NFL.com's Jason Feller is seemingly a BIG Cowboys fan

by BigBlueShoe on May 28, 2008 10:32 AM EDT in Bad Journalism Comment 50 comments

NFL.com has an article up celebrating 15 years of free agency. I have a vague memory of the NFL prior to free agency, and I remember when it happened (allowing players like Keith Jackson to leave the team they were drafted to and sign with another). NFL.com's Jason Feeler pays tribute to free agency by picking the top 15 best free agent moves in the last 15 years, with one selection per year. Feller's selection seem a bit inconsistent because the selections by year don't necessarily reflect that the free agent in question had an immediate impact that specific year. Some selections did, and many of them are obvious: Reggie White to the Packers in 1993, Deion Sanders to the 49ers in 1994, and Rich Gannon to the Raiders in 1999.

And some of the others are just down right dumb. Take Feller's pick for best free agent signing of 2007:

2007: Leonard Davis, Cowboys
Former team: Cardinals
Position: Guard
Reported terms: Seven years, $50 million

The second overall pick of the 2001 draft was once considered a disappointment as he started out at the tackle position. Upon moving to guard his career began to take a turn for the better and he enjoyed a career year for the Cowboys last season. He earned his first Pro Bowl invitation and was a key cog for the NFC's best offense last year, manhandling defensive tackles with his impressive strength. Honorable mention: RB Jamal Lewis

Um, I'm sorry Jason, but either you don't watch the football product that your website helps promote, or you are a raging Cowboys homer. There's just no other reason I can think of to explain why you would pick Leonard Davis as the best free agent pick-up of 2007. Players like QB Jeff Garcia took a lowly Tampa Bay team into the playoffs in 2007. Others, like Seattle DE Patrick Kerney, resurrected the Seahawks pass rush, generating 14.5 sacks and 5 forced fumbles. And unlike Davis, Kerney's team actually won a playoff game.

Maybe Feller is using Davis' Pro Bowl nod as justification, but that doesn't hold up because we all know the Pro Bowl is bunk. Roy Williams has been to 5 of them, and everyone and their grandmother knows he STINKS. Even his own teammates are finally saying it.

So, I literally have no logical answer for why Feller thinks Davis is such a free agent stud; unless, of course, Fellers comes from the Ed Werder School of Journalism and simply laps up everything the Dallas Cowboys dump on him. Guys like Garcia and Kerney made more of an impact on their teams as free agents than Davis did. It's obvious.

Feller also screwed up his 2006 free agent selection. I agree that Drew Brees is, without question, the best free agent pickup of 2006. However, the Honorable Mentions do not list Adam Vinatieri. They list Terrell Owens (another Cowboys who can't help his team win a playoff game), and Charles Woodson (who was injured most of 2006 and couldn't get the Packers in the playoffs). All Vinatieri did was help the Colts win a Super Bowl by making numerous big kicks both during the regular season and the playoffs, in particular at Baltimore.

I guess Feller doesn't think kickers are sexy enough to list as great free agents, but underachieving, overpaid offensive guards are.

0 recs | Comment 50 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Feller is absolutely correct BBS

He’s just not a hater like you and can acknowledge a great signing by Jerry Jones.

As a tackle, Davis is average at best but as a guard, Davis is the best OL in the game today. You’re talking about a 6-6 360 lbs beast who has like 5% body fat and can absolutely destroy anything in front of him. Cardinals should have made this move a long time ago but thats why they’re the Cardinals and always suck. The move to guard was absolute genius on the Cowboys coaches part and he’ll dominate for years to come.

Clearly the best FA signing in 2007.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 28, 2008 10:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Davis Was a Good Signing, BUT

Patrick Kerney is easily the best signing. Saying Davis is the best lineman in the league is a major stretch. I would take Walter Jones, Jason Peters, Jeff Saturday, and his teammate Flozell Adams over him.

Kerney got 13.5 sacks and completely changed the dynamic of the team. The Cowboys got no better with the signing of Davis. The Seahawks would have lost the division to the Cardinals without Kerney.

coltshomer.blogspot.com=my blog, Pro-Colts Stuff. Check it out.

by Colts Homer on May 28, 2008 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you are sadly mistaken Homer

the Cowboys OL went from being marginally average to one of the very best OL in the league with the signing of Davis and you can easily argue they have the best OL because of him.

Obviously you never watch the Cowboys to think that their offense wasn’t considerably better in 2007 than it was in 2006 and the only real change made in the starting offensive lineup was Davis. Pretty much a no brainer that he had a huge impact on their offensive production last season.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 28, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roy Williams STINKS

He does indeed. Way more than Vince Young, too…

Walk on, walk on With hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone You'll never walk alone

by MerryGoByeBye on May 28, 2008 12:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

O-line FO numbers

2006 8th in run blocking 23rd in pass pro

2007 14th in run blocking 7th in pass pro

Six games with the immobile, slow releasing Drew Bledsoe starting was why the Cowboys line “couldn’t” pass block. Bledsoe was sacked 16 times in 169 pass attempts. Romo 21 times in 337. Nearly double the attempts and only a few more sacks. The Cowboys line lost a bit in the run game and gained a bit in the pass game. They treaded water.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 28, 2008 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Football Outsiders

What do they say about Seattle’s improvement with Kearney?

by coltsfanawalt on May 28, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seattle D-line ratings, Plus Jeff Garcia

2006 10th vs the run 11th vs the pass
2007 4th vs the run 7th vs the pass

Jeff Garcia: 11th in total value, 7th in per play value
Tampa’s overall offense improved from 30th to 10th
Passing offense up from 31st to 14th

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 28, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, Shake

by coltsfanawalt on May 29, 2008 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not true

the Cowboys improved offense is directly attributable to the improved OL which is attributable directly to Davis solidifying that unit.

Since Beldsoe only started 6 games out of 16 your statement about their pass blocking isn’t true. They were much better in 2007 due to Davis and ran the ball better as well. Anyone who watched the games could clearly see it.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 28, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you read my post?

Six games with the immobile, slow releasing Drew Bledsoe starting

gained a bit in the pass game.

They lost ground in run blocking though. Isn’t the running game where a monstrous guard supposed to be at his best. Kerney improved his unit in both parts of the game and Garcia brought an offense from the awful to respectable.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 28, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't confuse Terry

with the facts.

by coltsfanawalt on May 29, 2008 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

your stats are skewed

their running game wasn’t worse in 2007, it only appears that way because they threw the ball a lot more, the Cowboys are more of a passing team than running team.

Don’t confuse facts with stats.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 29, 2008 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Don't confuse facts with stats"

This may be Terry’s best comment yet. Certainly the one that sums Terry up the best.

by ctnyc on May 29, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

weel, I hope you know what the definition

of statistics is, its lies, lies and more lies.

you can make stats say anything you want them to say. However, football is played on the field not in a computer and thats where your “facts” should come from, not numbers.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 29, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except

that football “played on the field” is always filtered through the particular viewpoint of the observer and cannot be completely objective. Statistics themselves ARE facts. They can be misused and spun, just as any other facts can be. As such, when used as part of a larger argument, they often don’t tell the whole story.

But observations and theories from necessarily biased observers are opinions, not facts. Thus comments like, “anyone who watched the games could clearly see it,” while they may be entertaining and worthy of debate, are about as far from cold, hard facts as you can get.

by ctnyc on May 29, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you fail to realize

everything ever written on this blog or any other is completely subjective, including one man’s opinion of who was the best FA in 2007. Nobody is ever ‘completely objective” on this site, especially the head blogger himself.

Everything wriiten or said is based upon biased viewpoints and opinions therefore bringing stats into the picture makes no sense.

The bottom line is that there are about 3 or 4 FA from 2007 you could argue was the best based soley on their performance on the field and Davis is certainly one of them.

Unlike what BBS preaches on a daily basis, there is no “right” or “wrong” or cold hard facts when arguing sports, just opinions based upon individual viewpoints which are completely subjective.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 29, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Everything wriiten or said is based upon biased viewpoints and opinions therefore bringing stats into the picture makes no sense."

Um…. what? Nice try Terry, but 3000 years of human discourse disagree with you. I was a philosophy major and am well acquainted with the concept of the individual observer. But do you realize what you’re saying? Seriously, I’m not even trying to mock you right now - do you realize what you’re saying? “Bringing stats into the picture makes no sense?” By that logic I could claim - let me put this in terms you’ll relate to—that Alex Smith is an infinitely better QB than Tony Romo. My guess is that you’d disagree. But if stats don’t make any sense in a sports discussion, then my point would be valid. After all, it would be my biased view against yours in a world where stats were pointless. Smith doesn’t complete as many passes, have a higher rating, win more games, or outperform Romo in any statistical category? So what? Stats don’t matter! Do you see the futility of arguing this line of thought?

I think you’re confusing the value of using stats to support a well-constructed argument with the intentional manipulation of stats to “prove” a false point. The latter is useless and should be exposed for the fraud that it is, but the former is how we as humans have constructed arguments since we could speak. Think this is hyperbole? Here’s what I imagine from our distant past:

A: Ock good hunter. Him kill 4 mammoth!
B: No matter how many mammoth he kill! Ack better hunter!
A: Ack only kill one mammoth. Why Ack better if him no kill more mammoth?
B: Him just is! Any caveman can see this if him just look!
A: By chance, you like Cowboys?

by ctnyc on May 29, 2008 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

awesome

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the winner is...

ctnyc! Brilliant.

by coltsfanawalt on May 30, 2008 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

any idiot can see Romo

is better than Smith if you simply watch them play and thats my point. If what you are saying is true then the NFL wouldn’t need a scouting combine or individual workouts to draft collge players, they would simply look at stats to see who is better.

Why need scouts when we have stats, see how your logic is flawed?

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 30, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You need both

Stats tell you what happened on the field. Scouts tell you why.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 30, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, scouts tell you who is really

a good player despite what the numbers suggest. They don’t do it by stats, they do it by watching which is the only real indicator of value or worth.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 30, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok so until you've watched

every play of every player you can stop talking.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 30, 2008 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't realize we were talking

about every player, I thought this thread was about 2007 FAs and yes I watched all the ones mentioned in this post play on several occasions.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 30, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What you're still missing

Let me repeat: “I think you’re confusing the value of using stats to support a well-constructed argument with the intentional manipulation of stats to "prove" a false point. The latter is useless and should be exposed for the fraud that it is, but the former is how we as humans have constructed arguments since we could speak.”

As much as you’d like the world to fit neatly into your black-and-white, preconceived notions, life is actually much more complicated and diverse than that. As such, we need a combination of facts (in this case stats) and observation to form our opinions. Despite what you seem to think, just because stats don’t tell the whole story doesn’t mean they tell NO story at all.

It’s funny you use a scouting combine to justify your inanity. A player’s 40 time, vertical jump, number of reps on the bench press—these are all stats that scouts use to evaluate players. If anything scouts have been accused of falling in love with stats at recent combines; i.e. a RB’s stock goes up if he turns in a good time in the 40, and plummets if he doesn’t. Look at Chris Johnson.

It’s when scouts combine stats with astute observations that they make the best decisions. By the way, if you think Leonard Davis is the best offensive lineman in the game today, you’d make a crappy scout.

by ctnyc on May 30, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said best OL

I said one of the best guards, very big difference.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 30, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The first comment on this thread, made by Terry, contains these words:

“As a tackle, Davis is average at best but as a guard, Davis is the best OL in the game today.”

Umm… Terry, we’ve talked about this before, you and I. You realize that we can all read what you’ve written before, right?

by ctnyc on May 30, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

right, I said guard

he’s the best guard, not tackle, what part of that don’t you understand?

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 31, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

C'mon

you’re not THAT big a moron. You wrote that Davis is the “best OL.” OL means offensive line, not offensive guard. That would be OG. If you want to go back on what you wrote or say that you made a mistake, that’s fine. But to act like I’m making this up when we can all scroll to the top of the comments and read exactly what you wrote is pretty ridiculous, don’t you think?

What part of “your own words are there on the screen for all to see” do you not understand?

by ctnyc on May 31, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course I made a mistake

in typing OL instead of OG, I thought I made that perfectly clear.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 2, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You thought wrong

“I never said best OL I said one of the best guards, very big difference” is not what any normal human being would call a perfectly clear admission of a mistake. Rather, it is the exact opposite.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

by ctnyc on Jun 3, 2008 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but you haven't seen every play

stats do, they see what happened every single time a player stepped onto the field. They obviously need context, like when I attributed some of the 2006 Cowboys O-line’s struggles to Drew Bledsoe starting 6 games for them.
I don’t like scrolling down this far. If you want to keep arguing switch to the more recent thread on this issue.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 30, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

These are Football Outsiders numbers

of course they’re per attempt (and adjusted for down/distance situation and opponent). Running less doesn’t hurt a team’s per attempt effectiveness. If anything running less often should give a team a better per attempt number (see 2007 Patriots).

link

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't confuse Terry

with the stats.

by coltsfanawalt on May 29, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

bottom line is this

In 2006, OL was a major weakness of the Cowboys, in 2007, its was a major strength. The only O linemen who was a starter in 2007 and not a starter in 2006 was Davis.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 29, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Subjective arguments are better when based on objective facts

I’m making the subjective statement that the Cowboy’s line improved little overall, based on the objective measures of line play I cited. If you want to argue with their methodology go ahead, but right now I’m citing facts, while you only opinion.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you didn't cite facts relating to Davis

or the O line in general, you cited offensive team stats which as I’ve said is very misleading when trying to determine the true worth of a player or unit. Therefore your objective measurables of the O line play aren’t really objective at all or even related to their level of play.

The only way you can make any type of legitmate argument would be to actually watch all of these FAs play, otherwise they are meaningless.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 29, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you followed the link to the stats

instead of assuming what they were about (again) you would see they are designed to separate line play from the rest of the team. Not entirely possible, but the method and results make sense.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't confuse Terry

with the links.

by coltsfanawalt on May 29, 2008 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So I assume you have gone back and watched Davis specifically

on every play of last season to be able to state that he improved the Cowboys O-line. If not by your own reasoning you can’t even make a legitimate argument about him.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course I have

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 30, 2008 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The best free agent signing WAS an offensive lineman. But he got it wrong. Eric Steinbach anybody?

by MrNFL on May 29, 2008 8:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There was also another pretty good lineman added

to the Browns O-line. A certain #3 overall pick. An upgrade at the most important position on the line.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thomas was huge as well

No doubt, but Steinbach made a gigantic difference as well. Together, those two turned one of the biggest jokes of an O-line into one of the leagues’ best. IMO, Steinbach is a top 5 guard in the league.

It’s hard to argue with Kerney as the best signing though, he certainly made a huge impact. But I have Steinbach #1, Kerney #2, Garcia #3, Pashos #4, with Leonard Davis probably at 5.

by MrNFL on May 29, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a Steinbach fan

he played at Iowa and even in his time with the Bengals his mandatory arrest was original and funny, Boating while intoxicated.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 29, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

But a guard never has that big of an impact on an entire O-line.

by MasterRWayne on May 29, 2008 9:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Steve Hutchinson proves that theory wrong. Seattle’s line went from dominant to below average when he left, and he’s helped make Adrian Peterson even more unstoppable, and has helped Chester Taylor be very efficient,.

I also think you’ll see Alan Faneca make the same sort of impact this year as a Jet.

by MrNFL on May 29, 2008 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and also the Steelers losing Faneca

will prove Wayne wrong..again. The Steelers OL will be much worse this season as a result of losing Faneca.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 30, 2008 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. That offensive is going to have a hell of a time. All of your shiny skill players aren’t worth anything when your line sucks. And that line couldn’t pass block last year WITH Faneca. They’ll lose more pass blocking AND their best run blocker.

How did they address this in the Draft?

WR and RB.

D’oh!

by MrNFL on May 30, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mendenhall will help some

Willie Parker leaves them in a lot of 3rd and longs because he’s a boom or bust runner. 3rd and longs really bring out the quality of the line and in the Steelers’ case it’s poor.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 31, 2008 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs