From: jorgand@sumax.seattleu.edu (Dave Jorgan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Stupid Houston releases Bailey
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:16:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.4933
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <21417@optima.cs.arizona.edu> dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.144325.12123@u.washington.edu> les@redx.washington.edu (Les Pennington) writes:
>>Houston released Mario Bailey, 1st team All American wide receiver from U
>>of Washington, ....
>
>Yes, Bailey, the same Bailey silly Husky fans said was the steal of
>the draft.  Hmmm, released.  Doesn't look like a steal to me.
>
>
>--dave



	This statement demonstrates considerable ignorance of the facts
and situation at hand. Let me explain why:


	1. Bailey was a 6th round choice. He was released because injuries
in pre-season did not let the Oilers get enough of a read on his abilities
to justify taking a risk on him. The modest 6th round position meant they
did not have a large investment that they had to justify. 

	2. For example, Bailey has been compared often to Desmond Howard.
To illustrate the effects that draft position has on whether one is waived
or not, let us suppose both payers had an equivalent pre-season. Both
players were terrible. Bailey the sixth rounder would be cut. But short
of comitting murder and breaking Joe Gibbs' glasses, Howard is *not*
going to be waived by the Redskins. The investment is too great.

	3. "Some steal." This comment made because Bailey was cut. This
person apparantly is unaware of the fact that there was another reciever
cut by the Houston Oilers in his rookie season. He also was among the
leaders in TD catches his senior season in college. He was a 4th round
selection. his name was Steve Largent. Oh, but he was cut. "Some steal."

	4. The draft position argument holds even for lesser selections
than the 4th overall one, as Howard was, I believe. For example, we have
Reggie Barrett of the Detriot Lions, Reggie Rembert of the Bengals, and
Alexander Wright of the Cowboys. All were second round selections I think
(though perhaps Barrett was taken in the 3rd, I do not recall precisely.)
If they had been lower draft picks, most likely they would have been cut by
know, as none of them have really distinguished themselves. But even a 2nd-
3rd round selection is too great an investment to abandon immediately. All
of these players may have improved a great deal this pre-season, as I have
not followed them closely this year, but for sure guys like Rembert and
Barrett did very, very little their rookie seasons. (Wright was a good
kickoff returner, I believe.)

	5. Ricky Proehl of the Cardinals is another example. Many people
blasted the Cardinals when they made him a 2nd round pick. They said he
was too small, slow, etc. to justify such a high selection, and the Cards
reached when taking him. Yet, he has proved to be a excellent WR, well worth
a #2 selection. If conventional wisdom had prevailed, perhaps Proehl would
have been taken in the mid-to-lower rounds. Perhaps he would have been cut.
Who knows? But his chances of sticking would have been far less, for certain.
Because he was a second rounder, he was given the full opportunity to
prove his skills- a good reason, BTW, for underclassmen to stay in school
unless they know they will be a high selection. The business of "earn-while-you
learn" don't hold. Even a physcially gifted prospect will find a hard time
getting a roster slot, if they are a mid-to-low selection. The higher
selection guarantees you a chance to demonstrate your ability.



	6. If the above dismissals of Bailey's ability were based on
watching him (i.e. the guy dropped tons of passes, could never get open,
etc.) then it might be a valid assessment of Bailey's talent. I'll await
this evaluation before making any more assumptions on that mark. But it
must be noted Bailey was injured in pre-season. Jack Pardee stated in a
press conference that these injuries kept him from evaluating Bailey
properly- he hoped to keep Bailey on the practice squad to see what he can
do when healthy. But, as a middle round pick, there wasn't enough investment
in Bailey to force them to keep him.


	All this being said, I must balance this by stating there Mario
Bailey probably didn't rate a whole lot higher than the 6th round- if I
were a GM I would have selected him no higher than the 3rd. The reason is
10 pounds and .1 second in the 40 yd dash. That's the difference between
Desmond Howard and Mario Bailey. In the NFL, it can be a great deal. Going
just on statistics and game films, there is no doubt in my mind Bailey was
an equivalent, if not better reciever, than Howard, but when projecting
that level of performance to the pros then that missing 10 lbs and that
.1 second make Bailey too great a risk and drop him three (in reality 6)
rounds. But to say cutting him is proof he can't play is sheer idiocy.
As I've pointed out, more than one reciever has been cut their rookie
season, yet have managed to prove they have some talent.


(BTW on whether Seattle should pick him up- I would have to point out 
another negative on Bailey. The reason his name is linked to run 'n shoot
offenses a lot is because as a small receiever, the run 'n shoot is the
offense best suited to employ a receiver of his size and skills. He can
employ quickness and the timing nature of the R&S passing game to negate
deficiencies in size, since the R&S tends to stretch the field horizontally-
that is, from sideline to sideline. Here, lateral quickness is very important.
In a conventional offense, let us take for example the Seattle offense,
the idea is to stretch the defense vertically (that is, downfield.) 
In Tom Flores' scheme, his WR's should have great speed to strech the
defense and force defensive backs far downfield, clearing room for the
rest of the offense in that manner. Pure speed and size (to make catches
over defensive backs covering deep) is more valued. Naturally, the two
systems are not mutually exclusive, but you get the general picture of
what I mean. Also, a R&S will have 4 WR's and thus the defense will use
more DB's, so the WR's will take less punishment. In a conventional
offense, the LB's will stay in, which means a lot of big hits. If you were
the deep route runner, that's not a big problem, but if you're the guy
running the crossing/short poesession patterns, then you are going to take
a beating. Mario Bailey would probably be the poessession reciever in a
normal offense of 2 WR's, so he'd take a real beating. Thus, I don't
believe he would be a good fit for the Seattle offense, unless you think
he is a Anthony Carter type (somehow can get deep even without great 40 yard
dash speed.)



Dave Jorgan
jorgand@sumax.seattleu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro