BlackSportsOnline Senior Writer Robert Bonnette: July 2009 Archives

As Michael Vick gets ready to return to the NFL, either this coming season or the one after if he's suspended by Roger Goodell, there's has been and will be a great deal of chatter over who should take a chance on him, who shouldn't, and what role he will play. And a lot of that will hinge on perception of just how good Vick was as a QB before he got in trouble. The battle lines have seemingly been drawn already; Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio is on the side of those who think Vick should settle for nothing less than a full time quarterback slot for an NFL team while ESPN radio host Colin Cowherd can be counted among those who believe that Vick wasn't very good before and shouldn't be given anything more than a limited role when he comes back. So what's the truth here? Was Vick a great QB or an average one? Or neither? Is his past perfromance worthy of an eventual starting gig, or should he be permanently relegated to a Wildcat role? (I will be so glad when that offense is out of style; I hate hearing stupid radio people talk about it. It's up there with 'bling bling' right now for me). What does the evidence say?

Somebody needs to help me out here. Like most people, I drank the 'Joe Dumars is an excellent GM' Kool Aid. Well, this summer has made me pour my glass right down the drain. His moves have defied logic to the point that his entire tenure needs to be re-examined. That whole Darko Millicic pick is looking more and more like the norm and not the exception now. Is Dumars another Isaiah Thomas, or am I hitting him a little too hard here? When it's time to evaluate GMs, you look at a few things: draft picks (not just who they took but when they did it), free agency (who they signed and who they let leave), and trades. And then you look at the wins and losses. You can make smart picks but if they add up to a losing team then you failed. So how does he fare? Let's see:

Trades:

Overall, he's done a good job here. Three of the starting five on the 2004 title team were acquired by trades, so he clearly knows what he's doing here. He was able to turn what was looking like a free agent loss in Grant Hill into a sign and trade that landed Ben Wallace. Rip Hamilton was acquired for Jerry Stackhouse, who was a better individual player but didn't fit in as well with his teammates. And he got Rasheed Wallace in a three way deal for essentially a bunch of bench players a first round pick. Nothing to hate on there. Trading Chauncey Billups for Allen Iverson did what it was supposed to - create cap space for this summer and beyond. There have been other deals, but these are the most significant ones. Top to bottom, Dumars grades out well here.

Steve McNair isn't a Hall of Famer

I know this probably isn't the best time to go here, but I had to because we all know that there's a tendency to overstate people's greatness when they pass on, especially if it's early. There was some discussion of McNair's Hall of Fame worthiness when he retired, with the verdict coming down against. Now some chatter came up again, and it needs to be said definitively that he isn't, and that the sportswriters who choose not to vote for him aren't being racist. When you look at all the metrics that we can measure him by, he come up short across the board. No rings, no eye popping stats, a .500 playoff record, and only three Pro Bowls. The only things in his favor are his MVP award in 2003 and his 30,000 passing yards, which don't mean as much as they used to (28 other quarterbacks have at least 30,000 passing yards and only half of them are or will be Hall of Famers). He was very good, often great, but he just didn't pass the necessary benchmarks to cement his case.

So the Blazers signed Paul Milsap to an offer sheet; I'm really not sure what to think of that. He's a good player, and the money wasn't ridiculous (4 years, $32 million), so it isn't a bad deal really. But I do wonder where he's going to play. LaMarcus Aldridge is the starting power forward, and Milsap isn't big enough to play center. Do they plan on moving Aldridge to center? He's not big enough for that, and they already have a capable starting center in Joel Pryzbilla and a backup they invested a first round pick in (Greg Oden). I do think that paying $32 million for a backup power forward is a bit much, so they must have something else in mind. But that isn't my real topic here. That would be the question the Blazers front office will have to ask themselves soon: do they stick with the youth movement they have going on or do they scrap it and get old to win big in the short run?

The roster they've assembled argues pretty well for the former, but history rules in favor of the latter. The Blazers have an oustanding collection of young players; of their nine regulars, only two are older than 25. They won 54 games last season, and were a tiebreaker away from having a top three playoff seed. You factor in the age on West rivals like San Antonio and Dallas, and you could make an argument that the Blazers should just stand pat for a few years and let these two teams (along with other outfits that will be old soon, like the Lakers) die off as title contenders while they mature into an elite team. Centerpiece Brandon Roy is already an All Star, LaMarcus Aldridge could be one soon, and they have a slew of youngsters that will makeup an potentially great rotation in a few years (Nicholas Batum, Sergio Rodriguez, Rudy Fernandez, Travis Outlaw, Jerryd Bayless, and Martell Webster, all of whom are between 20 and 24 years old). Time is clearly on their side, right?

This year's draft was a case study in the false gospel of upside. In the past I've referred to GMs and scouts as worshipers at the altar of potential, and they did not disappoint in 2009. I said a few days before the draft that my philosophy is always to pick people who can play, and to leave the upside drafting to someone else. I've been advocating that for years, and unfortunately very few people seem to be listening. Every June we have mock draft after mock draft full of prospects who are described as having tremendous upside, unlimited potential, etc. but need to 'learn how to play'. And as I always do, I look at these projections and say 'what?' How can you stake millions of dollars and a two to five year guaranteed roster spot on a guy who 'needs to learn how to play the game' or 'needs to learn the nuances of his position' or needs to learn how to play a new position entirely? Well, even in a down economy that you'd think would limit risk taking, NBA GMs and scouts apparently don't consider it to be a bad idea.