Adam Schefter is the latest pundit to chime in on the Marshawn Lynch-to-the-Packers rumors.

Green Bay has to do something at running back, and I think the organization recognizes it. It knows it can’t rely on Brandon Jackson as its workhorse from now through the playoffs, assuming it makes them. Green Bay will continue looking for a trade, and Lynch makes as much sense as anybody. But the problem is, teams have been trying to pry away Lynch since the off-season and so far, Buffalo hasn’t budged.

This has been something of a hot topic of late, so I thought I’d enlist the help of our NFL guru, Anthony Stalter, and try to come to some sort of conclusion about whether or not the Packers should trade for Lynch.

JP: Anthony, these rumors have been out there for a while, and given Buffalo’s situation (sucky) and the fact that they have three pretty good running backs, it makes a lot of sense that they would move him for a draft pick to help their rebuilding process. Lynch is 24 years old, has a career 4.0 ypc, decent hands out of the backfield and has had several run-ins (hit and run, misdemeanor gun charge) with the police. Given the fact that the Broncos gave up a 4th rounder for Laurence Maroney, what type of draft pick is Lynch worth in your opinion?

AS: One of our readers recently took the time to compare the career numbers between the two backs and they’re very similar. I would argue that Lynch still has more upside than Maroney, but given his off-field issues I would say no more than a 4th round pick. Keep in mind that every week the Packers or another team doesn’t pick up the phone to call Buffalo GM Buddy Nix is another week Nix loses leverage in a deal for Lynch. The trade deadline is quickly approaching and if the Bills want to move him, the time is now. If Ted Thompson or another GM makes it known that he’s fine with the backs that are currently on his roster, than Nix has no choice but to accept lesser value for Lynch. There’s no doubt that the Packers could use a back of his talent, but Thompson isn’t going to overpay. He never does.

JP: Ryan Grant was effective in the Packers’ running game because he made one cut and hit the hole extremely hard. Usually, he’d gain 2-3 yards, but occasionally he’d break through to the secondary and rattle off a 10- to 15-yard gain. Brandon Jackson doesn’t run the ball downhill, but he’s effective on deceptive runs (draws, inside handoffs, traps, etc.) and has very good hands out of the backfield. Would Lynch’s running style be effective given the Packers’ limitations in the running game?

AS: Lynch’s style is definitely more comparable to Grant’s than Jackson’s. When healthy, Lynch is a north-south runner who gets better as the game wears on. He’s the type of back that needs 20-25 carries a game in order to be completely effective, which may not work for a pass-first team like the Packers. That said, if Green Bay can use its passing game to build leads on opponents, then Lynch would be a perfect back to wear teams down in the second half and chew up the clock. Again, he has to stay healthy and sometimes that can be a problem with his reckless running style, but the short answer is yes, I think he would be a fit for the Packers. I think any back that can potentially wear on opponents would be a good fit for the Packers.

JP: As a Packer fan, I think the team can get by with a combination of Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn, especially if they do most of their running out of passing formations, utilizing Jackson’s ability in deceptive runs. I don’t understand why they bother with the I-formation when Grant isn’t there to hit the hole at 50 MPH. The Colts do enough damage in the running game with Joseph Addai, but they would never be mistaken for a power running team. However, I know it’s important to chew up four-yards a carry in the fourth quarter when you’re nursing a lead, and I don’t see Jackson or Kuhn doing that, so I wouldn’t mind a trade for Lynch, but not for a 2nd or 3rd rounder. The idea of a conditional 4th that could turn into a 3rd if Lynch met certain playing time and productivity requirements sounds like it might be fair.

AS: I agree on all fronts. It was embarrassing to watch Julius Peppers build a small fort in the Packers’ backfield on Monday night and Green Bay do nothing about it. Peppers was rushing up field virtually every snap and the Packers only ran the ball at him a handful of times. The best way to beat a speed rusher is to run the ball directly at them because they create their own running lanes with their aggressiveness. Yet there Peppers was, setting up camp in Rodgers’ backfield all night. Granted, the Bears did a nice job moving him around, but that’s why offenses have audibles – so that they can adjust to what the defense is doing. Some Buffalo fans appear to be delusional about what their team can get for Lynch right now. I agree that a fourth that could turn into a third based on playing time and productivity is more than fair. Because the Bills aren’t going to get more than a 3rd rounder for him and the Packers shouldn’t pay more than that either, especially if he doesn’t produce.

JP: Get Ted Thompson and Buddy Nix on the line! I think we have a deal!

When you get right down to it, neither Donovan McNabb nor Michael Vick are in a bad place right now.

McNabb certainly isn’t in the prime of his career, but at 33 he doesn’t have one foot in the proverbial NFL grave either. He’s working under a man in Mike Shanahan that has won three Super Bowls (two as a head coach, one as an offensive coordinator) and multiple conference championships, and is ready to face his old team this Sunday at his old stomping grounds.

He’s also out of Philadelphia, where he couldn’t wake up in the morning without being booed for the way he poured his cereal. He’s now playing for a fan base that appreciates what he brings to the table because they realize what it’s like not to have a leader at the quarterback position. (No offense to Jason Campbell, who is an extremely hard worker and a likable guy, but considering Bruce Gradkowski is now starting over him in Oakland it’s apparent that he doesn’t have what it takes to be a quality starting quarterback in this league.)

Vick has it good, too. After dazzling Andy Reid in the first two weeks of the season, he was named the full-time starter and he did well not to muck up the first opportunity he had to thank his head coach by lighting up the Jaguars last Sunday. Vick has been as good as any quarterback in the league this year, throwing for 750 yards and six touchdowns while compiling a QB rating of 110.2. He’s also rushed for 170 yards on 23 carries and best of all, he hasn’t turned the ball over despite fumbling twice.

The Eagles are now Vick’s team and while he has yet to face a quality defense, the tape doesn’t lie: he’s been phenomenal so far. Whether or not his great play continues is uncertain, but as of right now there’s nothing negative anyone can say about Vick’s game.

But if the topic at hand is which quarterback is currently in the best situation, the answer is Vick, hands down. He has more talent around him, has better receivers, the better running game and the better offensive line. He’s also playing with house money because nobody expected him to be in this situation after Philly nearly traded him to parts unknown earlier this offseason.

Vick has been given the gift of a second chance and thus far, he hasn’t blown it. He seems more humble, more driven and more focused than he has been during any point in his career. That’s key considering he has never been lacking in athletic ability and if he can keep his head on straight, then he’ll continue to do great things this year.

That said, I’m a pessimist when it comes to the topic of Michael Vick. I still remember how very little effort he put forth in Atlanta and how he relied on his God-given skills rather than hard work. He has never been immune to taking games off and I wonder what happens if he starts to get a big head about him again. Forget the dog fighting scandal – the guy floated by in Atlanta and now that he’s becoming “the man” again, I wonder what happens next.

If all were considered equal, I’d still rather have McNabb. Give me the guy that has led a team to the Super Bowl. Give me the guy that has won with less and whose character was constantly tested in a tough environment. I realize he’s come up short in some big games, but he also knows what it takes to get there.

I know what I would be getting in Donovan McNabb. I can’t say the same thing about Michael Vick, even though he has the hot hand right now.

Sports Illustrated put out this list of what it believes to be the Top 20 all-time sportscasters. Some of these guys are before my time, but unfortunately, most of them are not. Anyway, here is the list and a snappy comment or two, as well as who they missed and who I’m glad is not on here:

1. Jim McKay—The Bob Costas of his time. McKay hosted ABC’s “Wide World of Sports” as well as The Olympics. It’s hard to argue with putting him on top here, but it’s also easy to argue for a few of these others to be #1.

2. Vin Scully—If I hear ol’ Vin doing a game on TV, and with the MLB package it’s nice to still hear him doing Dodgers’ games, I don’t care who is playing….I stop and watch, and listen. It’s just comforting to hear the guy’s voice, which was made for broadcasting baseball.

3. Mel Allen—He did Yankees games before I was born, but I remember his distinctive voice as the host of “This Week in Baseball.”

4. Red Barber—Way before my time, but I’ve heard great things

5. Ernie Harwell—Even hearing his voice doing interviews before he passed away recently, you couldn’t not be engaged to listen.

6. Jack Buck—Loved hearing him do both baseball and football, and who can forget his call in the 1988 World Series when gimpy Kirk Gibson hit that home run against Dennis Eckersley? “I don’t believe what I just saw!”

7. Bob Costas—Many of you don’t like this guy, but he’s a pro and as knowledgeable as they come.

8. Curt Gowdy—Another voice from my childhood that is synonymous with baseball.

9. Howard Cosell—Who can forget Cosell doing “Monday Night Football” along with Frank Gifford and Dandy Don Meredith? The fact that Cosell was so annoying just added to his charm.

10. Keith Jackson—Even if you were never into college football, you had to tune in when Keith Jackson did a game. It was like religion. “Oh, Nelly!”

11. Harry Caray—I remember when we first got cable and had Cubs’ games on WGN. I was like, “who is this old dude doing the games?” But Harry was awesome, especially when trying to pronounce names he couldn’t pronounce.

12. Jack Brickhouse—Um, also before my time.

13. Al Michaels—He’s not my favorite announcer ever, but he’s not hard to listen to either. Michaels is smart and extremely professional, and his resume is enormous. His claim to fame was calling the “Miracle on Ice” in 1980.

14. Dick Enberg—“Oh My!” I still love hearing this guy do NFL games.

15. Marv Albert—Yeah, you can poke fun all you want about his extra-curricular, um, issues in 1997, but there is no better basketball announcer, and he was doing hockey games when I grew up in New York too. About as recognizable a voice as there is in sports. Hard to believe he’s almost 70!

16. Don Dunphy—This was a boxing guy from before my time

17. Jack Whitaker—Also covered many sports, probably before I was born

18. Chick Hearn—Was the voice of the Lakers for many years. I never heard him do a game, but heard how awesome he was.

19. Chris Schenkel—I remember watching PBA bowling on Saturdays with my grandpa, and this guy was the voice of that as well as several other sports. A true pro.

20. John Madden—There is/was no one better at color commentary, and to think he planned on stopping in the broadcast booth temporarily before he found another coaching job. But wait? He’s 20th? That is kind of bogus. Madden should be Top 10, easily.

Some guys they missed:
Joe Garagiola—I loved hearing him and Tony Kubek do NBC’s “Game of the Week” in baseball when I was a kid.

Lindsey Nelson, Bob Murphy and Ralph Kiner—This trio was the soundtrack to my youth watching the Mets.

Phil Rizzuto—Holy cow! Phil isn’t on this list?

Gary Thorn and Mike Emrick—Two of the best I’ve ever heard do hockey games.

Jim Nantz—This guy just excels at football, basketball and golf

Gary Cohen—Did Mets radio for many years and is now the voice of SNY for the Mets. This guy is a walking Mets encyclopedia, and I know many of you don’t know who he is, but he’s remarkable as both an announcer and historian.

Bob Papa—Sorry to be the homer here, but this Giants’ radio play-by-play guy now does the Thursday night NFL games, so you all get to here how great he is.

And who I’m glad they did miss:
Joe Buck—I just don’t see what the appeal is. I loved listening to his dad, but this guy just grates on my nerves. He’s smart and witty, but he’s more annoying than entertaining. He’s like the Ryan Seacrest of sports.

Gus Johnson—There is a reason he does the D-list NFL games on CBS—he’s hyper to a fault. Sometimes it’s funny, but mostly it grates on my nerves.

In my 20-plus years of watching sports, I’ve never had the desire to run onto the field during an event. In fact, I don’t even find the humor in it. It’s annoying and therefore, I’m all for police officers taking the necessary measures to get the idiots off the field.

Steve Consalvi, some goofy 17-year-old who attended the Cardinals-Phillies game in Philadelphia on Monday night, decided that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to run onto the field at Citizens Bank Park. So he did. And he was Tasered. And apparently the stun dropped him like a sack of potatoes, prompting several Phillies players to hold their gloves up to their faces in order to mask their own laughter.

Now, the police department is investigating the matter and discussing whether or not using the stun gun was appropriate.

Personally, if it’s necessary, then I’m all for it. If someone runs onto the field during a sporting event, what usually happens? He or she gets tackled, right? So what’s the difference between taking someone down with the use of bodily force, or taking someone down with a stun gun? The end result is still the same – the asswipe is going down.

Granted, police still have to use good judgment. Just because they carry a gun (any gun), doesn’t give them the right to draw it at the first sign of trouble. They’re trained to use their gun only when it’s absolutely necessary.

That said, in 2002, two upstanding citizens ran onto the field at a White Sox-Royals game and attacked Kansas City first base coach Tom Gamboa. Since then, the act of running onto the field has been viewed as something a little more dangerous. So even when a 17-year-old kid just wants to have a little fun, he runs the risk of police officers taking necessary measures to insure no one gets hurt.

The bottom line is that paying for a ticket to see a game doesn’t give us as fans the right to do whatever we want. Was it necessary for the police officer to use a stun gun to take down Consalvi? Probably not. But the real crime was Consalvi running onto the field, whether it was his intentions to do harm or not. Intent doesn’t give the person the right to do what he wants.

Had Consalvi not run onto the field, all of this could have been avoided. Whether or not you agree with the police officer’s use of the stun gun, Consalvi learned a big lesson last night: Just stay in your seat.

Photo from fOTOGLIF
]]> http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/05/04/should-fans-be-tasered-if-they-run-onto-the-field/feed/ 0 http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/05/03/poll-which-quarterback-will-have-the-most-success-in-the-nfl/ http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/05/03/poll-which-quarterback-will-have-the-most-success-in-the-nfl/#comments Mon, 03 May 2010 21:00:30 +0000 Anthony Stalter http://www.scoresreport.com/?p=39012

When we polled readers on which quarterback they think will wind up having the most success in the NFL, the one name I didn’t expect to receive the majority of the votes was Tim Tebow.

I’ve been vocal with my opinion on the Broncos’ decision to trade three draft picks for Tebow in the first round of last month’s draft. First and foremost, I think Tebow is a massive project and to give up three picks (a second, a third and a fourth) in order to trade back into the first round and select him wasn’t wise on Denver’s part. (Especially after they traded for Brady Quinn in the offseason and still have an unspectacular, but effective Kyle Orton on the roster.)

But regardless of whether or not you liked the trade for the Broncos, Tebow is remains the biggest boom or bust quarterback in the 2010 draft class. He is extremely coachable and works very hard on his craft, but he will likely need years of schooling before he can become a NFL quarterback. He still has a long way to go with his mechanics and he’s behind the 8-ball because he didn’t play in a pro style offense at Florida. Athletically he’s ready to play now, but there have already been a handful of scouts, coaches and GMs that have said in so many words that they wouldn’t stake their careers on him being a quarterback.

The only reasons I can come up with that Tebow received the most votes is a) readers expect the Broncos to succeed more than the Rams, Browns and Panthers, and therefore like Tebow to succeed, b) readers believe he’ll eventually wind up playing another position, c) we have a lot of Gator fans on the site or, d) a lot of chicks stumbled onto the poll. Because when you compare the four quarterbacks, Tebow is by far the riskiest of the quartet so why did he receive most of the votes?

Let’s look at the other three QBs, shall we?

Sam Bradford – has the most physical tools of any of the four quarterbacks, although he also plays for the worst team so his stock takes a hit. Still, if we’re comparing natural quarterback talent, Bradford holds the edge.

Jimmy Clausen – doesn’t have a real strong arm, but he’s the most NFL-ready after playing three years for Charlie Weis at Notre Dame. Plus, if he does wind up starting sooner rather than later, the Panthers have an outstanding running game and a receiver in Steve Smith to help take a lot of the pressure of Clausen’s shoulders.

Colt McCoy – has the weakest arm of the bunch, but is a great fit for the West Coast Offense and there is zero pressure on him to start right away.

With that in mind, I would have chosen any one of those three over Tebow (I voted for Bradford) and would be interested to see why most of our readers went with the Florida product.

Any ideas?

9:25: Two straight first-down throws. Suddenly we’re on the Saints’ 36. I remember thinking, “Great, they’ll tie it, then whichever teams wins the coin toss will march down and score, and we’ll have to hear about how to fix overtime for the next nine months. Shoot me.”

(FYI: I know how to fix it. Win the toss and score a touchdown, game over. Make a field goal on the opening drive and the opponent gets one possession of its own. From there, sudden death rules. Find a hole in that idea. You can’t.)

Um, yes I can. Doesn’t his idea have the same problem as current system? The team that wins the toss still has the advantage. If Team A drives down and kicks a field goal, and Team B kicks its own field goal to tie the game, and now the game is decided by sudden death, doesn’t the team that gets the ball first (Team A) still have the advantage?

Sure, if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B has an opportunity to win the game with a touchdown, but they still are at a disadvantage if the game is tied after each team gets a possession. This isn’t fair, seeing as both teams were equally effective on their first overtime drive.

I like the blind bid idea. On a note card, each coach writes down the yard line at which he’s willing to take the ball, and whichever team that is willing to take the ball closest to its own goal line gets possession. Each team has an equal opportunity at possession and there is strategy involved. Do you have more faith in your offense or your defense? Would you rather take possession at your own 15-yard line or give the ball to to the other team at the 18-yard line?

It’s fair and fun.

I know what you’re thinking: Great, the Saints win one Super Bowl and now the media wants to anoint them the Steelers of the 70s, the 49ers of the 80s or the Cowboys of the early 90s.

Relax – I’m not doing that. But I bring the topic up because there’s a case to be made that the Saints have all the pieces in place to become a mini-dynasty this decade.

Over the next couple weeks, the Saints will ensure that centerpiece Drew Brees finishes his career in New Orleans by giving him a very large contract extension. Whenever the time is right, they’ll also do the same with head coach Sean Payton and make sure that defensive coordinator Gregg Williams is happy where he’s at in order to keep their two playcallers intact for years to come as well.

With those three vital pieces in place, the Saints could challenge for multiple Super Bowls and not be a one-year wonder. Continuity breeds success and considering they have a family-like atmosphere in their locker room, the team won’t have a hard sell on its hands in trying to bring free agents like Darren Sharper back to New Orleans next season.

But as I’ve highlighted below (after the jump), they do have some huge hurdles to overcome if they want to build upon their success from the 2009-2010 season.

No team repeats in the NFC
Over the last five years, there has only been one team to make a repeat performance in the NFC Championship Game, which ironically enough, was the Saints (2007, 2009). Since 2002, there has been a different NFC representative in the Super Bowl every year, unlike in the AFC where the Steelers, Patriots and Colts made multiple appearances. This is perhaps the weakest argument against the Saints becoming a dynasty because it has more to do with history than what actually happens between the hash marks, but it’s worth noting that no team has repeated in the NFC since the Cowboys in 1993 and 1994.

Decisions, decisions
The Saints have several key decisions to make this offseason, including what to do with their 18 restricted free agents. They have the right to matchup any offer for All-Pro guard Jahri Evans, running back Pierre Thomas, safety Roman Harper and offensive tackles Jermon Bushrod and Jammal Brown, but will one or more teams price the Saints out for these starters? Will the Saints try and keep key reserve players like Anthony Hargrove or David Thomas? Is Reggie Bush (a role player at this point in Payton’s offense) worth the $8 million he’s scheduled to receive next season? Mickey Loomis has a ton of decisions to make to ensure that the Saints can make a run next year, not to mention the next couple years.

Is their defense good enough?
For three quarters on Sunday night, Williams’ defense shut down Peyton Manning and the Colts’ offense. They were impressive in all three levels and it’s a testament to the job Williams did this year in reviving a unit that has held the Saints back over the years. But the numbers suggest that New Orleans’ D wasn’t as improved as many made it out to be. They finished 25th overall, including 26th against the pass and 21st against the run. They also finished 20th in points allowed after surrendering 21.3 PPG this season. Granted, anyone who watched the Saints play this year knows full well that their defense produced in the clutch. Tracy Porter’s interception of Manning with less than four minutes remaining in the Super Bowl is evidence of that. But if Sharper and/or Harper don’t return, they’ll need to fill both safety positions next year and they could also stand to get more athletic at linebacker. Even though the Saints’ offense is outstanding and the defense played well this season, it doesn’t mean that Williams’ squad couldn’t stand an upgrade at some spots.

The NFC South is tough
If history is any indication, then the Panthers are going to be playoff contenders again next year. They’ve been the model for inconsistency under head coach John Fox over the years, but they’re due to be “on” again in 2010. The Falcons also have a solid young core and gave the Saints trouble twice this season and if they continue to add pieces to their defense, Atlanta will be in the playoff hunt again next season. The Bucs are presumably still a couple of years away from competing for a playoff spot, but they did beat the Saints in New Orleans late in the year and turnarounds in the NFL happen quickly. If the Saints are to go on a run over the next couple years, it’s not going to be easy playing six games against the Panthers, Falcons and Bucs every season. Not to mention the fact that they’ll have a first place schedule and will become the targets of every team in the league.

Keeping all of these factors in mind, can the Saints become a dynasty in your mind?

Photo from fOTOGLIF
]]> http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/02/08/will-the-saints-become-a-dynasty/feed/ 3