We are fresh off of the biggest media circus of the NFL "season": the NFL draft. I don't know a single event that is more hyped than the draft. There were a few years of my junior high and high school life where I would glue myself to the television for the entire first day as if I were a prospect waiting to hear my name called. Over the years I grew more and more bored by it. The only picks I cared about were Green Bay and whoever was smart enough to draft an Iowa Hawkeye (yes even the Vikings were smart once). My dislike of the draft stems from the number of "draft busts" we have seen and the massive contracts that are given to guys who have never put on an NFL uniform. Why should a rookie QB be making more money than Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or even Kyle Orton (yeah, I went there). One thing I really like about the NBA is the rookie pay scale. Give them a few years on a contract and then load up the next contract if they deserve it. Sadly I think the NFL salary cap dictates the pay scale a little too much. I feel for the teams that blow top draft picks (see Lions, Detroit and Raiders, Oakland) because it sets them back financially and makes them have to find replacements.
This weekend also signaled the end of an era, I decided to retire from fantasy football after 6 years of playing. I can retire happy knowing that I have one championship, multiple "division" titles, and many playoff appearances in different leagues. The last few years have been a struggle for me. After winning a championship in 2006 I have not put in as much time and effort into my team. Yes I made the playoffs with 2 of 3 teams in 2007 and 2008 but the "game" is no longer fun for me. I don't enjoy watching the NFL anymore. I have become more obsessed with how my players are doing. I don't like watching Green Bay and thinking that someone on the other team needs to get me X points. I felt like now is the time to walk away, somewhat like Barry Sanders did when he retired. I was at the top of the game and now I walk away knowing that I haven't ruined my liking of the NFL.
Back to the draft. 4 Iowa Hawkeyes were drafted (Shonn Greene, Bradley Fletcher, Seth Olsen, and Brandon Myers) and 4 were signed as free-agents after the draft (Mitch King, Matt Kroul, Rob Bruggeman, and Andy Brodell). Here is my analysis of how they will do with the teams that picked them up:
Shonn Green (3rd round/65th overall, NY Jets): I think Shonn has a very solid chance of being a productive player for the Jets. I doubt he will get much playing time this year, unless Thomas Jones is gone, but he should flourish behind a good offensive line. I can see him being used inside the red zone and grabbing some touchdowns and the tough yards this year and then he will slowly become the featured back within a few years. I also think he could be a Jet for life as he grew up 2 hours away from the Meadowlands.
Bradley Fletcher (3rd round/66th overall, St Louis Rams): Watching Bradley play as a junior in college I never would have guessed he would be a pro. Watching him play as a senior made me forget all about his junior year. He is going to make a very good nickel corner but I doubt he will be anything more than that. He may get some special teams experience, and he may do well with that, but I think he needs to work hard to see the field. Even with the defense (if you can call it that) in St Louis, Bradley had a challenge. I can see him moving on to another team in the future but still being only a good nickel back.
Seth Olsen (4th round/132 overall, Denver Broncos): This could be a steal for Denver. I didn't think that Seth was NFL material during his senior year but I was wrong. I think I was too infatuated with Bruggeman and Bulaga to keep an eye on Olsen. He is a physical lineman who can play guard or tackle on either side. He has very good football senses and will be around for a while. It will be interesting to see what Denver does as far as offense with the new staff in place.
Brandon Myers (6th round/202 overall, Oakland Raiders): I feel terribly sorry for Brandon. I think Oakland is a place that players go to die (see Walker, Javon). I really hope he works out. He's a great receiver but needs to work on his blocking. If he can get into a system similar to Indianapolis he will do well. Otherwise I see him on a practice squad or as a #3 TE on special teams.
Mitch King (FA, Tennessee Titans): This is going to be a great fit and will be a steal for the Titans. Jeff Fisher loves players like Mitch. He is going to work hard and become a good pass rush defensive end in the NFL. He may start off on the practice squad but by year 2 he should see the field and make an impact. I can't see him playing much DT but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
Matt Kroul (FA, NY Jets): I like this mainly because it will give Shonn Greene a familiar face during camp. I can't see Matt making it to the active roster this year but he is a very smart player and works extremely hard. He has practice squad written all over him right now. If he is ever given a shot during a game he might be able to play his way onto the roster full-time. Until then he will be on the practice squad or out of football. He was a good college DT but I don't know if his skills will transfer to the pros.
Rob Bruggeman (FA, Tampa Bay Buccaneers): The anchor of the great Iowa offensive line in 2008. He didn't come into his senior year with a lot of hype (thanks to the terrible job the line did in 2007) but he emerged as the leader of the line. He is very underrated, as most centers are, but has a VERY good chance of making the team and even fighting for playing time. I know that he will get his chance to see the field and the players above him on the depth chart had better hope that they aren't out of multiple games. Bruggeman will get better with time and he will be a starter sometime down the road. This could be an amazing steal for TB.
Andy Brodell (FA, Green Bay Packers): Of course I really like this signing since my favorite NFL team signed a Hawkeye. Andy is just getting back to full speed and might be a solid contributor on special teams and as a 5th receiver. Donald Driver isn't getting any younger and Andy might be able to fill the 5th slot when Driver is gone. He does have an uphill battle to make the team but I can see them keeping him on the practice squad so that he doesn't get away. Hopefully he keeps working hard and gets his speed back. Then there is no way the coaches can keep him off the field.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Great Debates
Right now the state of Iowa is going through an interesting time at the statehouse in Des Moines. Let me start off by saying that I consider myself a Republican. I prefer politicians to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I also like to see the Constitution, both of the state of Iowa and the United States of America, followed as it is written.
There are two debates raging through the state government that has people divided. One deals with the state Supreme Court ruling last Friday that a law banning homosexual marriage goes against a section of the state Constitution. The other deals with a change in Iowa's tax code; the legislature wants to remove the deduction of our federal taxes from our state return. I will touch on that one first.
I am not a tax professional and in no way do I know much about the tax code. I do know that something smells a little fishy about this change. The Democrats in Des Moines have created a budget that includes a $600 million "short-fall" (aka over spending) and they need to figure out how to balance the budget. Unfortunetly the government has two options, raise taxes or cut spending, while families only have one option when faced with this scenario, cut spending. The Democrats are telling the people that the planned change will create a tax cut for 60% of Iowans and another 15% will see no change in their taxes. I'm sure that Molly and I will land in the 60% in 2009 but will this really be a tax benefit in the future? And why do the "richest" 25% of the population have to pay for the shortfall? This is one of the most unfair tax changes ever. There is no reason to single out a group of people to pay for excess spending. What this will end up doing is driving the higher earners from the state and then the government will have to lower the threshold and it will affect people who might have a harder time affording things. I still stand behind the thought of getting rid of the income tax altogether and making the money from a higher sales tax that is charged on NEW non-grocery items (used items other than vehicles are exempt).
The other big debate is the legalization of homosexual marriage. This is where I am somewhat socially liberal. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling 100%. Everyone in this great country has the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a man's pursuit of happiness involves the marriage to another man why should it be stopped? The biggest benefit of this ruling is that it now provides homosexual couples with the same "benefits" that heterosexual marriages have (taxes, employment benefits, etc.). I cannot stand hearing the church people that are against the ruling. Yes I am a Christian minister and I am for this ruling. My belief is that all people are created equal by God. The minute you make a law that discriminates in any way, shape, or form you have defied God. Yes the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman but, honestly, to some people the only entities that matter with the marriage are their employer and the state. Last I knew church and state were supposed to be separate. If your church and/or pastor/minister doesn't think two men or two women should be wed then they should refuse to do the service. I have the option to perform a homosexual marriage but the Community of Christ will not recognize it as a marriage on the church level (last I knew). There is also the argument that this will compromise the covenant of heterosexual marriage. How can that be? I feel my marriage in no way has been compromised by this ruling. None of the arguments that can come from the opponents can sway me and none of them make much sense on a governmental level.
I truely hope that both of these issues die with the end of the legislative session approaching. We have a lot of other things to worry about in the state than trying to make up for excess spending and whether two men, or two women, should be able to legally be married. Maybe I should run for office so that I can right some of the wrongs. Then again I don't need that kind of stress. We'll see what the future holds.
There are two debates raging through the state government that has people divided. One deals with the state Supreme Court ruling last Friday that a law banning homosexual marriage goes against a section of the state Constitution. The other deals with a change in Iowa's tax code; the legislature wants to remove the deduction of our federal taxes from our state return. I will touch on that one first.
I am not a tax professional and in no way do I know much about the tax code. I do know that something smells a little fishy about this change. The Democrats in Des Moines have created a budget that includes a $600 million "short-fall" (aka over spending) and they need to figure out how to balance the budget. Unfortunetly the government has two options, raise taxes or cut spending, while families only have one option when faced with this scenario, cut spending. The Democrats are telling the people that the planned change will create a tax cut for 60% of Iowans and another 15% will see no change in their taxes. I'm sure that Molly and I will land in the 60% in 2009 but will this really be a tax benefit in the future? And why do the "richest" 25% of the population have to pay for the shortfall? This is one of the most unfair tax changes ever. There is no reason to single out a group of people to pay for excess spending. What this will end up doing is driving the higher earners from the state and then the government will have to lower the threshold and it will affect people who might have a harder time affording things. I still stand behind the thought of getting rid of the income tax altogether and making the money from a higher sales tax that is charged on NEW non-grocery items (used items other than vehicles are exempt).
The other big debate is the legalization of homosexual marriage. This is where I am somewhat socially liberal. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling 100%. Everyone in this great country has the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a man's pursuit of happiness involves the marriage to another man why should it be stopped? The biggest benefit of this ruling is that it now provides homosexual couples with the same "benefits" that heterosexual marriages have (taxes, employment benefits, etc.). I cannot stand hearing the church people that are against the ruling. Yes I am a Christian minister and I am for this ruling. My belief is that all people are created equal by God. The minute you make a law that discriminates in any way, shape, or form you have defied God. Yes the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman but, honestly, to some people the only entities that matter with the marriage are their employer and the state. Last I knew church and state were supposed to be separate. If your church and/or pastor/minister doesn't think two men or two women should be wed then they should refuse to do the service. I have the option to perform a homosexual marriage but the Community of Christ will not recognize it as a marriage on the church level (last I knew). There is also the argument that this will compromise the covenant of heterosexual marriage. How can that be? I feel my marriage in no way has been compromised by this ruling. None of the arguments that can come from the opponents can sway me and none of them make much sense on a governmental level.
I truely hope that both of these issues die with the end of the legislative session approaching. We have a lot of other things to worry about in the state than trying to make up for excess spending and whether two men, or two women, should be able to legally be married. Maybe I should run for office so that I can right some of the wrongs. Then again I don't need that kind of stress. We'll see what the future holds.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)