ESPN: So-so cornerbacks making big time bucks...Lazy Reporting?

by Fooch on Apr 20, 2008 12:06 AM PDT in News Comment 10 comments

While I get a lot of my sports reads from the blogosphere, ESPN.com is still a go-to site for me. However, my visits have somewhat decreased lately because of questions I have about their stories. I just came across a Sal Paolantonio article discussing the huge contracts going to so-so defensive backs (there words, NOT mine). The article was meant to be about DeAngelo Hall's "$70 million" contract with the Raiders, but naturally the first name mentioned? Nate Clements and his "$80 million" contract.

As you may have noticed, I've put quotation marks around the dollar figures. I'm pretty sure most NN readers realize that Nate Clements contract may technically be for that much, but in reality it may not come in at much more than half that. The last couple years of the deal are huge numbers that won't ever happen since it'll be re-structured or he'll be cut. While I don't know the specifics about DeAngelo Hall's contract, it wouldn't surprise me if it is similar structured (of course this is Al Davis, so who am I kidding, right?). So right off the bat, Sal makes no mention of this when discussing the PHAT Nate Clements contract.

My second problem with the article is when he discusses the Clements signing and subsequent results in a little more detail:

However, there is plenty of evidence that throwing good money at mediocre cornerbacks destroys teams' salary caps and does not improve their pass defenses.

Let's look at the San Francisco 49ers. In 2007, they jumped at the chance to sign Clements from the Buffalo Bills. The Niners' deal with Clements was eight years for $80 million. And what did the Niners get? From 2006 to 2007, the opposition's passing yards went up (from 3,817 to 3,826), interceptions went down (from 14 to 12) and sacks went down (34 to 31). And that's with the NFL's defensive rookie of the year, linebacker Patrick Willis.

I won't call Sal a moron, but as I recall, we had more cap space than most teams this year even after all the money we spent last year. Plus we had enough space to sock some money away for next year. So tell me Sal, how is that possible if we destroyed our cap space with the signing of Nate Clements? Furthermore, Sal, you clearly did not catch the 49ers in action and see the contributions Nate Clements made. If Nate was truly going to earn all $80+ million I'd expect miracles and walking on water. But in reality, I'm quite happy with the direction he has taken the defense and with the addition of Justin Smith and possibly a Quentin Groves or Jared Mayo, it will only improve.

So I guess this is just a rant against the powers that be at the world wide leader. I'm of the opinion that this is lazy reporting. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sal Paolantonio

I'm starting o care less and less for Sal's opinions on things. Not long ago he wrote a book about the most overrated football plays. On there, he had The Catch.

Now, I'm not really opposed to somebody saying that play wasn't as great as it clearly was. I have my opinion, and others have their own. And it's not as though the play is some kind of Eli Manning insanity junk.

It's the way he argued against it that didn't add up. His biggest argument was that the thing that made The Catch overrated is the fact that it's called "The Catch."

So, right. Nothing to do with the play itself. Just the name. Your logic is so clearly superior to real logic, it might just replace real logic, and I can finally start hating things that have stupid names. Like wjackalope. Thanks to Sal Paolantonio, I hate you now, wjackalope*

Anyway, he went on to say that the catch itself wasn't that great because the only reason Dwight Clark could make it was because he was so damn tall.

Wait... what?

So Clark being tall makes a jumping fingertip grab where his body is bending out of bounds and his feet are struggling to stay in the line NOT a good catch? He calls it "an accident of Clark's anatomy" and says the really impressive part about the play is the throw, because Montana threw it where only Clark could get it.

As though if Clark were shorter, Montana wouldn't have thrown it lower. But also... Montana gets credit for throwing it where only Clark can get it, but Clark can't get credit for catching it where only he could have caught it?

He also talks about how the play is diminished because Montana had been having a bad game. The presumption being that if Montana had been having a good game, the Niners would have been winning and they wouldn't have needed The Catch.

But that's also stupid. If you're talking about individual plays, then you're evaluating them as individual, self-contained entities. So the GAME wasn't as good as myth may have. The play itself was no worse for that.

There are a lot of reasons to say The Catch might be overrated, but Paolantonio's are asinine. To think that if we remembered it as The Throw, he wouldn't have thought anything negative about the play.

So that was a complete and total tangent, but I've been wanting to get that off my chest for months. Stupid Sal Paolantonio.

*I don't mean it, wjackalope. I just needed to make a point.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 20, 2008 12:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ESPN sucks!

I don't watch ESPN as much as I use to for the last few years when it comes to NFL news. They have fallen in to the trap of sensationalizing everything to get more viewers, but they are losing the hardcore NFL fan's in the process. Sal is trying to sell books, Mort is mostly solid, Mel and McShay are jokes as far as talent evaluators, I like Clayton for his behind the scenes but and he makes me laugh every time I see him, looks like a turtle, LOL.

I rely on Sirius NFL radio for the majority of my NFL news and also NFL Network.

by RJ49erFan on Apr 20, 2008 6:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What Happened to ESPN?

They've become so awful and they used to be so great. It's like they don't even have editors anymore to call out the writers for spewing out constant bullshit. The way some of these fools use stats makes me truly wonder if they could pass an 8th grade science exam. You know, doing things like CONSIDERING VARIABLES. What a moron.

by jaytierney on Apr 20, 2008 10:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

More proof...

... that ESPN is getting worse? Skip Bayless often comes off as the smart and/or resonable one on that network. I never thought I'd say that.

by jaytierney on Apr 20, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeeesh

Now that you mention it... that's true. That is a little bit of a scary thought.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 20, 2008 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What happend?

I think sports fans got a lot smarter over the last ten years in terms of tech/internet-savvy. Before, fans were subjected to (mostly) what they saw in print and what they saw on ESPN. Those are VERY limited points of view.

Now? Fans have other fans' opinions, newspaper blogs (where the forum is a lot more open to discussion), and just a huge variety of sources. Fans now actually look at multiple sources when they read a bit of news, instead of hearing it from ESPN and calling it a day.

ESPN can try to do what they can to pull ratings, but in the end, there's no way they'll compete against blogs and the sheer amount of information at their (target) audience's fingertips.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad facts

In February, the Oak Trib reported 8th year of Clements' contract has already voided. As it stands, he's going into the 2nd year of a very reasonable 7-year, $64M contract. You'd think Sal might know this because THAT'S HIS JOB!

The fact is, we're blessed in the Bay Area with at least 3 very good journalists (Maiocco, Barrows, and Jerry McDonald) covering our football teams. These guys actually get stories. The knuckleheads in Bristol-CT just read teleprompters and hope their interns didn't fuck up the facts.

I'm thinking of getting the NFL Network. To those of you who have it, is it any better than ESPN?

by Nineraguan on Apr 20, 2008 12:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: ESPN and NFL Network

Hey Kev - have had NFL Network for some time and its O.K (that's not saying much, is it). I say OK because it comes with the Dish Network Pack we have and its not extra. The one major irritant I find with NFL Net is they repeat, repeat and then repeat some more - i.e., during the Senior Bowl and those Combine telecasts - Hey, forget about it. Over and over, ad nauseum!

BUT THEY ARE WAY MORE REFRESHING THAN VIRTUALLY ANY AND EVERYONE AT ESPN (just my opinion) and they do seem more relaxed and creditible. I especially like Rich Eisen, Marshal Faulk and Rod 'whatshisname' that played DB for the Steelers and Niners. Jamie Dukes, ex-Falcon OL, tries so hard to be a talent that he drives me nuts (but that's just me).

by 9ernutt on Apr 20, 2008 5:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

re:

that would be Rod Woodson, yes they do repeat alot and wish they would have more live programming, but they are way better than ESPN. The Replay of the games of the week is great, play to play the whole game in 90 minutes is great.

by RJ49erFan on Apr 20, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs