Rookies and such

Stafford and Moreno steal the show, and it's always nice to throw in something partially related to the great MJ even when he has absolutely nothing to do with anything involved.

2009 NFL MOCK DRAFT

1. Detroit Lions: Matthew Stafford QB Georgia

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Byron Leftwich QB Steelers

2.  St. Louis Rams: Jason Smith OT Baylor

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER

NFL Comparison: Chris Samuels OT Redskins

3.  Kansas City Chiefs: Aaron Curry LB Wake Forest

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER; BORDERLINE HOF

NFL Comparison: Derrick Thomas DE/LB Chiefs

4. Seattle Seahawks: Brian Orakpo DE Texas     

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Erasmus James/ Kenechi Udezi DE VIkings

5. Cleveland Browns: B.J. Raji DT Boston College     

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR; BORDERLINE PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: his own teammate, Shaun Rodgers DT Browns

6.  Cincinnati Bengals: Andre Smith OT Alabama     

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Aaron Gibson OT Lions

7. Oakland Raiders: Jeremy Maclin WR Mizzou

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER

NFL Comparison: Steve Smith WR Panthers

8. Jacksonville Jaguars: Mark Sanchez QB USC

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Akili Smith QB Bengals

9. Green Bay Packers: Tyson Jackson DE LSU

Projected NFL Career; CONTRIBUTOR

NFL Comparison: Aaron Smith DE Steelers

10. San Francisco 49ers: Eugene Monroe OT Virginia

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR; BORDERLINE PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: Bruce Matthews OT Titans

11. Buffalo Bills: Michael Oher OT Ole Miss

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Who cares.

12. Denver Broncos: Rey Maualuga LB USC

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER

NFL Comparison: Lofa Tatupa LB Seahawks

13. Washington Redskins: Brian Cushing LB USC

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Adam Archuleta S/LB Redskins/Bears

14. New Orleans Saints: Malcom Jenkins CB Ohio State

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER

NFL Comparison: Sam Madison CB Dolphins

15. Houston Texans: James Laurinatis LB Ohio State     

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Bobby Carpenter LB Cowboys

16. San Diego Chargers: Darrius Heyward-Bey WR Maryland

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Troy Williamson WR Vikings

17. New York Jets: Josh Freeman QB Kansas State

Projected NFL Career; PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER

NFL Comparison: Steve McNair QB Titans

18. Denver Broncos: Vontae Davis CB Illinois     

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER; FRANCHISE PLAYER; BORDERLINE HOF

NFL Comparison: Darrell Green CB Redskins

19. Tampa Bay Bucs: Michael Crabtree WR Texas Tech     

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR; BORDERLINE PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: Wes Welker WR Patriots

20. Detroit Lions: Everette Brown DE/OLB     

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Good old Jarvis Moss DE Broncos

21. Philadelphia Eagles: Aaron Maybin DE Penn State

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Michael Haynes Bears

22. Minnesota Vikings: Percy Harvin WR Florida

Projected NFL Career: PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: Santonio Holmes Steelers

23. New England Patriots: Alphonso Smith CB Wake Forest

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR; BORDERLINE PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: Charles Tillman Bears

24. Atlanta Falcons: Darius Butler CB Connecticut

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Willie MIddlebrooks CB Broncos

25. Miami Dolphins: Larry English DE Northern Illinois     

Projected NFL Career: HOF LOCK

NFL Comparison: Jason Taylor DE Dolphins (Akron, MAC BABY!!!)

26. Baltimore Ravens: Clint Smith LB Virginia     

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR/ BORDERLINE PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: Larry Foote LB Steelers

27. Indianapolis Colts: Chris “Beanie” Wells     

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR

NFL Comparison: Ronnie Brown RB Dolphins

28. Buffalo Bills: Clay Matthews LB USC

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Dan Morgan LB Panthers

29. New York Giants: Brandon Pettigrew TE Oklahoma State

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: Marcedes Lewis TE Jaguars

30. Tennessee Titans: Hakeem Nicks WR North Carolina

Projected NFL Career: BUST

NFL Comparison: R. Jay Soward WR Jaguars (had to get that one in there)

31. Arizona Cardinals: Knowshon Moreno RB Georgia

Projected NFL Comparison: PRO BOWLER

NFL Comparison: Brian Westbrook RB Eagles

32. Pittsburgh Steelers: Pat White QB/CB/WR/RB/S West Virginia

Projected NFL Career: CONTRIBUTOR

NFL Comparison: Brad Smith QB Missouri

 

 

 

Mock Draft

Mock Draft Here

Response

I was writing this in the comments of Luebbers' article, but the window was too small and I needed some screen space to develop my thoughts...hence the actual post.

I understand the Cutler excitement from your point of view. Until his recent time-traveling adventure back to the second grade, I was a proud member of the Cutler fan club. He's young, good and, until his next contract, is relatively cheap (cap number is LESS than Orton's for this year, it's not like trading for Favre's 12 mil contract). Bright future, yada, yada, yada.  

Couple points in your article that I don't agree with however.  

1) Implying that the Bears didn't try to get a franchise QB would be wrong. They may not have succeeded, but they have tried pretty hard. They made Harbaugh, McNown and Grossman #1 picks as well as trading a #1 pick for Mirer. Since 1987 the Bears have used 6 first rounders (including Cutler) attempting to solve this problem. That's one 1st rounder dedicated to the position every 3.66 (repeating, of course) years. The first four were hilarious failures, but at some point you have to wonder if this is just bad scouting, or a deeper seeded problem within the organization regarding the development of their quarterbacks? I'm not sure of the answer, but you'd think the law of averages says one of those four (Mirer, Harbaugh, Grossman, McNown) would have been a long-term solution - if not a franchise guy.

2) I would caution you against thinking Cutler won't throw game-blowing interceptions. I know the shitty Bears QBs of the past repeatedly disappointed fans with costly mistakes late in the game, but with Cutler you'll get costly mistakes in all quarters - he chooses not to discriminate. The difference is Cutler can usually make up for such mistakes while the others were incapable of doing so.

Does upgrading your QB from average to good make up for not filling the numerous defensive/offensive holes through top draft talent the next two years? I'm a believer in quarterbacks so I think this move makes them better, but without a top-tier defense I don't see the Bears being a title threat. A good QB will almost always guarantee a team's competitiveness in the regular season, but it takes a defense to chase titles. Cutler is poor man's Favre, and you have to remember that Favre's only title came while playing with the NFL's #1 defense.

But let me hedge by bets a little...

If a team as shitty as the Cardinals can make a Super Bowl, I wouldn't rule anyone out (except the Lions and any team starting JaMarcus Russell).

Finally

Will Furrer
Jim Harbaugh
Peter Tom Willis
Shane Matthews
Erik Kramer
Steve Walsh
Steve Stenstrom
Dave Krieg
Rick Mirer
Moses Moreno
Cade McNown
Jim Miller
Henry Burris
Chris Chandler
Cory Sauter
Rex Grossman
Kordell Stewart
Craig Krenzel
Jonathan Quinn
Chad Hutchinson
Kyle Orton
Jeff Blake
Brian Griese

This unmistakable list of losers happens to be a compilation of quarterbacks who have started games for the Chicago Bears over the last 15-20 years. Some kind of sick joke played on the fans of this beloved organization? Nope. Just stubborn incompetence on behalf of the owners, front office, and coaching staff. Somewhere along the road it became ingrained into the soul of Chicago Bears football that the only way for this team to succeed was by being able to run the ball. Having some of the very best running backs in NFL history (Payton, Sayers, James Allen) helped this notion along, but it almost became an excuse for not trying anything they could to get a franchise quarterback. While they did draft Cade McNown and Rex Grossman, two quarterbacks who were believed to be ready to lead a team for a decade and more, it became obvious that neither of these two picks were going to pay off in the end. Grossman showed slight glimmers of hope and promise during the 2006 season but there was always something about the way he played which allowed Ron Rivera to succinctly dub him a "mental midgit."

Then the phrase "game manager" was branded on new starting quarterback Kyle Orton. Orton is a good quarterback, alright well let's say decent. You can win with him, but not if he is on a team such as the Bears. His success came via a solid running game with Matt Forte and above average tight end play by Olson and Clark. He was made to look better by his teammates and I guess that's a telltale sign that you're a "game manager" and not a franchise quarterback. Up until now, other offensive players on the Bears have always had to try and make their quarterback a better player, and now that will be completely reversed by a diabetic dynamo who can and will make even the talentless Bears wide recievers look like they actually belong in the NFL.

This is the kind of move that fans of any team dream about. You think of a player out there on any team who can come in and make your team a true championship threat, and hope to Obama that your team can do something to lure him in. Well, for once as a Bears fan this has happened and that threat is real. Many-a-time during a Bears game I would think to myself what it would be like to have an actual quarterback to watch and cheer for rather than wait for one of them to make a game-costing mistake in the final minutes. This should be rather interesting.

It's not all bad in Denver

So your young, Pro Bowl quarterback successfully cried his way out of Denver, your upset, right Broncos fans?

You should be uspet about losing Cutler (although as a lot of Packer fans can attest, the more pissing and moaning the player does, the easier it is to see him go), but consider the alternative.

A month ago your coach almost pulled a Cutler for Cassel deal. If I'm not mistaking, that was pretty much a straight-up deal, no significant picks trading places. So instead of getting just Cassel for Cutler, you get the farm. You get Orton who I believe is nearly equivalent to Cassel - shows you how highly I rate Cassel - AND two 1st round picks. So you have #12 and #18 this year, your own pick next year (probably in the teens), and you're just one Cutler injury (or diabetic coma) away from a top ten pick next year.

Look on the bright side, things could have been much, much worse.

WWMD?

After hearing of the epic trade today, the gizzard and I discussed the allegiance of our favorite Buffalo-wings lover. Now that his "uncle" was ousted shortly after the 2008 season ended and his man-crush has moved to the Windy City, one can only assume all Broncos memorabilia will be promptly burned to make room for his newest blue and orange purchases.

WHAT WILL MURNANE DO?

Magic Pixie Dust- not just for Favres anymore

“Winning comes from winners.”
-J.A. Adonde

That other sound you just heard was the ghost of Ken Tremendous stirring in his grave (and by grave I mean his office at NBC studios where he produces “The Office”).

I knew J.A. was up to no good when I read the teaser for his column: “What's the secret formula to winning an NBA championship? Many think numbers are a big part of the answer. But there's another theory in play.”

In the column, Adonde takes ideas from Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” and applies them to winning NBA championships. I have not read “Outliers,” so I will refrain from commenting on the book directly. I will say this, though- many of the concepts Adonde mentions are not convincing.

Here’s a quick example of what I’m talking about: “The Wages of Wins data suggested the individual components of the 2007-08 Boston Celtics were good for 52 victories based on their production the previous season. The Celtics wound up winning 66 games and the NBA championship. Clearly, something was up that couldn't be explained by the numbers.”

The 2007-2008 Boston Celtics had something like nine new players on their roster, including Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. I don’t know how the Wages of Wins calculates its expected win totals, but I do not believe there is any set of data that can accurately predict the way that many new players would play together. Saying that data are missing something important is accurate. Claiming (as he will soon do) that the data didn’t account for Celtic mysticism is The Secret-esque nonsense.

“What option did Garnett have other than winning a championship?”

This is post hoc reasoning. Would Adonde write this column if Bynum had been healthy for the finals and the Lakers had defeated the Celtics? Yes, he would. Except he’d be writing about how Kobe had no choice but to win a title because of Abdul-Jabbar's and Magic’s magic pixie dust, instead of the Russell-Bird pixie dust.

“Think of the exposure Pierce had to winning traditions, from his youth watching the Showtime Lakers in Inglewood to his college years at Kansas to his pro career spent entirely in Boston. When he reached the NBA Finals at last, after 10 years in the league, it was as if he knew exactly what to do, which is why he won the Finals MVP award.”

??!?!?!?! If this were the case, why didn’t Kobe Bryant play even better than Pierce? He actively contributed to THREE title-winning teams. How is that not better ‘winning’ experience than merely watching the Showtime Lakers?

“But do you really think Pierce, Garnett and Allen would have had the same results if they had assembled in Memphis?”

Yes.

Adonde continues: “Bird, Magic, Shaquille O'Neal and Garnett each won their first MVP award at age 27. Kobe Bryant, Charles Barkley and David Robinson won at 29. With a subjective award such as the MVP, some of the timing can be explained by voters' wanting players to "wait their turn" and cede to the league's hierarchy. But there's an understanding of the game, an ability to predict what happens next, a gradual extension of the shooting range that comes with time.”

I agree. Players get better as they reach their prime. This happens to all players in all sports, regardless of how magical their franchises are. Ryan Braun will be better at 27 than he was at 24. The Brewers franchise will not have caused this improvement (except through good coaching, which is probably a marginal factor anyway. Players get better with age.

Adonde then shoots himself in the foot by admitting that the MVP is a bad example because the voting process is so subjective. LeBron should have at least one MVP already, but stubborn voters haven’t given it to him because his team has been lousy, but more importantly because he’s had to compete against older guys like Nash and Bryant.

I hate how FJM this post is already, but I have to keep it going just a little longer.

“Winning comes from winners. It's almost impossible to create champions from scratch in this league, to ask a group of players who haven't accomplished anything before to grab the ultimate prize. Since 1980, the only champions with no previous NBA winners on their roster were the 1981 Celtics, the 1983 76ers, the 1989 Pistons, the 1991 Bulls and the 1994 Rockets. But those teams all had players who had won championships or at least been to the Final Four in college or had been to the Finals before (Bird on the Celtics; Bobby Jones, Julius Erving and Moses Malone on the Sixers; Isiah Thomas and Mark Aguirre on the Pistons; Michael Jordan and Stacey King on the Bulls; Hakeem Olajuwon on the Rockets).”

In other words, five teams in the past 27 years have won titles without any previous NBA champions on their roster. That appears to be powerful evidence for the need to have experience on a team in order to win a title. Bull shit. I’m calling shenanigans, because this throws out the 92, 93, 96, 97, and 98 Bulls teams, the 95 Rockets, the 84 and 86 Celtics, and 1990 Pistons (and maybe a few more). That’s nine title-winning teams on which the best player or players won their first title without any help from ‘winning’ players. If we factor this in, 14/27 title teams either had no prior title experience or their best players had no help from title contenders until they won their first one. I may not be making this clear enough. Look at the Bulls. In 1991, they had no title experience. In 1992, they had lots of title experience. Were the 1992 Bulls destined to win, and the 1991 Bulls just got lucky? I’m not sure that’s what Adonde wants to imply, but it sure seems like it.

“The secret behind the ‘instant’ success of the 2008 Celtics was that it was actually years in the making, that the folks in Boston reaped the benefits of the evolution of three key players, fused by the unique history of that franchise.”

That sentence is eight words too long. If he means to imply that the success of the 2008 was years in the making because of previous front office decisions (keeping Pierce, drafting Rondo and Jefferson, etc) then fine, I’ll grant that. Of course success doesn’t happen over night. But if he means what I think he means - that the success of the Garnett-led Celtics is owed in part to the Celtics of the 60s and the 80s, then I think he’s terribly wrong. The 2008 Celtics won the title because Garnett is awesome, Pierce played extremely well, and they got lucky. If Bynum had been healthy, Adonde would be writing the same story about the Lakers. And that’s the problem with the column. It can be written about just about any team ever.

Lots of experience? Winning breeds winners.

No title experience? Either the team is historically successful or some players went to the Final Four or maybe they won a tournament in 7th grade or something. WINNERS.

I don’t think Adonde is dumb. I don’t think he’s a bad sportswriter. Bill Plaschke is dumb and a bad sportswriter. But he’s really gone off the deep end here. The Celtics didn’t win last year because of numbers. Their #1 rating in defensive efficiency didn’t help them win. Bill Russell helped them win. What else could they have done? (other than lose to the Lakers, in which case the Lakers were destined to win.)

If this blog post seems disconnected, it’s because my source material is nothing if not disconnected. Adonde’s central thesis is unclear and his logic and evidence are inconsistent at best and downright sloppy at worst. He’s guilty of taking an interesting idea and applying it inappropriately and inconsistently.

Look, team chemistry matters. Luck matters. History matters. Magic franchise pixie dust does not.

World Baseball "Classic"

http://www.mlb.com/wbc/2009/rosters/index.jsp?roster=final&team=usa&season=2009


This is the incredibly pathetic Team USA WBC roster, my vote for worst in show is Gary Indiana's favorite son, Latroy Hawkins.

PTI Follow Up

Are the Spurs better without Tim Duncan?!!?!??!! They beat the Blazers last week without him, and then yesterday they lost big with him. Therefore, in Plaschke world, Tim Duncan is a terrible player and will never lead the Spurs to a title.

Around the Shitstorm

Many moons ago, I used to savor afternoon television.

After many a trying day of playing bass clarinet and listening to Blink-182 at Libertyville High School, the one feather in my cap at the end of the day would be the rock solid afternoon lineup of Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, Back2Back Simpsons, and Seinfeld. Times were merry.

These days have passed.

Pardon the Interruption has gone downhill (as has all of ESPN), and The Simpsons and Seinfeld change times more often than Aaron Rodgers changes hair styles. But the worst of all, by far, is what has become of Around the Horn.

Future Pro-Bowler or Poison front-man?

Around the Horn is the biggest piece of shit sports show I have ever seen in my life. It used to be, at the very least, watchable in its early days. The questions were interesting and the debates were, for the most part, intelligent. I don't know what happened. Every time I watch the show now the first 2 or 3 questions are about ARod, Phelps, or Favre. Bill Plaschke doesn't know what a statistic or a complete sentence is (see these archives). It seems to me that all Woody Paige does when he's on TV is scream nonsense, but what do I know, I'm not even on TV. And as we all know, Jay Mariotti is a fag, Jay Mariotti is a fag, and JAY MARIOTTI IS A FAG!

I love you, Ozzie

I stopped watching Around the Horn regularly a long time ago, mainly because of the aforementioned fucks giving me perennial rage if I did. Unfortunately, I recently tuned in for a few minutes Tuesday afternoon and was treated to this intriguing query.

"Are the Celtics better off without Kevin Garnett?"

Are the Celtics better off without the player who transformed a team of garbage, one above average player, and a subpar coach into the best defensive team in the league, eastern conference champions, and NBA champions in one season?

Are the Celtics better off without a former MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, Nine-time All-NBA, and Nine-time All-NBA Defensive Team player?

Wow Reali, thats a real brain buster. Gimme a fuckin' break, is it really that hard to come up with 4 or 5 debatable questions for this show a day? Make me a writer for Around the Horn, I got a bunch of good questions right here. Are the Colts better off without Peyton Manning? Is Tiger Woods better off if he only hits 7 irons during a round? Is Ichiro a better fielder if he plays without a mit and blindfolded?

While the later may be true, the bottom line is that Around the Horn sucks donkey balls and nobody should ever watch it again.

K-Law Zinger!

---

Simmons (LA): Do you think Amare gets traded before the deadline? Oh, shoot. Wrong chat!

Keith Law: [90210 reference] [porn star reference] [House] [Manning face] [random basketball stat] [TAINT]

Keith Law: That's better. Apparently the chat engine doesn't like the gt/lt symbols.



Zing!!! But he did leave out J-Bug, Jack-O, a lost reference, and the Ewing Theory. No one's perfect.

(I don't actually hate Simmons. He's pretty decent, at least relative to Reilly. But still, K-Law zinged him good).

And which of these buttons calls your parents to pick you up??

I saw this segment of Triumph the insult comic dog at the Star Wars convention on Conan last night and couldn't stop laughing. I think it's fairly old, but nonetheless, it's a classic. I'm shocked Triumph didn't interview Dirt.
Enjoy.

Triumph The Insult Comic Dog - Star Wars
by ZaraV

Fratello = Larry Hughes' Spokesman

At the end of the Bulls-Heat game, the Czar remarked that the second best three point shooter was inactive for the game. Fratello thinks Larry Hughes is the second best three point shooter on the Bulls.

Larry Hughes is a career 30.5% three point shooter. This year, he's up to 39.2%, which is indeed second-best on the Bulls, but come on. Let's just chalk that up to random chance. Please? Hughes is not a good chucker. Shooter. I mean shooter.

That makes me a saddd hamster

Two instant classics. I can't decide which one is funnier.



I'm sure everyone has already seen this one by now, but just in case...

The Way I See It

It's that time of year again.  Time for Super Bowl predictions! 

The match-up this year pits the Pittsburgh Steelers vs. the Arizona Cardinals.  Seems like a gimme, doesn't it?

It is.

Although I have a history of missing gimmes (notably last year when I predicted Pats over Giants by something like 45-17), this year seems a little different, mostly because the Arizona Cardinals suck ass.

It may be a close game due to the fact the Steelers offense often reduces itself to predicable run plays and Ben Roethlisberger taking sack after sack after sack, but that defense will be enough to carry the Steelers.  

Pitt 24  Arizona 13.

The key to this game will be the Steelers versatile pass rush.  They have the talent and the scheme that allows them to send anybody and everybody; from every direction imaginable.  I know the Cardinals have HOF lineman Mike Gandy on the squad, but that won't be enough to stop the pressure. 

And pressure is the key word.  If not given 4-5 minutes to throw, Kurt Warner is a piece of shit.  He is the only quarterback I've seen who refuses to avoid a sack.  Have you ever seen Kurt Warner sidestep a rusher, buy some time, and fire down the field for a big play?  The answer is no, because it has never happened.  Kurt Warner is the Peja Stojakovic of the NFL, completely dependent on surrounding talent in order to succeed.  When they are surrounded by players who can keep them from being harassed they will deliver the ball accurately toward the goal, but God help them if they need to create for themselves. 

 

*Side Note: Peja Stojakovic is a Hall of Famer too, right?* 

I don't want to turn this into an "I Hate Kurt Warner" piece, so here's the bottom line.  The Steelers will bring the heat, and Kurt Warner will wilt under it.  Pretty simple. 

Unfulfilled Promise

If you ask the average NBA fan (that is, someone who follows the NBA regularly, but not obsessively) who they think are the three most hated players in the league, I speculate that you'll probably get Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant, and Tracy McGrady. Kobe's hated because he's a jerk (and he loves Colorado. Like, he REALLY loves Colorado), Vinsanity because he destroyed a city, and Tracy- well, I think Tracy deserves it the most.

I used to love T-Mac. He was one of the first with that type of nickname, back when it was still only sorta lame. He wasn't the most highly regarded straight from high schoolers, but after he was traded to Orlando, it was clear that this guy had game. After a couple of solid years with the Magic, he broke out in 2002-2003. KG won the MVP that year, but T-Mac put up a legit MVP case. He led the league in scoring at a whopping 32.1 per game. He led the league in PER, at 31 (nearly a full four points higher than Garnett). It was his most efficient year (obviously that's what PER measures), but to make it clearer, his TS% was a solid 56.4%, the highest of his career.

To put it in perspective, in his epic 05-06 campaign, Kobe Bryant averaged 35.4 points per, but his PER was only 28.11. He had fewer assists, fewer boards, and turned it over more than McGrady did in 02-03. Do you know how old T-Mac was that year? Think about it for a sec, and then take a guess.




Ready? He was 23. Tracy McGrady, at 23, produced a better season that Kobe Bryant ever has. LeBron will probably eclipse McGrady's PER this year, but even that's not guaranteed. Tracy McGrady, at 23, had the potential to be one of the best players in NBA history. Before you say that his health would have prevented him, McGrady was relatively healthy, never playing less than 75 games after his rookie year (and, of course, the strike year).

So what happened? Did the the trade to Houston destroy his will play hard, due to his well-known hatred for Asians? At some point in his mid-20s did his natural ability start to wear down, and his play (and health) suffered due to his refusal to train enough? Would J.P. Ricciadri say that he just doesn't like basketball?

Unlike most players who don't live up to their potential, Trace McGrady actually was, at one point, one of the best players in the league. Guys like Ryan Leaf are a dime a dozen, but underachievers like McGrady are hard to come by.

Maybe he'll figure it out with age. I doubt it. He's already 29. He'll be out of the league by the time he's 35.

While I'm a huge proponent of not judging a player by team success, but I think this is one case where that sort of reasoning is appropriate. Yao brings it every night, and even if he can't stay healthy, he's not the reason the Rockets haven't won in the playoffs. If the Rockets never make it out of the first round, it's truly going to be on T-Mac.

That's why Tracy McGrady deserves to be the most hated player in the league. It's definitely not the shoes. Those first generation T-Macs were awesome.

(I tried to find a picture of them, but records of them seem to have vanished. Appropriate.)

Worst Game Ever

http://www.2ksports.com/games/mlbmanager

This has to be a joke.

The Antithesis of Clear Thinking

Mark Jackson and JVG picked their Eastern Conference Reserves during the Spurs/Lakers game, and Jackson had the nerve to pick Kendrick Perkins as his backup center.

Kendrick Perkins.

But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the failure to think rationally about basketball players - and really, players of all sports in general. The two color guys rationalized their picks (which were mostly fine) on the basis of team success. Danny Granger didn't make either guy's list. Why not? Because his team is under .500. Neither Jackson nor JVG noted that other players contribute to team success (or lack thereof). The All-Star game should be about honoring outstanding individual players. The playoffs - ultimately, the NBA title - rewards the best team. I'm fine with factoring in team success, especially when two players have performed comparably well. But when players make it solely on the basis of team play (like the hypothetical Perkins selection), voters are clearly failing to think critically.

Typical Bucks

The Milwaukee Bucks have not been a historically pathetic franchise like, say, the Clippers or the Grizzlies, but they have been pretty awful, at least since I started watching basketball. Their one good year came seven years ago, and they only won 52 games that year. This year they had an outside shot to win 45-50 games and make the playoffs (Hollinger's playoff odds have them at 51%), but then this happened.

I don't like Michael Redd. He's part of the reason Ray Ray was traded, he's one of the worst defenders in the league (scroll to the shooting guards chart and prepare to be amazed. I know the article is from 2005, but he's just as bad as he ever was), and he is a huge waste of money. That said, he's still the Bucks best player. RJ is overrated, Andrew Bogut can't stay healthy, and Skiles continues to play Ridnour despite his generally shitty play. The Bucks need Michael Redd to compete, but they really could have used him as trade bait to get some decent players or cap relief.

This is bad for the Bucks. The only bright spot is that they'll avoid the first-round sweep by the Magic/Celts/Cavs. This franchise needs some serious luck in the lottery this year, otherwise the fanbase will have nothing to look forward to. Other than Joe Alexander banging his head on the rim, of course.




Post Script- Michael Redd, being the good Christian that he is, attributed his injury to God. Apparently, God's a huge d-bag who hates the Bucks.

Reunited?

Before cutting to commercial, ABC ran a "Home of the NBA Finals" clip package that had to have been made in 2003. Unsurprisingly it featured players on the Lakers. Guess which players they featured.






Give up? Here's your answer:



(And yes, the Kobe in the commercial wore #8)

The worst part? We didn't even get a funny-because-it's-not-funny comment from JVG. As Mark Jackson says way too much, you're better than that, Jeff.

ABC: where living in the past happens.

can i get a mother fucking slaughter rule please???

So, as you may have heard, a girls basketball team (Dallas Academy) recently lost a game 0-100. Yeah that's right. Not only did they give up 100 points (first time a women's basketball game reached the century mark) but they got shut the fuck out. Now, as a member of the Rockland Raptors 5th grade basketball team we did almost shut out Butterfield-Green, but ended up winning 63-3 instead due to a Jeff Norman 3-point play (hoop and the harm style).

When I first heard this story I couldn't help but feel bad for those poor girls, but that bad feeling turned to rage when I found out that the girls of Dallas Academy are mentally challenged (retards). How in anyones right mind can you justify scoring 100 points against people who cannot tie their own shoes (velcro anyone?), let alone dribble a basketball? The coach of the opposing team should be suspended and they should have to forfiet the victory.

As I am writing this I see that the team that won actually does want to forfiet the game. Fuck that team, that's just a slap in the face, and the only thing worse than beating a mentally handicapped team 100-0 would be slapping them in the face. I hope their bus falls off a cliff in the middle of nowhere and they have to eat each other in order to stay alive.

(motivatonal video Dallas Academy watches before each game)

Please Help

"There is only one place I know that combines tiny balls, plastic cups and vats of beer. Besides Jose Canseco's house, that is."

This is the first line in Rick Reilly's latest column. It is an awful joke. I was going to make fun of how bad the joke is (it's really, really bad), but instead I simply want some clarification. Why would he reference Jose Canseco's house? What about Canseco makes him think he'd have tiny balls, plastic cups, and vats of beer? I get the tiny balls (you zinged him good, Reilly!), but why the plastic cups and vats of beer? I must be missing something. Someone enlighten me. I guess it's just a bad day to be an atheist.

Mike and Mike (Novy) in the Morning

Yesterday on ESPN2’s First Take, ESPN’s two biggest boobs this side of Colleen Dominguez, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless, engaged in a battle over who deserved the MVP thus far of the young NBA season. Screamin’ A chose to defend the LeBron camp, while Bayless went against the Candyman (shocker) and took the side of Dwyane Wade. While ripping on Bayless and A is fun, I have to take a shot at beloved radio Jew and metrosexual Mike Greenberg for his comments today.

[Aside: I’ve long wondered why people like Mike and Mike They get solid guests for the most part, I’ll give them that. And they can be entertaining on occasion when doing songs or skits, though those are primarily put together by their producers and writers. Overall, they’re not nearly as fun to listen to as local radio. Greenberg and Golic have no personality. There are no gimmicks, and the two really not that funny themselves. At least Northwestern alum Greenberg comes off as relatively intelligent…usually. End aside.]

In reference to the Smith v. Bayless debate, Greenberg responded: “I’ll tell you why both of them are wrong, and have the numerical evidence to prove it…after this!”

I spent the commercial break contemplating how Greeny was going to defend himself, while simultaneously drawing upon my Raphie-like driving abilities to prevent the Camry from skidding off the unpaved Chicago roadways en route to an icy death.

The show returned, and Greenberg introduced last night’s Lakers-Spurs game (“best game of the season!”) as the segway to his predictable choice for MVP: Kobe Bryant. What numbers was Greeny going to cite? Surely, he knew the mainstream stats…

LeBron James, CLE 32.74 PER (27.7 pts, 6.7 rbs, 6.7 ast)
Dwyane Wade, MIA 28.75 PER (28.8 pts, 7.3 ast)
Kobe Bryant, LAL 25.06 PER (27.2 pts, 4.7 ast)

Still, he had my attention. What secret formula did Greenberg have up his sleeve?

ANSWER: "Last night, in 15 fourth quarter possessions that Kobe was in the game for, the Lakers scored points on 10 of them (66%). In 8 possessions he wasn’t in, they scored twice (25%). I know the Lakers lost, but WHO ELSE COULD DO THAT? To me, KOBE is the Most Valuable Player."

That was it. That was his basis.

[Enter joke about random shitty guy with funny name having one good game and thus deserving MVP here].

Just because you put percentages in an argument doesn’t make it educated. What a fucking idiot.

I know Golic is a football meathead, but at least jump in there and tell him off; isn’t that what having two people hosting is for? I’d officially boycott Mike and Mike, but I’d rather put a gun to my head than listen to Mully and Hanley drone on about Bob Babich every damn morning. Fuck my life.

On second thought, maybe I’ll just let the Camry skid off the road next time.

Just One Player

I know that everyone and their chihuahua is sick of hearing the Favre vs. Rodgers debate, so I'm going to try really hard not to rehash it (though I'll inevitably have to). I want to make a broader point about the way we evaluate players.

Gene Wojiciechracist wrote a snotty "No I Will Not Admit I Was Wrong, I'm Not a Douche!" column about Favre vs. Rodgers last week, and in it he made the "Wins" argument, which goes something like this: Favre's Jet's had more wins, therefore, he had the better year. Exact quote- "But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six."

It's this argument I want to address. Wojciechowski isn't the only writer to make this argument, and it's not made only about football. I remember listening to Mike Greenberg talk about the NL MVP race over the summer. He said he was going to "think outside the box." Now, I don't know much about Greenberg, but I assumed by "think outside the box" he meant he was going to offer a suggestion for MVP that was not supported by the typical sportswriter BS. Instead, his "outside the box" suggestion was Manny Ramirez. This was at the time when EVERYONE was saying how Manny was an MVP candidate. I thought was going to say "Pujols should be the MVP, because he's been far and away the best player, and without him the Cardinals would be way out of the playoffs." That would be unconventional, specifically for that time (I know how the voting turned out). Instead, Greenberg offered the standard "a player on a losing team can't be the most valuable since his team is losing" crap.

My argument is this: players are not great because of their team's record; players are great because of their individual contribution to the team's success. These are fundamentally different statements. I recognize that really smart people have said some variation of this millions of times before me, but hopefully one of the Woody's of the world reads this and starts to think about players in a different way. Back to the Rodger's v. Favre to illustrate my point.

Aaron Rodgers was better this year than Brett Favre. This, in my opinion was indisputable. By every statistical measure, Rodgers was better. If Favre and Rodgers had swapped spots this year, there is no doubt in my mind that the Jets would be in the playoffs, and the Packers would be 4-12. I'm not sure if there's a WARP statistic for football, but I'd guess Rodgers was worth about 1.5-2.0 wins more than Favre this year.

The reason individual players can't be judged on overall team performance is because - now this is pretty groundbreaking - THERE ARE OTHER PLAYERS ON THE TEAM. Believe it or not, Woj, Rodgers didn't play D-line! He didn't have long hair and suck at being a linebacker and suck at being a decent a human being (that last part might be conjecture). Rodgers didn't call plays for Kuhn 15 times a game. Rodgers did, however, guide the team to a bunch of fourth quarter leads, only to see the defense squander it away. He didn't blow it like Favre by throwing a ton of picks (though there were some late in a handful of games). If the worst thing you can say about Rodgers this year was that the Packers didn't win enough games, then I want you to shut the fuck up and never talk about football again because the Packers offense was fourth in the league in scoring points and it wasn't his fucking fault that defense couldn't stop the Detroit Lions if Heidi was the QB (Heidi jokes are still topical, right? If you squint, she kinda looks like John Elway. Anyone?!!??!).

The same goes for any great player in any sport. Pujols deserved the MVP because he was, by all accounts, the best player in the league, regardless of the Cardinals' record. I think the debate about great players and MVP's comes down to this- is a player replacable? Ryan Howard got some MVP votes this year because the Phillies made the playoffs and he hit a bunch of dingers. But would anyone in their right mind say the Phillies would have been a worse team with Pujols at first than with Howard? Of course not (though most baseball writers don't fit that description).

The most adamant objections to this line of thinking come from two sources. One is winning-team bias. I discussed that above. The other is homer-bias. Homerism gets in the way of clear thinking all the time, and we're all guilty of it (except for me about Rodgers. Seriously. No, really. OK Fine, fuck you). For me, my problem was Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant has been my favorite player since Jordan retired. I got his jersey in this second or third year, his N64 video game essentially on the day it came out, and I saved the sheets from that fateful night in Colorado.* So when LeBron came along and started to knock Kobe off his "Best Player in the World" platform, I fell into the homer trap. I made the 'his teams aren't winners' arguments and the Baylessian 'He doesn't have it in the clutch' protestations. Last year, the year Kobe finally won an MVP, was the year I got my head on straight. LeBron was clearly better than Kobe last year. I'm not going to get into the stats; he just was. Look it up yourself. The Lakers had a better record merely because they had better players around Bryant. Replace Bryant with James and there's no way they lose to the Celtics. It took me a long time to realize this, but it's the sometimes painful truth.

Objective analysis isn't easy. Cliches like "He's a Winner" are easy to fall back on, but they obscure the truth. Winning is obviously the ultimate goal for any player or team. But we can't judge individual athletes based on team success. After all, they're just one player.

*My apologies. That's just gross.

The NFL: Where Logic Fails

If I were a Colts fan, I'd be absolutely livid with the NFL right now. They won the last nine games of the season and finished with a 12-4 record, good enough to be tied for second in the league. Due to the tiebreakers, they didn't get a first round bye. That part is fine.

What's not fine is that the hottest team in the National Football League had to go on the road in the first round of the playoffs and face a team that barely got into the playoffs with an 8-8 record. 8-8. That's just two games better than the fucking Packers. The Bolts got to host a playoffs game, simply because they played in a division without a team with a winning record. They got to play two games against the godawful Chiefs (coached by Joe Posnanski Herm Edwards). In short, they did not deserve to host a playoff game. Not under any circumstances.

And yet, they got to. Because, according to Commissioner Goodell, winning your division is the most important thing before the season. I don't get why these commissioners (Stern has said something to this effect as well) have such huge boners for division winners. Fine, give them a spot in the playoffs. But that doesn't mean shitty teams should get an advantage in the playoffs over good teams. Arizona and the Chargers both won tonight over teams with better records, in part because they had home field advantage.

Thanks, Commissioner. I really hope the Superbowl is Buzzsaw (9-7) v. Bolts (8-8). That'll teach you to favor division winners.

P.S.- They oughta fix the damn overtime rules while they're at it. Yet again, the team that won the coin toss won the game. Sudden death might be alright for the regular season, but teams should be required to play at least one full quarter. Random chance shouldn't determine playoff victors. Talent and, you know, skill, should.

Chase Daniel Tasty Picks of the Week (NFL Playoff Boogers)

Your picks, in the comments!

Murn-dawg


WHYYYYYY???

Falcons over Cardinals
Eagles over Vikings

Panthers over Falcons
Eagles over Giants

NFC Title: Panthers over Eagles


Dolphins over Ravens
Colts over Chargers

Steelers over Dolphins
Colts over Titans

AFC Title: Colts over Steelers

Super Bowl: PANTHERS over Colts


Cor Cor


Yayayay I know you'd pick me if you could!

Falcons over Cardinals
Vikings over Eagles

Panthers over Vikings
Giants over Falcons

NFC Title: Giants over Panthers



Dolphins over Ravens
Colts over Chargers

Colts over Titans
Steelers over Dolphins

AFC Title: Colts over Steelers

Super Bowl: COLTS over Giants

Krunk Khann



Cardinals over Falcons
Eagles over Vikings

Panthers over Cardinals
Eagles over Giants

NFC Title: Eagles over Panthers


Ravens over Dolphins
Colts over Chargers

Colts over Titans
Ravens over Steelers

AFC Title: Colts over Ravens

Super Bowl: COLTS over Eagles

Philip Rivers!

Not to turn this blog into the 24/7 Philip Rivers blog, but it appears to me that Philip Rivers is now a MVP candidate.  

1) Going into the day he led the league in every relevant passing statistic.  His 290 yard, 4 TD day further separated him (statistically) from the rest of NFL passers.

2) Before the Broncos went 2004 Yankees on us, Rivers was just a guy piling up numbers on a bad team - which, unless you're laying the lumber to Madonna, will not garner you any MVP votes.  Now with a great shot at winning the division and a trip to the playoffs, voters can consider him a member of a "winning" team (they'll only be .500, but will have won their division). 

3) He has done it all by himself.  With LT on injured reserve all season (I assume that's where he has been because I haven't seen him this fall), opponents bribing Hochuli, the shitty Merrimanless-defense, and a most likely liquored-up head coach, Rivers has had zero help.

4) At this point there is really only one other viable candidate, Peyton Manning.  Kurt Warner was a comedy act today (30 yards), Peterson literally fumbled away his chances, and Brees' team is irrelevant.  The Colts have a good record, but only recently has Peyton played like an elite QB. 

As with every major sports award it's not how you start, but how you finish.  If we look ahead to next week we can easily see a scenario in which Rivers emerges the MVP.  

Peyton Manning, playoff slot secured, will give way to Sorgi sometime in the second quarter of a meaningless game.

Philip Rivers will have the opportunity to throttle the shitty Denver defense while singlehandedly leading his Chargers out of their grave and into the playoffs - with all the MVP voters tuned in to this winner-take-all showdown. 

*It should be noted that I hate Philip Rivers.  He throws like Murnane and seems like a huge dickface, but he's having himself a great year.  If I had my way Aaron Rodgers and Derrick Rose would split the MVP award.  

Would this be the first time the MVP hasn't made the Pro Bowl?

No T.A. McClendon, No Pro Bowl.

Phil Rivers not making the AFC Pro Bowl roster? 

Let's do the ole Player A - Player B comparisons

Player A - 3515 yds, 28 TDs, 11 INTs, 101.4 rating

Player B - 3052 yds, 21 TDs, 17 INTs, 86.5 rating, oodles of pixie dust

Favre (obviously "Player B") gets in on reputation alone and that's unfortunate for Rivers ("Player A"), who has better passing numbers than every player in the NFL.  

Kudos Random Internet Poster

I stole this off of some comment section on a Bulls blog.  This guy is speaking of the Bulls of 2006 compared to today's Bulls.  Good comment...grammar and spelling need work though.

This is almost the exact same team and I have the complete opposite opinion of the roster now then I did then.  I feel like the embarrassed restaurant owner when  Gordon Ramsey (Derrick Rose) comes into fix the disaster. I am embarrassed Rose has to play with these guys and I am embarrassed I cheer for a team Larry Hughes plays on.  I don't know where I am going with this other then to express frustration and confusion as to how a team can go from all that is good to all that is bad in one season with no explanation. Thank God for Derick Rose.

MVP Watch, Intelligent Person Style

Over on ESPN.com, Maurice Brooks runs a weekly Awards watch column, and I have to say I think his MVP ranks are ill-informed at best. My main beef concerns the player ranked #2 on his list- Kobe Bryant.

Anyone who knows me knows that Kobe is my favorite player. He's great, he's clutch, and above all, he's an unrelenting competitor. That's why I love watching him play. But to say that he's been the second most valuable player in the year so far is - even to me - ridiculous.

The main reason it's ridiculous is that he's averaging a mere 33.5 minutes per game, down from an average of about 40 for the last four years. A guy averaging only 33.5 minutes per cannot, by definition, be the league's most valuable player.

You might argue that he's been so good in those 33.5 minutes per that he's still deserving of the award. But to believe that, his per minute numbers would have to be through the roof. They're not. His Hollinger PER is 24.8, which, while very good, isn't in the ballpark of guys like LeBron, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, or Dwyane Wade.

This year, Kobe's numbers and minutes will suffer because the team around him is very, very good. If Kobe were the main reason that the Lakers are playing so well this year relative to last year, I might be convinced by the Kobe-for-MVP talk. But he's not. The main reasons are

a) the return of Andrew Bynum
b) the renewed commitment to defense
c) the incredible depth of the bench, and particularly the emergence of Ariza and Farmar.

Kobe clearly plays an integral role; he's definitely the best player on the team. But he gets lots and lots of help. To be the Most Valuable Player, in my book, you have to play lots of minutes and play them very well. Kobe's got the second part of that down, but unless he starts racking up the minutes, he doesn't deserve to be a top 5 MVP candidate.

Here's my list:

1. LeBron James

The numbers speak for themselves: 27.8 ppg, 32.6 PER, 7.2 boards and 6.4 assists per game. He's only playing 35.7 minutes per, but he's playing them so efficiently that he's the best MVP candidate so far. Mo Williams has been a good addition, but he really hasn't been that good (only 15.92 PER, 15.7 ppg, 4.6 assists. Pretty much a league average PG). The Cavs are great because of #23.

2. Dwyane Wade

Lots of turnovers, yes (4.0 per game), but he's been so dominant, the Heat might actually make the playoffs with a terrible roster (You know you're bad when Chris Quinn gets burn). His per is nearly as good as LBJ's (31.3), and he's playing a good 37.1 minutes per game. With his track record of injuries, there's a good chance he'll miss time. Not really fair to hold that against him at this point.

3. Chris Paul

After last year, it's no longer a debate- Chris Paul is the best point guard in the league. He's better than Nash was in his MVP years, and it's not even close. His PER, 31, is very good, and his team is a solid 9-6, despite not having a bench and diminished play from David West and Tyson Chandler.

4. Dwight Howard

Best center in the league. He's averaging huge numbers yet again, and he's only going to get better as the year goes on. Oh, and Rashard Lewis decided to not practice in the off-season (3pt and FG % down 4% from last year), and they're still off to a 13-5 start.

5. Ramon Sessions








Just kidding.


5. Devin Harris

Harris has been basically unstoppable this year. The Nets were projected to be one of the worst teams in the East, and he's been the main reason why they're not. His stats are through the roof, and he's come up clutch time and again late in games for the Nets. He probably won't be here at years end (I can think of a guy in Toronto who will take his spot), but he's very deserving at this point. Glad to see the former Badger succeed.


The only difference between my list and Brooks' is Harris/Kobe, and I flipped the order around a bit. So his list isn't that bad. However, I don't think it's much of a debate- Kobe hasn't been the 2nd most valuable player so far this year.

The Brothers Gasol

Is it possible that the Lakers got shafted last year? Did they receive the lesser Gasol brother? If we take an extraordinarily small sample size, like the majority of analysts do (see the moronic Eli vs. Peyton debate), the answer is yes. 27 and 16 is pretty solid, even if it was against the Warriors.

So is Marc > Pau? Obviously not. But perhaps Memphis got more than we originally though.

Statistics Are For Losers

So says Keyshawn Johnson. Here are a few losers:

Jerry Rice
Joe Montana
Tom Brady
Babe Ruth
Hank Aaron
Michael Jordan
Brett Favre
Peyton Manning
Wayne Gretzky


All losers who accumulated a bunch of statistics but never won anything of any value. What's that? They're like, the best players ever who all won titles? Oh. Well. Santana Moss is more of a winner, anyway.



Whatever. This was basically typical ESPN 'unconventional wisdom.' Nothing really out of the ordinary, but I'm so damn sick of the 'he's a winner' style of analysis. What a bunch of bullshit. If it weren't for John Hollinger, Rob Neyer, Peter Gammons, and Keith Law, I'd give up on ESPN completely.

P.S.- a very long, angry post on the recent Wojciechowski and Reilly columns will be posted shortly.

I wish I was a little bit taller

According to ESPN.com, the Lakers and Andrew Bynum just agreed to a contract extension. Before I mention the nuts and bolts of the deal, here are a few things I find interesting:

Andrew Bynum is 21. This past Monday, he (presumably) drank his first legal drop of alcohol. Bynum has averaged 7.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, and 19.3 minutes per game for his career. Last year - his best year - he averaged 13.1, 10.2, and 28.8. In 35 games.

Andrew Bynum will make an average of 14 million dollars per year over the next three years. By the time he is 24, he will have made 42 million dollars.

Now, I'm a huge believer in the free market. If the Los Angeles Lakers want to pay Bynum 42 million dollars (and yes, I know he'll more than likely be really good), that's their right. But, wow. I think John McCain can offer America a substitute to his original economic surplus plan. Everyone be 7'1'' and good at basketball.

MLB FAST FACT!!!

In case you weren't paying attention to the telecast of Game 2 of the World Series, there's this...

NL DH's in the World Series have hit .079 over the last 5 years

Unreal. To think this huge discrepancy is based on the ASG... COR COR, DEFEND YOUR BOY- what was Bud thinking!?

NFL Week 8 Thoughts and/or Musings

Totally random thoughts. This is what a blog is for though, right? Right?

KING OF THE CASSEL, KING OF THE CASSEL
Stat of the Week (courtesy of Peter King): “Tom Brady/Matt Cassel early-career comparison, taking Brady's first six starts and measuring them against Cassel's first six professional games, here are a few good nuggets. Record: Brady 4-2, Cassel 4-2. Passing yards: Brady 1,105, Cassel 1,095. Completion rate: Brady .632, Cassel .663.”
(Holy small sample size, Cor Cor!)

Matt Cassel is NOT, nor will he ever be, Tom Brady, but let’s not forget that Brady didn’t exactly look like a future Hall of Famer his first year or two, either. (For what it’s worth, if you look at Brady’s full first year, the stats are virtually identical to what Cassel is on pace for) Yes, Cassel has Randy Moss, but he’s been thrown into an even worse situation than the Golden Boy, having to carry a team with championship aspirations. And Cassel has handled the weight of a title-caliber franchise pretty damn well; can you honestly say they don’t still have those aspirations…? Randy Moss, Wes Welker, one of the top three offensive and defensive lines in the NFL…

It says here the Pats catch Tricky Dick Jauron, limp-armed Trent Edwards and the Bills in the AFC East, host a Wild Card game, and very well could win the wide-open AFC outright…even with Cassel at the helm. Who else do you trust to beat a Bill Belichick-coached team in a playoff game? The Kerry Collins-led Tennessee Titans? The Roller Coaster Chargers? Maybe Pittsburgh…and I still like the Colts to figure themselves out and rep the AFC in the Super Bowl…but I would not be shocked whatsoever if the Pats make big noise in the ‘offs. Don’t act like Rodney Harrison matters.

Yes, it’s only one game, and maybe I’m guilty of being brainwashed by ESPN’s one-week conclusion-drawing ways, but the New England D showed how good it can be in shutting down the NFL’s most explosive offense on Monday night. And with all the uncertainty swirling around Tom Terrific’s defunct knee, Cassel could very well be back at the beginning of next year, running the show…perhaps with a ring.

ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS…
Player A: 1668 yards, 12 TD, 4 INT, 98.8 Passer Rating
Player B: 1669 yards, 10 TD, 4 INT, 91.4 Passer Rating
Player C: 1531 yards, 8 TD, 7 INT, 80.0 Passer Rating

A is Aaron Rodgers, B is Captain Neckbeard, and C is Peyton Manning– albeit with one less game than the first two. The fact that this is even close blows my mind.

HOUSTON ROCKETS
Watch out for the Texans. They started the season 0-4 after a brutal schedule (@ PIT, @ TEN, @ JAX, IND – which they should have won), and things looked dire for Gary Kubiak. After that, though, they won against the Dolphins and Lions, and could easily take another 4 of their next 6 (CIN, @ MIN, BAL, @ IND, @ CLE, JAX) to get to .500 heading into the stretch run. Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson have looked unstoppable in the past three weeks, and Steve Slaton is bringing a new dimension to the offense. Murnane’s big cuz Kyle could indeed have a say in the playoff picture before all is said and done.

CHANGING OF THE GUARD?
For years, the AFC has been the dominant conference, with the Pats and Colts consistently being the two best teams in the league, and the Steelers and Chargers as good as anyone in the inferior conference. But 2008 is the year of change (sorry), and the NFC is out of control this year. Barring major injuries or letdowns, there are going to be at least four teams that feel they could win the conference who won’t even make the playoffs.

Only 6 of the following 11 teams will get to the tournament: Arizona, Green Bay, Chicago, New York Giants, Philadelphia, Washington, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Carolina, New Orleans, and Atlanta. Even if you throw out Matty Ice and the Dirty Birds as a fluke (which you shouldn’t, with that run game), there’s going to be a lot of disappointment going around. Packers and Bears fans, I’m talking to you…there’s no way both of the NFC North teams make the tournament.

PACKER WATCH
(A certain Irishman and I discussed this today)

Keeping in mind that the chances are exceedingly slim that the Packers and Bears both sneak into the playoffs, 11 wins is always enough to grab a spot, and 10 is usually good. Can the Pack grab 6-7 W's?

Here's what the final 9 games shape up as: @Ten, @Min, CHI, @NO, CAR, HOU, @Jax, @Chi, DET.

I definitely don't see a 7-2 finish, and 6-3 appears to be a stretch. Maybe it's the nature of this insane season, but the only sure win in there seems to be the season finale against the toothless Lions. They'll have to hope to win 2 of the other 3 remaining home games (Chicago, Carolina, Houston). To get to that mystical 10 win spot, that leaves a necessary 3 triumphs in those 5 tough roadies (Tennessee, Minnesota, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Chicago). Not seeing it.

Meanwhile, here's what the Bears have left: DET, TEN, @GB, @Stl, @Min, JAX, NO, GB, @Hou.

Many more winnable games for Chicago.

The verdict? Protect Lambeau, let the passing game go wild in domes, sneak an upset at one of their AFC South foes, and hope for Matt Forte's untimely demise. Otherwise, the Bears (the NFL's top scoring team, somehow) look like a good bet.

Good for you!

From "Woofeza":

"I don't get tired of watching baseball after any amount of games."

We're all proud of you.

Stephen A. Jr.

This post is pointless. Don't read it. Really. All I want to say is this:



Eric Young ("E Y") hurts my ears. And my brain. Karl Ravech: please smack him. I beg you.



That is all.

ESPN Featured Comment

"David Price does not give the Rays an edge in the bullpen. The Phils pen is pretty solid."

-wbc2067

Again, ESPN.com doesn't seem to care too much about articles. I'm supposed to believe David Price does not give the Rays an edge in the bullpen? That's right, it doesn't help to have a guy who throws a 96 mph fastball and an 88 mph slider. A guy who has had nothing but success at every level he's pitched. A guy who threw two nearly flawless innings to close out Game 7 of the ALCS. Yeah, that sounds awful. Tough luck, Rays.


Now, if wbc2067 had written:

"David Price does not give the Rays the edge in the bullpen. The Phils pen is pretty solid."

I wouldn't have a problem with the featured comment. But, of course, the editors of ESPN.com don't give a shit. That's why they're paying Rick Reilly millions of dollars to make bad jokes.

ALCS Brief Review

As a Brewers fan, I had little vested interest in who won the ALCS. I have a semi-soft spot in my heart for the Red Sox - I've been to Fenway twice, and both times it was an incredible experience. Of all the parks I've been to, Fenway was the most memorable.*

I should probably say, "positively memorable." Olympic Stadium in Montreal was truly a memorable experience. What a shit hole. I remember driving up to it with my dad, and - at the age of 12 - thinking how ugly and monstrous the thing was. If I had been a few years younger, I would have had nightmares. The inside wasn't much better. The concourses were dungeonesque, and the view from the stands (we had great seats, by the way) was pretty awful. I wish I remembered more about the players, because those Montreal teams always had big names. But no, I just remember the crappy stadium.

Anyway, I don't hate it when the Red Sox win. But I have to say that I'm glad the Rays pulled off the victory in Game 7. Not because I hate the Red Sox, or that I enjoy watching dynasties fail. In fact, I love dynasties. Watching great teams succeed is what sports is all about. Who wants to watch a bunch of mediocre teams battle it out to find out who's the least bad? One Tampa Bay-Oakland Super Bowl was enough for me.

No, I'm glad that the Rays won because, hopefully, it will make people question their blind commitment to the idol that is momentum- specifically in baseball. When the Rays went up 3-1, no one gave the Sox a chance. When the Sox won back to back games to make it 3-3, few people gave the Rays a chance to win Game 7. Yet, they did. Why? Here's why:

They are a good baseball team. They really wanted to win. Both teams wanted to win equally. Their pitcher in Game 7 threw a 95 mile per hour fastball with considerable movement. They strung together a few hits against the opposing pitcher, and scored a few runs. Aybar hit a bomb.

You know, "Baseball."

Players don't magically lose their ability to play because of a couple of losses, especially over the course of a 180 game season. "Momentum" has very little to do with it. Talent, team health, and luck are pretty much what decide who wins and loses.

So, will we hear announcers ditch the fallacies of experience and momentum next year? Doubtful.

I don't remember who said it first (probably KT, Junior, or dak), but politics and announcing are the two professions where you can say pretty much anything you want, without any evidence whatsoever, and get away with it.

________________


Update: I decided to look up the 1998 Expos roster. Here's the who's who:

Best Hitter: Vlad Guerrero
Best Pitcher: Dustin Hermanson
Closer: Ugueth Urbina (Lucky I got out of there alive, am I right? ... I'll stop, seriously)
Funniest Player: Jose Vidro - In 218 AB's, his OPS+ was 60. This was at age 23. He SLG'd .278. He OBP'd .310. He was awful then. He is awful now. To be fair, from 1999-2007, he was an above average MLB hitter every year except 2006. The problem? He's a frickin' DH or first-baseman. Vidro has amassed career earnings of over 40 million dollars. You read that correctly. $40,000,000.

Honorable Mentions: The Lesser Maddox (Brewers pitching coach Mike Maddox), Mike Grudzielanek, and Carl Pavano.

This was sorta fun. I think I'll do this with other team ballparks I visited but can't remember the players. Toronto, Boston, Detroit, Pittsburgh (that should be fun), Minnesota, and probably some more teams no one cares to read about.