Posted on 12/15/2012 8:59:45 PM PST by techno
One innocuous event on the eve of the new century arguably changed the fate of so many NFL franchises so significantly that it may turn out to be most pivotal at the same time iconoclastic decision ever made in the entire half century or even for the full century in the NFL.
And that decision was that Michigan QB, Tom Brady was selected in the 6th round of the 2000 NFL draft, 199th overall, by the New England Patriots.
To this day many football fans wonder how every one of the 31 teams at the time (The Pats drafted six players ahead of Brady) could have been so stupid or blind to pass on Brady at least 5 times with 6 quarterbacks selected ahead of Brady.
Here from a perspective of hindsight is why I think it happened and the political overtones of why Brady was passed over so often in the 2000
Here are 10 reasons:
1)Tom Brady was apparently NOT on the radar of several teams and there is a good chance only a handful of teams sent scouts to Michigan to personally watch Brady perform.
And you might wonder why?
Some teams may have been satisfied with their quarterback situation. (Despite having Drew Bledsoe the Pats still drafted Brady.)
Some teams perenially draft for "need" over "position" and may have not been in the market for a QB.
And those looking to draft a QB may have set their sights on someone else.
But the question needs to be asked: How did the entire NFL get it so wrong regarding a player who now is considered one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history and in hindsight should have been drafted #1 overall? Aren't these folks in the "talent" business?
Politics is no different. You can't see the forest for the trees. Why is the GOP so slow to recognize emerging talent?
2)In the 1980's the NFL developed a scouting Combine where invited draftees would display their skills before scouts of all the teams who would then report back their findings to their bosses.
In sports as in politics there is a fraternity or brotherhood established among scouts or pundits and they tend to hang out in the same watering holes. They compare notes and I believe their consensus that Brady was not very good or athletic dominated the discussion and thus the majority of teams had little interest in pursuing Brady. The problem however with this group mentality is individuals who are not as convinced that Brady was no good might not want to air that sentiment in public for fear of ridicule and not want to file a report with their team that went against what most of the other scouts were filing with their teams.
In 2011, many conservative pundits reported that Sarah Palin could not beat Obama. That became the fact as few bloggers and pundits wanted to go on record to the contrary.
3)The 2000 NFL draft class was NOT considered a strong class for drafting quarterbacks. Only Chad Pennington was taken in the first round. The next QB wasn't taken until the 3rd round. Could the scouts have lumped all the QB's in the same category providing clubs another reason not to draft a QB in this draft?
4) Tom Brady had to share duties with Drew Henson in Michigan (at one time he was 7th on the depth chart). But when he did get an opportunity to start he didn't perform awful. In fact he led Michigan to an upset win over Alabama in the Orange Bowl by throwing for 369 yards and 4 TD passes. But obviously from where he was drafted the 31 teams at the time took little notice or gave it short shrift.
5)Tom Brady is one of the greatest decision-makers, most intelligent and accurate QB's in NFL history. And yes skills can be nurtured and developed but in Brady's own words he was always extremely accurate as a QB and most people would agree you are born with football intelligence and decision-making prowess. Why did the scouts miss this in Brady? Perhaps they weren't looking for it. It's like a young man is looking for his soulmate but doesn't realize she lives across from him. Were scouts so obsessed with what Brady couldn't do (run fast/lack of agility/average arm) that they totally missed the boat? In politics I think that is often the case where the GOP wants to follow a certain agenda but when a golden opportunity is presented to them to score a lot of political points, they simply drop the ball or aren't aware they had the ball in the first place.
Scouts also have a preconceived notion of what they are looking for. Tom Brady was not what they were looking for.
6)But in retrospect how did the scouts and the 31 teams get it so wrong? We're not talking here about the drafting of a second round pick who should have gone in the top 5 of the draft (eg Rob Gronkowski)but we're talking here of a player who should have gone #1 overall but 198 players were chosen over him. How could so many experts miss Brady's immense talent?
Could Brady's charisma and his leadership skills have been his undoing? Could the scouts have sensed that Brady had a mysterious quality that they could not pin down or could not quantify and thus found it difficult to properly evaluate him? And for that reason they deemed him persona non grata because they weren't comfortable recommending to their teams that he be selected.
Was Brady's passion for football genuine?
7)Too many scouts and teams refuse to think outside the box and don't countenance iconoclasm. They don't look for the diamond in the rough but the "proven commodity". To make Brady a high pick would have been completely out of the box. Most teams are too fearful of their fan bases and local sports fraternity to be so daring.
8)ESPN has a one-man draft wrecking crew on staff named Mel Kiper who rates every potential draftee and because of his cachet and the cachet others like Kiper boast, a lot of teams imho are hesitant to go too far out on a limb for fear of being made a laughingstock by these national experts. And thus who many teams select may be strongly influenced on who these pundits like.
By the way Bill Belichick and the Patriots are in the minority. They couldn't give a rat's ass what Kiper and his cohorts think. If they had, they wouldn't have drafted Brady who Kiper claimed would never make it in the NFL.
9)Imho too many teams and scouts are prisoners of the moment in terms of football cycles. For example we are now in my opinion in an age where scouts are now on the lookout for QB's who are good throwers but also mobile enough to make first downs with their legs. Examples are Andrew Luck and RGIII.
Thus Brady's "pocket style" is not in vogue right now. And it appears in 2000 it might not have been in vogue then either.
In 1999, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith and Duante Culpepper were all drafted in the ist round, all mobile QB's. In 2000 it's possibe some teams were in the transition of changing their drafting philosophy regarding QB's.
And being perceived as "slower than normal" certainly didn't help Brady in this kind of environment.
10)And yes head coach Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots did send QB coach Dick Rehbein to Michigan to specifically watch Brady practice in person and according to his widow Pam (Rehbein died in 2001), Dick was a huge Brady enthusiast and made every effort possible to convince the Patriot brain trust to draft him. In other words Rehbein saw the greatness in Brady when the rest of the NFL did not.
But despite that the facts are the Pats themselves waited until the 6th round to draft Brady and in so doing drafted 6 players ahead of him.
From ex GM Scott Pioli of the Patriots: "If we were so smart why did we wait until the 6th round to draft Brady?" Implied in that comment the only saving grace for the Pats was the other 30 teams were more stupid.
And I would put it to you that it is this same non-iconoclastic mentality that still dominates much of the NFL and that also dominates the GOP and even some elements in the conservative movement.
Tomorrow night Tom Brady again takes center stage, this time against a team, the San Francisco 49 ers, that he wanted to be chosen by because of his love for Joe Montana and growing up in the area. Instead the 49ers chose Giovanni Camozzi in the 3rd round. And the rest is history.
Why did all the teams in the NFL except for one miss on him? Perhaps in the same vein why was Mitt Romney chosen as the presidential standardbearer in 2012?
Dan Marino, hmmm???
I asked Houston instead...
Good news, yes....but he'll probably send out his BIG OFFENSIVE lineman, Michelle, to go after Tom's pizzas.
Monaghan could set the education department on the right course and treasury without pay and without leaving his full time job.
Jerry Rice? Kurt Warner? Yeah, they sure do get them right...
“I asked Houston instead...”
Maybe you should ask the San Francisco 49ers, too! ROFL
3rd quarter:
San Fran 30
Cheaters 03
Here is another idea. Let’s look at Archie Manning and then Peyton and Eli.
By that line of reasoning, it is time to have Jeb Bush run as Eli, while Archie is Bush 41, and Peyton is Bush 43.
It makes as much sense as this article that compares Palin to Brady.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.