Tag: Opinion

Transparency will be key if the college football season is to survive

If the season is to run its course schools must be accountable and transparent especially when it comes to sharing COVID-19 testing results.

After five months of uncertainty and varying degrees of doubt toward the probability of a college football season this fall, the 2020 season officially started last Saturday with an FCS matchup between Central Arkansas and Austin Peay.

The Bears beat the Governors 24-17, and despite concerns about the game being a vector for the novel coronavirus, 82 Central Arkansas players, coaches and staff were tested the following week with none returning positive results.

UAB opened the FBS season against the Bears on Thursday night, and no one from either team tested positive ahead of the matchup.

This is a welcome good sign after months of bad ones. Of course, it’s still a small sample size, and we still don’t know how feasible a college football season will be once it’s in its full swing, but at the very least, the preliminary result seems to have been a good one.

However, if the season is to run its course, schools must be accountable and transparent, especially when it comes to testing results. And unfortunately, the early returns from the Power Five are mixed, to say the least.

In an ESPN survey of the 65 Power Five programs, nearly half of them refused to disclose information about the number of athletes that have tested positive for COVID-19. Further, a third also withheld information about testing protocols for players.

Of these schools, 21 are from the SEC, Big 12 and ACC, which are planning to participate in the fall season. Ten are from the SEC, eight are from the ACC (including Florida State and Miami) and the remaining three are from the Big 12.

Florida is one of just four SEC schools to respond to the survey with data on both the number of players who tested positive and the number who received tests overall.

Throughout the entire Gators athletic department, 569 athletes have been tested with only 35, or 6.2 percent, returning positive results.

Natalie Dean, a biostatistician and assistant professor at the University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, told ESPN that openness about athlete testing results is critical to the viability of the sport.

“These teams are interacting closely. You can’t do socially distanced football. It’s a different set of risks than kids coming back to their classrooms and taking their classes,” she said. “It also informs decisions about whether schools should be playing against each other, because there’s interaction that way. It’s just a different set of considerations.”

Only 10 schools responded to all survey questions, and of those, just four — Clemson, Iowa State, Missouri and Oklahoma — are planning on playing football in the fall.

Greg McGarity, the athletics director at Georgia (which is among the schools to withhold both testing numbers and positive results from ESPN) gave a justification for the school’s actions.

“We’ve just followed our university protocols when we do have positive tests, whether they be staff, student-athletes or what have you,” said Greg McGarity, athletics director at Georgia, one of the schools that declined to answer any of the nine survey questions. “They’re reported through the university channels, and everything is done by the book.”

Though I would certainly like to take McGarity at his word that “everything is done by the book,” without proper accountability, it’s hard to.

Especially when you consider attempts made by public universities to cover up outbreaks within the general student body.

Often, universities cite federal privacy laws such as HIPPA and FERPA to avoid revealing testing information. However, legal experts say this is a misinterpretation of these laws, and it is permissible to disclose positive test results as long as general privacy standards are adhered to.

Essentially, universities are worried about the bad PR that would come from revealing outbreaks, within or without the athletic department. They want to avoid becoming scapegoats.

And this instinct is understandable. But Dean explains here succinctly why it’s harmful.

“Places worry that they’re going to be on the front page of the news. That discourages them from being transparent,” Dean said. “But that’s putting those patrons and employees and athletes at an elevated risk.”

Admittedly, the college football season happening this fall for more than a week or two feels much more likely than it did a month ago, when the Big Ten and Pac-12 canceled their fall seasons.

But a lack of accountability threatens that. And if you want to see players suit up for the fall season, you should demand openness from these institutions.

[lawrence-related id=21158,20552,20046,17763,17447]

More college coaches should follow Dan Mullen’s example on social justice

When prompted, head coach Dan Mullen gave a shockingly genuine and well-considered response to what’s going on in our country.

Speaking to the media on Thursday, Gators coach Dan Mullen was asked a question that didn’t involve football. It didn’t involve the logistics of practice, and it didn’t involve the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic.

Instead, Mullen was asked about Jacob Blake, the 29-year-old Black man who was shot seven times in the back by police in Kenosha, Wis., but survived, albeit paralyzed from the waist down. The shooting sparked intense protests in Kenosha this week.

When faced with questions about issues that extend beyond the scope of the gridiron, especially when those questions address complex social issues, coaches often respond in one of two ways.

They either feign ignorance of the issue, offering some cliche about team unity and focusing on the game, or they provide vague platitudes that aren’t specific or targeted enough to potentially upset their (often conservative) fanbase.

Mullen did neither of those things. When prompted, he gave a shockingly genuine and well-considered response to what’s going on in our country. He did so with a level of sincerity and degree of introspection almost never seen from highly paid college coaches.

He talked about his own experience, and how he’s educated himself on the struggle of Black Americans for equal treatment under the law and equity within society.

“When Black Lives Matter come out and then people want to fight and say all lives matter, right? You look at that and say, ‘ok, yeah I can see how that makes sense.’ Then you go educate yourself and go back and think about different things. Someone wrote an article, I read it somehwere, when the Boston Marathon bombing came out and the Boston Strong shirts came out, right? Well why isn’t everybody strong? Why does it only have to be Boston that gets to be strong, right? Of course all lives do matter but that’s not what we’re talking about right now. We’re talking about this specific situation where we’re seeing racial injustices happen. We’re trying to draw light to that. We’re not trying to say other things aren’t important. We’re trying to draw light to this. When you can draw on things from a lot of examples, like people all of a sudden want to jump and say I have to be on a side now, just educate yourself. What we’re trying to do is educate ourselves about the social injustices that are happening. It doesn’t mean, when you say Black lives matter it doesn’t mean I’m forgetting about other people…”

In an era where college coaches are painfully tight-lipped when it comes to expressing opinions that extend outside their purview, this amount of candor from Mullen on how his opinions have changed is fairly remarkable.

That’s not to say Mullen’s statement was perfect. It was very clear he was walking on eggshells to avoid saying anything too controversial. For example, according to a tweet from the Gainesville Sun’s Graham Hall, Mullen said in the wake of the Blake shooting, it’s important to “educate ignorant people.”

But Mullen’s lack of specificity in describing the beliefs he’s condemning could allow someone who holds them to feel unchallenged, as Alex Kirshner, formerly of Banner Society, points out here.

However, I generally disagree with Kirshner’s criticisms of Mullen. Were his comments PR-laundered? Certainly. Could he have been stronger in his stating his beliefs? Sure.

But to get hung up on this kind of coachspeak, which is ubiquitous in college sports, misses the forest for the trees.

The fact is, Mullen’s statement is stronger than those of almost any of his peers.

Compare Mullen’s comments on the necessity of keeping an open mind and educating yourself with comments from other coaches.

Coaches like Clemson’s Dabo Swinney, who provided justification in June for assistant coach Danny Pearman using the N-word at practice.

“I would fire a coach immediately if he called a player an N-word. No questions asked,” Swinney said Monday. “That did not happen. Absolutely did not happen. It has not happened. Coach Pearman was correcting D.J., and another player was talking to D.J., or D.J. was yelling at the player, and D.J. said something he probably shouldn’t have said. He said, ‘I blocked the wrong f—ing N-word,’ and Coach Pearman thought he was saying it to him, and he’s mad, and he reacted, and in correcting him, he repeated the phrase.

“And [Pearman] said, ‘We don’t say we blocked the wrong f—ing N-word.’ And he repeated it. He shouldn’t have done that. There’s no excuse for even saying that. But there is a big difference. He did not call someone an N-word.”

Or Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy, who wore a t-shirt for One America News, a far-right news outlet whose anchors have been critical of the Black Lives Matter movement, with one going as far as to call it a “farce.”

Gundy later apologized, saying he was “disgusted” when he learned the network’s position on Black Lives Matter, though he had praised the content of the network months prior.

Mullen, on the other hand, demonstrated an open mind towards these issues and even hinted at evidence of personal growth, though his lack of specificity made it hard to gauge exactly how far he’s come on the issue of racial justice.

Still, Mullen jumped into an uncomfortable arena and handled it gracefully. As a man tasked with leading young men, many of whom are Black, he deserves credit for that.

That isn’t to say his work here is done. For Mullen’s words of affirmation for the cause to ring true, it would help to see more pointed criticism toward the model of amateurism, which exploits college football’s primarily Black player base for profit.

But for the time being, Mullen’s comments should provide an example for coaches around the country on how to publicly address the issues of racial equality. And if more people in Mullen’s position followed suit, it could help lead to change in this country.

[lawrence-related id=17201,20046]

How the college football season could have been salvaged

For all the reasons why COVID-19 makes a season an unlikely possibility, college football players could still have suited up this fall.

Over the last five months, I’ve written extensively for Gators Wire about all the challenges facing a college football season. I’ve discussed why I didn’t think, given the material circumstances and statements made by stakeholders with actual power to make these decisions as opposed to a lowly sports blogger like myself, a season would be feasible.

The primary reason I believed this to be true was that, over that period of time, nothing fundamentally changed about the reality of the situation. Not the state of the pandemic in the United States, nor the lack of interest from institutions and conferences in proactively addressing safety concerns.

But to conflate what has been painfully obvious for months with what was inevitable is, in this case, foolish. Because for all the reasons why COVID-19 makes a season an unlikely possibility, college football players could still have suited up this fall.

[lawrence-related id=19347]

Even accounting for the disastrous way in which the U.S. government has handled the pandemic response, the NCAA could have dodged this bullet long before the first discovered case of COVID-19.

Five years before, in fact.

In 2014, the NCAA lost a class action suit against former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon and other former student-athletes, who alleged that the association’s use of their image and likeness in NCAA video games was illegal. The NCAA had to pay out $42.2 million, and the ruling ended the successful NCAA Football video game series.

But the NCAA balked on the amateurism issue. Instead of using the court’s decision that such action violated anti-trust law as a catalyst to modernize the system and end the unsustainable model of amateurism, it paid its pittance without addressing any of the underlying issues that led to the problem in the first place.

Flash-forward to the present, and college football faces a serious dilemma. Experiments undertaken by professional leagues have demonstrated that some degree of a bubble is necessary for the operation of sports in a post-COVID world.

[lawrence-related id=19347]

But, aside from logistical issues a college football bubble would pose, such an arrangement would push the limits of amateurism. Asking players to leave campus (where they take classes, which are allegedly the priority) and spend months at a time separated from family and friends without compensating them for it while millionaire professional athletes make the same sacrifice would be dubious, to say the least.

If the NCAA had admitted back in 2014 (or in any of the years since) that it ran a professional sport, it would have been prepared, or at least more so, to handle the complications that have arisen due to the pandemic. Players would be compensated and have a seat at the table to discuss safety protocols that primarily affect them.

But it didn’t do any of that. And that shouldn’t be surprising.

After all, there’s a lot more money to be made in exploiting free labor than there is in blowing up that system of free labor for no reason, aside from ethics.

[lawrence-related id=18541]

That logic goes out the window in a time of crisis, however. The cracks in the system are showing, and it’s abundantly clear that the NCAA’s model of amateurism wasn’t at all prepared to handle a disruption of this scale.

The powers that be could have recognized this at any point in the last five months. Instead of twiddling its thumbs while professional leagues arrived at actual solutions, the NCAA could have followed their lead and worked to create a comprehensive answer while also compensating players and improving their standing in the future. Once again, it did not do that.

Granted, even if players secured the rights they deserve, such as compensation and organization, trying to pull off a season would be walking a tenuous line. But college sports wouldn’t be facing obstacles unique from the rest of the sporting world.

And when Saturdays this fall are occupied by the NFL, just remember that the NCAA has had literal decades to make its model more resilient to an event like this one.

[lawrence-related id=17685,17447,16160,13722]

Historic player organization movements are only the beginning

If a players union is ever going to exist at the college level, it will not come from the generosity of college athletics administrators.

Earlier this week, a group of Pac-12 players sent a letter to the Players’ Tribune with a list of demands for the conference and are threatening to opt-out of the 2020 football season should those demands not be met.

The list was later shared by a number of Pac-12 athletes on Twitter, including Oregon star Penei Sewell, who is a projected early first-round pick in the 2021 NFL Draft.

The players’ demands cover a wide range of issues, from COVID-19 safety to racial justice and compensation. For COVID-19 protections, players want the ability to opt-out of the season free from punishment within their programs and for safety standards to be maintained by a third party. To protect the status of all sports during the pandemic, they are demanding pay cuts from Commissioner Larry Scott, as well as coaches and administrators.

They also want the right to profit off their name, image and likeness, as well as the distribution of 50 percent of total conference revenue from each sport evenly among the athletes in those sports.

In response to this, players across the nation voiced their support for the movement, including Florida defensive end Zachary Carter.

Groups of players in both the Big 10 and Mountain West followed suit, giving their own list of demands to conference administrators. However, the lists of demands from those conferences aren’t as broad as that of the Pac-12 players. They only address COVID-19 safety and not wider-reaching social issues.

These movements have shown unprecedented levels of player organization at a time when it is desperately needed. As players unions in the NBA, MLB and NFL have negotiated substantive protections for their players, college athletes — who have no representation whatsoever — have been largely forced to go along with the (generally terrible) decisions made by those who allegedly care about their best interest.

Of course, the players have power; any group of organized laborers does. It’s the reason trade unions exist in the first place. But without a union (which the players desperately need for a number of reasons, as the Pac-12 players have demonstrated), the players are essentially powerless as individuals.

That’s why these grassroots organizational movements are so important. Once players realize they have power in numbers, they will be able to affect change within the system. Maybe not everything they are demanding, but significant change nonetheless.

If a players union is ever going to exist at the college level, it will not come from the generosity of college athletics administrators. Allowing the players, who aren’t technically employees, to unionize would give the game away for the NCAA. If players can collectively bargain, the current system of college athletics would be burned to the ground.

And it should be.

Because ultimately, the value of college sports isn’t derived from the NCAA. It comes from the players. And the only way the players will get what they deserve is if they force the issue through organized, collective action.

If met, the demands of the Pac-12 players would preclude the league from competing in NCAA-sanctioned events, as nearly all of them violate current amateurism rules. But, so what? Do the conferences really need the NCAA to survive?

Talking to ESPN, Ramogi Huma, founder of the college athletics advocacy group the National College Players Association, phrased the answer succinctly.

Huma said the players are aware that if the Pac-12 met their demands that the conference would not be eligible to participate in NCAA-sanctioned competitions or championships.

“Right now, it’s clear that the conferences don’t need the NCAA. Each conference is an industry unto itself,” Huma said. “[The players are saying,] ‘We’re fine if our conference doesn’t belong to the NCAA at all. We need to be treated fairly.'”

Don’t misunderstand, some reforms are certainly possible within the system, as state legislators allowing players to be compensated for the use of their names, images and likenesses shows.

But historically, massive, systemic reforms for labor groups tend to stem from one thing and one thing only: tireless and unflinching advocacy from the laborers themselves until those taking advantage of them have no choice remaining but to listen.

[lawrence-related id=17201,16181,11677,6219]

Saints uniforms snubbed in recent NFL power rankings

The New Orleans Saints were massively disrespected in the latest NFL power rankings at Uni Watch, grading teams on their looks and fashion.

[jwplayer LJn4FNKv-ThvAeFxT]

Don’t look now, but the New Orleans Saints took one on the chin in the latest NFL power rankings from Uni Watch’s Paul Lukas. And they were hit in the most critical variable in all of sports: their uniforms.

Sure, Lukas credits the Saints with a nice color palette; it’s a timeless look that goes well with anything (as black does), and that’s changed little in the team’s history, except for varying shades of gold (which at times has looked more like khaki). However, he took a shot at the Saints for not taking full advantage of that combination, ranking them 18th in the league:

In theory, the Saints are a good-looking team with very solid uniform elements. In practice, they wear mono-black way too often — a whopping seven times in 2019. Such a pointless look for a party town like New Orleans. Look, it’s not that hard: Wear the black jersey with the gold pants! That move alone would let the Saints jump at least half a dozen spots on this list.

But there’s good news: the Saints still ranked second-best in the NFC South, behind the upstart Tampa Bay Buccaneers (at 14th) and well ahead of the rebuilding Carolina Panthers (25th) and bottom-feeding Atlanta Falcons (31st). Just like in reality, it’s a two-horse race for the 2020 NFC South title.

[lawrence-related id=36618,33276,31997,31990,31957]

[vertical-gallery id=36627]

Don’t get too excited about a 10-game SEC football schedule

If there’s one thing the attempted returns of the NBA and MLB have shown us, it’s that sports are currently not feasible outside a bubble.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began earlier this year, many fans have expressed frustrations with members of the sports media for what having what they perceive to be a rooting interest in sports being canceled this fall.

I understand this impulse. We all want sports back. We all want our lives back the way they were before. And when you see someone express doubts about the feasibility of doing so, especially when it’s someone whose job is talking about college sports, it can be irritating. Be forewarned, this is one of those columns.

But I want to be clear: I do not want the football season to be canceled. As a journalism student set to graduate this December, the cancellation of the season would not only potentially impact my current employment. It could also impact my future stability immensely.

But there’s a difference between rooting for sports to be canceled and expressing skepticism and criticism toward the safety considerations (or lack thereof) taken by leagues. There’s a difference between hoping for this disastrous situation to perpetuate and arguing against shortsighted action that jeopardizes the longterm viability of sports.

My sympathies are with the latter when I say that I don’t expect college football to happen this fall, in any capacity.

With the SEC’s announcement on Thursday of a 10-game, conference-only football schedule, the Big 12 is the only Power 5 league yet to adjust its scheduling in a major way. Soon enough, it will follow suit.

But that won’t be enough.

If there’s one thing the attempted returns of the NBA and MLB have shown us, it’s that sports are currently not feasible if they aren’t contained within a bubble. Baseball opening day was just over a week ago, and six teams are already out of action on Friday due to exposure with COVID-positive individuals. Twenty people within the Miami Marlins organization have tested positive.

Baseball is about as socially distanced as a team sport can be, and it’s still spreading like wildfire within organizations. Just imagine, for a second, what would happen if athletics were held on a college campus.

Meanwhile, the NBA’s bubble has been a massive success story. With strict enforcement of rules, the association has had zero positive results in the last two weeks. The NHL began a similar experiment this week.

But an isolated bubble isn’t possible for baseball. And it definitely isn’t possible for football. Team size and logistical issues would keep it from materializing in the NFL, and the sheer number of teams and resource discrepancies would make it a nonstarter at the college level.

Far be it from me to underestimate the stubbornness of college athletics administrators, though. I don’t doubt that they’ll try to have a season at all costs.

The season may start, but it sure as hell won’t finish. And that would be a disaster.

The real shame is that time was never the issue here. The NCAA has had since March to see the writing on the wall and form a backup plan. That time was wasted figuring out exactly how soon it could get players back on campus.

I’m hopeful that a season can happen to some extent, even if it has to be in the spring. But each day that passes, an all-out cancelation seems more and more likely, and the tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way.

[lawrence-related id=18167,17685,17447,17447,13722,13117]

Enough about football, what about the college basketball season?

Lost in these conversations over what could have been in regards to football is a nagging question—what will happen with college basketball?

In recent weeks, the spotlight in the college sports world has been on the management (or lack thereof) of the college football season in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The NCAA and major conferences wasted the bulk of the summer by not coming up with a suitable return plan for college athletes, and now, with two of the Power Five conferences already moving to conference-only schedules and the rest likely to follow, the entire idea of having a college football season in the fall seems to be hanging by a thread.

It seems a near certainty that the season will be at the very least delayed until late fall/early winter, the implications of which would be devastating for the sport at large.

But lost in these conversations over what could have been in regards to football is a nagging question — what will happen with college basketball?

Surely, the NCAA will do whatever is possible to avoid making any substantive changes to the season considering the entire postseason was canceled last season. Allowing the virus to significantly affect two seasons in a row is a worst-case scenario.

But if the college football season — along with other fall sports — are canceled or postponed, where would that leave college basketball?

In making these plans, many of the limitations and stipulations that affect college football’s return also apply. Players are still unpaid, and forcing them into a position of risk is a bit different from when the NBA does it to its millionaire athletes. You still have to deal with the fact that it’s inconceivable to try and replicate a bubble-type environment; travel and the freedom of movement for student-athletes (who will still be taking classes as students, and at least at UF, could be taking them in-person) will be necessities.

But there are also a number of reasons why basketball doesn’t have to suffer the same fate football inevitably will. Smaller rosters mean you only have to worry about keeping conditions safe for 12-15 people (plus support staff), as opposed to the 100+ required for football. The schedule would be easier to adjust if necessary since nonconference basketball games aren’t tied with seven-figure contracts like in football, and playing games without fans wouldn’t be as financially catastrophic as it would be for football, where schools in conferences that don’t have lucrative TV deals often need revenue from ticket sales to subsidize their entire athletics departments.

Not to mention the fact that the season isn’t set to start until November, putting several more months between the current state of the pandemic in the United States and the season’s commencement.

But there are no guarantees. The Ivy and Patriot Leagues have already canceled sports through the fall, meaning that if the basketball season were to happen in those Division I conferences, it would at the very least be delayed. It’s very possible the beginning of the season is pushed until December or January and nonconference games are eliminated entirely or severely reduced. There’s also the conflicts basketball season could have with a potential spring football season to keep in mind.

There is reason to be more optimistic that the college basketball season will happen on time than the college football season, to be sure. But if that’s going to happen, the NCAA can’t waste the next three months and repeat the mistake it made with football.

[lawrence-related id=18167,17201,12137,11918]

Expect the SEC and other collegiate conferences to follow the Big 10’s lead

Any reasonable person has known for some time that if college football happens this fall it will look drastically different than ever before

Any reasonable person has known for some time now that should a college football season occur this fall, it will look drastically different than any other season we’ve ever seen. The only question was, how so?

The first domino in answering that question fell Thursday afternoon, as the Big 10 announced that it would be scrapping all scheduled nonconference games and moving to a conference-only football schedule.

Not only does this alter the schedules of Big 10 teams, but also every team that was scheduled to play a Big 10 team in non-conference play. As a result, it’s just a matter of time until the rest of the FBS makes the same call.

The PAC 12 has been reportedly considering doing the same for months now, and according to Stadium’s Brett McMurphy, the ACC is likely to move to a conference-only schedule, as well.

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said that the league will wait as long as possible to make final decisions but that it will also discuss the possibility of eliminating nonconference games.

These are important first steps from the Power Five, which until now hasn’t taken nearly as proactive a course as, for instance, the NBA has. But this also feels like an abrupt turn in strategy.

Just weeks ago, Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith suggested that they could put 40-50,000 fans in the stadium. On Thursday, his tone changed drastically.

“I am very concerned,” Smith said, when asked about playing fall sports in general. “I used to be cautiously optimistic, but I’m not even there now. When you look at our trajectory with the virus, we are either the worst country or one of the worst. We wanted September available to use to provide flexibility and control to handle disruptions.”

The Big 10’s announcement was less of a proactive step than it was a scramble. College football waited too long to take concrete steps to ensure the season could be conducted safely, and now the entire season is jeopardized.

[lawrence-related id=17447]

Most, if not all, Power Five leagues will do the same thing the Big 10 did. Most Group of Five leagues will, as well. But it’s not going to save the season.

Moving to a conference-only schedule is the last gasp from college sports administrators realizing the error of their ways. Because, though clearly a step in the right direction, nixing nonconference games isn’t the answer.

Sure, it keeps programs’ travel generally region-locked, but at this point, with over 3 million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States, spreading the disease to new places isn’t really the concern. The concern is keeping the thousands of players, coaches and personnel safe while somehow limiting collateral in the travel process. A conference-only schedule doesn’t begin to solve all of these problems.

There’s only one answer: delaying the season.

Right now, college football is setting itself up for a disaster. Administrators are either too stubborn or too invested to see the writing on the wall, and they’re going to create a massive headache for themselves.

Barring something unforeseen changing in the next month and a half, outbreaks will be an inevitability this fall. When that happens, the season will be stopped and either canceled or postponed.

Assuming this is the case, college football has two options: Delay the start of the season with the hope that a more normal season is possible later on, or devise a complicated plan for a fall start that will more likely than not fail, resulting in a delayed season anyway but with the added hurdle of dealing with a restart instead of just a delayed start.

The former option is, in my opinion, clearly superior. But it seems that those in power are more interested in the latter. When that comes to pass, the months wasted arguing about precisely how many fans can safely be shoved into metal bleachers will be all the more damning.

[lawrence-related id=17685,17201,16160,13722]

5 reasons why Duron Harmon reminds me of Glover Quin

Exploring five reasons why Detroit Lions’ current safety Duron Harmon reminds me of former Lions’ safety Glover Quin.

One of the Detroit Lions’ most intriguing offseason additions was safety Duron Harmon — acquired via trade with the New England Patriots for a fifth-round draft pick.

Harmon is a single high free safety who has a knack for getting his hands on the football and creating turnovers. He’s a savvy veteran who is a great guy in the locker room and in the community. The more I think about Duron Harmon, the more he reminds me of another former Lions’ safety: Glover Quin.

Both players came to the Detroit Lions after being with another organization for the early part of their career and they are similar in stature/playstyle. I believe Harmon will have a similar impact for the Lions and will help the team win on and off the field.

Steady veteran

When Quin played in Detroit, he worked closely with young players like Darius Slay, Quandre Diggs, and Tracy Walker, always teaching while also making plays on the field. Quin was always the steady veteran presence, not only for other defensive backs but for everyone else in the locker room as well.

It appears Harmon could be that same type of experienced veteran player with the Lions in 2020. He will have the opportunity to teach players like Walker, Jeff Okudah, and Will Harris in several aspects of the game. Every good team needs a few steady veterans that can also still play and Harmon can fill that role.

Ballhawk

Quin had 19 interceptions over his six seasons in the Motor City and in 2014, his second season with the team, he had seven interceptions in that year alone. He became a true ballhawk while wearing Honolulu Blue.

Harmon has similar numbers. He was a takeaway specialist while with the New England Patriots recording 17 interceptions in his seven seasons in Foxboro. As Harmon playing time increased the past few years, he really became that true ballhawk with 10 interceptions in the past three years. The Lions will be hoping he continues that trend.

On-field coach

The value of an on-field coach can’t be downplayed. You need those types of guys, especially when they play a deep safety role. The single-high safeties positioning allows a player to be that on-field coach, as they can see and direct the entire defense. Both Quin and Harmon are detailed in the film room and that lets them bring that on the field to help others.

Leadership

Quin was a team captain, well respected across the league, and his legend grew as he produced on the field. Teammates looked to “GQ”, as he was often, called for guidance and leadership in the toughest of moments.

I see Harmon a similar type of guy. A leader on and off the field, as well as someone that you can turn to when all the chips are down, knowing that he has your back. From what I have seen so far, he seems to be a very accountable stand-up guy which are traits that helped propel Quin in the eyes of his fellow players and coaches.

Media friendly

One thing I loved about Quin was his willingness to work with the media, often talking for double the length of time as others. I think he did this for both himself and the team. Quin was always willing to express his opinions on football and any other topics thrown his way.

Quin was loved by the media and based on the virtual media sessions Harmon has done this offseason, he is quickly gaining respect. Recently, he spoke genuinely about racism, social justice, and other aspects of his life. They may have different styles, but both players have very media-friendly personalities.

In summary, both players are free safeties known for their interceptions, locker room leaders, and are willing to give the media some great quotes during the year. Hopefully, the greatest similarity will be that Harmon will help lead the Lions back to a similar level of success on defense as Quin did while he was in a Lions uniform.

Opinion: Lions games I’m looking forward to in 2020

Our Sonja Greenfield highlight which Detroit Lions games she is most looking forward to during the 2020 regular season.

The Detroit Lions have released their 2020 schedule and while there are plenty of interesting games on the docket, I was asked which games I was most looking forward to.

Is it OK to say all of them?

If only because it’ll mean that life as we know it is back to normal — or close to it, anyway. Outside of that, here are the ones I’m looking forward to seeing the most.

  1.  Both Chicago Bears games. I really want to see Jeff Okudah feast on the Bears offense. And it’s always a good day when the Lions beat the Bears.
  2. The Cardinals. We know that The Tie will be the big storyline going into the game. So, let’s actually win this time.
  3. The Saints. If the Saints start 3-0 and the Lions are at least 2-1, it’ll be a very good test for the Lions. And if the Lions are 1-2, or heaven help us, 0-3, I’ll at least be able to see Cesar Ruiz from Michigan at center.
  4. The Redskins. That’s a family thing. My father in law is a Redskins fan so that one is always a fun game for me personally.
  5. Thanksgiving. Regardless of who they play — it’s the Texans this year –, it’s my favorite holiday. You can never go wrong with food and football.
  6. Green Bay at home in December. It’s always fun to beat the Packers — especially at home.
  7. Tampa Bay. It’ll be fun to see Tom Brady in something other than a Patriots jersey. Besides, the last time Brady was in Detroit for a regular-season game, the Lions beat him. So, can lightning strike twice?

[vertical-gallery id=43365]

Check out game-by-game score predictions from around the NFL Wires network:

Buf / Mia / NE / NYJ // Bal / Cin / Cle / Pit // Hou / Ind / Jax / Ten // Den / KC / LV / LAC //// Dal / NYG / Phi / Was // Chi / Det / GB / Min // Atl / Car / NO / TB // Ari / LAR / SF / Sea