speed and has shown the ability to be a tailback and fullback. Henry was a risk in the second round that I did not expect any team to undertake. I am especially surprised that the Titans overlooked his off the field issues given recent events surrounding Titans CB Adam "Pacman" Jones.

Gator LB Brandon Siler, Auburn CB David Irons Among 2007 NFL Draft Late Round Steals.

Anyone can say Louisville RB Michael Bush and Ohio State QB Troy Smith were second day steals. Let’s take a look at some of the prospects that dropped to the final two rounds, and one that went undrafted.

Brandon Siler, a 6′2″, 238 pound linebacker from the NCAA National Champion University of Florida was easily the steal of round seven by the San Diego Chargers. Siler is fast and agile with 4.59 speed. He has fluid hips, flows to the ball well, can knife through gaps to stop the run and drop into coverage. The only knock on Siler is that he sometimes has trouble shedding blocks. He will sometimes try to avoid bigger blockers instead of taking them on and shedding them. With his speed and tremendous work ethic, Siler’s fall to the seventh round is more incredible than Brady Quinn’s drop to the 22nd overall. Siler was picked 240th overall (30th pick of round seven).

Auburn CB David Irons got much less hype than his brother, Auburn running back Kenny Irons. But at the senior bowl, David Irons’ nose for the ball and flat out speed popped a lot of eyes. He showed that he could excel against very good receivers in bump and run and zone coverage. He picked up schemes well and had a knack for finding the ball. At 194th (29th pick of round 6) overall to Atlanta, Irons is a great deal.

Oklahoma linebacker Rufus Alexander was taken by Minnesota 174th (2nd in the 6th round). Alexander is agile and rangy. Possessing 4.62 speed at 6′1″, 227 pounds, Alexander has a knack for being in the right place on the field to make plays. He plays hard against the run but is a bit undersized. He is a bullying pass defender with game speed that surpasses his 40 time.

Undrafted Notre Dame running back Darrius Walker should make a roster somewhere. at 5′10″ 212 Walker isn’t quite big enough to be a mauler but lacks the elite burst and break away speed that would make him a feature back. However, in today’s era of the short yardage specialist, Walker will make a perfect compliment to a team like Tampa Bay who will lose Mike Alstott to retirement sometime soon.

The First Debate of the Caucus

Well, the first democratic debate has come to an end, and as the political pundits over at MSNBC interview each other and talk about who looked the best, I’ll make the call to arms – bloggers: start your fingers!

For starters, to those of you who don’t know exactly where Hillary, Barack, and John Edwards stand on the issues: don’t feel bad. None of us do. The three front-runners coming into the debate have continued their firm stances of not having any firm stances. Hillary is roughly in favor of leaving some people in Iraq, Barack is more or less in favor of leaving no residual troops, and John Edwards is definitely from a poor, southern family. That’s about all they gave up in their continued campaigns to sound passionate without offering real solutions. Oh, and they’re all Christian. That matters to some people, I know.

If you want to know what their stances are – please just check their official sites, because there’s no point in going through a middleman when the information is so readily available. I’ll put the links at the end, if I can figure out how.

Now, to those of you who don’t know where the lesser-known candidates stand: shame on you! For the first time in a very long time, we have a great cross-section of democrats that are all ready to lead our country into a renaissance of peace and understanding. Any one of these candidates would be an unprecedented leap forward from our current administration, and every one has ideas that are both novel and refreshing. But as is the case with so many things in life, the best ones are flying under the radar. So here they are: the candidates without $20 billion….

Not that my opinion should mean anything to anybody other than myself (please just read about the candidates and make a decision on your own), but I’m officially stating that I feel Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico) is the best candidate for president of the United States Of America that we’ve had in decades. For virtually every question he was asked, he had a well thought out and decisive answer prepared, even if he wasn’t asked the same questions as the other candidates. He had multiple-points that he attempted to get to in the 1 minute allotted to him per answer. Admittedly, he doesn’t seem to have mastered the art of being concise with his speech, but that just tells me that he was more prepared than anybody else and he knows that there isn’t a quick, 1-minute answer to these difficult questions. His speech was honest (admitting once that he was the last of the candidates to call for Alberto Gonzales’s resignation, partially because Gonzales is Latino) and his opinions were clear and well stated. The moderator once mentioned that Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, and he was the only one to propose a way to give universal health care without raising taxes (which correlates with his track record in New Mexico, but again – check his site for facts. Blogs are for opinions.)

However, I’m not here to blow smoke up Governor Richardson’s ass, as every candidate is worth mentioning. Standing out from the crowd was former Alaskan representative and senator Mike Gravel. His speech was loud and often accusatory with radical ideas and an aggressive style, but frankly: that’s what we need. He was the most vocal against the Bush administration, but was also opposed to the other candidates that would pander to said administration by trading more money for a long-term timetable of withdrawal and taking any action that wouldn’t result in immediate change. The only other candidate looking for such quick action is Richardson whose timetable is “the end of this calendar year” but Gravel offered a virulent path to that end: a call to congress to make a law that would make it a felony for President Bush to continue the war in Iraq. His idealism may be a bit far-fetched, as he would need 67% of congress to over-rule the President’s obvious veto, but the idea is the sort of progressive thought that liberals are looking for.

Another stand-out in the field of candidates is senator Joe Biden, who came across as the most intelligent and professional of the group, even if his opinions are less radical than Gravel’s. Also, despite his great track record he doesn’t have the diplomatic experience that Richardson does. Biden is a very well spoken candidate who advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq and a quick end to the war. Unfortunately, he has a similar approach as Hillary, Barack, and Edwards in that he seems fine with a slow withdrawal and has no brilliant new ideas to make the changes we all want to see. He does have the intelligence, passion, and experience to run the country though.

Dennis Kucinich, like always, stands out as a passionate and intelligent individual. I’ve been a fan of Kucinich for years, and it’s a shame that once again I see him picking the wrong fights and choosing the wrong places to make a stand. When not one of the other 7 candidates would endorse his plan to impeach Vice President Cheney (this caucus is all about uniting, not further dividing) he pulled out a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and held it up while explaining that Cheney was going against what the country stands for and needs to be held accountable. A great point, and a good picture that we’ll likely see again during this race, but it certainly didn’t help his popularity. Richardson was right to say that the American people want an honest candidate, but a level of discretion is advisable to somebody involved in a popularity contest. And make no mistake: this is the grandest of popularity contests.

Senator Christopher Dodd also came across as both intelligent and well spoken, but his opinions were little more than regurgitation of everybody else’s stances. He was neither controversial nor particularly memorable, so his presence is more that of a strong benchwarmer than anything else. He reminds me that even the least memorable democratic candidate is infinitely better than the options that the other side has, and we would be lucky to have Dodd as a president, even though I don’t see him making many waves this year. But it’s still early, and we may hear from him yet – he certainly has the capacity to lead the democrats, and we could all rejoice if he were our next president.

As for the three front-runners, they don’t need more press, so I won’t spend as much time talking about them. Hillary was very well composed and presented herself like a President. Her pearls were a bit extravagant (who cares about a $400 haircut when you’ve got a $10,000 necklace?), but I’m not one to make a decision based on superficialities so that’s the end of that. Barack wasn’t his usual self, but that’s not to say he isn’t still deserving of his large following. I was first made aware of him three years ago, and to this day I like the guy. My only problem (like most people’s problem with him) is the lack of experience: it’s more than signing bills and pulling the troops out, and his continued reluctance to take any firm stances would keep me from voting for him. I’d love to see him take the vice-presidency, and then take over after 8 years of internship. That’s a distinct possibility. As for John Edwards: he’s the cookie-cutter candidate that we get at least one of every four years. Just like Al Gore before him and countless others that I won’t waste my time mentioning, he’s got the key phrases (“my Lord” was mentioned, of course) and his look is both clean-cut and conservative (appropriate, considering his approach). He doesn’t represent change – just a solid step away from the current regime.

So what should we all take away from this debate? Hope - tons and tons of hope. Every single candidate up on that stage was a good remedy to the bunch of stubborn misfits that we have in place right now, and no matter what happens – we’ll be much better off in 2009 than we were before. These candidates all represent more than a change of primary color in the executive branch: they represent a change in philosophy and approach. Every single one agrees that war has to be 2nd to diplomacy, not the other way around. They are all more willing to talk about the issues than to give each other grief (even if only one of them was willing to sign Governor Richardson’s agreement not to sling mud during the caucus), and they are all qualified leaders. We are terribly lucky to have this group vying for our votes, and 2009 will prove to be a great year in American history.

So do yourself a favor, and watch the future debates, keep track of the candidates, and know that whatever happens: voting democrat in 2008 is going to be a good decision regardless of your usual party affiliation.


Official sites/candidacy sites:

Bill Richardson

Mike Gravel

Joe Biden

Dennis Kucinich

Christopher Dodd

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John Edwards

Senator Barack Obama On U.S. Foreign Policy @ Chicago Council on Global Affairs - NY Times

Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views
NY Times | April 23, 2007

By Jeff Zeleny

CHICAGO, April 23 -- Senator Barack Obama said today that even though the global image of the United States has been sullied by the war in Iraq and a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology," America must repair its standing in the world and resist the temptation to turn inward.

"America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America," Mr. Obama said. "We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission - we must lead the world, by deed and example."

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama presented himself as a presidential candidate "who can speak directly to the world." After a sharp critique of President Bush, Mr. Obama called for increasing foreign aid to developing countries, expanding and modernizing the military and rebuilding fractured alliances.

"This president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open," Mr. Obama said. "And it's time to fill that role once more."

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat elected to the United States Senate two years ago, delivered the first major foreign policy address of his Democratic presidential bid to hundreds of supporters in the ballroom of a downtown hotel here. It is the first of several policy speeches he is scheduled to deliver in the coming weeks as he works to define his candidacy with specific proposals an Obama administration would pursue.

"This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership," Mr. Obama said. "The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it."

He added: "This is going to require a new spirit, not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence."

In the opening three months of his presidential race, Mr. Obama has solidified his role as one of the leading contenders for the nomination, raising more money than any of his rivals for the primary campaign. But Mr. Obama is also striving to expand his appeal beyond that of a best-selling author and political celebrity as he tackles questions of substance and policy.

The United States must build a 21st century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to "showing wisdom in how we deploy it." He called for expanding American ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. But less than 1 percent of the military can speak Arabic, Mandarin or Korean - a shortcoming he said needs to be corrected through training and recruitment.

"We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect," Mr. Obama said. "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision."

The Bush administration, Mr. Obama said, "squandered that opportunity" to unite the world after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The war in Iraq, he said, "was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies, a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset."

"And after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs," Mr. Obama said. "I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make."

If elected, Mr. Obama said he would lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials across the world within four years. In addition to securing stockpiles of nuclear material, Mr. Obama said the United States should work to negotiate a ban on producing new nuclear weapons material.

To discourage countries from building weapons programs, Mr. Obama endorsed the concept of providing reactor fuel through an international nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Mr. Obama said he would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join.

Mr. Obama also called for the United States to rebuild its alliances, reform the United Nations and strengthen NATO.

"We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair," Mr. Obama said. "I agree, but this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box."

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, dismissed Mr. Obama's criticism.

"Senator Obama started his career with a tone of hope, but has quickly turned to one of blame," Ms. Miller said. "Obama has no foreign policy experience; therefore has no record of having done anything - wrong or otherwise. His comments today blamed others and failed to detail his own plan for success."

Signposts On The Zeitgeist - David Halberstam Passes - SF Chronicle

Signposts On The Zeitgeist - Paul Erdman Passes - SF Chronicle

I had the pleasure of meeting Paul Erdman only once, and was struck by his kindness and willingness to engage in conversation. He's one of those popular economists who's ideas and words were always part of popular culture and certainly a part of my intellectual awareness.


Paul Erdman -- expert economist and prolific writer

Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Paul Erdman, a world-class economist and banker who used his knowledge of economics and politics to write best-selling novels, died at his Sonoma County ranch Monday after a long illness.

He was 74.

Mr. Erdman was a renaissance man -- an expert on high finance who once was the CEO of a Swiss bank, wrote 10 novels and two non-fiction books, was an Internet and newspaper columnist, and was a man of charm and culture who could talk on nearly every subject.

His opinions on professional football were published in newspapers, he held baseball season tickets, and he admired the Georgetown University basketball team.

One of his greatest achievements, said his daughter Constance Erdman Narea, "was inspiring intellectual curiosity.''

"Knowledge was something very, very important to him,'' said Hernan Narea, his son-in-law.

Mr. Erdman had the rare gift of being able to communicate his knowledge in a clear and entertaining manner.

His first book, "The Billion Dollar Sure Thing,'' published in 1973, received an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America. His second book, "The Silver Bears," was made into a movie starring Michael Caine and Jay Leno.

His books have been translated into 32 languages and spent a combined 152 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. His other books include "The Crash of '79", published in 1976; "The Panic of '89" in 1987; "The Palace"; "The Swiss Account"; and his last book, "The Great Game," to be published this year.

His books were entertaining and got excellent reviews. "I gave 'The Palace' a read,'' San Francisco author Peter Delacorte wrote in 1988, "and I want to tell you, I was floored."

His genre was what reviewers called "financial thrillers,'' with complex plots and carefully researched settings.

"I never write about a place unless I've been there," he told Metroactive, an online book publication. His last novel -- "The Great Game'' -- is set in Uzbekistan, where Mr. Erdman traveled in 1991. He was intrigued at first by exotic places like Samarkand, but the book is a cautionary tale about power politics and oil in central Asia.

Mr. Erdman's books were more than entertaining -- "The Swiss Account," a 1992 novel, has been credited with triggering worldwide investigations into the role of the Swiss in connection with Nazi Germany during World War II.

Paul Emil Erdman was born in Ontario in 1932. His parents were Americans and his father was a minister. He was educated in U.S. prep schools and earned a degree from Georgetown's foreign service school. He later received a doctorate in economics with the highest honors from the University of Basel in Switzerland.

He was an international economist from 1957 to 1961 in Europe and at the Stanford Research Institute. Later, he founded and was the CEO of a Swiss bank.

Mr. Erdman visited San Francisco years ago and became enamored of the city.

"He could have lived anywhere in the world, but he chose San Francisco,'' said his daughter Constance. "He was a San Franciscan first and foremost.''

He lived on Nob Hill for many years, and also maintained his Sonoma County ranch, near Healdsburg, where he did a lot of his writing.

Mr. Erdman had strong loyalties. One was to Georgetown. He appeared frequently on campus and on the 75th anniversary of the foreign service school he was one of 12 alumni to be placed in the school's Hall of Fame. Another was former President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Erdman also made a point of always mentioning San Francisco or San Franciscans in his novels. One of his favorite spots, the Big Four restaurant on Nob Hill, appeared often.

Mr. Erdman is survived by his wife, Helly , of the family home in Sonoma County; two daughters, Jennifer Erdman of Healdsburg and Constance Erdman Narea of Greenwich, Conn.; and two granddaughters.

The funeral will be private.

Bush Greets Colts at White House

Bush Greets Colts at White House
By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- Even when football season ends, superstar quarterback Peyton Manning is hard to miss on TV. He has become such a marketable pitchman that his commercials -- a sports drink here, a credit card company there -- seem endless. Apparently, President Bush has taken notice while flipping the channels.

"So a lot of people here in the White House compound have been really looking forward to seeing Peyton Manning," Bush said Monday on the South Lawn. "They wanted to see a guy who gets more air time than I do."


The good-natured poke came as Bush welcomed another championship team to the White House: The Indianapolis Colts.

The Colts beat the Chicago Bears, 29-17, in a pounding rainstorm last February to become Super Bowl champs. On Monday, players basked in the sunshine below the South Portico, as Bush hailed them for ignoring naysayers and playing as a well-balanced team.

As he usually does at these events, Bush played up the theme of perseverance. He liked that the Colts fought through ups and downs.

"Isn't that what life is about, isn't it really?" Bush said. "Through the ups -- it's easy to fight hard in the ups. It's when the downs come that you've got to be a fighter."

The team's coach, Tony Dungy, became the first black coach to win a Super Bowl. Long one of the most respected figures in the National Football League, Dungy coped with the suicide of his son, James, in late 2005. Bush alluded to that.

"He is a man who has used his -- a position of notoriety to behave in a quiet and strong way in the face of personal tragedy that has influenced a lot of our fellow citizens," Bush said of Dungy, who stood next to him on stage. "And I want to thank you for your courage."

The Colts are used to getting showered with attention. More than 93 million people watched the Super Bowl. Yet the team's players and executives seemed awed to be at the White House, and they didn't hide it.

Players pulled out personal cameras to get photos with Bush. They did the same with another political star and football fan who showed up for the ceremony -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Earlier, players visited injured troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Manning, Dungy and a handful of others also got a 20-minute tour of the Oval Office from Bush.

"Winning the Super Bowl a few months ago was probably about as special as you could get," Manning told reporters after the White House ceremony. "But I'm not sure you could actually beat what's happened here today."

As for all those commercials, Manning said he's used to getting ribbing from teammates. All Bush did, he said, was provide "more ammo for the offensive line to have some fun with me."