From Pete
Thanks for the draft review this week. That was very interesting analysis. It's like you like the draft or something. Do you do a Kiper like big board and if so who is the first round names to know for next year?
Pete -
Excellent question.
And we have an unofficial list, and we went over Todd McShay's way too early mock draft on Thursday's Press Row. (Amazingly, 17 of his 32 first-round picks were from the SEC, with Alabama having five of the first 19, and LSU with four in round one.) Here are the handful of guys who would almost assuredly be in round one if the the 2017 draft were held today:
Clemson QB Deshaun Watson will be the clear frontrunner to be No. 1, considering what he has done already and the likelihood that whichever team is No. 1 (think Cleveland or San Francisco) will be starving for a quarterback. Also in that discussion will be Miami's Brad Kaaya and Ohio State's J.T Barrett. A couple of other gunslingers to watch are Washington State's Luke Falk, who posted monster numbers last year and has the size teams covet, and Ole Miss emerging star Chad Kelly. And know this: This year's quarterback class is way, Way, WAY better than the group we just poured over. (Which may actually really benefit Cleveland, since they traded down this year and loaded up on picks. If they can turn that into Deshaun Watson, well, there could be reason for Cleveland football fans to smile.)
As for other players, well, let's do a top-10 of non-quarterback players who figure to be no brainers:
LSU running back Leonard Fournette.
Texas A&M defensive end Myles Garrett.
Alabama offensive tackle Cam Robinson. (How much is this a slam dunk? When Robinson was a freshman, an NFL scout told TFP all-around ace David Paschall that Robinson was one of the top-five players in the annual clash of supreme talent known as the LSU-Alabama game.)
USC WR/DB/KR Adoree Jackson.
LSU safety Jamal Adams. (Seriously, LSU has a slew of guys who could be first-rounders.)
Florida corner Jalen Tabor.
USC wide out JuJu Smith-Schuster.
Michigan defensive back Jabril Peppers.
Alabama defensive lineman Jonathan Allen. (And while we're not as sold on him, just about every list we've seen so far includes Tennessee defensive end Derek Barnett very highly rated.)
In this image released by NBC, director James Burrows, standing center, poses with the cast of "Friends," from left, David Schwimmer, Matt LeBlanc, Jennifer Aniston, seated, Courteney Cox and Lisa Kudrow during the taping of "Must See TV: An All-Star Tribute to James Burrows," airing Sunday at 9 p.m. EST on NBC. (Chris Haston/NBC via AP) From Mike H.
I've been reading the 5-at-10 for a while now and have been listening to you guys on Press Row for a while now. I have to admit that before I read the 5-at-10 I look back at the history of the day and try to guess what your Rushmore may be that day.
In this week's mailbag, would you consider doing a Rushmore of sitcoms since Friday is the anniversary of the series finale of Friends?.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Mike H. -
Sure, and that's interesting about trying to guess the Rushmore. (More times than not, we like to lean on birthdays. Since we've been doing this for a while now, it also can be hard coming up with new Rushmores sometimes. Maybe we need to add a different avenue for the question every now and then, huh?)
This seems like a pretty good time to recap this week's Rushmores, huh?
Monday - Rushmore of 'rocks' - Rock and roll; Jailhouse Rock; The Rock (movie not wrestler); Rock of Ages
Tuesday - Rushmore of movie teachers - (and yes, this trends to the more recent), but we'll go Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, Richard Dreyfus in Mr. Holland's Opus; Paul Gleeson in Breakfast Club; Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver.
Wednesday - Rushmore of space movies, non-Star Wars division - Aleins (and both the first two are contenders), 2001 Space Odyssey, Right Stuff, and a personal choice of Total Recall (sue me you want Star Trek there, but we were never a fan)
Thursday - Rushmore of sports prayers and No. 5 - Prayers, we'll go with Flutie's Hail Mary; the Prayer in Jordan Hare; Amen Corner at Augusta; Strap's prayer on Ollie before the free throws that put the Huskers in the state title game against the mighty Bears of South Bend Central. No. 5 Rushmore: Jackson 5; High 5; Starting 5; Five guys burgers and fries.
As for sitcoms, well, we'll go Seinfeld, Cheers, The Simpsons, and in a late push Modern Family passing M*A*S*H, All in the Family and The Office.
Great question, and thanks for playing along.
From Slick
OK, my buddies and I listen to Press Row everyday. This week you were talking about the 30-for-30s you want to see. This has become a big topic for us this week, talking about the 30-for-30 we want made and also the ones that would be terrible.
What's your top picks and your picks for the worst?
Thanks, and we'll lift a 'Co-Cola' for you this weekend if you answer this.
Slick -
This is such a great discussion, and man, we'd love to be in the room discussing the process of the next 30-for-30 - the sometimes classic, sometimes forgettable sports documentaries made by ESPN.
In truth, we are super excited about the 30-for-30 miniseries (it's like 8 hours long) that is coming in June on O.J. By all accounts it is brilliant.
We talked this week about how great a John Daly 30-for-30 would be. He turned 50 late last month and will start the next chapter on his career on the senior tour, where he will instantly become the most popular player drawing back a club.
Let's do a Rushmore and an anti-Rushmore of the best/worst 30-for-30s left to be made. (We will not include Johnny Manziel, since we feel certain that the "Johnny On The Spot: A Heisman winner's journey from pick No. 22 to inmate No. 31256" is already in the works.)
Best - Long Odds: How John Daly won two majors and lost almost $100 million gambling; The Empty Empire: Penn State football under Joe Paterno (somehow there feels like there's a ton of stuff there we still don't know, especially with today's report that Paterno was told of the Sandusky abuse in 1976); Silence of the Glams: How Derek Jeter managed to be the King of New York in a social media world and never be in scandal (if we could get this one on HBO with some 'clips' of some of his female associates, well all the better); Wanna Bet: The high stakes world of gambling inside of sports (this could center on golf side games and roll into the card games in clubhouses; we are so intrigued by the high-dollar world of gambling by athletes because they have the means, love the competition and crave the 'action' it creates. This would be amazing, and Phil Mickelson could be almost half of the episode on his own.)
Worst - Anything to do with DefelateGate (please let it end); Shaq and his chase for an Oscar (seriously, we purposely didn't watch all of Shaq's movies other than Blue Chips, so do not make us sit through a cinematic discourse on how Kazaam was robbed at award time); Fundamental Decision: Who is Tom Emansky and did his youth baseball team really win back-to-back-to-back championships (with a side discussion on how Fred McGriff wore that hat for the entire commercial); Broke 2: Another look at how athletes who burned through tens of millions of dollars blame anyone but themselves).
Great question, Slick and here's hoping that the Co-Cola goes down nice and smooth.
From Jomo
My Friday mailbag question concerns the draft- What do you think the reason is that the SEC ( the greatest conference that ever lived, with the most money of all-time, ever ) has had so few QB's that have been relevant in the NFL draft and really only Stafford , Eli and Super Cam being the only real starters of note? Especially with Bama, Georgia, LSU and even Arkansas using somewhat NFL-type offenses? And being a 14-team conference, just the odds of having some NFL type QB's seem pretty good. I'm sure there is a reason, especially with the way that the SEC has dominated both on the field and in the draft. It really is a head-scratcher.
Jomo
Very interesting question that has several layers.
OK, first, since a majority of the league uses some version of the spread - or at least employing shotgun sets a majority of the time - the styles are not as easily transferrable to the league. That doesn't discount someone with the array of talents that Cam Newton has, but it certainly works against a lot of quarterbacks.
Secondly, in regard to the teams you mentioned - Bama, Georgia and LSU - there philosophy has not been about NFL quarterback development as much as program quarterback development.
Alabama has built an empire in large part because it does not need great quarterback play to win. That's a testament to schemes and talent, and gives Alabama a much larger margin for error. It's also completely by design and means the greatest talent generator in college football cares next to nothing about developing quarterbacks for the next level.
Georgia has had 10-win success over the last decade by finding and using guys who are very good college quarterbacks (Stafford aside, of course) and using their experience over time.
LSU's lack of quarterback development is a little more troubling, especially since the Tigers have been flush with skill-position talent around the quarterback. Still, the LSU approach is similar, at least in general terms, to Alabama's.
There's also the regional approach to that aspect, especially in regard to high school football. Almost all of the high schools we have seen around the south are switching to spreads and/or running styles in which the quarterback is another runner. In the West and in Texas, they still have a lot of five- and seven-step drop approaches on the high school level. It's one of the reasons that the SEC schools are really happy - and really against satellite camps - to recruit 90-plus percent of their roster from the SEC football print, but they go national when looking for a QB.
We can't help but wonder too, if some of the smarter high school quarterback stars look at the overwhelmingly physical nature and beating and wonder about preferring to play the position at Oklahoma or UCLA or even Michigan per se.
Then there is the entire level of perception becoming reality, mixed with some chicken-or-the-egg philosophical debate here. If you were a five-star quarterback, and say a Michigan or a Texas started whispering to you about who was the last true passer not named Manning who came to an SEC school and improved. (Stafford was the No. 1 player in the country and Mel Kiper pegged him as the No. 1 overall pick when he was a senior in high school for Pete's sake.)
It kind of perpetuates itself in that regard, you know?
Great question and thanks for your patience.
From John
Man, I've been reading your stuff for a while and really like your A2 stuff too. What do you make of the Texas A&M tweets from the coach and how it ballooned? It feels like everyone is so over the top sensitive about everything.
Thanks and keep up the 5-at-10.
John -
Thanks for reading and for the kind words.
Here's an interesting tidbit from TFP ace sports columnist Mark Wiedmer, who asked UT boss Butch Jones at the Big Orange caravan about that very thing.
This question is tricky.
Do I think everyone is pretty super sensitive on Twitter? Yes.
Do I think kids today are very quick to commit and even quicker to break their word? Yes.
Do I think Aaron Moorehead, the A&M coach who fired a slew of insults at the five-star QB who decommitted from the Aggies, was wrong? Yes.
Do I think he's pretty lucky to still have a job? Yes, as crazy as that sounds.
It's really the fundament aspect of business, and college football, especially in the SEC is really big business. The customer is always right, and prized recruits are the most valuable customers for coaches until they become employees.
Period.
Moorehead's rants, while completely factual and making salient points, were wrong if they convince even one highly targeted recruit to turn his back on the Aggies. (And a four-star receiver decomitted and a five-star wide out took A&M off his list after the social media barrage.) For a lot of assistants, the primary job is land top-flight recruits.
Does Moorehead have every right to say what he wants? Sure he does, but the freedom of speech does not also mean freedom of repercussions. And the truth is, as truthful as Moorehead's views may seem, he hurt his football team by sharing them. So he was force to apologize and here's betting that he's pretty doggone thankful to still be employed.
Yes, it's sad, but it's real. We have evolved into a place where honesty is not always the best policy on social media.
And in the world of college athletics recruiting, we're not sure it's ever been anything else.