Boomer Esiason's most overrated players...guess who's number 1
Posted 31 July 2014 - 12:19 PM
So lets see:
What do these three former QBs have in common? (Outside the fact that they are all uber-douches, of course.)
Kurt Warner is generally considered one of the nicest guys you could ever meet. Jaworski can come off as a bit of a prick but from what I know he mostly seems okay.
He was legitimately a great quarterback and because of his son Gunnar, who suffered from cystic fibrosis, has done loads of honorable charity work.
On the flipside though, there's stuff like this (link)
You would think that with all the family issues that he’s had to deal with, Boomer Esiason might be a little more sensitive when it comes to the birth of a child, even considering the landscape of professional sports.
The NFL analyst and radio host, along with his partner, Craig Carton, are catching a lot of heat for their stances on New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy leaving the team to be with his wife in Florida following the birth of the couple’s son. Murphy has the right to paternity leave under baseball’s collective bargaining agreement, but that didn’t stop Boomer and Carton from questioning why the player is leaving the team after the birth.
Esiason took it one step further by claiming he would have his wife have a C-section so that he wouldn’t miss any playing time.
“Bottom line, that’s not me,” Esiason said on his morning radio show. “I wouldn’t do that. Quite frankly, I would have said ‘C-section before the season starts. I need to be at Opening Day. I’m sorry, this is what makes our money, this is how we’re going to live our life, this is going to give my child every opportunity to be a success in life.’”
Coming from someone who has done yeoman’s work raising money for cystic fibrosis in the name of his son, Gunnar, a graduate of Boston College, that insensitivity seems misguided.
Yeah...That's a pretty dickish thing to say.
He later apologized, but the damage is done there. And given that he usually expresses himself in a Jim Rome "here's my opinion deal with it" style, there's reason to believe he's legitimately kind of a jerk.
Is it ever "okay" to use the race card with certain analysts? In this day and age, it's very unlikely to see a paid professional that hates certain players based on race, but is it completely out of the question?
There's never been any evidence that Esaiason's racist. Add in that the two other quarterbacks on his list are both white and the whole suggestion is kinda silly.
I do think he's wrong, though. Like a lot of analysts, he's probably gets an idea in his head about a certain player and filters everything through that narrative.
Now, when you're faced with evidence to the contrary on an opinion like that, most analysts (frankly, most people in general) will spin things to an "I'm still right because" sort of argument. Esaiason is probably doing that here.
What sucks about sports talk in general these days is that analysis and opinion are pretty much interchangeable.
Posted 31 July 2014 - 12:24 PM
So, watched the full video. For those who didn't, the rest of the list was as follows...
Objectively speaking, outside of Newton, I wouldn't really argue much of that list. I might disagree somewhat with Trent Richardson being defined as 'overrated' because as someone else mentioned, the general perception is that he's not that good. But overall, I can nod in agreement to most of those names.
Cam Newton though?
Granted, my objectivity might be a little in question here, but I'm gonna try and look at this with as little homerism as possible.
So here goes...
Esaiason's two main points in his argument are 1) questioning whether the team's success last year was more Newton or his supporting cast and 2) that he's "not Peyton Manning, not Aaron Rodgers, not Drew Brees, not Tom Brady..."
Let's take a look at those...
Supporting Cast: Generally speaking, one of the key questions most analysts have asked about the Panthers has been whether or not they're surrounding Newton with enough talent on offense. He specifically mentionsthe loss of Steve Smith as a big factor (Smith's stats last year would say otherwise).
Given the overall quality of last year's receiving corps - Smith included - and banged up O-Line, suggesting that it was the people around him who raised Newton rather than the other way around is kind of "what?"
To me, this whole argument ignores the reality of the Panthers situation last year, so I'd have to call it pretty weak
Who He's Not: So am I to understand that not being one of the four best quarterbacks in the league is enough to put you in the 'overrated' category? There are 28 starting quarterbacks in the league who are not Manning, Rodgers, Brees or Brady. Calling them all overrated because of that strikes me as a tad silly.
But more to the point, Esasason's read here ignores the stylistic differences between Newton and the QBs named.
Brett Favre, the quarterback to whom I most frequently compare Newton, wasn't any of those guys either. It didn't stop him from being one of the best ever. Why should it stop Newton from reaching that point?
I might agree with the notion that Newton is not 'elite' level at this point (inconsistency is still a big deal) but I dispute the "good, but not great yet" description Esaiason gives him. I'm quite comfortable calling Cam Newton a great quarterback, with a chance to be elite.
Big stats are meaningless without wins, and Newton still needs to show that he can consistently win games, especially close ones. But the most negative comment I think you can apply in that situation is "unproven".
"Overrated" goes too far.