Sports Only

Oaklands Best Option at QB

2010-04-09T10:05:00.001-07:00

Here's what I believe to be the top 5 options for the Raiders at QB for the 2010 season:

5. Charlie Frye - Although his season was a C- at best, throwing for 1 tug and 4 INT's, he shows signs of athleticism, scores TD's on QB sneaks, and excites the fans anytime he come in to replace a 290' Russell.

4. Dennis Dixon - The bay native and Oregon stand out would look awesome in the Silver and Black. Although the Steelers love his skills and probably wouldn't give him up, this is one player worth the typical "the Raiders always over pay over players." (aka. Deangelo Hall and Javon Walker). Giving up some valuables and some cash would would benefit the Raiders with an Athlete, a cannon, and a a player who almost won the Heisman if it weren't for a devastating knee injury against Ariz St (a game I was at).

3. Bruce Gradkowski - The No doubt fan favorite. Bruce stepped it up big time in '09, the supposed break out year for Russell. Although I give him probp for his leadership, drive, commitment to the winning, and his stellar performance vs. the Steelers; consistency is my issue. His performance against the Cowboys is case and point why although he works his ass off, he is at best a 2nd stringer.

2. Jason Campbell - His number during his time on the Redskins don't show his true potential. This guys has excelled is past seasons, been brutally injured as a result of the worst o line in the game, and has been calm and collected through it all. I think given some weapons at WR (T.O.) and a top o-line draft pick he would surprise a lot of people.

1. Jimmy Clausen - I saw earlier today that Mel Kiper Jr. on the Mothership projects the Raiders to draft him at #8 and thought to myself, how did I not think of this earlier? He's labeled at cocky, arrogant, disliked by others, and is a stud behind the pocked with a rocket launcher for an arm; The ideal Raider. Although many would say why waste another #1 pick on a QB, he had proven he can play in a pro offense under Weis at ND, is a team leader, he is in shape (couch couch JR), and is ready to prove the doubters wrong. Obviously, Al Davis is ready to usher out the Jamarcus era, lets do it bu ushering the Clausen era.

As for Jamarcus...I think their is an need for a solid wedge blocker on kick returns or even a workout/drinking buddy for Janikowski

Bracketology, A Day of Rest for Those Chosen 64

2010-03-14T18:13:00.000-07:00

Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Scientology, are all very popular religions, but they are not getting practiced this Sunday, today we practice Bracketology! While some are taking this Sunday as a day of rest, College basketball fans worldwide are filling out their brackets. Selection Sunday is finally here. Post your Final Four, Winner, and Sleeper for this years NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Selection Sunday........ Yeah It's Awesome BABY!

Can the Giants shed the Weight?

2010-03-04T16:15:00.000-08:00

The San Francisco Giants enter the 2010 season with a little extra weight this spring. No, I am not talking about Operation Panda going haywire and ending up at the Panda Express. I am referring to the weight of playoff expectations. While surprising many critics, the offense anemic 2009 squad improved on their 2008 win total by 16 games. The mix-in of youth gave the veteran happy Giants a much needed shot in the arm. The 09 Giants relied heavily on the pitching arm of Tim Lincecum, and the bat of Pablo Sandoval.

To improve from 88 wins last season, once again the 2010 Giants will rely heavily on the arms of their pitching staff. Lincecum might not be able to carry the weight of going for his third straight Cy Young, but look for Matt Cain, the now longest tenure Giant to lend him a hand. The recently married Madison Bumgarner, will not only carry the burden of his ball and chain, but the highly touted pitching prospect will be looked upon to contribute every fifth day or from the bullpen. After losing 12 pounds this off-season the 5-foot-11, 245-pound panda is not only looking to improve his figure, but he is looking to improve upon his 2009 stats. 330 Avg. 25 HR 90 RBI was not enough to tip the scales for NL MVP in his direction, but look for slight improvements in the Panda’s second full season in the bigs.

Look for Buster Posey to have a huge Spring Training. This will make the decision hard for the Giants’ brass to put him back down in the minors for more seasoning. The 22 year old lost 15 pounds last season and admitted to being worn down during a lackluster Arizona Fall League. Posey regained those 15 pounds — he's at 215 now — after a winter spent working out six days a week and enjoying his wife's southern cooking.

To take some of the weight off these younger players shoulders, the Giants will look upon a few veteran players who have experienced playoff baseball. With Aubrey Huff and Mark DeRosa coming on board, Manager Bruce Bochy has said he envisions Aaron Rowand as the new leadoff hitter. The CF said he has lost 10 pounds in the off-season, and he owes it all to his new hobby. Rowand became an avid bike rider, cycling four times a week around his Las Vegas home. Rowand hit .294 in 50 games as a leadoff hitter in 2009, so he seems most comfortable in that spot. Although Aaron estimates he rode about 2,200 miles, don’t look for him standing on a podium wearing the yellow jersey anytime soon. The 2008 Silver Slugger Award winner, Aubrey Huff, looks to rebound from a career low year in 2009 where he split time in Baltimore and Detroit. A lifetime .282 hitter with an on-base percentage of .340 and slugging percentage of .472, Huff is not the answer to the Giants' offensive woes. His job in 2010 with the Giants will be mentoring the younger players, and more importantly, protecting cleanup hitter Pablo Sandoval. If the former Devil Ray can put together a season closer to his 2008 numbers, then the Giants' offense arguably should be more productive than 2009.

The addition of Mark DeRosa this off-season might just be the straw that tips the power scales of the NL West in the Giants direction. In DeRosa, the Giants have found a versatile veteran who can hit for power and give the offense some much-needed punch. I am not saying he will match his career-best 23 homers to go along with 78 RBIs for Cleveland and St. Louis. I am saying he is a professional hitter that will take pitches and extend the line up. DeRosa will be an important player on a team that was a bat or two away from making the playoffs last year. He is a player that is used to wining. Having made the playoffs 6 out of 12 seasons. "He's a winning player and any organization wants as many players like Mark on the ballclub, especially ours, that has a chance to turn the corner and get to the playoffs next year," GM Brian Sabean said. " The former University of Pennsylvania quarterback will bring that winning attitude to the Giants, something the team has been missing in this post Bonds Era.

With the 2010 season fast approaching. It’s up to the Giants to be the biggest losers this season and shed that weight of playoff expectations, and turn those expectations into reality.

The Olympics are Over. What Now?

2010-03-01T18:08:00.000-08:00

As Sidney Crosby's wrist shot slid past goalie Ryan Miller Sunday, my mood changed for the worse not only because Team USA lost. The two weeks leading up to the greatest hockey game ever transpired perfectly in culmination. Great Olympic moments were abound. Lindsey Vonn took gold in the downhill, Bode Miller wasn't a complete embarassment, and how about the German speed skater who swam across the line after cramping up in the team pursuit. Sunday's hockey game trumped them all, but it was a great two weeks for a patriotic sports fan.

Unfortunately, we won't get to enjoy the games again until August 2012. So what do we do in the meantime? Here are the top five sporting events to look forward to in the near future (in order of awesomeness),

5. NFL Draft

April 22nd. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if you are a die hard NFL fan, or a die hard college football fan, it can be fun. The drafts of previous years are more important, because Raider fans can validate their skepticism and sheer embarassment when looking back. But draft day itself gets the blood going as your team's clock slowly expires.

side note--The Draft beat out the NBA Playoffs. Mostly personal preference on this one...the Warriors are 17-41 at press time.

4. Stanley Cup Playoffs

April 13th. This would be higher on my list, but I am a Sharks fan and my undying interest usually dissipates after they take their early exit. Most casual hockey fans say "call me when the playoffs start", and there is good reason. Every posession is magnified. Teams do whatever it takes not to lose, and it shows. The Cup tournament is the best playoff system in sports.

3. The Masters (yes, even sans Tiger)

April 8th-11th. Ok, I admit, The Masters might have been number two on my list if I knew Tiger was playing. Nevertheless, the tournament at Augusta National will once again captivate golf fans for four days. It has received the tagline "a tradition unlike any other", and rightfully so (Sorry Rose Bowl, that Washington State Oklahoma matchup really bit you in the arse). The stunning beauty of Amen Corner and the drama thick storylines on Sunday make it the best tournament around.

2. NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament

March 18th. There are nothing like the first two rounds of March Madness. Madness truly is the only word to describe it. People who haven't watched a single game all year fill out brackets, which is a good indicator of its Super Bowl like qualities.

1. MLB Opening Day

April 4th. It isn't so much the entertainment value that vaulted this one to the top... no chance I'm watching all nine innings of whatever game ESPN throws on in the morning. It's the idea of baseball being back. It symbolizes the changing of seasons, and re-establishes eternal hope in even the most pessimistic of Cubs fans. After all, Opening Day means next year is upon us.

True Crime or Media Hype?

2010-02-24T16:12:00.000-08:00

Upon hearing of the NCAA findings regarding alleged violations of the football program at the University of Michigan, I did what I always do with these types of stories: I read the comments section. It’s a great way to get biased, anonymous, and genuine fan reactions. I have to admit my own bias towards Michigan as there is no real sense in hiding it in a blog. Scrolling through the pages of comments on numerous sites I got a sense that there were 3 groups of “commenters”. There are the two extreme sides: the Michigan supporters who think the violations are a bunch of bullshit, and the haters that would pounce on any opportunity to impugn the football program and want their pound of flesh (many OSU fans). These groups are expected and appreciated by any college sports fan. Then you look at the middle group. The group that knows the university broke the rules but realizes the true nature of the violations and the incompetence of the NCAA. I am no apologist, and I’m not going to use the brain-dead argument that “every school breaks the rules so it’s OK”. I merely think we need to put the violations and subsequent media uproar into perspective and I don’t mind defending Michigan’s reputation while I’m at it.

Here is my summary of a summary from ESPN of the 5 violations with my own commentary:

1. Michigan had too many “coaches”.
--Essentially this boils down to a blurred line between Quality Control Staff and actual coaches.
2. Coaches attended summer workouts, players went 2 hours over practice limits during 2 WEEKS over the summer, on one occasion players went over the weekly limit by 20 MINUTES, and on four dates the players practiced for 30 MINUTES too long.
--In reading a few articles on the NCAA report, I found that these 20-30 minute overages were caused by having coaches present when players were stretching before practice meaning that they counted against the total. The coaches attending practice was another blurred line between the aforementioned Quality Control staff and coaches. Since that staff did “some” coaching, they could no longer attend the summer workouts.
3. A graduate assistant said he didn’t attend summer workouts, when he actually did.
--Uh Oh! A grad student lied!
4,5. The last two violations aren’t really “violations” per se. The first says that Rich Rodriguez failed to monitor his staff because of 1 and 2, and the second says the athletic dept. did the same thing because of 1 and 2.

Michigan obviously broke rules, but I attribute it more to incompetence than to any form of cheating, but some will obviously say otherwise. This occurred in Rich Rod’s first year and I can imagine he was pretty preoccupied with trying to win a game. Unacceptable either way, but with the media hype, you'd think RichRod shot JFK.

If these are the allegations, I can’t wait to see the punishments. Michigan is the cleanest FBS school in the nation and people would love to see that taken away. It has never had a major violation in over 120 years!! In contrast, EVERY other big name program has violated major rules in only the last 20 years! Think of a school and there is something there. Holier than thou Notre Dame was on probation under Bob Davies, while Alabama was put on probation 2 years ago because players were selling school supplied text books and they were hit before that when boosters paid a high school coach $150,000 to get a player they wanted. The Big 12 is riddled with cheaters (Texas Tech, Oklahoma, A&M) and that includes Texas, which was on probation in the late 80’s. The Pac-10 has their violations as well, most notably USC and most surprising: Cal. (Here is a great ranking I found at Fanhouse)

I must reiterate that I am in no way condoning Michigan’s actions. I just wanted to point out that if the allegations they are accused of are considered “major” violations then what would you consider paying players, illegally recruiting, coaching sex scandals, physical abuse of players, cheating on tests for athletes (real classy, LSU) and having starting lineups consisting entirely of convicted felons? Urban Meyer has had 28 players arrested over the past 4 years! (Chip Kelly is doing his best to win that battle) But seriously, which do you believe has the bigger negative impact on the sport: the Michigan allegations or playing convicted felons? USC is in its own league when it comes to improprieties. The amazing thing about USC is how open they are with their violations, literally throwing their basketball team under the bus in hopes that the NCAA would go easier on its football team. The reason the NCAA is scared to go after them is obvious if you know anything about LA fans. If USC was suddenly hit hard with penalties like post season bans or massive recruiting limits, the entire LA market would tune out of College football, just like they do with every other sport when their team is out of it (LA Dodgers anyone?). This means the 2nd largest TV market in the country disappears. Meanwhile you have players driving cars they can’t afford and parents of players buying houses they can’t afford; essentially players getting paid to play college football, something the NCAA is supposed to prevent at all costs.

In my own opinion, these are 5 minor violations and the NCAA decision should reflect that. For a little perspective, Ohio St. has had 375 minor violations since 2000 so let’s not go crazy if the NCAA doesn’t come down hard on Michigan, because obviously Ohio St.’s violations have hardly been dealt with at all. Michigan broke the rules and should be punished, but the punishment needs to fit the crime.

Yo Oprah, Do Some Research Next Time

2010-02-16T16:58:00.000-08:00

As a part of winning the Super Bowl and the MVP, Drew Brees has been doing his round on the TV circuit, as well as taking part in the Mardi Gras festivities. One of his appearances, and probably the most awkward, was with daytime goddess Oprah.

As exhibited in the video below, Oprah either did little research or has a few too many goose cosmos before Brees made his debut.

You would think that she would have her plethora of assistance's fill her in on the specifics of Brees before he came on, such as his 2inch birthmark on the side of his face. I have to admit, that I always just assumed that it was a scar from a hit he took while he has a crappy line in SD, but I wouldn't go as far as Oprah did, and try to wipe it off attributing it to a kiss she thought he had backstage. Maybe next time Marv Albert is on she'll try and pull off his toupee

5 Radical Changes to Make Sports Better

2010-02-15T15:30:00.000-08:00

The sports world is one fraught with many perils and pitfalls. While I love many things about the current state of sports right now, there are definitely things that I think have gone wrong and would like to see corrected. Here then, in no particular order, are five very radical and controversial, changes I would make to sports (both pro and college) to make them better. I'm sure this will stir up some debate, so please comment away:

MLB-- Contraction: This has been a pet argument of mine a long, long time. Many people have complained (and rightfully so) that it was steroids that "ruined" baseball and turned it into a video game where it became all about who could hit the biggest and the most home runs and there was no strategy involved. It is the view of these people that the inflated numbers of the late 90s into the early 2000s were solely and completely the fault of steroids and PEDs. But that's not entirely true as expansion, and specifically the over-expansion in the 1990s, has also resulted in the inflated numbers we see in modern baseball. By and large, the talent has been spread too thin and the overall level of talent that a player faces from day-to-day is much lower than it was in the past, when many of these records were set. What you don't realize is that, because players like Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams or Stan Musial played before the first instance of expansion, they were facing better overall players. I'm not thinking about star players here, but your average 3rd or 4th starter on a pitching staff or your 6th or 7th hitter in the batting order. Because there were fewer teams, teams were able to have stronger 3rd and 4th starters, players who would be aces or number two starters for more mediocre teams as a result of expansion and thus a need for more pitchers with the existence of more rotations. Today, a player faces a progressively weaker 3rd or 4th starter every fifth day, thus enabling them to put up gaudier numbers. What's the answer to this? Contraction. I know a whole hell of a lot of people don't like the idea, and wrinkle up in fear when it's brought up. But the fact of the matter is if we eliminate a certain number of teams (particularly those who have difficult actually creating a fanbase), we can redistribute those players throughout the league which will, in turn, raise the overall level of play throughout the league. I'm not going to get into a specific plan here, as that can come at a later date and in a longer post, but I believe that over-expansion over the years has diluted the talent pool in baseball and given us (as baseball fans) an inferior and watered-down product. By removing some of these teams stemming from over-expansion and allowing their top players to go to other teams, the overall level of talent and play will rise and Major League Baseball will produce a superior product.

NCAAB-- Expand the "one and done" rule to 3 years: While I definitely think that the college game is better off with the current rule, which says that players cannot go straight from high school to the NBA (they must either spend one year in college, go to Europe or the D-League), I don't think it goes far enough. Now, maybe I shouldn't be too greedy,and I should be happy that my Longhorns were able to have a player like Kevin Durant for that one year, but were we really able to enjoy it because we knew he was likely to jump into the NBA after that one year? I feel as though this "one and done" mentality, where the top college players only play one year at a school all the while knowing that they're going to jump into the pros after that one year and they're only playing college basketball to meet that requirement, really hurts the college game and creates too much ebb-and-flow in college basketball. Teams can't build or have a long term plan when Kevin Durant, Greg Oden, Michael Beasley or Carmelo Anthony are only planning on being around one year before going pro. The action I would like to see in response to this would be two-fold. The first would require the NBA to take action like the NFL and say that players must be 3 years removed from high school to enter the league. Thus, if college isn't for a particular player they can pursue those other options (either the D-League or going to Europe). The second action would come from the NCAA and would be close to what you see in college baseball-- if you commit to an NCAA scholarship with a team, you must stay on the squad for 3 years (that is how I've heard it described). That way, players there on scholarship would be "locked in" for at least 3 years and if they're on a Durant/Anthony/Beasley level, they can leave after their third year. But, what I'm willing to bet, is that more players will enjoy and embrace college basketball if they have full exposure to it (rather than just one solitary year) and will want to stay for that fourth year. If the players are locked in for that kind of extended commitment, coaches can plan and build and not have to live year-to-year.

I also want to very briefly, address the notion that players like Dwight Howard and LeBron James were ready to go straight from high school to the pros and thus it's not fair that they would have to play college basketball. This might be true, but has anyone really been hurt in the long run by playing college basketball? I know it's hard to imagine these players being any better than they actually are, but they very well might be had they played college ball, or their development might have occurred much quicker. It might seem like we're "holding these players back" but even if someone is the brightest kid coming out of high school, they still need to go to college and get a degree if they're going to be hired for most jobs. And the college game definitely benefits by having these stellar players in their league, and thus we're watching a sport played at a much higher level. Even if they could, hypothetically, play in the NBA I don't think it hurts them at all to play the college game and it only raises the level of play, which benefits... just about everyone else.

NCAAF-- Eliminate the BCS/Go back to the old system: I know there a couple of people who feel even more strongly about this than I do, and I'll leave it to them to argue this point further. But the BCS is clearly flawed. While it does give us a "championship game," it also takes away from the tradition and all the things that make college football special and unique. Because of the BCS' flaws, many people clamor for a playoff system, as though that would solve the problem. But the playoffs would only further take away from the traditions that make college football special, and you would have arguments from the 9th team (in an 8 team playoff) about why they deserve to be in the playoffs, etc etc. Again, I don't want to get into this argument too much, but trust me-- a playoff system is not the answer. Then what is the answer? Go back to the old system. That's right, no BCS title game, no de-facto playoff system in the BCS. Instead go back to the way it was, an onslaught of New Year's Day bowl games after which the deciding entities sort through the results and determine a national champion or, if there isn't a consensus that can be reached, a split national champion. A playoff system would completely diminish the importance of the bowl games, something special and unique to college football. There's something special about the Big 10-Pac 10 showdown in the Rose Bowl, or Texas heading up to Dallas to play in the Cotton Bowl (another pet cause of mine-- getting the Cotton Bowl back to where it was as one of the premiere bowl games) or Alabama playing in Louisiana in the Sugar Bowl. A playoff system would totally destroy those games and take away their greater significance. So let's just accept the fact that, in order to keep the special and unique things about college football, we totally scrap the BCS so I don't have to see Miami or Oklahoma playing in the Rose Bowl and we go back to the way it was. That way, we're able to preserve the things that make college football special and unique and we're not going to destroy it in order to chase after an equally flawed playoff system. Though I do acknowledge that it can be vexing to not have a sole national champion every time, I feel like there's nothing that can really give people the clearcut answer they want. Thus why destroy decades and decades and decades of tradition over something that one can never attain? So I say we scrap the whole BCS system, go back to the way things were and we'll have your national champion (or split national champions) decided by the end of New Year's Day.

(This idea was first brought to my attention by Dave Dameshek on ESPN: Page 2. Take a look at this article; he makes a pretty good case)

NBA-- No guaranteed contracts past 3 years and/or drop 10-20 games off the regular season: I've read about these two ideas in Bill Simmons' columns or head them on his podcast, and I agree with him on both counts. The idea of no guaranteed contracts past 3 years is a very interesting one. Simmons identifies large contracts that teams can't get out of as something that is holding up and hurting the league and keeping teams from improving, and a couple of players from the free agent class of the summer of 2008 (Gilbert Arenas and Elton Brand) really prove this point. These teams will be, most likely, hamstrung with these huge contracts for 6 years rather than being able to void it after the third year. I think that this idea would be a great one, as you could guarantee 3 years of the contract and then choose to honor the rest of it if the player turns out well and produces (and you could re-guarantee it as well, ostensibly) but if the player doesn't pan out at all, you aren't completely held hostage by this large and expensive contract and can get out of it. It's not quite to the level of the NFL, where nothing is guaranteed and anyone can be cut and all the team is on the hook for is the signing bonus, but it's not as extreme as the MLB where everything is guaranteed. It seems as though the NBA, the fluidity of the game and teams being able to re-build after lean years would benefit greatly by having this caveat in every contract. In addition to this, the NBA's season is generally seen as too long by most casual viewers. Perhaps by dropping anywhere from 10 to 20 games, the season doesn't seem to go on forever and thus you hold the interest of more casual fans. In addition, there are less back-to-back games and players aren't quite as worn down as they are now, so Kobe isn't as likely to injure his ankle and miss time. The NBA schedule is bloated right now, and by trimming the fat of extra games will things run more smoothly and players won't get as worn down so they can stay healthy throughout the season.

NFL-- Eliminate 1 regular season game: The approach that the Colts took this season, having clinched their division and home field throughout the playoffs and thus resting their starters and NOT going for a shot at perfection, shows us that the NFL season is over-long. Cutting off the last week of the season would mean that the season would, overall, be more competitive. I mean, how many years has it been that 2/3 to 3/4 of the teams in the last week of the season aren't playing for anything? The final week (or even weeks) of the regular season have been rendered meaningless, so why not get rid of it? If these teams are going to clinch their divisions and then shut it down in order to prepare for the playoffs, why play games at all? If these Week 17 games don't matter, and that seems to be the approach of a lot of teams, why risk getting people injured? That's why you see teams like the Colts or Bengals or Cardinals shutting it down in Week 17. This is a sign that the NFL schedule is one game too long, as things are usually wrapped up on Week 16 and Week 17, for the most part, is a relatively meaningless exercise. It seems sacreligous to talk about taking away football, because we all love it so much, but the fact of the matter is things get more competitive if there are only 16 games and we don't have to deal with teams confronting this issue of resting starters, and thus we don't get meaningless Week 17 games with Curtis Painter playing QB for the Colts. Going from 17 weeks to 16 would make the NFL season tighter and generally more competitive, and thus a superior product.

Cheechoo a Bust, or Thornton a Legend?

2010-02-12T12:31:00.000-08:00

Less than a year after the Sharks traded Jonathan Cheechoo to the Senators, he has been placed on waivers. Cheechoo came from San Jose with Milan Michalek in exchange for embattled superstar Dany Heatley. The trade has worked out well for all involved...besides Cheech. Heatley is putting together an all-star year in San Jose, the Senators don't have to deal with his trade demands any longer, and Michalek is leading the Sens with 20 goals. But things have not worked out for Cheechoo, the forward from Moose Factory, Ontario. He has 14 points on five goals, and has a plus minus of -13. He simply isn't helping the Senators win.

Players get waived and signed daily. This isn't the story. The story is that Cheechoo was a Rocket Richard Trophy winner (most goals scored in a season) only four years ago. He racked up 56 goals for the Sharks which is still a San Jose franchise record. His electrifying style of play and unrivaled enthusiasm made him a crowd favorite in San Jose. But after a series of nagging injuries, Cheechoo never returned to form and was relegated to the third line. He never recaptured his goal scoring form, and was traded this past off-season to Ottawa.

It really is a shame that Cheechoo has been labeled a bust or an underachiever. This whole saga reveals only one absolute fact: Joe Thornton is the best hockey player in the World. Thornton is the first line center for the Sharks. He dished out many of the assists for Cheechoo's 56 goal season. After the injuries, Cheechoo never got reunited with Thornton and his play suffered drastically. Last season, Sharks youngster Devin Setoguchi had a breakout year, scoring 31 goals and tallying 65 points...Surprise, Surprise: Seto was a winger on Thornton's line. This year, after a few injuries, and relegation to the second and third lines, Setoguchi has only 14 goals through 49 games. Meanwhile, Patrick Marleau and Dany Heatley, both playing alongside Joe Thornton, are having career years.

Cheechoo's situation is certainly disappointing, but to label him a bust is not fair. He benefited from one of the greatest passers of all time, and hasn't caught many breaks since. Hopefully he lands on a team where he can just play hockey and help his team win some games.

People of Haiti - "Thanks for the Shirts Peyton."

2010-02-10T15:19:00.001-08:00

Despite throwing for 333 yards on 31 completions, Peyton Manning was unable to put on his second Superbowl winning t-shirt over his jersery and shoulder pads after a 33-17 loss to Brees and the Saints.

As a result of this, the NFL has decided to send the already printed "Colts XLIV Champion" shirts to the people of Haiti after their devastating earthquake. This is something that the NFL tries to do every year. Last year they sent the Arizona Cardinals shirts to EL Salvador. However the year before they handed out the "19-0 Champions" New England Patriots shirts to numerous Boston fans that turn up drunk and naked at the Boston PD drunk tank on a nightly basis.

Maybe next year the unused Charger shirts can go to their fans, they'll probably want them.

Half Man, Half God, Half Dud

2010-02-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

Being a sports journalist is tough at times. With all the traveling and time away from home, deadlines, angry fan mail, and coaches’ temper tantrums; it can wear a man down. Which makes it that much nicer when a player does your job for you. There has been talk recently of the Jaguars drafting Tim Tebow this year as a way to generate fan interest. I have discussed Tebow’s draft status with my fellow writers and friends and I have heard everything from him being the first QB taken to him going undrafted. While I think he will get drafted, I don’t think it should be on Day 1 or even in the first 5 or 6 rounds. This is when offensive lineman Uche Nwaneri made my life easier and gave an analysis with which I mostly agree. According to the Florida Times-Union:

Nwaneri posted on the Jaguars’ Web site that, while cashing a check, a bank teller started talking about how Tebow will save the Jaguars.
So Nwaneri posted his five points on Tebow, with capital letters:
"1. He can't throw, PERIOD.
2. He can't read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man.
3. The QB Wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD.
4. He doesn’t know how to take a snap from center.
5. HE CAN’T THROW, and that’s really something you either have or not."

While this is a harsh assessment, I must agree with his assertions. Due to the ESPN love affair with the SEC and Florida, I was privy to watching every single goddamn snap the guy took every Saturday night on Sportscenter. And first off: No, Tebow can’t take a snap from under center. Trying to say that he will learn how is a purely optimistic assumption, and while people who say he won’t are assuming just the same, at least there is tape at this point to prove that claim. Taking a snap in the shotgun means you get to see everything on the field right when you get the ball, while being under center means you will have to turn your back on some plays and have to make a split decision when you turn back around. In watching Tebow, he doesn’t think quick enough. His QB style is essentially to wait for his excellent receivers to get open and then gun it as hard as he can right at them. There is no touch on his throws and no anticipation of either his receivers’ routes or the coverage.

Tebow has also been on a great team and sheltered by a great line. Colin Cowherd made an excellent point a few weeks back that I will paraphrase as best I can: Most of the top quarterbacks weren’t on unstoppable #1 teams. Those players tend to be spoiled and not know how to take a hit or throw to receivers in coverage. They tend to not react well to pressure, and they tend to make rash decisions in those pressure situations. And we all know mistakes in the NFL will kill you much faster than not throwing for TD’s. Mark Sanchez could be an exception to the rule as he had excellent protection at USC, and looks like he has potential. But then look at Leinart and Booty before him. Think about the QB’s that didn’t play behind amazing O-lines in college: Flacco, Ryan, Mcnabb, Warner, Favre, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Cutler, Romo, Schaub. Even QB’s who were on pretty good teams like Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady didn’t have close to the protection that Tebow had. Getting hit and losing are learning experiences that greatly improve a QB’s makeup.

Tebow does have intangibles. He is a leader, he is a genuinely good guy, he will never be a negative distraction, and from what we know at this point, he won’t be out drinking and sleeping around the night before games. He is also tough. He can take a hit (and no this does not contradict my statement above as what I meant above is that he can’t deliver a pass while getting hit). He is the most athletically gifted QB to come out since Vince Young. But like I said about Vince Young before, he will never be a star QB in this league. Young’s feet give him a great weapon just like Tebow’s will, but feet alone don’t win Super Bowls. The NFL is driven by passing. The rules have been changed to protect receivers and quarterbacks. The wildcat phenomenon works for some teams as a change of pace, but it will never become a mainstay or true offensive scheme and no team will run a 2-minute drill in that formation, which means Tebow’s running ability and strength won’t help him as much as you’d think.

I just don’t believe Tebow has the tools and head to be an impact quarterback in the NFL. He has the chance to be a solid backup or a Pat White type, or even a RB of some kind, but I still have doubts about that. While I’m no Tebow fan, him being good would be a positive for the NFL. Especially if he brings fans like his ex-girlfriends with him:

28 days is still too long…

2010-02-09T13:54:00.000-08:00

February is my yearly sports hell. A month I can describe with a single word: Blah. But hold on!! We start the month with the Super Bowl; the King of Kings, the crème de la crème, the Optimus Prime of a sport that is growing faster than any other in terms of popularity. Certainly this game alone should lift February from the bottom spot. But we forget Super Bowls in February are a new creation. When I was growing up, the Super Bowl was held at the end of January where it belongs, surrounded by its college brethren: Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar. In my opinion, January needs to take back what it deserves and own the football postseason once again. But, if we ignore this fact and look at the game itself, we realize that much of the phenomenon is marketing hype. Sure there have been great Super Bowls, but we all remember the rank smell of unwashed asshole that was “Steelers V. Seahawks”. So Super Bowl superiority is not a guarantee every year. Honestly, how many times have you heard the words: “Well, at least the commercials were good”?

Obviously, February’s inferiority is not the case for many college basketball fans (which I consider myself to be), but seriously, NCAA basketball has the most meaningless regular season of all the sports. When you realize that 65 teams make the playoff juggernaut that is March Madness, these mid-season games lose their sizzle. I just can’t bring myself to give it credit for a real regular season. The tournament IS the season. So getting excited about a Texas-Kansas matchup is difficult given that they are playing for the right to play Coppin St. in the first round, while the loser will have to struggle against Dayton. And if your team doesn’t make the cut? Well you’ll still be able to watch them in the NIT or that other tourney. And just wait until the NCAA expands the tourney to 96. Then you’ll see truly meaningful games in February!

Added to this is the fact that more likely than not, the stars from each year won’t be there next year, so it is very difficult to build continuity or dynasties and capture fans’ full attention like in decades past. The tourney creates stars and storylines every year, but the next season just can’t hold on to them. How much more exciting would it have been to watch Syracuse basketball in 2003 if Carmelo had stayed and Lebron went to college, or this year if the entire rosters of North Carolina and UCLA hadn’t jumped ship? But I digress.

Hockey and the NBA are exciting sports in their own right, but if baseball is a marathon and football is a 100m sprint for Olympic gold, then basketball and hockey regular seasons are like the 5,000m at the Reebok Invitational. Not long enough or complex enough to earn my full respect, and not fast enough to hold my attention for too long. And here’s a huge factor when looking at the NBA and NHL: more than half the league will make the playoffs!!! If you don’t understand how that dumbs down the regular season then I can’t help you. I also must reiterate that I am writing about February. The NBA and NHL playoffs are in May and April respectively. This means the Warriors could feasibly still make the playoffs with an amazing turnaround!! As unlikely as this is, it speaks worlds about the importance of early season NBA games.

Looking deeper, since we know NBA players don’t start playing defense or “trying” until the 4^th quarter we are essentially treated to ¼ of a regular season. So in my estimation that’s ¼ for the NBA, ½ for NCAAB and 7/8 for the NHL for a grand total of 1 and 5/8 regular season sports (I was a mathlete). Looking at this year specifically, auxiliary sports such as golf will show us what Tiger truly brings to the sport if he doesn’t return: EVERYTHING!! But Tiger-less golf will be offset by the Winter Olympics this year, which can’t be considered a February regular anyway, so don’t get excited.

Overall, there is a lack of intensity, a lack of relevance, and a lack of excitement in February and this month-long drought can be summed up with what until this year was a symbol of February boredom: the Pro Bowl. Enough said.

TB's Super Bowl 44 Prediction

2010-02-05T12:30:00.000-08:00

All right, it's that time of the year (or at least the sports year). The Super Bowl is upon us and this year in Miami the New Orleans Saints will be facing the Indianapolis Colts for the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Before I get into what I think about the game itself, I need to go through and talk about the championship games and why the Colts and Saints are playing in the Super Bowl.

The first championship game was for the AFC, and the New York Jets traveled to Indianapolis to play the Colts. The Jets were everyone's favorite surprise team, having just knocked off the Chargers (a team a lot of people had going to the Super Bowl) and coached by the gregarious and ever-quotable Rex Ryan. But even though a lot of people liked the Jets and wanted them to make it to the big game, most people didn't think they could stop Indy. I mean, yeah they had a great defense but they were going up against Peyton Manning. Well, in the first half, the Jets showed they belonged in this game and went into halftime with the lead. In the first quarter, the Jets sacked Peyton Manning twice and held the vaunted Colts offense scoreless (though the Jets didn't score either). Then in the second quarter, after the Colts made a 25 yard field goal to go up 3-0, Jets QB Marc Sanchez found Braylon Edwards for an 80 yard TD pass to go up 7-3. The Jets added another TD and FG, after the Colts kicked another field goal and had a 17-6 lead with around two minutes left in the first half. But the Colts next two drives proved to be back-breakers for the Jets. Manning drove the Colts down the field at the end of the first half and scored a TD on a 16 yard pass to Austin Collie, making the halftime score 17-13. Then, at the start of the third quarter, Manning once again got the Colts into the end zone on a 4 yard TD pass to Pierre Garcon. With that score, the Colts took the lead and never looked back. Manning would add another TD pass to Dallas Clark and Matt Stover would add one more field goal for a final score of 30-17 in favor of the Colts.

Though the Jets were able to get pressure on Manning early in the game, he was able to adapt and ended up with a great statistical performance: 26-39, 377 yds and 3 TDs. Pierre Garcon had the best day of any Colts WR, pulling down 11 catches for 151 yards and a TD. The Colts defense played well, shutting down the Jets rushing game as Shonn Greene only had 41 rushing yards (before leaving the game due to injury) while Thomas Jones only ran for 42 yards. Sanchez played well, going 17-30 with 257 yds and 2 TDs to 1 INT. While this is a solid stat line, especially for a rookie QB, that is not the way that the Jets are going to win. Between the inability of Greene or Jones to get anything going on the ground, the lack of pressure on Manning after the first quarter and the fact that they lost the time of possession battle, things did not bode well for the Jets and thus Indy pulled out a game that was close in the first half but saw them pull away in the second.

The late game was in New Orleans, and the NFC Championship game featured Drew Brees and the Saints against the Minnesota Vikings and QB Brett Favre. This game was unlike the AFC Championship game, as it was almost a "pick 'em" and you could make very good cases as to why either team would win. The game proved to be just as evenly matched as it seemed on paper, as the two teams went into the half tied at 14 and both offenses showed just how explosive they could be. The game went back and forth throughout the second half, as Drew Brees and Brett Favre traded blows and scores before the Vikings got the ball with about two minutes to go with an opportunity to win the game as they drove into field goal range for kicker Ryan Longwell. But then Vikings HC Brad Childress made some very questionable calls, the Vikings were penalized for having 12 men in the huddle and then Brett Favre, having to try to throw the ball to move back into field goal range, through across his body on the run (a BIG no-no) and the Saints promptly intercepted the ball to force the game into overtime. The Saints won the toss, moved into field goal range (with the help of a few questionable calls, I won't lie) and Saints kicker Garrett Hartley drilled the 40 yard field goal to win the game and send the New Orleans Saints to the Super Bowl.

This was a game that the Saints won not because they played better (though they didn't play poorly) but because the Vikings could not seize opportunity. The Vikings fumbled the ball 6 times, losing 3 of them as well as throwing 2 INTs, which included that incredibly costly one at the end of the game. In addition to this, the Saints defense completely battered Favre to a degree that many of us had not seen. It was clear that Favre was not at full strength throughout the game and the effects of the Saints pass rush clearly began to show. Adrian Peterson had a solid day running the football, with 122 yards and 3 TDs, though he had a tendency to put the ball on the turf (though he didn't lose any fumbles). The Saints did a good job containing the Vikings main receiving weapon in Sidney Rice as he only had 43 yards and a TD, while Bernard Berrian had 9 receptions for 102 yards (though with one fumble). Drew Brees did throw for 3 TDs for the Saints, but only had 197 passing yards. No Saints receiver had more than 50 yards, but Brees did find 6 different players for multiple catches. The Saints rushing attack wasn't at its best for this game, as Pierre Thomas only had 61 yards and a TD while all other rushers were held to single digits. The key to this game was the physicality of the Saints defense. Though they didn't have a statistically dominant performance, they continuously and relentlessly hit Brett Favre. The Saints physicality, along with the Vikings' propensity to turn the ball over and not seize the moment, kept the Saints in the game and put them in a position to win it in overtime.

Now we move onto the Super Bowl, which will feature two of the most prolific offensives in the league. In addition, something that is problematic for me as a viewer who isn't a fan of either of these teams, is that I can fairly easily root and be happy for either team. On the one hand, I can appreciate the great and what I call "technical" prowess of Peyton Manning. I know some people don't really like Peyton Manning for whatever reasons, but I'm not one of them. But on the other hands, we have the New Orleans Saints and I know I don't need to discuss why I would want to see them with. In addition to the team finally breaking free of its losing legacy, the city underwent the horrors of Hurricane Katrina and was able to rebuilt to make it to this point. The Saints have come to represent New Orleans, specifically post-Katrina New Orleans, and to see them win the Super Bowl after suffering all that would be nothing short of amazing and a truly good thing for the city and its population.

But now we need to get into the real nitty-gritty and take a look at how these two teams match up on the field. As I said, both of these teams boast electric and explosive offenses, particularly through the air. Each team averages around 280 passing yards per game, and have the second (Indy) and fourth (New Orelans) ranked passing offenses in the NFL. The Saints also put up the most points per game at 31.9 while the Colts score almost 26 points per game. The Saints feature Drew Brees, one of the greatest free agent signings ever, at QB while the Colts have 2009 NFL MVP Peyton Manning calling the plays. All right, you get the idea; both of these teams have great offenses and great QBs and they will play a big, big role in determining the outcome of this Super Bowl

Also, both of these teams have similar weaknesses, namely problems on the defensive side of the ball. Each team ranks in the bottom half of the league in terms of total defense, with the Saints giving up more through the air (235 yard per game) while the Colts are susceptible to strong rushing attacks (giving up 126.5 yards per game on the ground). Both teams have, in the playoffs, worked to dispel these labels as the Colts have bottled up big time running backs like Ray Rice for Baltimore and Greene and Jones for the Jets. Meanwhile, the Saints did a good job slowing down Kurt Warner and the Cardinals though they had troubles with Favre and the Vikings. One thing the Saints do well on defense is create turnovers, as they have the third-most interceptions in the league as Darren Sharper tied for the league lead in INTs with 9, as well as sacking the opponent's QB 35 times this season.

The Colts defense is also strong in certain areas, namely in terms of scoring defense. Though they give up a lot of yards, they don't give up a lot of points (19.2 per game, which is in the top 10 in the league). Each team also boasts prolific pass rushers, as the Colts feature Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis while the Saints have Will Smith. Freeney has become one of the biggest storylines of this Super Bowl, as it was revealed he suffered from a bad ankle sprain and might not play. Even if he does play, he won't be at 100% and that should make things a little easier for Jermon Bushrod and the Saints offensive line, but not totally easy as they will still have to deal with Mathis, LB Gary Brackett and CB Kelvin Hayden. Even if Freeney isn't as his best, they will make it hard for Brees to find Marques Colston and Devery Henderson as well as his TE Jeremy Shockey. That said, the Saints have a few weapons on defense as Jabari Greer will do his best to take Reggie Wayne out of the game and LB Jonathan Vilma will try to disrupt Manning and the Colts offense as best he can.

But when it comes to making my prediction, I'm interested in two things. The first is the aforementioned injury to Freeney and the second is the Saints ability to run the football. Though I don't believe the Colts defense will completely fall apart with Freeney at less than 100%, I do think it will make their defense slightly less effective. Even though it might be a small step back, a great QB like Brees can take advantage of that. Having Freeney a little banged up will give Brees that extra split-second to make a play. The second point, about the Saints ability to run the football, is one that is flying completely under the radar. The Saints featured the 6th ranked rushing attack in the NFL this season, while the Colts finished dead last in that category. It gets lost because of the explosive passing game, but Pierre Thomas, Mike Bell and, yes, Reggie Bush are all good running backs and can make things happen on the ground. This, coupled with Indy's admittedly suspect rushing defense, leads me to believe that Sean Payton will create a game-plan for the Saints offense that tries to exploit this. Though we always think of Brees and the passing game, the Saints are a very balanced offensive team and can run the football well.

To wrap this up, I think this will be a very exciting Super Bowl with lots of points scored. Manning and Brees will both play spectacularly and I don't think either defense will be able to stop these QBs. I think Sharper will make one big play, finding a way to intercept Manning, which is probably one of the toughest things to do. But other than that, I don't see the Saints defense having any kind of answer for Manning, as he will probably hit 300 yards and 2-3 TDs. Freeney will be slowed down enough and won't be able to have as big an effect on the game as he would like. This will allow Brees to find either Henderson or Colston for a big play for a TD. But what I'm expecting to see is a heavy dose of Pierre Thomas and Mike Bell. The Colts defense will have to play for the pass (it's Drew Brees, you HAVE to watch for the pass first) and that will give the underrated Saints RBs room to run. Though it won't be about ball-control in the same way it is with a team like the Jets, I think the Saints will try to control the clock on the ground a little bit and keep Manning on the sidelines for as long as they can. But no one is going to pull away in this one, not with both of these offenses, and it will probably be close going into the fourth quarter. And even though the whole world seems to think the Colts are a mortal lock, I think the Saints have a little too much "team of destiny" about them. People talk about how this might be like San Francisco- San Diego in 1994, but the Saints are MUCH better than that San Diego team. These teams are more evenly matched that a lot of people realize or want to admit. Now I'm not saying that Brees is Manning's equal as a QB, but each team's positives and negatives are about equal and I like the Saints ability to (relatively) control the clock with their ground game.

But the main reason I'm leaning towards the team from the Big Easy is for something totally intangible and inexplainable. After watching that NFC Championship Game, this isn't just some plucky explosive offense that got lucky in going to the Super Bowl. I don't want to talk about the Katrina devastation in New Orleans too much, but I think these players realize this would be very special to a city in need of something special. Call it whatever you want-- mystique, karma, destiny, magic-- but I think the Saints have it on their side. It will be close, it will be exciting, there will be many points scored, and I wouldn't be surprised if Indianapolis ended up winning, but I like New Orleans to win Super Bowl 44.

Also, I will be making this gumbo recipe in my crockpot for the Super Bowl party I'm throwing. I'll be sure to report how all that turns out. But please let me know what you think-- Did I get it right? Am I totally off-base? Who are you rooting for in Super Bowl 44?

T.O. and Ocho: Commisioners of the More Fun League

2010-02-03T17:06:00.000-08:00

"I love me some me."-Terrell Owens

The famous quote by the oft-maligned wide receiver evokes one of two responses from pro football fans: laughter or anger. Mostly, fans turn their noses in disgust, citing T.O.'s self-promotion and vanity as reasons. Other NFLers get the same treatment. Chad Esteban Johnson Ochocinco is repeatedly criticized by the media for being a loudmouth and caring only about his personal accolades. What people say is certainly true. These guys love to showboat, celebrate when they score, talk trash, and often pout when they don't get the ball. However, it is all blown out of proportion. Both have clean criminal records, both are active in their respective communities, and both go out of their way to please their fans. For the most part they are just having fun.

The nickname No Fun League has come about for various reasons. Players are not able to celebrate when they score, quarterbacks play by touch football rules, and fines are handed out like pink slips in Detroit. The NFL is the most successful league in the U.S. because of the efficiency with which its run. Ochocinco's No Fun League is Commissioner Goodell's well oiled machine. This is not a letter to the commissioner asking for more lenient rules. The message here is to the fans. These brash and cocky athletes, not just Chad and Terrell, are good for the game. They provide perfect contrast to the Eli Mannings and, well, Peyton Mannings of the world. Part of the problem is that fans are brainwashed. They regurgitate whatever they hear on sports talk radio. When ESPN's talking robots (cough Mark Schlereth cough) go on rants about how T.O. is ruining the Cowboys, fans immediately hop on board.

One question I have is how someone can be insulted for putting a sharpie in his sock during a game and signing the football after scoring a touchdown. That is pure brilliance. T.O. should have been given a bonus for originality. The only thing that Chad should get nailed for is not coming through on some of his potential celebrations. Before the Bengals played the Bears this season, the flamboyant wideout instructed fans to crowd surf him from the endzone back to his sideline after a TD catch. Fearing an astronomical fine, he decided against it. Think of the joy that would have brought tens of thousands of Bengals fans, not to mention the millions watching on TV.

Many fans enjoy these silly outbursts, but loathe the "me me me" attitude. OK fine, but all professional athletes have that gene. When soon to be NFL prospects are lifting weights and running stadiums before the draft they are doing it for one of a few reasons:
1. To become the best.
2. To make money
3. To achieve their personal goal of making it to the NFL.
Not one of them is thinking "I really hope I can be a role player on a mediocre team." Every player wants to win. Every player wants to succeed as an individual. Show me a player that wants to win more than Terrell Owens and I'll eat my socks. The subjects of this article could probably do a better job of being team players, sure, but let's face it, all they really want to do is win. So, instead of chastising these guys for their antics, how about applauding them for their honesty? Nobody is going to change them, so how about this: shut up and enjoy it while it lasts.

A T L

2010-02-03T13:30:00.000-08:00

By and large, most people assume that the Lakers and Cavaliers are the top two teams in the league almost without question. Though the designation of the singular number one team will often switch between them, they are generally accepted as being the best teams featuring the game's two best players in Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. But from there, it gets interesting as the race for the NBA's third best team is very competitive, and that rank is very much up in the air. Orlando, Boston, Denver and Dallas can all make potential claims to the position, as perennial powerhouse San Antonio has had a bit of a down year this time around.

But I believe that not one of these teams can make the best claim to the spot as the NBA's third best team in the 2009-2010 season. My pick is one that not a lot of people are talking about in the national media, at least not as much as Dallas or Denver, and that is flying under the radar a little bit. I believe that, at this point in time, the NBA's third best team is the Atlanta Hawks. This season has been one where every team has shown certain weaknesses, even those at the very top. Thus, rather than making the case against all those other teams and showing why they're flawed, I want to instead focus on why the Hawks are better or "less flawed" than everyone else. This is going to involve a little statistical analysis, so stick with me...

The Hawks have quite a few good players, but no transcendent players like those other teams have. There is no Dirk or Carmelo or Dwight Howard or Paul Pierce and/or Kevin Garnett combo on the Hawks. Despite this lack of a true focal point that exists in one singular player, there is a consistency to the Hawks' lineup that is unmatched in the league right now. One of the statistics that best reflects this are their +/- numbers. Here is, according to NBA.com, what exactly the +/- numbers mean:

The AutoTrader.com +/- stat shows the power of teamwork. It's a way of showing the best-engineered/best combination of players on the court. The +/- stat is a statistic that looks at the point differential when players are both in and out of the game, to see how the team performs with various combinations. The +/- stat can look at a variety of combinations including the best two player, three player and even five player combinations for each game.

Looking over the +/- combinations for this season, the Hawks are responsible for many of the top combos. In terms of two player combinations, the Hawks make up almost half of the top ten, with pairings of Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, Josh Smith and Al Holford. Only the Lakers can compete with the Hawks on this level. The Hawks also possess the top four "3-player" combinations as well as having the top "4-player" combo and fourth and fifth ranked "5-player" combinations. The Hawks also rank in the top 10 in John Hollinger's assist ratio statistic, with 15.5% of their possessions resulting in an assist, as well as having the fourth ranked offense in terms of efficiency according to Hollinger's calculations (which are way too complicated for me to explain here). This is due, in part, to their care for the basketball, as they have the lowest turnover ratio of any team in the league this year, which speaks to the smart and careful play of veteran PG Mike Bibby. What is amazing, and speaks to how well the Hawks play as a unit rather than a collection of players, is that Bibby and SG Joe Johnson each average about the same number of assists per game. Their game is not predicated on the point guard getting the offense going, as the shooting guard can get in the act as well and that reflects a great deal of depth and consistency to their offensive approach.

Where the Hawks are a little bit weak is on the defensive end. The Hawks give up 97 points per game, which is middle of the pack but for a contending team that's a little bit higher than you would like to see. They also rank fairly low according to Hollinger's Defensive Rebound Rate statistic and in the overall Rebound Rate category. Marvin Williams, the SF from North Carolina, underperforms a little bit and that seems like it would hinder their defensive performance a little bit. But what they lack in terms of size and defensive performance they make up for with offensive depth. The Hawks have Jamal Crawford coming off the bench, as he has made his presence known and is a contender for the Sixth Man of the Year Award. Crawford is their 2nd leading scorer, with 17.5 points per game coming off the bench while only playing 30 minutes per game. Joe Johnson puts up only 4 more points on average while playing 7 more minutes than Crawford. In addition, the Hawks have a potentially solid and explosive young point guard in Jeff Teague on the bench as well as Maurice Evans and Zaza Pachulia to take up minutes so the starters can rest.

While there are some concerns about their defense, and I think the back end of their bench is a little thin, I think their offense (and their offensive efficiency) as well as the strength of their top 6 players make the Atlanta Hawks the NBA's third best team heading into the All-Star Break. Above all, I like the cohesion of this team, as it is clearly one where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The other teams in the conversation, Orlando or Dallas or Denver or Boston, may have the better singular players, but Atlanta frequently puts out the best combinations of players and players that can flourish when they are put together on the court. They might not have the best players who, as individuals, perform the best but the group of players they have together collectively perform about as well as anyone else in the league.

Why O-W-A won't Choose O-S-U

2010-02-02T13:49:00.000-08:00

I only want to write this article so I can prove my genius before National Signing Day. Owamagbe Odighizuwa (Owa for short) is a can't miss defensive end prospect from David Douglas High in Portland. He's rated as the 8th best prospect in the nation by rivals.com. ESPN.com ranks him 17th, but only that low because he isn't from SoCal, Texas, or Florida. He is reported to be equally interested in Nebraska, UCLA, and Oregon State. All great places to go to school and play football, but the sources in between my ears are telling me that he won't choose OSU on February 3rd.

The program Mike Riley has going in Corvallis is truly amazing. They have averaged nine wins over the last four years, and they had the second most selections in the '09 NFL draft, behind USC. The coaching staff consistently transforms two and three star prospects into All Pac-10 players. One thing that Nebraska and UCLA can't promise is stability. Riley's program just won the "Most Family Oriented Program" consellation prize for the fourth consecutive year. The coaching staff as a whole will be there for years to come, and that is an underrated factor in producing great players. Neuheisel is a loose cannon; who knows where he'll be in three years. One ugly season in Lincoln, and Bo Pelini's head would likely be hunted by Husker Nation.

OSU has never landed a five star recruit, and many are very interested in seeing what Riley could do with Owa. He would probably become an all Conference player and sign a mega contract a few years later. His family could watch him play every weekend, and all would be well in Corvallis. However, this is one of the most important decisions of the kid's life, and he is a very intelligent and methodical high schooler. He uses words like "retrospective" and "comprehension" in his interviews. The millions he'll make in the NFL isn't going to influence him into an impulse buy. UCLA is a superior academic institution to OSU. Nebraska has a superior football tradition to OSU's. Moreover, colleges are named universities because of the universal opportunities they provide students. OSU doesn't swing and miss in this category, but Odighizuwa has spent his life in the Willamette Valley. He has the chance to expand his horizons and get a different view of the world. The cornbelt and SoCal are quite the contrasts to Northwest Oregon, and something tells me Owa is itching to experience a brand new culture.

Don't get me wrong, I hope he proves me wrong tomorrow. Beaver Nation would welcome him with open arms. But football is just a game, and 17 year old males are unpredictable organisms. My money is on UCLA because if Nebraska steals another five star lineman from Multnomah County, Portlandites and Beaver fans alike will set Lincoln ablaze.

NBA All-Star Voting-- Is It Broken?

2010-02-02T10:00:00.000-08:00

The two all-star games that seem to captivate the fans of each respective sport are for the MLB and NBA. The NFL's Pro Bowl doesn't really get discussion going. I mean, I've never heard an argument started because one player was voted to the Pro Bowl over another. But with baseball and basketball, the discussions can be relatively contentious, at least over a game that ultimately doesn't matter (well, the MLB one determines what league gets home-field advantage in the World Series but you get the idea). People will debate the merits of one player over another and why that player deserves to be an all-star instead of another. These debates are usually exacerbated because the fans, in both instances, pick the starting lineups. And, to be honest, the fans don't have the best track record on picking the best players from the given season and instead picking the biggest or most well-known names. Since the NBA All-Star Game is right around the corner and it's fresh in our minds, I want to focus on it this year and what the cost is of all this.

If you look at the West's starting lineup, it seems like the fans got it right (Nash, Kobe, Carmelo, Duncan and Amare) but the East's starting lineup shows just how much the fans vote for the "name" rather than the performance from year to year. The fans selected Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett to start the game, when there were clearly not deserving of a starting spot. Iverson has only played in 25 games while Garnett is only averaging 14.6 ppg and 7.4 rebounds per game. Meanwhile, the Hawks' Joe Johnson is averaging 21.4 points per game and the Raptors' Chris Bosh is putting up 24 points and 11 rebounds per game. Their biggest problem-- they either play in Toronto or they aren't Allen Iverson, one of the most recognizable basketball players of modern memory. If you put Bosh or Johnson on the Celtics, they would easily be in the starting lineup because people would know who they were since they played for one of the most well-known NBA teams.

This is what happens when you let the fans vote, and being able to vote multiple times (there's a cap, that you can vote like 10 times, but still that's a lot of times to vote). Yes, there are fans out there who vote based upon who is having the best year and has the superior numbers, but that's a very small minority. Not to get too political, but the same things happen during presidential elections. I like to imagine that people voted, like I did, because I listened to what the candidate had to say and followed them and firmly believed that their plan was the best for the country. But most people vote based upon one or two soundbites which might be accurate, but can also be misleading. If there isn't a real standout player (like LeBron or Kobe-- they're both big names but also deserve to start without a doubt), the majority of fans will go with a big name, even if it's faded, rather than someone who they would have to dig a little bit deeper to discover. Now, I don't have a problem with that on its own and I know the majority of people don't care as much about basketball as I do to really consider who is having the best season. But I believe our expectations about the All-Star game means that we need to take it a little bit more seriously.

Whenever one complains about these voting irregularities, someone playing in an all-star game because they have a greater name recognition even though they are statistically lacking, people point out that "the game doesn't count" and "it's just an exhibition." Well I think there are three reasons why that is a faulty approach to maintain. First of all, all-star appearances factor in when some of these guys are negotiating their contracts. It's used as one barometer for success and ability in the NBA, so we shouldn't be quite as flippant about its weight. One might also say "well, if he's not starting he'll be picked as a reserve so he'll make the team anyways." But then you're bumping out someone, like a David Lee or Paul Pierce this year, who is deserving and would get a reserve spot had the spots been more or less correctly distributed. Secondly, if everyone is all right with big names winning out over smaller names with superior stats, we should really change the name from "All-Star Game" to "Big Name Game." If you're presenting this as a display of the NBA's best players playing together, you can't have players in who aren't playing on that same level. If the fans really want to see a game where all the big names play even if they aren't playing a lot or having good seasons, guys like Garnett or Iverson or Tracy McGrady or Shaquille O'Neal, then make it the "Big Name Game" and don't tell me it's a true "All Star Game." Finally, people who have no problem with the way things are now say the game is "just for fun" and "a show" or "entertainment." To be honest, a lot of these people are involved in television so things like ratings matter. But wouldn't it be easier to sell if you had truly the most talented players playing? The product will clearly be better if you have only players who are playing at a high level together. If it's just a show, I think having Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh starting and playing more minutes would make it a much better and inherently more watchable one.

I'm not quite sure what the solution to this problem is. I clearly don't think the fans always get it right, as this year proves that point, but I do think it's good for the fans to have some say in the matter. Perhaps the fan's vote needs to be weighted somehow, split 50/50 with basketball writers for the starting lineup while the coaches would choose the reserves for each squad. I think that would allow the fans to have some voice but the writers (who are, ostensibly, authorities on such things) could correct irregularities in situations such as the one we had this year. I know I'm making a big deal out of something that is an exhibition, but if it's an exhibition why should we, as fans, care this much about our vote? We should be concerned with getting to watch the best display of talent on the basketball court. And while the fans have shown the ability to get most of it right, they also are able to get certain parts horrendously wrong.

If you don't Like Hockey you are, in Fact, an Idiot

2010-02-01T22:10:00.000-08:00

Americans, in general, don't like hockey. I've heard all the excuses: "I can't see the puck", "I don't know the rules", "the only cool part is the fighting". Ok, fine, but all it takes is a little bit of effort and a little bit of patience (neither of these are attributes displayed by the average American male, but I'll leave that for another time) to enjoy the sport.

Hockey and the NHL will never be immensely popular in the U.S. A small fraction of American children grow up playing hockey. Even I can admit that it is pretty odd that both LA and Phoenix have hockey teams. But besides the NHL's minor flaws, it really is a shame that more people aren't interested in the game. Hockey contains all the elements of an exciting and intriguing sport: speed, skill, contact, and bonus...fighting. The NHL contains all the elements of a great league: young stars in Ovechkin and Crosby, parity (13 teams in the West have a shot at the playoffs), the best jerseys in sports(the Blackhawks, sorry Yankees), and the best trophy in sports to name a few. There are a plethora of sports entertainment opportunities in this country, and hockey is often disregarded, but here is how the NHL stacks up against its major competitors.

NHL vs. NBA
The NBA puts out a pretty good product these days. Lebron and Kobe are unstoppable, the Celtics and Lakers are at the tops of their respective conferences, and...ok that's all I can think of. In what other sport do you find yourself changing the channel more at the end of a game, when teams exchange fouls and free throws for a seemingly infinite amount of time? Is it really that intriguing to watch Lebron walk down the court with the ball, make one move and chuck up a 25 footer at least 12 times a game? Hockey is played at a break-neck speed for 60 minutes, the last five minutes of a close game are unbelievably exciting, and you will never see a player bitch slap another player and back away as he pretends to struggle against his teammates' restraint (see, Carmelo Anthony).

NHL vs. MLB
Baseball is my favorite sport. Even if it wasn't, as an American, I'm contractually obligated to say I like it more than hockey. It is the great American past time, and it is America's sport. Those that argue for football being such were either dropped as children or are simply communists. There is truly nothing better than going to the ballpark in September to watch your team in a pennant race. However, let's remember that Major League Baseball was carried by cheaters and liars for about a generation. One great thing about hockey is the honesty and integrity that the players exhibit. You can almost be certain that there are no roids in the game, because if there was any suspicion within the league, the guy would get his face bashed in.

NHL vs. NFL
This could be tough. The NFL is incredibly popular. It markets itself extemely well, and the ease of fantasy football only adds to the popularity. But for me, some things are missing. Where are the intense rivalries? Niners Cowboys was good in the early 90s, but they play each other twice a decade or something. Packers Bears? I don't have a logical argument against that one, but intrigue is not a word I would use to describe it. There are rivalries in the NHL that compare only to those of European soccer clubs. Try wearing a Canadiens jersey to the Boston Garden, or an Oilers jersey to the Saddledome in Calgary. I'll save you the blackeye...don't do it.

NHL vs. MLS
Haha, no, just kidding.

Since it would be sacrilegious not to mention Barry Melrose in my first hockey blog, he says that hockey is the greatest game in the World. Agree or disagree, I can with 100% honesty tell you that he has an argument. So, if you don't like hockey (and still want to listen to me preach), please take the four minutes it takes to learn the rules, and go to a game. You will enjoy it.

And the poor shall inherit the earth...

2010-02-01T13:52:00.000-08:00

In hearing the news of the A's signing Ben Sheets for $10 million last week, I'm positive A's fans jaws hit the floor in droves. Beane and the A's have become synonymous with post-prime veteran signings so the fact that they pursued Sheets didn't shock anyone, it was the $10 mil we ponied up. While some may argue that this could turn out to be a great deal if Sheets pitches up to potential and doesn't become a permanent member of the DL in mid-May (a-la Mr. Harden), I prefer the wait-and-see approach. My focus instead lies on an underlying trend that is coming to define the way smaller clubs can compete.

First, a few distinctions are necessary before some of my close Yankee friends (you know who you are) simply categorize this and other signings as simply publicity stunts by a GM that doesn't care about winning, but only selling tix and turning a profit. THE A'S ARE POOR and their owners are cheap. Most intelligent fans understand that poor teams must operate differently than the elite/wealthy but that's an entirely different article all together.
For this post, we should look at just one facet of the overall strategy: Draft picks. Anyone who follows a small market team or who has read Moneyball understands that draft picks mean substantially more to teams like the A's as opposed to teams that can afford to sign established players. We also know that drafting players is a toss-up. For every Tim Lincecum there are 10 Craig Italianos (who?--exactly!) and teams are simply making educated guesses with a large factor being luck. So laws of probability would tell us that having more draft picks will generally increase the odds of landing a stud down the road. But while teams are compensated with one draft pick when a player leaves via FA, there is no other way to acquire picks or even trade down for more picks. Teams must therefore acquire post-draft talent. Acquiring prospects becomes a strategy in itself: when to dump your veterans, when to trade prospects for more prospects, when to trade prospects for immediate help, etc... What I believe Beane has done, is find a way to buy prospects. That's right, he can defy the Baseball Gods and do what even a fat check from Cashman cannot.

Here is how it's done: First you find a gamble such as Ben Sheets, someone who is maybe coming off injury, or a bad year, or simply a player that needs to prove himself. Then you determine how much you can spend on that player (the A's payroll was substantially less this year compared with last year and thus they had capital to burn) and then give it to him. There are then two outcomes, one good and one bad as with any gamble. Obviously if Sheets shits the bed the A's will have wasted 10 mil, but if he meets the high expectations the A's esentially have 10 mil. to spend on prospects. Many believe the A's will not be in contention, and if that's the case, a contender or "faux-contender" (hello Mets!) will surely come knocking, and because teams tend to overspend when it comes to making a late season playoff push, the seller has the upper hand. The A's simply trade Sheets for a few quality prospects increasing your minor league talent pool and increasing the odds of landing the Tim Lincecum making small change for his first few years.
What has happened is Beane has paid 10 mil. for prospects in a year when the A's will have a tough time competing anyway and he hasn't given up any prospects in return which is the important thing. All that is required is money to gamble with, patience, and a desperate sucker to give up the most valuable commodity to a small-market team: prospects. While sign-and-trades are nothing new, I do believe gambling for prospects is a new way of looking at the small-market strategy.