That's another thing LKJ - elite QBs are by far the biggest commodity in the NFL. They are so sparse that when a presumed elite QB comes along and is a huge bust it is a much bigger story than if a WR or DE flops.

It's odd that people say this about the Colts potentially taking Leaf, because I swear that in the lead-in they were all about Peyton and Irsay simply made an erstwhile comment about still considering going with Leaf. I never got the sense that they were going any but one way. Admittedly this comment may have been sincere as I'm fairly sure that the teams weren't allowed to negotiate with the #1 pick back then, and therefore I can't think of a reason that Irsay would lie. I still don't see how getting passed over for one of the GOAT makes someone more of a bust. It would make much more sense to me for people to be killing Leinart even harder than they already have because we're watching Aaron Rodgers develop into a Hall of Famer unless something happens that derails him, whereas Leinart quickly got to the point of being outright cut by Arizona even at a time when they had zero good options before last year. In any case, I don't get this thing where being picked BEHIND someone adds to the legend.

For what it's worth, it was a totally known thing during his final year at WSU that Leaf was a complete ass. Of course, plenty of asses are great players, so that wouldn't be a reason not to pick him, but after the fact that gets lumped in as an additional reason why people are so willing to call him a bigger bust than the others. While criticizing him for falling way short of on-field expectations is fair game, it's just kind of disingenuous to include things that should have been no surprise to anyone.

I'm not pretending that I didn't drink the kool-aid. Of course I thought Leaf was going to be amazing; a kid who was growing up rooting for WSU wasn't about to think differently than everyone else. But ultimately everyone in the media who decided to push Leaf to the public as a can't-miss prospect (based almost entirely on one college season) is to blame for their own hype when such an assessment doesn't pan out, and rather than taking on an attitude of, "Whoops...we were wrong," they frame it as, "We weren't wrong; Leaf SHOULD have been a sure thing. He just failed." And that's the bill of goods they've sold ever since.

Leaf has certainly had his share of post-career problems, but I do think it's of note that the drug problems that have gotten him saddled with a criminal record are related to painkiller addiction issues that have been with him ever since the injuries that he suffered shortened his career (he probably wasn't ever going to pan out for anyone, but surely would have hung around the league down someone's depth chart for a while longer if not for the wrist injury that caused Tampa or Dallas to cut him). I'm slow to be critical of anyone for getting hooked on pain meds, as I can see how easy it would be to cross the line into addiction just from my limited use of them when dealing with some past pain. Not nearly as sympathetic to those who ruin their lives on purely recreational drugs. This isn't to be an apologist for all of his behavior connected with that by any means (I believe the other criminal charges are related to smuggling these across the Canadian border), but the "drug addict" bit may tend to put the wrong kind of image in the minds of a reader.

So why do you keep arguing something that is wrong and biased when you clearly know it is wrong and biased?

Everyone thought Leaf was going to be amazing; that's why he is a bust, ldo.

Oh FFS. I didn't say he wasn't a bust. I said that his run as a bust 15 years ago is nothing all that special.

My point, to be far less verbose about it, is that zero return on your top pick comes out as the exact same result and exact same loss. The level of hype the player received when the team made the investment in them doesn't somehow make the loss greater. All of that is strictly a media fabrication.

LKJ,

While you used the same pick, if you draft a QB "project" with high physical potential and he never pans out - that's different than the supposed NFL-ready QB that's gonna be the next Elway. The former is usually around a couple times every draft - the latter is around once every 5-10 years. One draft had TWO of those guys and one was the GOAT and one was awful - hence the bust tag. The level of his bust is unique because a player of his perceived caliber comes around so infrequently.

Leaf's potential was not media fabrication it was there. Also, the Chargers traded 2 good players, a 2nd rounder and that years/next years 1st rounder to move from #3 to #2 to ensure they got Leaf.

If your argument is that other #1/#2 picks have been busts so they all should be regarded equally well then it is useless arguing because you do not weight the perceived quality of the player into the equation only the actual pick number. If Andrew Luck has a career that mirrors Leaf's (it is extremely difficult to do this - we may never see another player's career crash and burn like Leaf's in our lifetime) it will be a bigger story than JaMarcus Russell being terrible, and rightfully so.

The additional cost of trading up is a fairly raised point. That makes it more than just losing a normal #2 pick.

I just think that losses have to be tangible. Money cost and opportunity cost. They lost a comparable amount of money when compared to other franchises in other years (accounting for factors like inflation); as opportunity cost goes, I don't think the draft produced any other good QBs after Manning. Griese was serviceable, Batch has been a decent career backup, but basically there was only one viable long-term starter unless I'm missing someone.

What matters in a huge bust is that picking them sets a franchise back. Higher-than-usual hopes and dreams being crushed don't set a franchise back any further than average hopes and dreams being crushed by other busts.

Well, LKJ, you gotta consider the fact that Ryan Leaf is number 4 on the hosting depth chart.

And a picture to boot. I am not disappoint.

The thing being lost here (I think LKJ sees it) is how much of a successful novelty that WSU offense was. It doesn't seem complex by today's terms, but spreading the field out with 4 receivers was pretty much unheard of in 1997, and thus very hard to defend. That offense was a precursor to the modern day Air Raid stuff that Leach and Holgorsen do, and also some of the "spread to run" stuff made famous by RR.

Well, I don't know. Mike Price's system was considered to be one that was friendlier than most for purposes of a transition to the pros. If anything that is honestly an argument that Leaf should have panned out. Drew Bledsoe had himself a very nice career being picked #1 overall out of the same system. That was painful to see as a Seahawks fan, since Bledsoe/Mirer was the hotly debated "which QB should be #1?" argument that year, and of course we got Mirer (who turned out to royally suck) at #2.

Mark Rypien also had a marginally successful NFL career (he did shine on the biggest stage and win a Super Bowl as a starter, though it was more of a Dilfer-esque Super Bowl run), but I'm a bit too young to know how well his situation translates to Bledsoe and then Leaf. I have to think that Rypien was probably coached by Walden or Erickson rather than Price, but my history knowledge of the program only goes back so far.

My argument is more just based in how tangible the loss needs to be in order to measure a bust, but I think mullen and I just view it philosophically differently so he was probably right to assess that the argument has become pointless.

The NHL really should offer their $20/month service for live streaming as a service that can be renewed or canceled month-to-month rather than something a person has to commit to for the full season. They're trying to commit you to paying for full coverage of the preseason and whatever scattered games might be unavailable nationally during the playoffs, and it's bull****.

MLB.com used to be the same way, but switched to a month-to-month policy during the past season and got my business. I was going to sign up for the same service on NHL.com, but am going to pass for now instead. I bet they'd make more money on this if they'd let flakes like me come and go as we please.

that's a product of NHL's largest problem: thinking they are bigger/more popular than they are.

an avid football fan/baseball fan wants to watch the random OOM games like jaguars vs. bengals or rockies vs. padres. there simply aren't enough avid hockey fans to make their TV package make sense.

NHL needs to realize that hockey probably isn't gonna be expanding and replacing MLB/NFL (or even NBA) in most households. what they should be doing is putting out a better product in the markets they ARE competitive in. i'm too young to remember the reasoning behind it (and i'm sure there were some financial issues to justify) but moving the northstars to dallas sums up the NHL's attitude. take a team out of minnesota and put them in texas-- really?

if it was up to me, i'd eliminate the southern teams that never do and never will draw a crowd (panthers, lightning, etc.) and move them into canada or eliminate them completely.

The NHL's biggest problem is not having this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PReim0Axt4

exactly this

I just subscribed to that (NHL gamecenter live) a couple days ago so I could watch the Canucks' back to back fail. It was glorious.

God help me if I have to once again lecture you people on why taunting is improper behavior for an emotionally healthy human being.

Had to be worth every penny.

Seriously, the best defense of taunting that has been mounted included, "It's fun to be taunted." I just don't even...

Anyway, it's not like this particular taunt made me angry; I was aware of the result but didn't get to watch it, so it's hard to have the same emotional attachment to a game that you didn't even watch. Plus, it's regular season hockey. I'm not exactly fearing that the Canucks will miss the playoffs. NHL and NBA regular season games are the hardest to get emotional about because over half the league makes the playoffs.

In any case, taunting is improper and should of course be stamped out by the morally superior fans who don't lower themselves to such levels.

It's hard for me to consider it taunting when we're like two games into the regular season. It's a long year. At worst I consider it good-natured ribbing.

What if it's, for instance, directly after game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals?

It appears that someone is still enraged about a certain outcome in sports that occurred a mere few months ago.