My 2006 fishing trip with Bill Ryan

Sometimes you do things outside of your comfort zone, not only because you are
intrigued by the activity but the company that involves the person.

For me, one of such moments was a fishing trip with Bill Ryan, who writes a fishing
column primarily for two weekly newspapers for Napa Valley Publishing, in June
2006. The two publications are the St. Helena Star and Weekly Calistogan with the
parent newspaper being the Napa Valley Register (Napa, CA). Ryan is originally from
Rhode Island. His East Coast accent is noticeable.

In my ten years on the sports beat in St. Helena and Calistoga, I was grateful for Bill’s
contributions as a fishing columnist that also contributed fishing reports. I would be the
first to tell you that I’m not an avid outdoorsman. I have never hunted and have only
fished a few times. I have no problem with either activity but the clean up that comes
with it is more than I want to endure. I appreciated Bill’s contributions to my sports
sections because he could tell fishing stories and give expertise in that arena far better
than I could.

So one random Monday, I’m working on sports stories for each edition and Bill stops by
my office to submit photos for his column. Bill then asked me of I would like to go
fishing with him one day. Without even thinking about what I was getting into, I said
yes. I had only been fishing twice in my life and it was on a family trip to the Klamath
River, which is North of Yreka, CA, near the Oregon border. My parents have friends
that once owned a cabin in the small hamlet of Hamburg, CA. Shoutout Keith and Joan
Pieper. I had not gone fishing in 17 years, yet I said yes to a fishing trip with the great
Bill Ryan. I always enjoyed visiting with Bill whenever he frequented by the office so I
figured, why not spend a day with him in his element.

I knew that the trip would involve getting up before the crack of dawn. Considering that
I have never been one to sleep in late, I did not see that as an issue. I arrived at Bill’s
house at about 6 a.m. to embark on our trip to Clear Lake, which is about an hour and a
half drive but when you factor the windy roads, it feels more like three hours. On the
way to and from the lake, we enjoyed great conversation ranging from family to sports,
etc.

The trip on the lake from the docking point in Kelseyville, CA, was a day to behold. I
attained a greater appreciation for the work that involved a fishing trip including but
not limited to hitching and unhitching the boat into and out of the lake from the truck.
Once we got onto the lake, little did I realize that Bill was a “catch and release” guy. I
guess when you fish so often, you can only freeze or eat so much of it. I discovered
this when I reeled in a two-pound bass.

No sooner was Bill excited for me to catch a fish 17 years removed from my last fishing
excursion, he’s telling me to “throw it back!” Without thinking about what he said, I
abided. My first thought was, “it must be too small for the legal limit.” So 15 minutes
or so passes and I asked him if he throws back everything he catches. He then asked
me if I want to keep it. I replied, “Damn right, I didn’t wait 17 years to throw it back.”
We both chuckled. As I look back, I can understand the difference of a regular
fisherman using the “catch and release” approach versus someone who rarely fishes
wanting to bring one home.

I would get another chance later in the day as I reeled in another two-pound bass. Ryan
held up the net to bring the fish back into the boat. The fish was placed under the bench
seat in the boat and floated in water until we docked much later in the day.

One thing I discovered about fishermen that I did not know, they see water skiers as
an annoyance because of the waves they create making for a disturbance. I remember
one group with a skier that came within about 100 yards of us. Bill had a few choice
words for them that I can’t repeat in mixed company. In the meantime, I’m thinking to
myself, “Thank God they can’t hear us.”

As the day concluded, Bill pulled out a sawed off baseball bat and grovelled, “Take
that fish you caught and smack him over the head!” In the meantime, I’m thinking,
“Wouldn’t it be easier to put him in an empty bucket and let him die that way.” So I
did what the man said and smacked the fish.

When I got home I trying to clean the fish was an exercise in futility before I brought
it to my mother’s house and had her clean it. The day turned into an all-around victory
in the D’Adamo house because my wife (Jacqueline), who I have been married to for 15
years as of this writing discovered that she was pregnant with our first child. Nine
months later, we welcomed Juliette Scioneaux D’Adamo into the world and she will
be 12 years old in March 2019.

The day was a great experience because I developed an appreciation for what those
who go fishing regularly endure. It was also a great experience spending an entire day
with Bill because he is someone I consider to be a friend. Like most people, get him
into the confines of his hobby and he reveals a triggered side, and I mean that in the
most complimentary way possible. However, away from or within the confines of his
hobby, he’s a great man.

I think about this experience quite regularly.

Tanking games in NFL for draft status is bad Kool Aid

When a team’s season goes sideways, you hear the age old question, “Do you continue
to try winning games or do you continue to lose games to attain a higher draft pick?”

Though I’m not here to tell you how you should feel about the matter, I acknowledge that
both sides have a legitimate point. However, I will never believe in losing to improve draft
status.

As a Bay Area native, such has been a hot topic with the Oakland Raiders and San
Francisco 49ers seeing their seasons resemble a train falling off the tracks. The two teams
entered Week 16 with records of 3-11 and 4-10 respectively. The two teams played each
other earlier this season in a Thursday Night primetime game with the 49ers railroading the
Raiders 34-3. As of this writing, the Raiders would have the No. 1 pick in the draft while
the 49ers would be picking No. 4.

I’m not going to expound on extensive reasons why the two teams have struggled but in a
nutshell, the 49ers lost their starting quarterback (Jimmy Garoppolo) and running back
(Jerick McKinnon) to knee injuries. The former in Week 3, the latter in training camp. The
team has had a myriad of other injuries, too many to list. The Raiders entered the season
with the ballyhooed return of Jon Gruden as head coach. The thought at the time was that
the team had a talented roster that underachieved under former head coach Jack Del Rio.
The Raiders have gotten rid of (either trade or outright release) of players drafted by now
former general manager Reggie McKenzie. Most notably former defensive player of the
year Khalil Mack and No. 1 wide receiver Amari Cooper. Mack has helped the Chicago
Bears win the NFC North while Cooper has helped the Dallas Cowboys position themselves
for an NFC East title.

In the NFL, you heard slogans like “Suck for Luck” in reference to the Stanford quarterback
Andrew Luck, who wound up getting drafted No. 1 overall by the Indianapolis Colts in 2012.
The other popular slogan was “Blow It Off For Goff” in reference to California quarterback
Jared Goff, who was drafted No. 1 overall by the Los Angeles Rams in 2016.

Most NFL mock drafts believe that Ohio State defensive end Nick Bosa, who is the younger
brother of Los Angeles Chargers defensive end Joey Bosa, and Houston defensive tackle Ed
Oliver are the top two picks in the 2019 draft.

Teams that try to lose employ a strategy known as “tanking.” I have been on my soapbox for
years against that approach. While I understand the fans’ excitement for potentially drafting
a great player, it is also Fool’s Gold. You are pinning your hopes on a player that has played
nary a down in the NFL. Translation, the player is just as likely to become a bust as well as
an All-Pro. Granted, the term “bust” is a subjective definition but you get the idea.

The “lose for a higher draft choice” approach is also flawed because no self-respecting
professional (front office, coach, player) is going to purposely attempt to lose games because
they have livelihoods to keep afloat, just like any working class professional in society. It’s
pretty simple, you fail at your job, you won’t have one.

Also, if a team has a bad win-loss record, they don’t need to “try” to lose games, they have
proven they are bad enough to lose games on their own merit. If your team is, say 3-13,
chances are you do not have just one area of weakness on your roster, you likely have several.

The constant narrative one hears is that teams that are consistently bad a) should eventually
get their pick right and b) as how could a team be so bad for so long that they are picking
that high?

Therein also lies the answer. For openers, I don’t give a damn if a team is picking first or
21st, they’d better get it right because first round draft picks command a lot of money,
some more so than others. Secondly, any competent front office and scouting staff will
generally get more picks right than not regardless of draft position.

If you pick a potentially great player, you still need players around him. So maybe the
aforementioned Bosa becomes Lawrence Taylor. Even if he does, let’s also remember that
Taylor had talented players around him like Leonard Marshall, George Martin, Carl Banks
and Harry Carson.

I don’t care what round you are picking, there is value to be had. Look at the Raiders,
specifically quarterback Derek Carr and starting guard Gabe Jackson. Most people would
consider them to be the Raiders best players. Carr was a second round pick while Jackson
was a third round selection. Granted, Jackson was recently placed on injured reserve but
has had a pretty solid career. Look at the 49ers, their two best are tight end George Kittle
and defensive end DeForest Buckner. Kittle was a fifth round pick and was selected to
the Pro Bowl. While Buckner was a first-round pick, he was the seventh pick overall and
was selected to the Pro Bowl as an alternate.

Another reason some people get obsessed with having the No. 1 overall pick is to become
a trade partner that can move down in the draft to acquire more draft capital. While I can
understand that sentiment, a) You still need to draft the right players and b) If you don’t
have the No. 1 pick,. There’s nothing that precludes you from trading up to acquire it.

It will always be my belief that tanking for higher draft picks is bad Kool Aid.

Breaking down football myths

We all have our fallback options when we are bored. Some people watch the news. Some
watch soap operas. Others watch reruns of TV shows from their era.

Whether it’s the A Football Life or NFL’s Top Ten feature, the NFL Network is my Achilles Heel.

I confess to being a borderline football junkie. After all, that comes with the territory when you
are a University of Nebraska alum and followed the San Francisco 49ers dynasty.

The network was launched during the 2003 season and includes game broadcasts, up-to-the-
minute news around the NFL, and various features. Among those features are various “Top
Ten” lists, such as top ten quarterbacks of all time and so forth. The network aired a feature of
Top Ten Football Myths. The list primarily geared itself toward the NFL but definitely has a
degree of truth for the college game as well. We are all guilty of uttering these myths but
watching this show kind of made me re-examine the beliefs.

10) Tackle stats are accurate

On one hand, the statistic is important because after all, if the defender (or defenders) does
not make the tackle, the play continues but how valuable is someone if he is making most of
his tackles say 10 or more yards downfield? And if a running back goes straight into the line of
scrimmage greeted by a wall of defenders, who really made the tackle? When I cover high
school football, I keep tackle for loss stats and impact tackles (gains resulting in 0-3 yards).

Tackle stats cannot always be trusted. Each NFL and college team employs a stat crew for its
home games. That crew's final statistics are deemed official: yardage for rushing, passing,
receiving and various kick returns plus field goal and punting distances, sacks, interceptions,
touchdowns. However, most NFL teams and perhaps college too do not acknowledge the
press box tackle stats as official. Following games, defensive coaching staffs break down the
films on their own and award a new set of tackle numbers. Those are listed by each team as
its official tackle count.

9) It’s tough to repeat as Super Bowl or National Champions

There is a kernel of truth to this idea but more so as college football national champions. In the
Super Bowl era, eight of the 18 franchises that have won Super Bowls have repeated as
champions (the Pittsburgh Steelers did it twice in the 1970s). In college football, only three
teams have repeated as National Champions (1978-1979 Alabama, 1994-1995 Nebraska,
2003-2004 USC, 2011-2012 Alabama).

Repeating is harder in the college game because the most games that a team can afford to lose
and still have a shot at the National title is two games (i.e. LSU in 2007) and even that is an
aberration. Many times, even one loss kills a team’s National Title hopes. In the NFL, a team can
lose as many as seven regular season games, get hot in the playoffs and then raise a Vince
Lombardi trophy.

College or NFL, however, if a team has a proven formula that works as far as developing and
keeping its players, it is going to be good enough to win it all again. If anything, this phrase
should be changed to either “it can be hard to repeat” or “it’s hard to ‘Threepeat.’”

8) You should punt on fourth down

This theory has been put to the test with more video game like scores. I would say it mainly
depends on the type of game you are playing. If it’s a low scoring game (say 14-10) field
position matters. If you are in a 45-42 game, you need points. If the situation is fourth down
and less than one yard, you hear fans and commentators bristle, “If you can’t make a half-yard,
you don’t deserve to win.” That’s a philosophy that I champion but simple mathematics suggest
that regardless of your decision, the result will be a hit-or-miss proposition.

The outcome of a decision does not make it good or bad — what’s important is the reason
behind it. If a team faces say fourth-and-one from its own 20, it makes more sense to punt than
it would if the ball was at midfield or deeper into the opponents’ territory.The difference is that
at the 20, you risk giving the ball up to your opponent in prime scoring territory.

That said, I find it amazing how some coaches develop a reputation for being mavericks or
riverboat gamblers and taking the chance on fourth down more often than their rivals. The ones
that don’t fall into this category get labeled as ones with “no guts,” or something along those lines.

7) Dome teams are soft

The argument you frequently hear is that dome teams are weak and can’t handle the elements.
It is generally believed that upper management of dome teams attempt to build clubs that are
suited to play best in perfect indoor conditions but incapable of slugging it out in a postseason
street fight.

At a disadvantage in the postseason? More often than not yes. After all, dome teams have
never won a conference title game on the road. Soft, however, is only true in some cases. Most
people see teams like the Indianapolis Colts or the St. Louis Rams of the late 1990s-early
2000s as finesse oriented teams. However, Bum Phillips’ Houston Oilers teams played a
physical brand of football led by Earl Campbell. Jim Mora’s New Orleans Saints had plenty of
defenses that inflicted pain on opponents.

On the college side, Syracuse, Idaho, Minnesota, Tulane, and Houston come to mind as dome
teams but notice how none of those team are the “brand names” of college football.

6) Icing the kicker works

This strategy is employed by defending teams to disrupt the process of kicking a field goal just
prior to the snap. Typically, either a player or a coach on the defending team will call time out
just as the kicker is about to attempt a game-tying or game-winning field goal. This is intended
to make the kicker nervous and increase the likelihood of him missing the kick.

So is it effective? I would say more often than not, it doesn’t work.

What other job is a kicker thinking about throughout the game other than kicking off and kicking
field goals or extra points? I doubt he’s spending the game thinking about that Cover Two
defense or that “sluggo” route by the X receiver.

5) Quarterback needs a rocket arm

Anyone believing this idea knows about minus-10 percent about football. Granted, John Elway
and Brett Favre could throw a strawberry through a locomotive and had Hall-of-Fame careers.
However, guys Joe Montana, Tom Brady, and Troy Aikman didn’t wow anyone with their arm
strength and had Hall-of-Fame careers.

If quarterback success was based solely from physical attributes, players like Andre Ware,
JaMarcus Russell and Jeff George would be headed to the Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, finding
signal callers is becoming more about accuracy, intelligence and intangibles than it is overall
physical skills. There have also been plenty of strong-armed high school quarterbacks that
couldn’t cut the mustard in college.

4) You have to run to set up the pass

I believe teams need to have at least a presentable running attack but the fact that it sets up
the pass is an outmoded idea. There is truth to the idea that a team needs to have a genuine
running threat if it wants to win a championship..

If a team has a dominant quarterback, then the need for a dominant running game is not great.
However, if a team has a average or worse quarterback, then it had better have a strong
running game if it wants a chance to win.

3) A player should not lose his job to injury

What a stupid question. It’s one thing to have that rule in high school but pro sports and college
to a lesser extent are about a business, as much as some people hate to admit it. As a coach,
your job is to play the guy that gives you the best chance to win. If you buy this theory, then
Lou Gerhig should have his Hall-of-Fame induction revoked. While we’re at it, Kurt Warner and
Tom Brady should return their Super Bowl MVP trophies.

2) Defense wins championships

Given that that the rules of the game (both college and pro) favor offenses, this theory holds
less water than say 25 years ago but don’t kid yourself – defense matters.

You might not need a dominant defense to win a championship but until teams with soft
defenses win a championship for ten years in a row, I’m not buying the theory that the game
has changed.

As a whole, defensive teams tend to be more consistent, especially from year to year. QBs
have off days, conditions break down, etc. It's much easier to plug in a talented new defender
than it is to replace a QB or OL (especially multiple).

1) Prevent defense prevents you from winning

I’ve been very guilty of echoing this sentiment but I’ll back off to some degree. A true prevent
defense is a “Hail Mary” defense where you drop seven or eight defenders near the goal-line.
How many Hail Mary attempts actually work? One out of every 20, maybe.

Fans confuse a “soft zone” with a prevent. Well, it’s not the same. A soft zone means that all
the safeties and cornerbacks are playing back, five or ten yards off the line. The free safety
will often play as much as 20 yards back. There will be no jamming of receivers on the line.
The zone means that each defensive back is responsible for an area of the field, so they're all
watching the quarterback's eyes instead of running stride for stride with a receiver. It is very
easy for the offense to make short plays against this defense, gaining four to eight yards per
play, but it's almost impossible for the offense to make a big play of 20 or more yards
against this sort of defense.

I do, however, echo the sentiment that if your normal defense apparently was very successful
at stopping their offense and getting you to a place where the game is all but won. Why
change what is working in the last minutes? Still, one frequently sees the prevent defense
hauled out in the last few minutes of a game that is not close.

Bowl game conference solidarity not for everyone

To root or not to root. To have someone root for or against you.

Every season when college football bowl games start or the NCAA basketball
tournament gets underway, you frequently hear people talk about “rooting for
teams in the conference.” The argument in favor of that is so the conference looks
good and benefits both financially and on the recruiting front.

That sentiment has value because many schools, in and out of conference, are
competing for the same recruits so a nice uptick at the end of the season never
hurts. As salient as the point is to root for conference teams in the postseason,
I don’t just roll over on command when I hear it.

Let me be perfectly clear. I understand that everyone emotes differently. Whether
you are one that roots for the conference or does not, one way is not any more
right or wrong than the other. I fall into to “does not” category. I’m not here to tell
you how to feel, I am simply explaining my stance. If you agree with me, fine. If
not, that’s fine too.

For example, I am a proud University of Nebraska graduate (Class of 1997) and
a diehard Cornhusker fan. The last two football seasons have been difficult and
the last 20 have been full of peaks and valleys but with Scott Frost at the helm, I
believe a return to greatness will return sooner rather than later but that’s another
discussion entirely.

Sure, it is better for a conference to go 6-2 instead of 2-6 in bowl games, NCAA
tournaments, etc. The problem I have is that rooting for the conference is the most
disingenuous and phony idea on the Planet Earth. I took that approach once and I
needed a shower later.

So what you’re saying is that a Red Sox fan should root for the Yankees if they are
in the World Series just for American League East solidarity? So what you are
saying is that a San Francisco Giants fan should root for the Los Angeles Dodgers
in the World Series just so the National League West looks good? If I know of any
such fan they should have their fan card ripped off their chest in public. I know
MLB and NCAA are two different entities but it is the exact same principle.

The most fundamental problem I have with the “root for the conference” theory is
this: I have rooted against these teams all season long so now I suddenly have to
root for them as a benefit to the conference? To that I say, “Hell no!” I’m more
concerned with how Nebraska does in its bowl game or NCAA Tournament game.
Granted, my team has not had the former in two years but I digress. If the Huskers
win and the conference goes 2-6 in bowl games, I can say, “well, that’s not on us.”
However, Nebraska loses, or fails to reach a bowl game, and the conference goes
6-2, my thought becomes, “we didn’t hold up our end of the bargain.” Therefore,
the conference success with my team’s loss becomes hollow.

I'm not necessarily opposed to rooting for a team in the conference but if I do,
conference solidarity has no bearing. It might be because I dislike the team they
are playing more. Four years ago, I rooted for Ohio State over Oregon because
where I live (Napa, CA) I deal with so many bandwaggon Oregon fans. In that
stretch, the volume of Oregon fans was rooted in this area having two locals (John
Boyett, Napa High Class of 2008; Chris Seisay, American Canyon Class of 2013)
playing for Oregon. I am all for wanting to see local kids succeed but I’m not giving
up my Nebraska fandom for their team. I'll root for the Indianas or Marylands of the
world because those teams are never good enough to dislike.

So, if you catch me rooting for a team in the Big Ten in their bowl game, conference
solidarity plays no role whatsoever.