Skip to main content

Let's play pointless hypothetical situations with Dan Graziano

I read another fairly pointless sports article the other day, courtesy of ESPN.com. This one was written by one Dan Graziano. The article was entitled, "Can Matt Barkley get into Eagles' QB race?"

Here's how the article begins:

"The Philadelphia Eagles announced that fourth-round pick Matt Barkley has signed his contract, which is not really news, since everybody knows all the draft picks will eventually sign and it's not as though they can sign anywhere else..."

That's the perfect way to start an article - "X happened, which isn't really news, since it was inevitable it would happen anyway..." Graziano should have stopped there, but he didn't do that, unfortunately.

He continued his "piece" by saying this:

"...But it gives us a reason to bring up Barkley and discuss the extent to which he will or could factor into the Eagles' quarterback picture for 2013."

Hadn't this already been discussed? At length? Right after he was drafted? Okay, sorry again for the interruption. Please continue...

"Michael Vick and Nick Foles have split first-team reps at quarterback during offseason work, but as we've discussed at length here, neither is a flawless option for new head coach Chip Kelly. Barkley, who projected as a high first-round pick in 2012 before deciding to stay in school and then tumbled into the 2013 fourth round after a down year at USC, could move up the depth chart quickly if he shows something..."

So, as Graziano already noted, the Eagles signing Barkley wasn't news, since he was going to eventually have to sign there, but it gave him an excuse to talk about Barkley (again) and what he could do if he impresses the coaches. That's always a newsworthy line - "So and so could move up in the company if he does well at his job." Gee, really? Okay, please continue...

"...This is what Geoff Mosher wrote about him (Barkley) in a recent review of Eagles minicamp:

'Vick and Foles are the clear frontrunners to become Kelly's first starter, but nothing rookie Matt Barkley did (or didn't do) at camp should rule him out. Barkley's command of the huddle looked impressive and the idea that he lacks the arm strength to make several difficult throws might have been the biggest myth of the pre-draft process. The first week or two of camp will be interesting, especially if Barkley continues to impress and if either Vick or Foles struggles out of the gate.'"

So, Matt Barkley is the clear third-string quarterback for the team right now, behind both Michael Vick and Nick Foles. But, let's turn the hypotheticals up to extreme levels so it gives us further reason to write about the non-newsworthy event of a team signing their rookie quarterback.

 Graziano then closed the article with this:

"If nothing else, Barkley is the guy to keep an eye on for the future. I still believe Kelly will go with Vick to start the season, but we've all seen Vick turn the ball over and get hurt, and there are legitimate concerns about whether he can consistently unload the ball as quickly as Kelly will want him to. There are several ways Vick could give up the job, assuming it is his in the first place. Foles is a just-OK option who was a third-round pick by the previous coaching staff (i.e., not this one). If the Eagles are convinced the arm-strength issues aren't as serious as they were portrayed prior to the draft, Barkley likely becomes a factor in all of this sooner rather than later."

Well, of course, of the three quarterbacks I've mentioned, Barkley is the most likely option as the team's starter of the future. The club has a new coaching staff and he's the quarterback they drafted. Due to that, they likely have a bias toward him over Foles, and unless Vick dazzles this year as he did when he burst onto the scene in his return to the league, he likely won't be with the team next year. However, all this hypothetical mumbo jumbo doesn't do us much good. If we want to go that route, I could easily take this story and go the opposite direction with it. What if Barkley doesn't impress the coaches? Gets hurt? What if the team has an awful year this coming season and get an opportunity to draft a top-tier quarterback with a top 5 pick? What if they're so impressed with Bryce Brown and company at tailback, they decide to trade for an elite-level quarterback by trading Nick Foles and LeSean McCoy for one? What if Chip Kelly and his staff don't last long in Philadelphia? What will the new staff do with a quarterback they didn't draft (Barkley)? What if Matt Barkley decides to join forces with Tim Tebow and start a Christian rock band? Yeah, like I said - this article was pretty pointless and ridiculous...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/78113/can-matt-barkley-get-into-eagles-qb-race

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"