Indys Mock Draft 2.0

1. Detroit- Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia

2. St. Louis- Jason Smith, OT, Baylor

3. Kansas City- Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest

4. Seattle- Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia

5. Cleveland Browns- Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech

6. Cincinnati- B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College

7. Oakland- Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri

8. Jacksonville- Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss

9. Green Bay- Brian Orakpo, LB/DE, Texas

10. San-Francisco- Everette Brown, DE/LB, Florida State

11. Buffalo- Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma State

12. Denver- Mark Sanchez, QB, USC

13. Washington- Aaron Maybin, OLB/DE, Penn State

14. New Orleans- Chris Wells, RB, Ohio State

15. Houston- Peria Jerry, DT, Mississippi

16. San Diego-Rey Maualuga, LB, USC

17. New York (J)- Darrius Heyward Bey, WR, Maryland

18. Denver- (from Chicago) Malcolm Jenkins, DB, Ohio State

19. Tampa Bay- James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State

20. Detroit- Andre Smith, OT, Alabama

21. Philadelphia- Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia

22. Minnesota- Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest

23. New England- Brian Cushing, LB, USC

24. Atlanta- Robert Ayers, DE, Tennessee

25. Miami- Larry English, DE/LB, Northern Illinois

26. Baltimore- Clint Sintim, LB, Virginia

27. Indianapolis-Brian Robiskie, WR, Ohio State

28. Philadelphia- Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan

29. New York-(G)- Clay Matthews, LB, USC

30. Tennessee- Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina

31. Arizona- Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois

32. Pittsburgh- Eben Britton, T, Arizona

Indy's Mock Draft 1.0

Usually, I don't like to do Mock Drafts so soon, but I figured since I am bored I would shed a light to some of these horrible mock drafts I have seen. Since this one is done so early, I will not share pro's, cons, and analysis. I will type a small paragraph at the bottom about some of my "shocker" picks.

1. Detroit- Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia

2. St. Louis- Jason Smith, OT, Baylor

3. Kansas City- Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest

4. Seattle- Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia

5. Cleveland Browns- Brian Orakpo, DE/LB, Texas

6. Cincinnati- B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College

7. Oakland- Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri

8. Jacksonville- Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech

9. Green Bay- Aaron Maybin, DE/LB, Penn State

10. San-Francisco- Everette Brown, DE/LB, Florida State

11. Buffalo- Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss

12. Denver- Rey Maualuga, LB, USC

13. Washington- Andre Smith, OT, Alabama

14. New Orleans- Malcolm Jenkins, CB/S, Ohio State

15. Houston- Peria Jerry, DT, Mississippi

16. San Diego- Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU

17. New York (J)- Mark Sanchez, QB, USC

18. Chicago Bears- Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland

19. Tampa Bay- Josh Freeman, QB, Kansas State

20. Detroit- Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois

21. Philadelphia- Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina

22. Minnesota- Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest

23. New England- James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State

24. Atlanta- Larry English, Northern Illinois

25. Miami- Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan

26. Baltimore- Percy Harvin, WR/RB, Florida

27. Indianapolis- Clay Matthews, LB, USC

28. Philadelphia- Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia

29. New York-(G)- Kenny Britt, WR, Rutgers

30. Tennessee- Darrius Butler, CB, Connecticut

31. Arizona- Chris Wells, RB, Ohio State

32. Pittsburgh- Max Unger, C/OT/OG, Oregon

Ok, so the first one I might get ripped for is having Oakland take Maclin over Crabtree, but Al Davis loves speed, and Crabtree lacks it. Aaron Maybin's potential has him drafted so high, key word is POTENTIAL, Everette Brown going to SF is because Lawson cant stay healthy and is never consistent, Jason Peters isn't happy in Buffalo and had a regressed year and wants a new contract so offensive lineman makes sense to me. Houston is said to be looking hard, and reaching for a DT in round one. Anything else ask away and I will give you my input.

ET Says: "The War on Weed - Financially Irresponsible"

"Job cuts exceed 100,000 for the week." - February 2nd, CNN

"... the worst economic crisis in decades." - February 24th, Reuters

"U.S. Stocks Fall, Sending Market to Its Lowest Close Since 1997 " - February 23rd, Bloomberg

There's no questioning this matter; the United States is experiencing some of the worst economic times that we have seen since this country was founded in 1776. Ben Bernanke, a member of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, has assured the public that the Federal Reserve is "committed to using all available tools" in order to fix this growing problem.

Mr. Bernanke, I would like to present a "tool" that could be of use in this situation.



No, no, I'm not referring to Michael Phelps; that's a story for a different time. Instead, I'm referring to Marijuana, and its economic value to the United States.

Nineteen billion dollars was spent on the "drug war" in America in 2003. Since 2003, this number has risen due to numerous causes, including the drug arrest rate growing larger with each passing year. Understandably, these laws require a lot of money in order to catch "underground market" perpetrators. Is it necessary spending, however?

To understand this, we must first understand where Marijuana lies when compared to other mood-altering substances.

Alcohol is the most popular substance of comparison when referring to this debate. And why not? In 2004, Alcohol-induced Liver Disease (ALD) was among the top 10 leading causes of death among adults in the United States. There is also the issue of drinking and driving, the number one cause of death amongst teenage drivers, as well as many other health risks involved with alcohol. Let's face it, booze is bad for our health. As far as its mood-altering effects? It varies with the individual, but it has been known to cause violenece, as well sexual encounters with people that have a striking resemblance to Rosie O' Donnell.

Then, of course, there is the comparison of cigarettes (and the implied nicotine drug) - a product that has resulted in nearly 1/5 of all deaths in the United States. Though cigarettes have little mood-altering effects, it is highly addictive, and extremely deadly. This product is known to be smoked in "packs" (20 cigarettes). An average smoker usually goes through a pack a day, but it is known to be smoked in even larger quantaties (sometimes ranging to 5-packs (100 cigarettes), or more).

The above comparisons are the most common ones used in this debate, but I don't believe they are the most effective (though they do tell a story). I present the drug Salvia. Currently a legal drug in the US (at the federal level, some states have outlawed its use), Salvia's potency is known to be much higher than that of Marijuana's, and is considered to be nearly as potent as LSD. The health risks are that of Marijuana's - inhaling a carcinegous smoke into your lungs can lead to lung cancer. However, the reason that Marijuana and Slavia aren't normally linked to cancer, while cigarettes are, is due to the amount of smoke that is inhaled in the habit. Even a daily Marijuana smoker can't touch the 20-40 cigarettes inhaled on a daily basis by an average cigarette smoker. While the effects of Savlia are short-lasting (about 10-20 minutes), it still alters the body's perception to a much further point than Marijuana. This begs the question as to why Marijuana was made illegal in the first place.

In short, Marijuana was made illegal in 1937 due to the "Marijuana Tax Act". This court case was decided between two factors: science and yellow journalism. Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association, represented science, while Harry Anslinger represented yellow journalism. In court, Woodward argued in favor of keeping Marijuana legal in the states, by notifying that the propoganda that surrounded Marijuana at the time was shown to be either completely false, or highly inconclusive. Below are some of his direct quotes from the case:

"We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it."

Woodward was unsuccessful in his attempt to re-educate the court on this issue, however, and lost the case in favor of the yellow journalism that had surrounded the Mexican culture, and its use of Hemp and Marijuana at the time. Below is a quote that summarizes the court's feelings on this case:

I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.

That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.

Ladies and gentleman, Marijuana was made illegal due to racism and yellow journalism.
(For those that are more interested in this issue, and would like to pursue the specifics, I would suggest reading this website: http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com)

Now then, all of this may be true, but what purpose does Marijuana serve in this country? Well, I would be happy to demonstrate that purpose.

As stated previously, the government spent nineteen billion dollars on the "drug war" in 2003. In 2005, it was reported that 42.6% of all drug arrests were due to the use of Marijuana. Using my "California Math" - as Bert would call it, this would mean that $8.094 billion dollars was allocated towards the effort to stop Marijuana. This number has increased since those times, due to the rate of Marijuana arrests, as well as the amount of money spent on the "drug war", rising each year. At this point, we can estimate that the government can save nearly $10 billion dollars in annual spending by eliminating Marijuana as a crime.

Take into account that by doing so, this would create an entirely new industry that would rival the alcohol and cigarette's importance to the economy. Considering the tobacco industry has employed over a million individuals in the United States, we could potentially create millions of jobs in this process, as well as provide an untapped source of revenue for the government, if they should choose to tax it. Consider the fact that this drug is widely used by Americans today; in fact, in a recent "Time" poll, 42% of participants stated that they had "tried Marijuana at least once". The fact that this drug is used by nearly half of our nation today allows one to believe that if Marijuana were to become an industry, it would be an extremely popular one.

So, in summation:

-The government can save nearly 10 billion dollars in annual spending, as well as receive a large portion of revenue by taxing this product.

- The Marijuana industry could potentially create millions of jobs, as well as allow for an increase in consumer spending (considering nearly half of the nation has admitted to using this drug).

- When comparing health risks, Marijuana is towards the bottom of the list of mood-altering substances.

- Marijuana had no judgement in it's criminalization in 1937.

So instead of spending 800+ billion dollars on a stimulus bill, maybe America can think outside of the box when tending to the economy. By doing so, they may just find the one untapped resource that can boost us out of this rut... and back into our homes.

Indy says "Sage Rosenfels or Tarvaris Jackson, we will find out."

The Minnesota Vikings were in need of an upgrade at the quarterback position. Some might say "desperately" others might say that term is a nice way of putting it. But we do know this. As of Friday, the Vikings sent a 4th round pick to the Texans for Sage Rosenfels and preceded to sign him to a 2 year, 9 million dollar deal. But, as some of you come to know about being Vikings fan, this isn't good enough for most. We always want that IMMEDIATE fix, I mean, really, it does seem as if we are cursed as a franchise. But what exactly does Sage Rosenfels bring to the table?

From many football sites here is what I have gathered.

Positives:
+ Above average arm
+ Good athlete
+ Very good in the short to intermediate passing game
+ Gets good air under his throws

Negatives:
- Tries to force the ball too much leading to interceptions
- Inconsistent delivery
- Inconsistent at reading coverages

To me, the negatives are very coach able. And the one thing I like to hear is he has strengths that match our offense. Sure we don’t run a full-blown west coast offense, but some of the terminology is similar. It is mostly the Brad Childress at Wisconsin offense (the similarities are freaky)

So as you can see, this signing has the potential to be of the Visanthe Shiancoe, Bobby Wade (say what you want, he has led the team in receptions the last two years) type. And we get to keep our first day picks.




-Indystbn

ET Says: "The Previous Play Will Be Reviewed"

It's official. Minnesota Vikings' players Pat and Kevin Williams have thrown the red-challenge flag and filed an injunction against the NFL, regarding the recently distributed suspensions that Kevin and Pat, as well as four other players, received.

As the majority of the public knows at this point, these players were suspended from the NFL for four games, for the use of a diuretic (a drug that is used to decrease the amount of water in one's body), StarCaps. The NFL's steroid policy is simple: the players are responsible for what is in their own bodies. The players tested positive for a banned substance, and therefore should be punished as such.

The players, however, are not the only perpetrators in this case.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement, a 300+ page document stating the policies and rules of the NFL (agreed upon by the league owners and the NFL Players Association), states very clearly where the responsibility lies with each party:

"The parties agree that substance abuse and the use of anabolic steroids are unacceptable in the NFL, and that it is the responsibilities of both parties to deter and detect substance abuse and steroid use and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation, and support to players who have substance abuse problems." - Page 198, Article XLIV, Section 6

Therefore, it is the responsibility of both parties, being the NFL and the NFLPA, to not only acknowledge the use of anabolic steroids and substance abuse (detect), but to also prevent the use of these substances in order to protect the players (deter). According to recent information, there is clear evidence that the NFL did not deter this instance from occurring, and furthermore, encouraged the players to use this banned product.

The NFL reviewed the StarCaps drug in 2006, and determined that because it included the banned prescription drug, Bumetanide, that StarCaps would be added to the banned supplements list. The league then proceeded to send out a written notice to NFL General Managers, Owners, and the head trainers of each NFL team. Normally, the action that would follow this one would be to place the drug on the banned supplements' list. This provides a future reference for the players if they would like to know whether or not the drug is league-approved. This crucial step was left out, however, and the banned supplements' list remained the same.

The question is then asked, did the NFL deter this instance from happening?

Roger Goodell deterred this about as well as "pulling out" deters pregnancy. Maybe he'd rather discuss that issue with Bristol Palin.

According to Jamie Dukes, a writer for NFL.com, one of the players involved in this case, Deuce McAllister (a running back for the New Orleans Saints), followed NFL procedure by the book, and still was unkowing to the fact that StarCaps had been added to the NFL's banned supplements' list.

"McAllister followed procedure by taking the Starcaps product to the trainers, who in turn called the NFL hotline, which stated that the listed ingredients on the bottle were not on the banned list. Of course, by only reading the product’s label, the hotline did exactly what players do."

Add this knowledge to the fact that this is the one of the largest waves of positive tests for a specific drug in a one-year span in NFL history, and one begins to see the correlation between the players testing positive, and the banned supplements' list remaining un-updated.

Don't worry, the story is about to get juicier.

ESPN reports that Peter Ginsberg, the legal representative for Kevin and Pat Williams, claims that the notices that the NFL had sent out did not warn players about the drug's recent banning, but instead was sent out for commercial uses:

""What the [NFL] did, in fact, was issue that notification for commercial purposes, telling players not to endorse the manufacturer of StarCaps," Ginsberg told ESPN. "There was absolutely no warning about a undisclosed banned ingredient. [The notice] was purely for commercial reasons and without regard for the health, welfare and safety of the player. For Adolpho Birch or anyone associated with the NFL to suggest there was a specific warning [on StarCaps] is disingenuous and disappointing.

"Mr. Birch, in fact, personally informed the FDA that scientific studies showed that [StarCaps] contained Bumetanide. One of the scientists wanted to make that disclosure but Mr. Birch and Dr. Lombardo made the decision to suppress that information two years ago. They purposely kept information from players, all while claiming they have a policy for the health and safety of the players as well as the integrity of the league. The NFL violated its own integrity and subjected players to serious medical risks by their actions.""

Whether this information is true, or if it is simply lawyer-talk remains to be seen. As of right now, this information is only food for thought.

What the case comes down to is this: both parties have a duty to deter this from happening via the Collective Bargaining Agreement. If the NFL is not doing everything in its power to prevent the use of steroids, then it is not fulfilling his obligation to the CBA. Furthermore, by not continuing the deterrents set in place by the league for these events (updating the banned/approved lists), it is in-turn encouraging the players to use these supplements, as seen by the before-mentioned evidence regarding Deuce McAllister.

Because the NFL has violated the Collective Barganning Agreement by not deterring this instance, as have the players by not detecting the banned substance, the solution should be similar to that of the Steve Hutchinson scenario that took place in 2005; both sides should be absolved of their crimes, and instead the CBA, as well as the banned/approved suppliments' list, should be modified to prevent these occurrances in the future.

Roger Goodell, if the intent of the rule is to protect the players, then why did you insist on leaving the suppliment off of the list? There is only one outcome that can come due to that decision, and that is the one that we are dealing with at this moment.

ET says: "Desperate Measures, Desperate Calls"

"Isn't this the sexy pick? Great running back. Great offensive line. Great pass-rusher. OK, sign me up." - Matt Mosley, ESPN.

"The Vikings could easily compete with the Cowboys this year in the NFC. Both of their lines are top-notch and running back Adrian Peterson is a true difference-maker. This team will be a lot of fun to watch." - Bill Williamson, ESPN.

"Offseason moves will pay off for the Vikings." - Dan Pompei, NBC Sports.


Four weeks into the season, the Minnesota Vikings (1-3) haven't quite lived up to expectations. Tarvaris Jackson, the quarterback that Vikings' head coach Brad Chilldress has touted as the team's "quarterback of the future", has been replaced by Gus Frerotte after two disappointing losses. Offseason acquisitions Bernard Berrian and Jared Allen have simply disappointed the Vikings' fans thus far with subpar play on the field.

Simply said, for how talented this Vikings team is believed to be, they have looked about as good as Sarah Palin's interviewing skills.

So what's the solution?

"Fire Brad Chilldress!"

Well, that's the solution presented by the casual fan, at least. It seems to make sense. If a team is as talented as the Vikings, a half-brained coach should be able to lead them to the playoffs, or at least a winning record. Heck, he has Adrian Peterson on the team, the winning method should be simple: run the football!

Ladies and gentlemen, if the game was that simple, Les Steckle would have figured it out years ago.

Let's go over the facts.

- There is not one example in the extensive history of the National Football League in which a head coach was fired in the middle of the season, and the replacement head coach lead his team to the playoffs. Let me reiterrate this - there is not one example of an interim head coach providing a "quick fix" for the team.

- If Brad Chilldress is indeed the problem, and the right decision will be to remove him as the head coach, the replacement options are far more abundant in the offseason.

- Firing Brad Chilldress in the offseason also allows his replacement ample time to install a new system. This is not true if the decision is made in the regular season, considering the interim coach would only be provided under a week to install his system.

- Four games have been played. If the season was decided after four games, then Mike Tice would still have his job. Need I remind the fans that the Vikings were 2-5 last year at one point? 5 games later, the Vikings record (7-5) looked a lot more acceptable, and were the favorites to make the playoffs out of the NFC.

The individuals chanting "Fire Brad Chilldress!" are simply desperate for a quick solution... much like the United States Government officials chanting "700 Billion Dollar Buyout!".

Fact is, firing Brad Chilldress now, or at any point during the regular season, concedes the season, period. I, as well as every single Viking fan, am not ready to give up on the season just yet.

Skol Vikings!

ET Says: "Quarterback Democracy (September 18, 2008)"

I still haven't determined who the best candidate is in this race, and it has made my life nuts. Each person I meet feels that he or she must share their opinion on what is best, and while both sides have valid points, I am starting to get sick of the election talk.

There is one thing that both sides can agree upon, and that is that the current leader needs to be replaced. Whether it be his boneheaded decision making, or his way of speaking that begs the question, "has this guy ever opened a dictionary?", the leadership role needed a change.

The candidates available for replacement, however, are less than spectacular. On one side, we have a nominee who promotes change and efficiency. Yet his experience, or better put, lack of experience, leads one to question if we can trust the hype, or will he start begging for a pacifier now that he is in the higher levels? On the other side, we have a near senile candidate who, while knows the ins-and-outs of how things work, makes me wonder if he should be eating food from a tube instead.

Minnesota Vikings head coach Brad Chilldress announced recently about his decision to remove the team's current starting quarterback, Tarvaris Jackson, and instead start the well known veteran, Gus Frerotte, against the Carolina Panthers this Sunday. The other replacement options includes the team's fifth-round quarterback, John David Booty, who many think will eventually take over as the Viking's passing leader. Coming out of USC, experts touted him to be the most "NFL ready" quarterback in the draft. This has yet to be seen, however, considering he's looked a lot like Vince Young taking the Wonderlic test.

Vikings fans showed their discontent for the 16 game starter during the Vikings' contest with the Indianapolis Colts last Sunday, by boo'ing the starter off the field when the team was protecting a 15 point lead. It seems unusual to show disappointment to these extremities when the team is doing well. Apparently we've all succumbed to the illness known as "YankeeFanitis".

Flashback to 2006.

Wily old quarterback Brad Johnson had the starting position for 14 games, and was expected to "manage the offense" into the playoffs. Johnson failed to do so, however, by throwing 15 interceptions to only 9 touchdowns. Tarvaris Jackson was still filling the diapers from his rookie season, and was meant to learn under Johnson's decrepit wing. Flash forward to December 17th. Brad Johnson executed one of his better games of the season, throwing a touchdown while completing 10 of 17 passes. Then, as if Reagan had suddenly wandered into a Democratic National Convention, you could hear it.

"BOOOOOOOOOO!"

Fans displayed their impatience on every drive in which Johnson was named the Quarterback, that is until late in the third quarter.

"Now in at Quarterback, number seven, Tarvaris Jackson!"

An uproar, not heard since the Prohibition act was removed, filled the stadium. Maybe the Dome Dogs were filled with LSD that day, because the fans must have been drugged in order to think that a project, rookie QB, who was projected to be an undrafted player, was going to lead the Vikings to the promised land.

The Field Fare vendors must be hard at work again, because the only place that Gus Frerotte will lead this team to is the top of the draft order.

It seems that the fan's fetish is whoever replaces the current starting quarterback. Whether it be Brad Johnson in 2005, Tarvaris Jackson in 2006, or Gus Frerotte this year, the fan's will put their full support in the new quarterback. For whatever reason, we throw out the fact that none of these replacement quarterbacks have had any real success in the past. No, that's irrelevant data. What is relevant is that the new guy will always look better than his predecessor. It's the same logic Al Davis uses with head coaches, and he's obviously been extremely successful with that mindset.

It's time to face the facts. Gus Frerotte, 37 years old, is a career backup who has posted a career quarterback rating of 74.3. For a comparison, recently cut quarterback Brooks Bollinger has a career rating of 75.2, and we all know how much success he has had as a Viking. As a Ram last year, Frerotte threw 12 interceptions in just eight games, and completed 56% of his passes, which, while well below par for NFL standards, is actually above his career completion percentage (54.2%). All of this was done with talents such as Torry Holt (wide receiver) and Stephen Jackson (half back), both considered top five at their respected positions.

This leads one to question... where the hell do the Vikings expect to go with this nutcase at the helm?

The public needs to take this move for what it is, a desperate attempt to find a stop-gap at the quarterback position. Gus Frerotte isn't going to win the Vikings any games, but coach Chilldress doesn't necessarily want him to do so. Instead, he is hoping that he will play just "well enough" in order let the rest of the team make a run at the postseason.

There's a reason that I'm an undecided voter when I look at this bunch of QBs. No matter which one is put at the helm, the problems in the passing game will not be solved. There isn't an answer in our system currently to our offensive woes, and there isn't anyone currently available that could turn this entire team around.

Fact is, the only thing that is going to help this team turn the season around is for the entire team to start executing properly. That can't be solved by simply playing musical chairs with this set of QBs.


Go Vikings, and happy voting!