Crabtree Chubby Club, Back In Session


Just when I thought it was safe to relax, here comes Adam with a recurrence of Crab(s). Yes, the Crabtree Cubby Club is back in session. Head Chubster Adam, presiding. I thought I would share my running commentary on his article. Let’s begin.

"Some of you got sick of me raving about Michael Crabtree earlier this offseason. Well, I’m twice as sick of hearing about this Aaron Curry kid."

Yes, because off all those Curry-love articles on AA. I rarely read anything complimentary of Crabtree…… not.

"picking a linebacker that isn’t a devastating pass rusher in the top three is idiotic. Stupid. Retarded. Moronic. Daniel Snyder sh**. Detroit Lionsesque."

Wow, when you are going to argue for drafting a WR high and you start using the Lions as a pejorative you are off to a rocky start.

"Look, linebackers who primarily rack up tackles and drop back into coverage just aren’t worthy of a top-three pick."

Generally speaking, that is true. That is what Curry played in college, however we don’t know where we would play him in the NFL. Hang onto your hat, the assumptions are just beginning.

"Now, if Curry were a glorified defensive end, standing up in a 3-4 instead of playing with a hand down in a 4-3, I could see that."

So can I. We know that is not the plan because??????

"We recorded an all-time NFL team low in sacks last year. A DeMarcus Ware or Shawne Merriman could change our pass-rushing futility overnight. It would be akin to selecting Mario Williams."

Interesting that you bring up Mario. Mario A] was considered a bust after his rookie year and B] the Texans passed on Reggie Bush and Vince Young for him. Adam, where were you on Bush and Young? Come on bro, you are making this just too easy.

"So, call Aaron Curry Derrick Brooks, but don’t call him Derrick Thomas. Sure, Derrick Brooks won a Super Bowl — in his eighth year in the NFL."

Ah yes, the Super Bowl. That is pretty important. Hang onto that thought. We’ll get back to it.

"We need an instant game changer. As much as I’m warming to Orakpo, there’s only one of those on the board — Micheal Crabtree."

Before Crabtree was the choice because he was the best player on the board. Now he in the only ‘instant game changer’ on the board. Shifting rationals, same results. Interesting.

"Time and time again, I have offered up reasons why picking an elite receiver like Crabtree in the top three is, contrary to popular belief, actually a great idea. I have made a number of compelling cases for the ex-Red Raider at No. 3. None of those cases, however, have been quite as compelling or exhaustive as the one Chiefs fan Shawn Siegele put together for the Kansas City Star’s Red Zone blog today."

I would encourage everyone to read the full posting. Adam has his favorite parts and I have mine. Here are some of mine.

"You’ve often pointed to Charles Rogers as a reason to avoid WRs, but WRs taken that highly in the draft actually have an incredible rate of success."

Unfortunately, Shawn never bothers to define what he is calling a success.

"I wanted to look at the success rate of teams with two elite WRs compared to those with one elite WR and those with zero elite WRs."

This time, Shawn helps us out and defines what he means by an ‘Elite Receiver’.

"I tried to define elite WRs as those with a reasonable expectation of 1000+ yards and/or 10+ TDs; receivers who would otherwise qualify but did not play or played with serious injuries I did not consider elite for the year of their injury"

Did everyone catch that? His definition of an elite receiver is one with a ‘reasonable expectation’ of yadda, yadda, yadda. Who decided what the reasonable expectation was? Was it you Shawn? We have to assume so, because again, Shawn didn’t bother to explain.

"The results are somewhat staggering and surprising even for someone like me who is a big believer in the value of multiple elite WRs."

I am so glad you are honest about your bias. When you get to define your own terms subjectively, how can you be surprised that your analysis fits your bias? But wait, there is more.

"2 elite WRs: 273-157 (63%)1 elite WR: 511-560 (48%)0 elite WRs: 495-562 (47%)"

What about that Super Bowl comment from Adam before? Oh that’s right, the ‘compelling and exhaustive’ post Adam cited never bothered to cover who won Super Bowls. Remember folks, that’s ‘compelling and exhaustive’.

Who posted this article from Shawn? Why it’s Kent Babb. That is Kent ‘the only thing I care about Defense is that it doesn’t suck’ Babb. Yes, he actually said that or something close to it. What does Kent think of Shawn’s analysis?

"I’m not sure what our guest contributor does for a living, but he talks an awful lot like an economist or statistician."

I am guessing, Kent, that you have never taken a methodology course. If you have, you might want to ask for a refund. Shawn never defines his variables and when he did, he often used subjective measures. The only hard stats he had were regular season records, never bothering to looking at Super Bowl winners. Of course, I may be wrong about that. Perhaps Shawn did look at Super Bowl winners. However, that analysis does not support his case. Come on Shawn, list the Super Bowl winners in your 2004-2008 time frame that had two of your ‘elite receivers’. I have the Colts in 2007. Do you have more? Remember, Number one defenses (based on points allowed) have won eleven out of the twelve Super Bowls they have played in. That’s over the entire history of Super Bowls.

Wait though, we have to get back to Adam.

"As for Bobby Engram’s signing pointing to us not drafting Crabtree, I would say just the opposite. Maybe Pioli and Todd Haley brought him in to mentor both Dwane Bowe and Crabtree."

Maybe they traded for Vrabel to mentor Curry and DJ?

"Personally, I’m scared Curry will end up being Derrick Johnson on steroids — not Derrick Brooks. Meanwhile, I think at worst Crabtree would be Dwayne Bowe on steroids. Which player would you rather have? You know the answer to that question."

Does the Strawman Fallacy mean anything? Anyone can do that. Let’s have some fun. At worst Curry is Mike Vrabel and at worst Crabtree is Charles Rodgers. Who would you take? It’s obvious! When you assume conclusions, you can justify any preconceived position.

"I guess I’d just like to see someone make as strong of a case, and one backed by statistical evidence, for Curry as Siegele did for Crabtree."

His case wasn’t very strong at all. It was shoddy methodology that fit an existing bias. Shocking.

Addicts? Ask yourself. What did we not hear in Adam’s anti-Curry, pro-Crabtree case? Best athlete available? Not a word. That used to be Adam’s main case. I went ahead and checked, Mike Mayock ( and Mel Kiper (ESPN). They all rate Aaron Curry as the best prospect in the draft. What else didn’t we hear about? Oh yes, that’s right, foot surgery. No mention of any risk for that. Winning a Super Bowl? Yes, that was mentioned to discount Curry. There was not a word about winning a Super Bowl with two stud receivers.

Winning a Super Bowl starts with a good offensive line and defensive front seven. The Chiefs still have lots of work to do in both areas. We can not afford the luxury of drafting Michael Crabtree. Aaron Curry is the best prospect in the draft. He should be an impact defensive player on a unit badly needing one. If he is on the board, I would take him.

Sound off Addicts!