Friday, May 7, 2010

DROY: Is “R” Rookie or ‘Roid?

DROY: Is “R” Rookie or ‘Roid?

May 7th, 2010 | by detfan1979 |
Being fans of the Detroit Lions, it is seldom if ever we get to see any of our draft picks – worthy or not – in the competition for Rookie of the year – specifically Defensive Rookie of the Year. However, once again thereigning Defensive Rookie of the Year has been suspended due to testing positive for a banned substance. Merriman, Peppers, Cushing… three of the last 8 and two of the last 5 DROY have been suspended the following season for using performance enhancing drugs (ie testing positive for such under the League’s banned substance policy enough times to warrant a suspension – which means more than once people.)
Maybe it should be “Defensive ‘Roider of the Year”?
If 2/5 of the DROY winners are testing positive, is it any wonder the competition is so tough? Go back and re-vote I say. Look back on the season and cast new votes. Cushing is ineligible for the Pro-Bowl. How about the berth that didn’t go to the honest player he cheated out of it last season? How about the other rookies who were eclipsed by Cushing’s dominant rookie campaign, when he was cheating. Period.
As a Lions fan this does sting. There were plenty of deserving defensive rookies last year – including Louis Delmas – who could have and would have garnered votes removing Cushing from the equation. Delmas had a heck of a rookie year on a bad team, but wasn’t quite at that ROY level. What if he had used performance enhancers? Helped him recover quicker from injury? Sure, his career would have been severely shortened and he would have let down his teammates this year with a suspension — but it’s worth it right? Umm…wrong. That is why the league bans them.
But 2 of the last 5? Get it wrong next year and that is 50% NFL. You need to do more than a simple 4 game suspension and no pro-bowl one year. Strip them of the award they won by cheating, and give it to someone who deserves it.
This especially drives right to the forefront of my mind with Ndamukong Suh looking to make noise in the DROY category and hopefully end the Lions’ drought in that area. Could he have a dominant rookie campaign, only to be overshadowed by some one ‘roid wonder? It’s possible — and just like with last year’s candidates, it would be a darn shame.
[Editor's Note: 5-11-10; AP announces it will re-vote on the DROY and All-Pro OLB spots in light of Cushing suspension.]
Rating: 9.4/10 (15 votes cast)
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
Tags: , , ,, ,

7 Responses to “DROY: Is “R” Rookie or ‘Roid?”

  1. By Mike on May 8, 2010
    I could not agree more. Great post! Now, I’d like to take the crusade to, PFT, NFP, et al.
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  2. By Clusterfox on May 8, 2010
    Do we know if there is any sort of monetary reward for the award. Or is it just clout and/or notoriety. I mean I agree with you regardless. I’m just suprised by the NFL’s lack of action, and I’m wondering what other variables might play into thier lack of action in these cases.
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. By KCLionFan on May 9, 2010
    You are usually spot-on and very entertaining to read. This one however, is an exercise of speculation based on too small of a sample size. To use statistical analysis principles, you need a sample size of 30 to have confidence on your conclusions.
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  4. By Lionwing20 on May 9, 2010
    Spot on. As I recall there were questions about all 3 LB’s from USC about being on roids or another enhancement before the draft.
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  5. KC – I agree, there is not a statistical inference to be made, merely a trend possible. It is not a good trend though, and I think that seeing as 2002, 2006, and 2009 were all suspended the following season, it puts it roughly once every 3-4 years the DROY has been suspended. I do NOT think this means 25% of rookies are using banned substances — I don’t think we have a large enough sample to make any inferences other than it appears to be a trend that using banned substances may make it more likely to win DROY.
    I did forget to note that the AP votes on DROY, so they would have to make the move. But it seems that a player who is breaking the rules should not be rewarded — monetary, honor, or otherwise.
    So, in short, yes KC — this is an exercise in specualation for much of it. But my premise is still strong, I think: The League and the AP needs to step up and take further measures to discourage this happening — which to me includes going beyond being ineligible for the pro-bowl in a year which a player served a suspension. They need to strip them of rewards earned when they were taking that banned substance.
    It may not stop anyone from doing it, but it will be more fair to the clean players, and more importantly for the NFL Business guys the image of the league.
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  6. BTW – KCLion – THANK YOU! I should have been clearer in my premise and supports. I appreciate you clarifying in your comment what I should have in my piece.
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  7. The AP is going to re-vote on the award –
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

No comments: