Eric Adelson FTW

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201101/why-isnt-mike-vanderjagt-still-kicking-nfl

 

This is very well done. Good for Eric, he's one of those guys out there I don't think ever gets enough credit.

 

Adelson is the editor, more or less, of The Post Game. So he deserves a lot of love for the way the whole thing has come together.

 

Well done piece.

But ... he does kind of gloss over that 2006 season. Vanderjagt was tied for last in the NFL at 72 percent.

So to reduce that to he "made more than 72 percent of his attempts that year. Bill Parcells still cut him."

Intellectually dishonest right there.

But very good piece.

 

I agree it was a very nicely written piece with some intellectual dishonesty.

He cites Jan Stenerud's career accuracy (60-something percent). Difference is, back then, that was the equivalent of what Vanderjagt did for his career, in respect to his contemporaries.

For one thing, the goal posts were on the goal line and the hash marks were wider for the first 5-6 years of Stenerud's career, so making field goals was more difficult. Teams also didn't emphasize the kicking game as much, and, like today, players didn't work at their craft year-round.

It was a very interesting read, but the comparison to Stenerud left me a little flat. Ray Guy is a Hall of Fame contender, but there's a bunch of punters with higher averages than him today. That doesn't make them potential Hall of Famers (although I think Shane Lechler has a pretty good shot).

 

I haven't read the Adelson piece yet, but I will shortly.

But I wanted to throw out there that I met Eric a few years ago when he was still at ESPN. I was still in college, very green, and just wanted advice. He took questions for about an hour from myself and a few other sports writer-wannabees after a seminar he led. We literally asked him every question we had. We ran out of questions and he was still ready and willing to answer more. He's a great guy and, like Harry said, doesn't get enough credit.

 

I enjoyed the story. I question the timeliness of it a bit.

 

Why are we talking about an idiot kicker?

 

i agree it's well-written, but also agree that it's tilted in the direction that the writer wanted it to be.

never mentions if vanderjagt had tryouts and simply sucked. im guessing he did, because these teams bring in several kickers at a time when they need a kicker.

also would've been nice to have a quote from an nfl scout/exec type person rather than simply vanderjagt and edgerrin james.

 

Well, gee, I guess I seem like the jerk again. I thought it had considerable flaws.

It's a 1,500-word story masquerading as a 2,500-word story. A lot of writing - larded with unfounded opinions - for the sake of it. Just a simple example:

<i>He’s 40 now, and although that’s old for pretty much any athlete, it’s not old for a kicker. John Carney is still active at 46. Morten Anderson kicked until 47. And here’s Vanderjagt, in game shape, planning to go out to a high school field the next day to boot a few. “I should be the kicker for the New Orleans Saints,” he says, sipping a Pepsi. Vanderjagt was always blustery, but usually he was right. And let’s face it: lots of NFL teams have kickers worse than Vanderjagt.

So why is this man sitting here alone in a pizza place? </i>

could easily be...

<i>He’s 40 now, but John Carney is still active at 46. Morten Anderson kicked until 47. And Vanderjagt is in game shape, planning to go out to a high school field the next day to boot a few.

“I should be the kicker for the New Orleans Saints,” he says, sipping a Pepsi.

So why is this man sitting here alone in a pizza place?</i>

Did we lose much there? I contend no. The ages of Carney and Mort speak to 40 not being old for a kicker, the quote speaks for Vanderjagt's blustery nature. Adelson's opinion - that Vanderjagt is apparently better than many kickers, including Garrett Hartley - has no right or wrong answer (it's unproven) so it's needless.

Another:

<i>"He sits at a high-top away from the bar, in front of two magazine covers. The first features Peyton, and it’s signed in black Sharpie. The second features Vanderjagt himself. “They darkened my eyes to make me look evil,” he says. Of course that charge sounds like paranoid psychobabble. But Vanderjagt’s eyes are light blue. On the magazine cover, they are almost black. The story inside is well-told and sympathetic –- hardly an effort to portray evil – but after sitting with Vanderjagt for two hours, it’s hard not to think of the old joke about how you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you."</i>

reads better to me as:

<i>"He sits at a high-top away from the bar, in front of two magazine covers. The first features Peyton, and it’s signed in black Sharpie. The second features Vanderjagt himself.

“They darkened my eyes to make me look evil,” he says.

Vanderjagt’s eyes are light blue."</i>

Let the reader decide. It makes for better momentum anyway.

And if you want to know why Vanderjagt isn't kicking in the NFL, you could always call up a few NFL GMs and get their takes off the record. Just because Mike Vanderjagt doesn't know doesn't mean the reader has to be clueless about it.

 

He also doesn't point out that Vanderjagt played the bulk of his career indoors where FG percentages are bound to be higher. As someone else pointed out, he doesn't really mention how bad he was in 2006.