Poor Kobe Bryant. He’s not only threatening to become the best player since Michael Jordan, he’s also threatening A-Rod and Barry Bonds for the crown of America’s Most Hated Athlete.
Thanks to MJ, we'll never be able to fully appreciate Kobe's brilliance. Well, ok that and the fact he forced himself on a 19 year old as a married man...and tried to force a trade at the beginning of this eason and then magically backed off when Pau Gasol fell out of the sky...and forced Shaq out of town on a rail…and forced roughly 97 shots in his first all-star game...
Ok so I guess Kobe has contributed plenty to ruin his own reputation, by trying to force himself to be someone he’s not. Newsflash: Kobe is NOT Michael Jordan. While I think basketball fans worldwide have grasped this concept, it’s about time Kobe did too. This is not a knock on Bryant, who during these playoffs has clearly established himself as the best player on the planet (yes I am aware Lebron James is alive and well. I’m also aware that wherever he is right now, Bronbron’s working a lot harder to become The Global Icon than he is on a mid range jumper or any semblance of post moves), it’s just that we can tell Kobe’s trying a little too hard off the court to please us. And he needs to stop.
Look, on the court, if you can just forget about all the off-court stuff, he has been A-MAZE-ING to watch during these playoffs. Did he deserve the regular season MVP? No. Still should have been Chris Paul. Will he be the Finals MVP in June of 2024 when this series finally ends (we’re assuming it’ll have started by then. Not sure though. Let’s take more time to start the series and in between games. Brilliant)? No doubt. Dare I say it, but he’s taking over playoff games in similar fashion as a certain #23 did for the Bulls in his prime. His performance has been bigger than the 31.9 pts, 6.1 boards and 5.8 assists he’s been averaging this spring; it’s the WAY he’s been doing all of this. Deferring to his teammates early, trusting them enough to make plays, and then taking over down the stretch. The game 5 victory summed up what Kobe’s become: 17 of his 39 points in the fourth quarter as he brought the Lakers back from 17 down in the second half to take the series. And honestly, when the Spurs had the big lead early in the third, didn’t you just KNOW the Lakers were coming back, and Kobe was going to be the one leading them? And unlike Bronbron, he’s not trying to the rim 1-on-5 or firing up ridiculous fade-away 3’s. Because Kobe has actually worked his ass off on his midrange jumper, he can hit those all night, forcing the defense to play him honestly, which gives him the opportunity to get to the rim uncontested over and over.
And I don’t see this changing against the Celtics. Boston has nobody that guard him 1-on-1, and they can’t employ the “All Hands on Deck!” strategy to swarm him when he drives, because he’ll either a) hit the 12 footer or b) his teammates will kill them. I don’t care how good Boston’s D is because the Lakers with a healthy Pau Gasol have been flat unstoppable (and just wait until they get Andrew Bynum back next season. Dynasty anyone?). I’ll take the Lakers in 6, but could see it over in 5 pretty easily.
ANYWHO, back to Kobe. On the court he’s been other-worldly: Cool, calm and collected, an absolute assassin. Nothing forced, nothing contrived. Off the court? Um yeah he’s the complete opposite. He fake-laughs at jokes, tries to play nice with the media, and act like a fun-loving guy. Except he’s not, and he never will be. He could win 10 titles (and again, if Bynum comes back anywhere close to 100% next year, it’s really not out of the question) and he’ll still never EVER be considered as good as Jordan because of how Kobe’s handled himself.
See this is the most underrated part of the Greatness of Michael Jordan: it’s not just how well he played on the court, but how well he handled himself off the court. His public persona was ALWAYS classy, confident and in control. He had charm, personality and charisma that you just can’t teach, but the brilliance of Jordan, and those in his inner circle, was that he made sure this is the only Jordan you ever knew.
A friend of a friend told a story at my buddy Sheldon’s wedding (not during the wedding mind you. Sometime during that weekend. Sitting around a lake and drinking Kokanee was involved) about seeing MJ in a restaurant he worked at. Jordan and his crew sat in the back, and Mike spoke, how do I say this…”Eubonics” (ok that’s the whitest thing I’ve ever written, but I can’t think of how else to say it). Jordan spoke like he was from the hood, talking smack and sounding as black as any rapper on MTV. The Sports Guy has told a couple of stories like this where you don’t see the “Corporate MJ” but instead the “Black MJ” which is probably more who he really is. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, it’s just that in his playing days, he never let the media and public see this part of him. And it’s not like this part of him wasn’t there. Not only that, he was also so bloody competitive in his playing days that he was as bad a teammate or worse as Kobe has ever been (if you’re interested, read a book by Chicago Tribune columnist Sam Smith called The Jordan Rules. It’s an incredible behind-the-scenes look where you see how much of an a-hole Jordan could be. The guy hated to lose so much that he refused to workout with his teammates because Horace Grant could lift more than he could.)
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is Jordan was, or at least could be, just as much as an arrogant a-hole as Kobe is, but he was just much, much better at hiding it. Jordan’s big mistake, his gambling problems, were also a lot more forgiveable than what Kobe did (if you’re scoring at home, and you become famous and screw up, make sure your problems are either alcohol or gambling related. People will forgive you for that. Just ask Brett Favre. But getting on a 19 year old when you’re supposed to be rehabbing your knee, or jumping into a hot tub with high school girls- I’m talking to YOU Mark Chmura!- yeah people will not be so willing to forgive you for that one. Like ever. Good luck living that down. Oh and don’t do steroids and then lie about it. Also a bad one), although I think Kobe’s potential to supplant MJ was over even before his fated rehab in Colorado, because he was always trying way too hard to be MJ. His first all-star game when he shot 12 million times ticked off more than just the players- it ticked off the fans too, and they’ve generally been against him ever since.
And again, this is not to say Kobe’s as good a player as Jordan- he’s not. I’d take Jordan in his prime 100% of the time over Kobe. But I’m saying that even if Kobe continues the dominance he’s shown this spring for the next five or six years and goes onto shatter all the career scoring records, he’ll still never be considered the greatest player ever because people just don’t like him.
Personally, I think he needs to stop forcing the “nice-guy” routine and just embrace his inner A-Hole. I don’t watch fake-wrestling, but I understand there’s good guys and bad guys, and that Hulk Hogan once switched to the bad guys and wore all black and tried to become the villain. Kobe needs to do the same thing. I mean, if people hate him already, what does he have to lose? Why not go all-out with the Dr. Evil/Cobra Commander/Darth Vader thing? Always wear black and refer to himself in the third person. Constantly tell us how great he is and how much everybody else sucks. Club baby seals, clear cut forests, don’t recycle, say he hates white people, have sharks with fricken lasers on their heads. Do whatever will really upset the masses, then go out on the court and continue to destroy people.
If he’s destined to be the guy people hate to love he might as well put his efforts into being the guy we love to hate. So put away the Come Fly With Me videos and start watching Dr. Evil, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Hillary Clinton, and work to be The Villain we know he can be.
It’s fricken freezing in here Mr. Bigglesworth!
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Solution to the OJ Mayo Problem
Not only do the Minnesota Timberwolves have the worst GM in the NBA (especially with the recent firings of Billy Knight in Philly and Isiah Thomas in New York), but they also have the worst luck when it comes to NBA Lottery ping-pong balls. Yes they did have the league’s third-worst record and got the third pick, but when Chicago gets the #1 pick when they had only a 2% chance to do so, well, you can’t help but feel a little frustrated. Picking third means they miss out on the two can’t miss prospects in the draft in the Best Player In the Draft Derrick Rose and The Guy Who Will Go First Michael Beasley. After that, it’s a pretty sketchy group with very few if any sure things. Right now NBA draft guru Chad Ford has Minnesota taking Stanford 7 footer Brook Lopez, which would be funny if it wasn’t destined to happen. Lopez definitely qualifies as a Big Ugly White Center, and sometime before the draft I’ll explain why you never take one of those in the first round. Ever! I don’t care what Chad Ford or any other draft expert says: Lopez is the next Andrew Bogut.
Anyway, someone else who is sure to be on the Wolves radar is OJ Mayo, who is getting attention these days for all the wrong reasons (after the Reggie Bush fiasco resulted in nothing, if USC doesn’t burn for this thing with Mayo, what’s the point in all of these NCAA rules? Actually what’s the point of all of these NCAA rules anyway. I think they call that a segue…). As I’m sure you’ve heard Mayo allegedly took cash from an agent before enrolling at USC, which woulda/coulda/shoulda made him ineligible last season. Whatever the investigation brings, Mayo will be untouched by the NCAA and making millions in the NBA by next month. Every media outlet has weighed in on the Mayo allegations, from some guy named Luke Winn on SI.com to wiley veteran sports writers Tim Keown and Gene Wojciechowski (who both used to write for SI) and college hoops guru Andy Katz on ESPN.com.
While their venom is spewed in varying directions, all four, as well as just about everyone else I’ve read or heard on the topic, come to the following conclusion: the NBA Age Limit (which says players must be 19 and/or one year removed from high school) is the problem here, and if we’d just get rid of it and allow high school kids back in the draft, we’d have a lot less OJ Mayo’s to whine about.
While they're all excellent basketball writers and smart guys, they're wrong. The Draft limit is not the problem- the NCAA is. And getting rid of the draft age limit is not the solution: the solution is a true minor league system.
Allow me to explain…
Look I don't disagree that this whole convoluted system of trying to push basketball players through college for a year or two is messed up, or that the high school and AAU scenes are flawed and in bad need of an overhaul. But the fact is, 18 year old kids are NOT ready for the NBA. I know, I know, Lebron James was 18 when he took the league by force. No argument there. Good lord look at his numbers from his 18 and 19 year old seasons:
2003-04 39.5 MINS 20.9 PTS 5.5 REB 5.9 AST 41.7 FG% 18.3 PER
2004-05 42.4 MINS 27.2 PTS 7.4 REB 7.2 AST 47.2 FG% 25.74 PER
Holy cripes that is sick and wrong! Let there be no doubt that King James was ready, and is the most physically gifted basketball player we've ever seen. But please, somebody, ANYBODY, give me another example from the last 40 years, other than Moses Malone, of a teenager who was ready to jump into the league, be a starter and make an impact. These two are the exception, people: NOT THE RULE.
I also hear from those who oppose the age limit "Look at the best players in the league! Look at how many of them never went to college! Lebron! Kobe! KG! D-Howard! T-Mac! Amare!" While it's true that these stars have been very successful in the NBA without spending one single solitary second on a college campus, there is still ZERO evidence to suggest that jumping straight to the NBA from high school was the best way to develop their skills.
Here are the numbers for the aforementioned NBA superstars for their teen years after high school (KG, Howard, and Amare were all 19 their rookie year. Oh, and remember a PER of 15 is league average):
Kobe Bryant
96-97 15.5 MINS 7.6 PTS 1.9 REB 1.3 AST 41.7 FG% 14.4 PER
97-98 26.0 MINS 15.4 PTS 3.1 REB 2.5 AST 42.8 FG% 18.5 PER
Kevin Garnett
95-96 28.7 MINS 10.4 PTS 6.3 REB 1.6 BLK 49.1 FG% 15.8 PER
Dwight Howard
04-05 32.6 MINS 12.0 PTS 10.0 REB 1.7 BLK 52 FG% 17.27 PER
Tracy McGrady
97-98 18.4 MINS 7.0 PTS 4.2 REB 1.5 AST 45 FG% 17.4 PER
98-99 22.6 MINS 9.3 PTS 5.6 REB 2.3 AST 43.6 FG% 20.6 PER
Amare Stoudamire
02-03 31.3 MINS 13.5 PTS 8.7 REB 1.1 BLK 47.2 FG% 16.23 PER
Not exactly Lebron-type impacts, were they? While they all became stars by their third season, they were not taking over the league as rookies. And while you could argue that the on-the-job training they got as rookies were better than college or any minor leagues 1) we don't know that for sure and 2) what about all the high school flameouts we've seen? Guys like Dajuan Wagner, Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Gerald Green, and many more were teenagers when they came into the league and never made it because either the pressure of starting was too much, or they were buried on the bench and never got the chance. And sure, some of them might not have made it no matter what the system in place was, but shouldn't we have more options for development than trying to crack an NBA roster at 18 or 19?
NBA rosters are small, and there just isn’t playing time for everybody there. The NBA is not a developmental league, and it shouldn’t be. What is needed is a real minor league system for basketball. Baseball, hockey, and even international soccer have excellent developmental pro leagues. They are allowed to draft kids right out of high school, yet instead of having them toil on the end of the bench, they’re sent to the minors, or back to juniors or college (in hockey’s case), or are loaned out to play for smaller clubs (soccer). They can develop at their own pace, and when they’re ready to make an impact, then, and only then, do they get the call up to the big club.
EVERYONE benefits from this system. Pros can select kids and don’t have to worry about developing them on the fly, and the players get put in an environment more conducive to them learning the pro game. Everyone wins. So why hasn’t this happened with basketball? One word, or acronym: The NCAA.
The NCAA has been exposed as a poor way of developing NBA talent. Too many restrictions and not enough practice time means players don’t get the coaching or development time to make them effective pros. Would it make any sense to tell accounting students “you can only use your calculator for your homework for 10 hours per week.”? Of course not, yet the NCAA limits practice and game time for college athletes in much the same who are trying to learn their craft to become professionals.
The NCAA continues to and will forever try to hold onto the crock of sh*t that men’s football and basketball players are students athletes who are there to get an education and, oh by the way make universities and their presidents billions by playing sports. There’s a gigantic double-standard here for these two sports over any other that both the NCAA and Title IX will never allow us to handle properly.
First, the NCAA will NOT give up the billions of dollars they make off of football and basketball and share it with the players. Will never happen. Paying players in these two sports would alleviate the problem of agents or booster paying players illegally. It needs to happen but never will because the NCAA will not share, and nobody can force them to. Furthermore, even if that system ever started, the fine folks who continue to champion Title IX would never allow only male football and basketball players to get paid because that wouldn’t be fair to the women (not to mention male wrestlers, golfers, baseball players, or track athletes. But conveniently the male athletes in non-revenue sports never seem to get brought up by the feminists), even though, you know, the massive revenues are being made by men in these two sports.
The thought has been floated of shoe contract money going to the players instead of the coaches, but again the lovely folks of Title IX would sue until it was spread to all athletes for “fairness and equality”. Awesome, and it doesn’t solve the problem. The NCAA could also allow high school graduates to be drafted but not signed. If a kid wants to go to school first, he goes, and while he does not sign a contract or get any money from the team, he is under that team’s control for the next four or five years. When he’s ready to leave school- be it after one year of four- he the signs a pro contract and either joins the pro team or is sent to the minors. For the life of me I have been able to find an explanation on why the NCAA allows this for hockey, and yet does not for baseball, basketball, or football.
College basketball as it stands has passed its usefulness for developing pro players, and the only solution for the “one-and-dones” and creepy agent guys and tag-alongs is to make a real minor league. And don't even get me started on the NBA's current "developmental league", the NBDL. It has 14 teams with no affiliations to NBA teams. What the NBA needs are 30 minor league teams divided into three 10 team leagues. 8 teams make the playoffs in each league to give players more experience and playing time, and then the three league champs play a round-robin-style “Champions League” tourney to crown the minor league champ.
Each NBA team would have its own roster to fill with players that they could call up or send down, just like in baseball or hockey. The young kids would have a chance to develop at their own pace with proper coaching and LOTS of practice. Older vets and fringe players would also be given a better opportunity to make an impression. Not only that, all of your players would be playing NBA-style basketball instead of college or FIBA international rules.
This is the obvious solution, and yet no one seems to understand it. What's more, instead of each NBA team being forced to fund a WNBA team, why not have them fund something that will actually benefit themselves and the sport by funding a minor league team of their own? Instead of drafting kids who aren't ready for the league and hoping like hell that throwing them into the fire will teach them to play in the NBA, teams could draft kids on potential and know they'd have time to train and develop them properly. Yes, Lebron, KG, and Kobe may have benefited eventually from not going to college, but for many more we’ll never know what could have been.
Anyway, someone else who is sure to be on the Wolves radar is OJ Mayo, who is getting attention these days for all the wrong reasons (after the Reggie Bush fiasco resulted in nothing, if USC doesn’t burn for this thing with Mayo, what’s the point in all of these NCAA rules? Actually what’s the point of all of these NCAA rules anyway. I think they call that a segue…). As I’m sure you’ve heard Mayo allegedly took cash from an agent before enrolling at USC, which woulda/coulda/shoulda made him ineligible last season. Whatever the investigation brings, Mayo will be untouched by the NCAA and making millions in the NBA by next month. Every media outlet has weighed in on the Mayo allegations, from some guy named Luke Winn on SI.com to wiley veteran sports writers Tim Keown and Gene Wojciechowski (who both used to write for SI) and college hoops guru Andy Katz on ESPN.com.
While their venom is spewed in varying directions, all four, as well as just about everyone else I’ve read or heard on the topic, come to the following conclusion: the NBA Age Limit (which says players must be 19 and/or one year removed from high school) is the problem here, and if we’d just get rid of it and allow high school kids back in the draft, we’d have a lot less OJ Mayo’s to whine about.
While they're all excellent basketball writers and smart guys, they're wrong. The Draft limit is not the problem- the NCAA is. And getting rid of the draft age limit is not the solution: the solution is a true minor league system.
Allow me to explain…
Look I don't disagree that this whole convoluted system of trying to push basketball players through college for a year or two is messed up, or that the high school and AAU scenes are flawed and in bad need of an overhaul. But the fact is, 18 year old kids are NOT ready for the NBA. I know, I know, Lebron James was 18 when he took the league by force. No argument there. Good lord look at his numbers from his 18 and 19 year old seasons:
2003-04 39.5 MINS 20.9 PTS 5.5 REB 5.9 AST 41.7 FG% 18.3 PER
2004-05 42.4 MINS 27.2 PTS 7.4 REB 7.2 AST 47.2 FG% 25.74 PER
Holy cripes that is sick and wrong! Let there be no doubt that King James was ready, and is the most physically gifted basketball player we've ever seen. But please, somebody, ANYBODY, give me another example from the last 40 years, other than Moses Malone, of a teenager who was ready to jump into the league, be a starter and make an impact. These two are the exception, people: NOT THE RULE.
I also hear from those who oppose the age limit "Look at the best players in the league! Look at how many of them never went to college! Lebron! Kobe! KG! D-Howard! T-Mac! Amare!" While it's true that these stars have been very successful in the NBA without spending one single solitary second on a college campus, there is still ZERO evidence to suggest that jumping straight to the NBA from high school was the best way to develop their skills.
Here are the numbers for the aforementioned NBA superstars for their teen years after high school (KG, Howard, and Amare were all 19 their rookie year. Oh, and remember a PER of 15 is league average):
Kobe Bryant
96-97 15.5 MINS 7.6 PTS 1.9 REB 1.3 AST 41.7 FG% 14.4 PER
97-98 26.0 MINS 15.4 PTS 3.1 REB 2.5 AST 42.8 FG% 18.5 PER
Kevin Garnett
95-96 28.7 MINS 10.4 PTS 6.3 REB 1.6 BLK 49.1 FG% 15.8 PER
Dwight Howard
04-05 32.6 MINS 12.0 PTS 10.0 REB 1.7 BLK 52 FG% 17.27 PER
Tracy McGrady
97-98 18.4 MINS 7.0 PTS 4.2 REB 1.5 AST 45 FG% 17.4 PER
98-99 22.6 MINS 9.3 PTS 5.6 REB 2.3 AST 43.6 FG% 20.6 PER
Amare Stoudamire
02-03 31.3 MINS 13.5 PTS 8.7 REB 1.1 BLK 47.2 FG% 16.23 PER
Not exactly Lebron-type impacts, were they? While they all became stars by their third season, they were not taking over the league as rookies. And while you could argue that the on-the-job training they got as rookies were better than college or any minor leagues 1) we don't know that for sure and 2) what about all the high school flameouts we've seen? Guys like Dajuan Wagner, Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Gerald Green, and many more were teenagers when they came into the league and never made it because either the pressure of starting was too much, or they were buried on the bench and never got the chance. And sure, some of them might not have made it no matter what the system in place was, but shouldn't we have more options for development than trying to crack an NBA roster at 18 or 19?
NBA rosters are small, and there just isn’t playing time for everybody there. The NBA is not a developmental league, and it shouldn’t be. What is needed is a real minor league system for basketball. Baseball, hockey, and even international soccer have excellent developmental pro leagues. They are allowed to draft kids right out of high school, yet instead of having them toil on the end of the bench, they’re sent to the minors, or back to juniors or college (in hockey’s case), or are loaned out to play for smaller clubs (soccer). They can develop at their own pace, and when they’re ready to make an impact, then, and only then, do they get the call up to the big club.
EVERYONE benefits from this system. Pros can select kids and don’t have to worry about developing them on the fly, and the players get put in an environment more conducive to them learning the pro game. Everyone wins. So why hasn’t this happened with basketball? One word, or acronym: The NCAA.
The NCAA has been exposed as a poor way of developing NBA talent. Too many restrictions and not enough practice time means players don’t get the coaching or development time to make them effective pros. Would it make any sense to tell accounting students “you can only use your calculator for your homework for 10 hours per week.”? Of course not, yet the NCAA limits practice and game time for college athletes in much the same who are trying to learn their craft to become professionals.
The NCAA continues to and will forever try to hold onto the crock of sh*t that men’s football and basketball players are students athletes who are there to get an education and, oh by the way make universities and their presidents billions by playing sports. There’s a gigantic double-standard here for these two sports over any other that both the NCAA and Title IX will never allow us to handle properly.
First, the NCAA will NOT give up the billions of dollars they make off of football and basketball and share it with the players. Will never happen. Paying players in these two sports would alleviate the problem of agents or booster paying players illegally. It needs to happen but never will because the NCAA will not share, and nobody can force them to. Furthermore, even if that system ever started, the fine folks who continue to champion Title IX would never allow only male football and basketball players to get paid because that wouldn’t be fair to the women (not to mention male wrestlers, golfers, baseball players, or track athletes. But conveniently the male athletes in non-revenue sports never seem to get brought up by the feminists), even though, you know, the massive revenues are being made by men in these two sports.
The thought has been floated of shoe contract money going to the players instead of the coaches, but again the lovely folks of Title IX would sue until it was spread to all athletes for “fairness and equality”. Awesome, and it doesn’t solve the problem. The NCAA could also allow high school graduates to be drafted but not signed. If a kid wants to go to school first, he goes, and while he does not sign a contract or get any money from the team, he is under that team’s control for the next four or five years. When he’s ready to leave school- be it after one year of four- he the signs a pro contract and either joins the pro team or is sent to the minors. For the life of me I have been able to find an explanation on why the NCAA allows this for hockey, and yet does not for baseball, basketball, or football.
College basketball as it stands has passed its usefulness for developing pro players, and the only solution for the “one-and-dones” and creepy agent guys and tag-alongs is to make a real minor league. And don't even get me started on the NBA's current "developmental league", the NBDL. It has 14 teams with no affiliations to NBA teams. What the NBA needs are 30 minor league teams divided into three 10 team leagues. 8 teams make the playoffs in each league to give players more experience and playing time, and then the three league champs play a round-robin-style “Champions League” tourney to crown the minor league champ.
Each NBA team would have its own roster to fill with players that they could call up or send down, just like in baseball or hockey. The young kids would have a chance to develop at their own pace with proper coaching and LOTS of practice. Older vets and fringe players would also be given a better opportunity to make an impression. Not only that, all of your players would be playing NBA-style basketball instead of college or FIBA international rules.
This is the obvious solution, and yet no one seems to understand it. What's more, instead of each NBA team being forced to fund a WNBA team, why not have them fund something that will actually benefit themselves and the sport by funding a minor league team of their own? Instead of drafting kids who aren't ready for the league and hoping like hell that throwing them into the fire will teach them to play in the NBA, teams could draft kids on potential and know they'd have time to train and develop them properly. Yes, Lebron, KG, and Kobe may have benefited eventually from not going to college, but for many more we’ll never know what could have been.
Friday, May 09, 2008
75 Skills Every Man Should Master
Bruce Feldman writes a great college football blog for ESPN.com which is, of course, Insider only, so there's no point in linking to it. Every Friday, even today in the off-season, he goes through the ol' mailbag, and then at the end will throw in random things. One today caught my eye: Esquire's list of 75 Skills Every Man Should Master. Like I wasn't going to take a look at that?
Feldman had a few he added that I liked...
Be able to start a conversation with the person next to you on a plane even if you don't find them attractive.
Get your point across on e-mail without starting a fight.
Get up-and-down out of a bunker.
Be able to hit to the opposite field in a softball game.
Know how to set your buddy up with someone in the bar while not getting yourself caught up in the mix.
Learn when it's acceptable to remark, 'Yeah, she is good-looking' while in the company of your girlfriend/wife.
Know when to not take things too seriously.
I think those are all good. From the actual List...
5 I Really Liked
3. Take a GOOD photo.
Maybe this is an obvious one for some people, but I took a photography class last fall, and learned some amazing things. While I'm not expecting every man to be a professional photographer, there are some really basic things every guy should know about taking a picture.
10. Buy/Own a good suit.
I have one, but it's old so I could use an upgrade.
14. Chop down a tree.
Or chop wood. In the winter. At the BS. Naked. BEEEEEGGGG SAAAAAAMMMMMMMMM!!!!
23. Be loyal.
Enough said.
65-67. Throw a baseball over-hand with some snap. Throw a football with a tight spiral. Shoot a 12-foot jump shot reliably.
The first two I can do. The 12 foot jumper? Not so much. Of course, The Dan believes in the "12 foot Jumper Gene", meaning you're either born with the ability to hit the 12 footer, or you're not. I am not. But I will keep trying.
5 I Really Didn't Like
16. Tie a bow tie
The only time I've worn a bow tie is for weddings, and they were the clip-type. I don't need a bow tie for any other occasion. Tying a tie? Mandatory.
20. Sew a button
That's what my wife is for! Oh wait, I don't have a wife.
29. Understand quantum physics well enough that he can accept that a quarter might, at some point, pass straight through the table when dropped.
I don't even understand the question.
31. Make a bed.
I can make a bed, but if we're talking "Martha Stewart-style with no wrinkles, everything creased and perfect", that's ridiculous. I can make it look presentable, but anything beyond that is unnecessary for a man.
64. Know that Christopher Columbus was a son of a bitch.
I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, all I'm saying is I can come up with 75 more important skills/things every man should master than this.
5 I Want to be Better at...
8. Not Monopolize the conversation.
My problem is actually the complete opposite of this. At times I am horribly awkward with conversations, and need to do a better job of carrying them.
18. Speak a foreign language.
Since Josh and I went to Europe, it's always something I've wanted to do
36. Make three different bets at a craps table.
If I can ever get any of you fine upstanding gentlemen that I am proud to call my friends to Vegas or into a casino, I'd really like to play craps.
37. Shuffle a deck of cards.
Holy shinto do I suck at this! And I have big hands. No excuse. This needs to improve.
75. Negotiate a better price.
I'm getting better at bartering/negotiating/haggling. Better, but still a ways to go.
5 I Would Add...
Don't make excuses.
Try to understand the other side of an argument (you don't have to agree with it, just make the attempt to understand it).
Be able to play a musical instrument.
Be able to tell one good story.
Be decisive.
Feel free to add your own. Have a good weekend.
Feldman had a few he added that I liked...
Be able to start a conversation with the person next to you on a plane even if you don't find them attractive.
Get your point across on e-mail without starting a fight.
Get up-and-down out of a bunker.
Be able to hit to the opposite field in a softball game.
Know how to set your buddy up with someone in the bar while not getting yourself caught up in the mix.
Learn when it's acceptable to remark, 'Yeah, she is good-looking' while in the company of your girlfriend/wife.
Know when to not take things too seriously.
I think those are all good. From the actual List...
5 I Really Liked
3. Take a GOOD photo.
Maybe this is an obvious one for some people, but I took a photography class last fall, and learned some amazing things. While I'm not expecting every man to be a professional photographer, there are some really basic things every guy should know about taking a picture.
10. Buy/Own a good suit.
I have one, but it's old so I could use an upgrade.
14. Chop down a tree.
Or chop wood. In the winter. At the BS. Naked. BEEEEEGGGG SAAAAAAMMMMMMMMM!!!!
23. Be loyal.
Enough said.
65-67. Throw a baseball over-hand with some snap. Throw a football with a tight spiral. Shoot a 12-foot jump shot reliably.
The first two I can do. The 12 foot jumper? Not so much. Of course, The Dan believes in the "12 foot Jumper Gene", meaning you're either born with the ability to hit the 12 footer, or you're not. I am not. But I will keep trying.
5 I Really Didn't Like
16. Tie a bow tie
The only time I've worn a bow tie is for weddings, and they were the clip-type. I don't need a bow tie for any other occasion. Tying a tie? Mandatory.
20. Sew a button
That's what my wife is for! Oh wait, I don't have a wife.
29. Understand quantum physics well enough that he can accept that a quarter might, at some point, pass straight through the table when dropped.
I don't even understand the question.
31. Make a bed.
I can make a bed, but if we're talking "Martha Stewart-style with no wrinkles, everything creased and perfect", that's ridiculous. I can make it look presentable, but anything beyond that is unnecessary for a man.
64. Know that Christopher Columbus was a son of a bitch.
I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, all I'm saying is I can come up with 75 more important skills/things every man should master than this.
5 I Want to be Better at...
8. Not Monopolize the conversation.
My problem is actually the complete opposite of this. At times I am horribly awkward with conversations, and need to do a better job of carrying them.
18. Speak a foreign language.
Since Josh and I went to Europe, it's always something I've wanted to do
36. Make three different bets at a craps table.
If I can ever get any of you fine upstanding gentlemen that I am proud to call my friends to Vegas or into a casino, I'd really like to play craps.
37. Shuffle a deck of cards.
Holy shinto do I suck at this! And I have big hands. No excuse. This needs to improve.
75. Negotiate a better price.
I'm getting better at bartering/negotiating/haggling. Better, but still a ways to go.
5 I Would Add...
Don't make excuses.
Try to understand the other side of an argument (you don't have to agree with it, just make the attempt to understand it).
Be able to play a musical instrument.
Be able to tell one good story.
Be decisive.
Feel free to add your own. Have a good weekend.
I hate Toronto
If you're living in America and can actually watch the Lakers/Jazz game tonight, I hope you enjoy it. If you live in Canada, welcome to hell. The D-bags in Toronto that run the three "sports" networks are carrying the Blue Jays (they're Canada's team you know!), Cars Turning Left For Four Hours, and Fake Wrestling. I hate Toronto.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The NBA: Where Gawd Awful Happens
Wow. If you managed to watch the entire Celtics/Cavs game last night without a) gouging your eyes out with a pen, the remote, or any other sharp or blunt object b) throwing said pen, remote, or sharp or blunt object through your TV or c) wondering why there was a WNBA game on instead of an NBA playoff game, well, good for you. That was really, REALLY tough to watch- like tough enough to ask this question: would you rather watch last night's game again or a WNBA game courtside? I know, of course you're going to take a repeat of last night's game, but still, it was bad enough to at least ask the question (we've been blogging here for how long now and STILL can't find anything worse than watching a WNBA game: the impossible quest continues).
So for the record, in case any of a-c happened to you while attempting to watch, it was a 76-72 Celtics victory. Yes, that's with four full quarters. 76-72. Every year I hope the Eastern Conference has left the Knicks/Heat 70-68 playoff battles of the 90's behind for good, and every year they throw up at least one of these. The Cavs shot 30% as a team. All we were missing from them for a full-fledged WNBA game were some set shots, 20-30 jump ball tie-ups on rebounds where two players go for a board but neither has the strength to rip it away from the other, and...what else am I missing here? Oh yeah, lesbians. Way too many "heteros" in the crowd last night. ANYWHO, Bronbron went 2-18 from the field with 10 turnovers. I expect this in the regular season but I never EVER thought Stern would allow this in the post-season. As bad as Cleveland is, and after last night's game there is no longer any doubt they're bad, I thought once the playoffs started Bronbron would get the "D-Wade 2006 Title Run" treatment from the refs where he could drive 1-on-5 all night and as long as he got near the rim he'd get calls all night long. Well it didn't happen, and you can credit the Celtics D for that.
Chuck Barkley made the comment in the post game (albeit about 77 times, but still) that all night the Cavs tried to set-up Bronbron at the top of the key and either a) run the pick and roll with a big man or b) let him go 1-on-5. Well the Celtics were ready for it each and every time. When they'd run the pick and roll, the C's would send two guys after Lebron and force him to give it up, sometimes sagging a third and fourth white shirt into the lanes. And if he tried to go 1-on-5, again, two guys there at all times, with Celtics three, four, and five not far behind. Barkley also made the point that the one time, late in the game, when they ran a pick-and-roll with Boobie Gibson, the Celtics again doubled Bronbron, leaving Gibson wide open. What happened? Gibson buried the 3! So what'd the Cavs do the next time down? To quote Sir Charles "THEY RUN IT WITH THE BIG MAN AGAIN! IDIOTS!" Thank you Charles.
Seriously, is it that hard to make adjustments? Can you not see after the first half that giving Lebron the ball 25 feet from the rim at the top of the key is not working? "The Best Studio Show In Sports", which is Inside the NBA, had some other nuggets as well. Chris Webber pointed out that teams like the Lakers get Kobe the ball in the post or at the elbow where he has a chance to create and NOT go 1-on-5. They get him the ball more in his comfort zone where he can be much more effective. The Cavs? Yeah not so much. This then lends to a point Kenny Smith made. It's one he's claimed he's made in the past, but since I so rarely get to watch this show living here, it's the first time I'd heard it: In games decided by 7 points or more, it's the players. In games decided by 7 points or less, it's tactical errors (i.e. coaching) that decide the game.
GREAT POINT KENNY! Chuck and CWebb all agreed, and the three of them basically pinned this on Cavs coach Mike Brown without actually saying it, and I couldn't agree with them more. Now, it certainly doesn't help that Bronbron's teammates are just awful. The obvious strategy here will be to force Lebron to give the ball up, because as they proved last night, they don't have a consistent second or third scoring option to kill you, shooting 4-18 from threes last night. Actually, they DO have a decent secondary scoring option in the "Big Z", but Z's only effective 8 feet from the hoop and in, and it takes 6 weeks for him to make a move down there. The one guy they have who can help Lebron hurts him because his style is completely different. These are things you'd think would have been obvious to GM Danny Ferry when they gave Big Z that huge extension a few years back, but hey, they won't have to worry about this chemistry issue in 2 years when Lebron's playing in Brooklyn.
So the obvious strategy for game 2 then is to run pick and rolls with a guard setting the screen, making the Celtics decide whether they should double Lebron and leave a Boobie Gibson (2-6 FG's last night, 44% from 3 this season), Wally World (5-14 FG, 41% 3 this year. And by the way, Wally last night was doing what Wally always should have done in Minnesota. Shoot the damn ball when he's open. That's it. He didn't take more than a dribble or two without giving it up or having some idea where he was going. And the shots he missed were generally open looks. This is what Wally is and always should have been: a third or fourth option spot-up jump shooter) or Delonte West (2-10 FG, 35% 3's this year). The answer to me is STILL to double Lebron and have somebody else (i.e. whoever's guarding Ben Wallace or Joe Smith- two COMPLETE non-factors offensively) rotate over to get a hand in the shooter's face. You CANNOT allow Lebron to go to work 1-on-1, and I'd be shocked if the Celtics allow it to happen. Even if you're leaving some Cavs guards open for 3's, I'd much rather take my chances with those than Bronbron driving, scoring, and racking up fouls on you.
Further screwing the Cavs is that Kevin Garnett is going to absolutely, positively destroy them all series. Last night's 28 point barrage is just the beginning for him (did you also notice he took a HUGE crunch time shot last night and made it?). He not only can score at will over Ben Wallace or Joe Smith, but neither of those guys are going to make KG work AT ALL the other end. Garnett, who is at his best defensively as an off-the-ball defender, can roam like a free safety all series helping on Bronbron or the open wing shooter because Wallace and Smith don't need to be guarded. The two played a combined 47 minutes at power forward last night. The combined totals? 2-6 FG, Wallace hit 2 FT's (a total fluke), with 12 boards, 3 assists, 2 blocks, and 3 turnovers. 2-6 FG's? In 47 minutes? That's the most telling stat of all last night, and there's absolutely nothing Cleveland can do. A Ben Wallace or Joe Smith are fine if you have four or five others around them who can score. Well the Cavs have one guy who can do that, and the other, The Big Z, needs a football field of room to have space to make his moves. Unfortunately having Wallace or Smith clear out to give Big Z room isn't an option either because, again, the further away from the basket they get, the more useless they are on that end.
I know Cavs fans are going to say "well our best player shot 2-18 and got no calls all night, and we STILL had a chance to win!" To which I say, "while Lebron will have better games, so too will Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, which means the outcomes will still come down to what it did tonight: Cleveland has no answer for Garnett, no secondary scoring options, and in a close game, I like Boston's chances better than yours." Pierce and Ray-Ray will not combine for 4 points again, and unless Lebron starts going for 50 a night, which unless we get a "D-Wade against Dallas"-level performance from the refs will be impossible against Boston, I just don't see how Cleveland wins here. It's a testament to just how amazing Lebron is that the Cavs have even gotten this far, but it's as far as they're going. Boston wins game 2, the Cavs take game 3, and the C's rap it up in 5. Just in case we get 4 more stinkers like last night, I thought I'd save you the agony of having to sit through it. You're welcome.
So for the record, in case any of a-c happened to you while attempting to watch, it was a 76-72 Celtics victory. Yes, that's with four full quarters. 76-72. Every year I hope the Eastern Conference has left the Knicks/Heat 70-68 playoff battles of the 90's behind for good, and every year they throw up at least one of these. The Cavs shot 30% as a team. All we were missing from them for a full-fledged WNBA game were some set shots, 20-30 jump ball tie-ups on rebounds where two players go for a board but neither has the strength to rip it away from the other, and...what else am I missing here? Oh yeah, lesbians. Way too many "heteros" in the crowd last night. ANYWHO, Bronbron went 2-18 from the field with 10 turnovers. I expect this in the regular season but I never EVER thought Stern would allow this in the post-season. As bad as Cleveland is, and after last night's game there is no longer any doubt they're bad, I thought once the playoffs started Bronbron would get the "D-Wade 2006 Title Run" treatment from the refs where he could drive 1-on-5 all night and as long as he got near the rim he'd get calls all night long. Well it didn't happen, and you can credit the Celtics D for that.
Chuck Barkley made the comment in the post game (albeit about 77 times, but still) that all night the Cavs tried to set-up Bronbron at the top of the key and either a) run the pick and roll with a big man or b) let him go 1-on-5. Well the Celtics were ready for it each and every time. When they'd run the pick and roll, the C's would send two guys after Lebron and force him to give it up, sometimes sagging a third and fourth white shirt into the lanes. And if he tried to go 1-on-5, again, two guys there at all times, with Celtics three, four, and five not far behind. Barkley also made the point that the one time, late in the game, when they ran a pick-and-roll with Boobie Gibson, the Celtics again doubled Bronbron, leaving Gibson wide open. What happened? Gibson buried the 3! So what'd the Cavs do the next time down? To quote Sir Charles "THEY RUN IT WITH THE BIG MAN AGAIN! IDIOTS!" Thank you Charles.
Seriously, is it that hard to make adjustments? Can you not see after the first half that giving Lebron the ball 25 feet from the rim at the top of the key is not working? "The Best Studio Show In Sports", which is Inside the NBA, had some other nuggets as well. Chris Webber pointed out that teams like the Lakers get Kobe the ball in the post or at the elbow where he has a chance to create and NOT go 1-on-5. They get him the ball more in his comfort zone where he can be much more effective. The Cavs? Yeah not so much. This then lends to a point Kenny Smith made. It's one he's claimed he's made in the past, but since I so rarely get to watch this show living here, it's the first time I'd heard it: In games decided by 7 points or more, it's the players. In games decided by 7 points or less, it's tactical errors (i.e. coaching) that decide the game.
GREAT POINT KENNY! Chuck and CWebb all agreed, and the three of them basically pinned this on Cavs coach Mike Brown without actually saying it, and I couldn't agree with them more. Now, it certainly doesn't help that Bronbron's teammates are just awful. The obvious strategy here will be to force Lebron to give the ball up, because as they proved last night, they don't have a consistent second or third scoring option to kill you, shooting 4-18 from threes last night. Actually, they DO have a decent secondary scoring option in the "Big Z", but Z's only effective 8 feet from the hoop and in, and it takes 6 weeks for him to make a move down there. The one guy they have who can help Lebron hurts him because his style is completely different. These are things you'd think would have been obvious to GM Danny Ferry when they gave Big Z that huge extension a few years back, but hey, they won't have to worry about this chemistry issue in 2 years when Lebron's playing in Brooklyn.
So the obvious strategy for game 2 then is to run pick and rolls with a guard setting the screen, making the Celtics decide whether they should double Lebron and leave a Boobie Gibson (2-6 FG's last night, 44% from 3 this season), Wally World (5-14 FG, 41% 3 this year. And by the way, Wally last night was doing what Wally always should have done in Minnesota. Shoot the damn ball when he's open. That's it. He didn't take more than a dribble or two without giving it up or having some idea where he was going. And the shots he missed were generally open looks. This is what Wally is and always should have been: a third or fourth option spot-up jump shooter) or Delonte West (2-10 FG, 35% 3's this year). The answer to me is STILL to double Lebron and have somebody else (i.e. whoever's guarding Ben Wallace or Joe Smith- two COMPLETE non-factors offensively) rotate over to get a hand in the shooter's face. You CANNOT allow Lebron to go to work 1-on-1, and I'd be shocked if the Celtics allow it to happen. Even if you're leaving some Cavs guards open for 3's, I'd much rather take my chances with those than Bronbron driving, scoring, and racking up fouls on you.
Further screwing the Cavs is that Kevin Garnett is going to absolutely, positively destroy them all series. Last night's 28 point barrage is just the beginning for him (did you also notice he took a HUGE crunch time shot last night and made it?). He not only can score at will over Ben Wallace or Joe Smith, but neither of those guys are going to make KG work AT ALL the other end. Garnett, who is at his best defensively as an off-the-ball defender, can roam like a free safety all series helping on Bronbron or the open wing shooter because Wallace and Smith don't need to be guarded. The two played a combined 47 minutes at power forward last night. The combined totals? 2-6 FG, Wallace hit 2 FT's (a total fluke), with 12 boards, 3 assists, 2 blocks, and 3 turnovers. 2-6 FG's? In 47 minutes? That's the most telling stat of all last night, and there's absolutely nothing Cleveland can do. A Ben Wallace or Joe Smith are fine if you have four or five others around them who can score. Well the Cavs have one guy who can do that, and the other, The Big Z, needs a football field of room to have space to make his moves. Unfortunately having Wallace or Smith clear out to give Big Z room isn't an option either because, again, the further away from the basket they get, the more useless they are on that end.
I know Cavs fans are going to say "well our best player shot 2-18 and got no calls all night, and we STILL had a chance to win!" To which I say, "while Lebron will have better games, so too will Paul Pierce and Ray Allen, which means the outcomes will still come down to what it did tonight: Cleveland has no answer for Garnett, no secondary scoring options, and in a close game, I like Boston's chances better than yours." Pierce and Ray-Ray will not combine for 4 points again, and unless Lebron starts going for 50 a night, which unless we get a "D-Wade against Dallas"-level performance from the refs will be impossible against Boston, I just don't see how Cleveland wins here. It's a testament to just how amazing Lebron is that the Cavs have even gotten this far, but it's as far as they're going. Boston wins game 2, the Cavs take game 3, and the C's rap it up in 5. Just in case we get 4 more stinkers like last night, I thought I'd save you the agony of having to sit through it. You're welcome.
Monday, May 05, 2008
The NBA MVP Award: We Gave it Kobe Because We Should Have Given it to Him in 2006. Our Bad
I'm cranky tonight. Let's just get that out there now. I was all set to watch Game 2 of the Hornets/Spurs series tonight. Really, I was looking forward to it. I was looking forward to David West, the underrated All-star of underrated all-stars torching the Spurs yet again. Was looking forward to Chris Paul doing things we've never seen a six foot point guard do (Even though Paul will go down as a better player in history that Deron Williams, I will forever be ok with Utah taking Williams in 2005 3rd instead of Paul because he fits their system, which is exactly what they said on draft day. And he does. The Bucks and Hawks taking Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams ahead of both? Yeah not so much). I was just plain fired up to see the Spurs lose. I really was. But instead, three Canadian "sports" networks were treating me to WWE rastlin', Sportscentre (misspelled intentionally. Isn't that just dumb? Everyone knows it's "er".) was showing two hours of hockey highlights, and then was heading right to poker. And Sportsnet? Are you ready for this? A Canadian metric ghetto gangster raptastic show...ABOUT THE FREAKING NBA!?!?!? I can just see the genius at Sportsnet now "Hmmmm... so you're telling me we could actually show an NBA playoff game...or a ghetto gangster POS show ABOUT the NBA? Well hell, of course we'll show the ghetto gangster raptastic show! I love that one! Why would anybody want to watch the actual games?" I hate Canada.
By the way, they sure did show the Pistons/Magic game earlier though. Thanks for that. Nobody outside of Detwah or Orlando cares about that series. It's over already. Orlando will win game three because Detwah is already looking ahead to the conference Finals, and maybe they'll sneak out game four because the Pistons still won't care, but I can tell you right now the Pistons win it. I don't need to watch it, although the Dwight Howard dunk over Jason Maxiell (to show you how little I care about this series, I'm not even looking up his name to spell it right. Deal with it. I said I was cranky. Now get me a kokanee!) in the third quarter was nice. Did you see it? The one where Howard grabs an offensive board, he and Maxiel go back up at the same time, except Howard goes two feet higher and 200 times faster AND WITH TWO HANDS and thumps one on poor Maxiel? I'm enjoying the Dwight Howard Era. Not as much as I would have enjoyed the freaking Hornets/Spurs game, but still.
So anyway, before I got distracted with my hatred for Canada and it's gawd-awful pathetic excuses for sports channels, I was going to rant about Kobe Bryant getting the MVP award. It's not that Kobe's not a great player, and it's not that he wasn't in the top five finalists for the award. It's just that the voters, aka sportswriters, gave him this award not so much for what he did this year, but because he's a great player and has never won an MVP. They felt bad because they realize that Kobe should have won in 2006 instead of Steve Nash, so this year? Might as well the hell not!
Look, call me crazy, and many have, but I like for my MVP awards to be NOT be influenced by votes for the award from past years. This is what drove me most crazy about "Steve Nash 2-time MVP!" He was not the most valuable player in the league either of the years he won it, but he WAS the MVP the year after when he should have won it! Why didn't he? Because the voters didn't want to give him three straight MVP's because of the company it would put him in! Really? So because you guys screwed up the vote the past two year's let's NOT give it to him when he most deserves it? Awesome. Great thinking. Makes a lot of sense.
ANYWAY, Kobe was certainly one of the five best players this season, as he led his team to the best record in a ridiculously deep Western Conference while averaging 28.3 points, 6.3 boards, and 5.4 assists per game. Pretty impressive numbers really, until we consider two things: 1) his culmaltive numbers the last three seasons were better and b) his teammates were a helluva lot better! OF COURSE his team did better when they fleece Memphis for Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, at least until he got hurt, morphed into an all-star caliber big man, and their young bench finally started to develop. Kobe's numbers weren't as good as the past two or three years, but because his teammates finally started playing better and his GM fleeced the Grizz for an all-star power forward, that makes Kobe the MVP? Really?
Then there's the idea of how he compares to his competition this season. ESPN.com's John Hollinger has come up with a stat called PER, which takes all the positive things you can do on a basketball court and divides them by all the negative things you can do and puts it into one number. As he himself says, this should not be considered the be-all, end-all of basketball stats, but it's certainly a damn good measurement of a player's abilities. The number one "PER rating" in the league this year (by the way, a PER of 15 is considered league average)? Lebron (PER of 29.23). Second? Chris Paul (28.39). Kobe was eighth (24.31), ranking behind Amare Stoudamire (27.61), KG (25.30), Dirk Diggler (24.66), and two Spurs Timmy Duncan (24.41) and Manu GINOBILI (sorry channeling my inner Charles Barkley there. Manu's per was 24.34).
Again, this is not the all-encompassing stat, but it's certainly a good barometer for where he ranks among his peers, and this says he was eighth. While I don't think he was eighth in the MVP race, he certainly was a long ways from first. Looking at the other guys on the list, Manu and TD cancel each other out, since both were undervalued and overlooked on yet another good Spurs team. The Diggler's Mavs team struggled to make the playoffs, and there's no way Amare gets a look at MVP when a)he plays with Nash and b) his big numbers didn't come until after the Shaq trade. So that leaves us with four guys: Kobe, LBJ, CP3, and KG.
KG's case is very similar to Kobe's. His individual numbers weren't as good as past seasons, but his teammates were much better. Garnett was deserving of the Defensive Player of the Year award, and I have no doubts he was a gigantic emotional presence on that team, but he missed too much time and to me was no more valuable that Paul Pierce. Lebron is quite simply the best player on the planet. He average 30 points, eight boards and seven assists a game. Good lord stop and look at those numbers. LOOK AT THOSE!! While Lebron never developed into the "more athletic version of Magic Johnson" that I hoped he'd become, that's still damn impressive. Beyond it really. His team, on the other hand, was and is awful. Getting them to fourth place, even in the crappy Eastern Conference, still counts as a great accomplishment in my books. If you gave Lebron the MVP for this year, I would have no problems with it whatsoever. He's the best player in the league, and if it wasn't for him, Cleveland could have quite easily been the worst team this year.
However, if I had an MVP vote (because of all the moving around I think it got lost in the mail. Then again when the Canadian postal system works by strapping your mail onto the back of a beaver and telling it "go on! Find Jeff! Go on! Find his igloo village!" well it's probably not the moving around), it would go to Chris Paul. If Paul played in New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, or anywhere else but Toronto or Memphis, he'd be the MVP in a landslide. His numbers (21.1 pts, 11.6 assts and 2.7 stls- both of which led the league- and a 4.61/1 assist-to-turnover ratio) stand alone as impressive. As Hollinger's PER stat shows, his cumulative totals were the second best in the NBA behind LBJ. His team went from 39 wins a year ago to 56 this year, good for second spot in the West. And unlike Kobe or KG, CP3 had the same core of players this year as last. While 100% of that success cannot be given to Paul, I would say he's responsible for a much larger amount of that than anyone else on the Hornets. Add it all up, and Chris Paul should be your 2007-08 MVP instead of Kobe.
But hey, look on the bright side: next season, or the year after, when the voters realized they should have given it to Paul this season, then CP3 can be given a "Lifetime Achievement" Award too!
By the way, they sure did show the Pistons/Magic game earlier though. Thanks for that. Nobody outside of Detwah or Orlando cares about that series. It's over already. Orlando will win game three because Detwah is already looking ahead to the conference Finals, and maybe they'll sneak out game four because the Pistons still won't care, but I can tell you right now the Pistons win it. I don't need to watch it, although the Dwight Howard dunk over Jason Maxiell (to show you how little I care about this series, I'm not even looking up his name to spell it right. Deal with it. I said I was cranky. Now get me a kokanee!) in the third quarter was nice. Did you see it? The one where Howard grabs an offensive board, he and Maxiel go back up at the same time, except Howard goes two feet higher and 200 times faster AND WITH TWO HANDS and thumps one on poor Maxiel? I'm enjoying the Dwight Howard Era. Not as much as I would have enjoyed the freaking Hornets/Spurs game, but still.
So anyway, before I got distracted with my hatred for Canada and it's gawd-awful pathetic excuses for sports channels, I was going to rant about Kobe Bryant getting the MVP award. It's not that Kobe's not a great player, and it's not that he wasn't in the top five finalists for the award. It's just that the voters, aka sportswriters, gave him this award not so much for what he did this year, but because he's a great player and has never won an MVP. They felt bad because they realize that Kobe should have won in 2006 instead of Steve Nash, so this year? Might as well the hell not!
Look, call me crazy, and many have, but I like for my MVP awards to be NOT be influenced by votes for the award from past years. This is what drove me most crazy about "Steve Nash 2-time MVP!" He was not the most valuable player in the league either of the years he won it, but he WAS the MVP the year after when he should have won it! Why didn't he? Because the voters didn't want to give him three straight MVP's because of the company it would put him in! Really? So because you guys screwed up the vote the past two year's let's NOT give it to him when he most deserves it? Awesome. Great thinking. Makes a lot of sense.
ANYWAY, Kobe was certainly one of the five best players this season, as he led his team to the best record in a ridiculously deep Western Conference while averaging 28.3 points, 6.3 boards, and 5.4 assists per game. Pretty impressive numbers really, until we consider two things: 1) his culmaltive numbers the last three seasons were better and b) his teammates were a helluva lot better! OF COURSE his team did better when they fleece Memphis for Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, at least until he got hurt, morphed into an all-star caliber big man, and their young bench finally started to develop. Kobe's numbers weren't as good as the past two or three years, but because his teammates finally started playing better and his GM fleeced the Grizz for an all-star power forward, that makes Kobe the MVP? Really?
Then there's the idea of how he compares to his competition this season. ESPN.com's John Hollinger has come up with a stat called PER, which takes all the positive things you can do on a basketball court and divides them by all the negative things you can do and puts it into one number. As he himself says, this should not be considered the be-all, end-all of basketball stats, but it's certainly a damn good measurement of a player's abilities. The number one "PER rating" in the league this year (by the way, a PER of 15 is considered league average)? Lebron (PER of 29.23). Second? Chris Paul (28.39). Kobe was eighth (24.31), ranking behind Amare Stoudamire (27.61), KG (25.30), Dirk Diggler (24.66), and two Spurs Timmy Duncan (24.41) and Manu GINOBILI (sorry channeling my inner Charles Barkley there. Manu's per was 24.34).
Again, this is not the all-encompassing stat, but it's certainly a good barometer for where he ranks among his peers, and this says he was eighth. While I don't think he was eighth in the MVP race, he certainly was a long ways from first. Looking at the other guys on the list, Manu and TD cancel each other out, since both were undervalued and overlooked on yet another good Spurs team. The Diggler's Mavs team struggled to make the playoffs, and there's no way Amare gets a look at MVP when a)he plays with Nash and b) his big numbers didn't come until after the Shaq trade. So that leaves us with four guys: Kobe, LBJ, CP3, and KG.
KG's case is very similar to Kobe's. His individual numbers weren't as good as past seasons, but his teammates were much better. Garnett was deserving of the Defensive Player of the Year award, and I have no doubts he was a gigantic emotional presence on that team, but he missed too much time and to me was no more valuable that Paul Pierce. Lebron is quite simply the best player on the planet. He average 30 points, eight boards and seven assists a game. Good lord stop and look at those numbers. LOOK AT THOSE!! While Lebron never developed into the "more athletic version of Magic Johnson" that I hoped he'd become, that's still damn impressive. Beyond it really. His team, on the other hand, was and is awful. Getting them to fourth place, even in the crappy Eastern Conference, still counts as a great accomplishment in my books. If you gave Lebron the MVP for this year, I would have no problems with it whatsoever. He's the best player in the league, and if it wasn't for him, Cleveland could have quite easily been the worst team this year.
However, if I had an MVP vote (because of all the moving around I think it got lost in the mail. Then again when the Canadian postal system works by strapping your mail onto the back of a beaver and telling it "go on! Find Jeff! Go on! Find his igloo village!" well it's probably not the moving around), it would go to Chris Paul. If Paul played in New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, or anywhere else but Toronto or Memphis, he'd be the MVP in a landslide. His numbers (21.1 pts, 11.6 assts and 2.7 stls- both of which led the league- and a 4.61/1 assist-to-turnover ratio) stand alone as impressive. As Hollinger's PER stat shows, his cumulative totals were the second best in the NBA behind LBJ. His team went from 39 wins a year ago to 56 this year, good for second spot in the West. And unlike Kobe or KG, CP3 had the same core of players this year as last. While 100% of that success cannot be given to Paul, I would say he's responsible for a much larger amount of that than anyone else on the Hornets. Add it all up, and Chris Paul should be your 2007-08 MVP instead of Kobe.
But hey, look on the bright side: next season, or the year after, when the voters realized they should have given it to Paul this season, then CP3 can be given a "Lifetime Achievement" Award too!
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Rounding Up the NBA's First Round
So whatever happened to the all-world all-time greatest playoffs ever we were supposed to get in the Western Conference? Eight teams, all of whom won at least 50 games, were separated by just seven wins. Seven. The ESPN.com panel o' experts are 10 gentlemen who write about The http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifAssociation for a living, and know what they're talking about. They, and me, and everyone else, expected an epic: instead, we got domination. While nobody picked the Nuggets to upset the Lakers, I don't think anybody picked LA to sweep either. New Orleans in five over Dallas? Not only did nobody pick that, six of ten panelists picked Dallas to win the series! San Antonio over Phoenix in 5? Seven of 10 picked Phoenix to win the series, and the three who picked San Antonio had them in six or seven games. The Utah/Houston series is the only one going according to plan, as everyone but Jalen Rose (who said Jazz in five) picked Utah to win in six or seven.
10 experts, and like everyone else, they were way off on the first round out West. My question is: should we have seen this coming? Should we have known from the way the regular season shook out that things would be so one-sided? I just don't see how. Yes Denver was dysfunctional, and Phoenix just never looked like Phoenix, and Dallas looked...well ok the Dallas loss we should have seen coming. But the other two? Hard to say.
For me, the biggest shocker, or at least most impressive showing so far had to be from LA. It's pretty obvious now that as talented as the Nuggets were, the pieces just didn't fit. Still, this team won 50 games in the regular season, the most ever for an 8 seed. To put that in perspective, they would have been a 3 seed in the East. They have two of the league's top scorers in Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson (show of hands, who thought AI's old team would last longer in the playoffs than his current team? Anyone? Yeah me neither), a defensive player of the year finalist in Marcus Camby, an outside gunner and slasher in JR Smith, and some good role guys like Eduardo Najera and Something-or-Other-Kleiza. This is a good team. They did not luck their way to 50 wins. In the East they would be right there in the conversation with Detroit and Boston. Out here? THEY GOT SWEPT. I'm trying to show you how impressive this is. It's not that I thought Denver was better than the Lakers, just that this should have been a tough series: it wasn't. LA's average margin of victory in the first three games was almost 16 points. And even the fourth game, which the Lakers only won by seven, was never really in doubt. Be afraid of LA. Be very afraid. They're just getting warmed up, and poor Utah doesn't stand a chance in the next round. Kobe could average 40 unless Andrei Kirilenko has an all-decade type performance defensively.
San Antonio showed they have plenty left, and if we don't get a Lakers-Spurs conference finals I'll be surprised. That said, the Hornets are for real, and Chris Paul will not only be a handful, but New Orleans has plenty of athletic bigs to send at Tim Duncan. Should be a long series- then again, we thought that in the first round too.
My one and only comment about the East so far:
Scary: In the five games against the Raps Dwight Howard AVERAGED 22.6 pts, 18.2 rbs, and 3.8 blks.
Scarier: Dwight Howard has no post moves. None. Have you seen him in the low post? He turns and dunks or turns and lays it in every time, and yet he still averaged 22 a night in the playoffs. Can you imagine what the young man is going to do when he develops a turn-around jumper or god forbid a hook shot? Scary, scary, SCARY!
10 experts, and like everyone else, they were way off on the first round out West. My question is: should we have seen this coming? Should we have known from the way the regular season shook out that things would be so one-sided? I just don't see how. Yes Denver was dysfunctional, and Phoenix just never looked like Phoenix, and Dallas looked...well ok the Dallas loss we should have seen coming. But the other two? Hard to say.
For me, the biggest shocker, or at least most impressive showing so far had to be from LA. It's pretty obvious now that as talented as the Nuggets were, the pieces just didn't fit. Still, this team won 50 games in the regular season, the most ever for an 8 seed. To put that in perspective, they would have been a 3 seed in the East. They have two of the league's top scorers in Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson (show of hands, who thought AI's old team would last longer in the playoffs than his current team? Anyone? Yeah me neither), a defensive player of the year finalist in Marcus Camby, an outside gunner and slasher in JR Smith, and some good role guys like Eduardo Najera and Something-or-Other-Kleiza. This is a good team. They did not luck their way to 50 wins. In the East they would be right there in the conversation with Detroit and Boston. Out here? THEY GOT SWEPT. I'm trying to show you how impressive this is. It's not that I thought Denver was better than the Lakers, just that this should have been a tough series: it wasn't. LA's average margin of victory in the first three games was almost 16 points. And even the fourth game, which the Lakers only won by seven, was never really in doubt. Be afraid of LA. Be very afraid. They're just getting warmed up, and poor Utah doesn't stand a chance in the next round. Kobe could average 40 unless Andrei Kirilenko has an all-decade type performance defensively.
San Antonio showed they have plenty left, and if we don't get a Lakers-Spurs conference finals I'll be surprised. That said, the Hornets are for real, and Chris Paul will not only be a handful, but New Orleans has plenty of athletic bigs to send at Tim Duncan. Should be a long series- then again, we thought that in the first round too.
My one and only comment about the East so far:
Scary: In the five games against the Raps Dwight Howard AVERAGED 22.6 pts, 18.2 rbs, and 3.8 blks.
Scarier: Dwight Howard has no post moves. None. Have you seen him in the low post? He turns and dunks or turns and lays it in every time, and yet he still averaged 22 a night in the playoffs. Can you imagine what the young man is going to do when he develops a turn-around jumper or god forbid a hook shot? Scary, scary, SCARY!
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Monday (Draft) Musings
Thoughts and comments from an uneducated Canadian who just wasn't that fired up for the draft this year...
VIKINGS
* While I think your Minnesota Vikings overpaid in trade for Chefs DE Jared Allen, giving up their first rounder (17 overall) and two thirds, they did get a 26 year old impact pass rusher in his prime. It's a big risk, also considering that every player in the past five years who led the league in sacks had less the following year, but in this "win-now" culture we're in, getting Allen on the field will make them much better for 2008 than any of the three picks they gave up would have made them. And I could care less about how much they're paying him. NFL contracts are fairy tales, absolute shams. They're basically year-to-year, and while he's getting a bunch of money guaranteed, Minnesota can still get out of it if needed down the road. I like that Ziggy is willing to pay big to help them win.
* Hated the 2nd round pick of safety Tyrell Johnson of Arkansas State at first. Safety? This is the biggest need on the team? With GLARING holes at WR and QB, and needing depth and perhaps a starter on the OL, they take a SAFETY? Jer talked me off the ledge, saying it was a solid pick in a spot where they'll need to replace Darren Sharper soon. I then read today that SI's Peter King loved the pick, saying Johnson was the draft's best safety and should have gone in the first round. So good value there I guess. But my draft man-crush, Texas WR Limas Sweed, was still on the board, and I still think would have been a better pick.
* On the other hand, I LOVE the JD Booty pick in the 5th round. Love it. He's the opposite of T-Jack, which I think is great. While Jackson is all arm and athleticism and untapped potential, Booty is accurate, poised, and ready-made for the West Coast Offense. It's not that I want Jackson to fail- I don't- but Booty is the perfect guy to bring in behind him if he fails.
* Not that I know anything about anything, but I know next to nothing about the Vikes late round picks. However, from everything I've heard and read Florida State defensive tackle Letroy Guion, Notre Dame center John Sullivan and Jackson State receiver Jaymar Johnson were all good late round gambles, especially Sullivan, who was the top rated center entering the season, but his stock slipped because Notre Dame sucked. Could be Birk's replacement down the line.
EVERYBODY ELSE
* Can we stop worrying about the egos of current players and how they're going to handle their teams drafting of players in the top rounds at their position? I'm sorry, is this the NFL, or Jerry Springer? If your team drafts a kid in the first or second round at your position, instead of whining and crying about it to the media like NY Jets TE Chris Baker (to which you're probably saying "who?" My thoughts exactly), why not FIGHT FOR YOUR FREAKING JOB?!?!? It's not just Baker, and seems to happen every year. Get over yourself.
It's especially true of quarterbacks, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that if you've got a young QB who's not performing, draft one high to light a fire under his ass. Worked in San Diego when Drew Brees was awful for his first three seasons. The Chargers then took Phil Rivers fourth, and Brees suddenly got it and turned into a Pro Bowl player (of course the Charge made the wrong choice and should have kept Brees but that's not the point). Last year, Cleveland had a glut of underwhelming QB options, so they gave up a king's ransom to nab Notre Dame starlet Brady Quinn. What happens? Derek Anderson, a 6th round pick on his second team, morphs into a Pro Bowl QB. So to those who were "shocked" at the Packers taking Louisville pivot Brian Brohm in the second round because they're worried about the mental and emotional stability of Aaron Rodgers I say to you: shut the front door. Brohm, who would have been a top 10 pick last year had he come out as a junior, returned to school, performed well, but his team stunk so therefore his stock dropped. So the Pack took a wise gamble on a guy (can't call him a kid. He and Matt Ryan both look like they're at least 30. They make Greg Oden look young) who could very well end up being the best QB of this draft, and sooner rather than later. If it fires up Aaron Rodgers and turns him into a Pro Bowl QB, then having a promising understudy in Brohm is either great insurance or great trade bait, but a nice problem to have. If Rodgers wilts, then now you know he was never The Guy and Brohm has a chance to step in. Apparently this makes way too much sense to some people.
* Other than that, I just wasn't real fired up for this draft. No superstars, no big names, especially at the top, and with the Vikes having no first rounder, it made it harder for me to be excited. Will say, for what it's worth, I liked the Fins taking Michigan OT Jake Long #1 overall. Tackles are always the safest bet high in a draft. Yes, there's always the possibility of a Tony Mandarich, but the flameout rate with O tackles is much, much, MUCH lower than any other position. And in a draft where there was no clear cut top player, it made even more sense.
* Finally, I'm not going to link to it because it's Insider content, but ESPN.com's Scouts Inc. guys analyzed all the picks, and I was just floored but how negative they were about EVERYBODY. Seriously, every analysis started with what said player COULDN'T do. He's not fast enough, he's not fluid, he's not explosive, he doesn't throw the deep ball well. And then towards the end would be the "However..." and they'd mention that hey maybe he's not the worst player to ever be drafted. Maybe. Maybe it's me, but if I'm evaluating players for a team, I want to tell my boss what guys CAN do. Look at the f'ing coaches tape and tell me what the guy CAN do. Who the hell goes into an interview and assesses what they CAN'T do?!?!? This is my biggest peeve about the whole draft process is players get poked and prodded and overanalyzed so much that when draft day comes all we can talk about is what they're not. They take the prototypical player for the position (who doesn't exist) and then downgrade from there. Why not look at a player's body of work ON THE FREAKING FIELD (don't even get me started about the combine. What a complete waste of time that is) and go with what he did well and from that decide if he can help you or not? I also love when they say "well he didn't play against very good competition." Really genius? IT"S COLLEGE FOOTBALL! It's all he had to go up against. What's going to be a better barometer of how good a guy's going to be? His college football career, or how he does at the combine running wind sprints and lifting weights? Drives me freaking nuts!
VIKINGS
* While I think your Minnesota Vikings overpaid in trade for Chefs DE Jared Allen, giving up their first rounder (17 overall) and two thirds, they did get a 26 year old impact pass rusher in his prime. It's a big risk, also considering that every player in the past five years who led the league in sacks had less the following year, but in this "win-now" culture we're in, getting Allen on the field will make them much better for 2008 than any of the three picks they gave up would have made them. And I could care less about how much they're paying him. NFL contracts are fairy tales, absolute shams. They're basically year-to-year, and while he's getting a bunch of money guaranteed, Minnesota can still get out of it if needed down the road. I like that Ziggy is willing to pay big to help them win.
* Hated the 2nd round pick of safety Tyrell Johnson of Arkansas State at first. Safety? This is the biggest need on the team? With GLARING holes at WR and QB, and needing depth and perhaps a starter on the OL, they take a SAFETY? Jer talked me off the ledge, saying it was a solid pick in a spot where they'll need to replace Darren Sharper soon. I then read today that SI's Peter King loved the pick, saying Johnson was the draft's best safety and should have gone in the first round. So good value there I guess. But my draft man-crush, Texas WR Limas Sweed, was still on the board, and I still think would have been a better pick.
* On the other hand, I LOVE the JD Booty pick in the 5th round. Love it. He's the opposite of T-Jack, which I think is great. While Jackson is all arm and athleticism and untapped potential, Booty is accurate, poised, and ready-made for the West Coast Offense. It's not that I want Jackson to fail- I don't- but Booty is the perfect guy to bring in behind him if he fails.
* Not that I know anything about anything, but I know next to nothing about the Vikes late round picks. However, from everything I've heard and read Florida State defensive tackle Letroy Guion, Notre Dame center John Sullivan and Jackson State receiver Jaymar Johnson were all good late round gambles, especially Sullivan, who was the top rated center entering the season, but his stock slipped because Notre Dame sucked. Could be Birk's replacement down the line.
EVERYBODY ELSE
* Can we stop worrying about the egos of current players and how they're going to handle their teams drafting of players in the top rounds at their position? I'm sorry, is this the NFL, or Jerry Springer? If your team drafts a kid in the first or second round at your position, instead of whining and crying about it to the media like NY Jets TE Chris Baker (to which you're probably saying "who?" My thoughts exactly), why not FIGHT FOR YOUR FREAKING JOB?!?!? It's not just Baker, and seems to happen every year. Get over yourself.
It's especially true of quarterbacks, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that if you've got a young QB who's not performing, draft one high to light a fire under his ass. Worked in San Diego when Drew Brees was awful for his first three seasons. The Chargers then took Phil Rivers fourth, and Brees suddenly got it and turned into a Pro Bowl player (of course the Charge made the wrong choice and should have kept Brees but that's not the point). Last year, Cleveland had a glut of underwhelming QB options, so they gave up a king's ransom to nab Notre Dame starlet Brady Quinn. What happens? Derek Anderson, a 6th round pick on his second team, morphs into a Pro Bowl QB. So to those who were "shocked" at the Packers taking Louisville pivot Brian Brohm in the second round because they're worried about the mental and emotional stability of Aaron Rodgers I say to you: shut the front door. Brohm, who would have been a top 10 pick last year had he come out as a junior, returned to school, performed well, but his team stunk so therefore his stock dropped. So the Pack took a wise gamble on a guy (can't call him a kid. He and Matt Ryan both look like they're at least 30. They make Greg Oden look young) who could very well end up being the best QB of this draft, and sooner rather than later. If it fires up Aaron Rodgers and turns him into a Pro Bowl QB, then having a promising understudy in Brohm is either great insurance or great trade bait, but a nice problem to have. If Rodgers wilts, then now you know he was never The Guy and Brohm has a chance to step in. Apparently this makes way too much sense to some people.
* Other than that, I just wasn't real fired up for this draft. No superstars, no big names, especially at the top, and with the Vikes having no first rounder, it made it harder for me to be excited. Will say, for what it's worth, I liked the Fins taking Michigan OT Jake Long #1 overall. Tackles are always the safest bet high in a draft. Yes, there's always the possibility of a Tony Mandarich, but the flameout rate with O tackles is much, much, MUCH lower than any other position. And in a draft where there was no clear cut top player, it made even more sense.
* Finally, I'm not going to link to it because it's Insider content, but ESPN.com's Scouts Inc. guys analyzed all the picks, and I was just floored but how negative they were about EVERYBODY. Seriously, every analysis started with what said player COULDN'T do. He's not fast enough, he's not fluid, he's not explosive, he doesn't throw the deep ball well. And then towards the end would be the "However..." and they'd mention that hey maybe he's not the worst player to ever be drafted. Maybe. Maybe it's me, but if I'm evaluating players for a team, I want to tell my boss what guys CAN do. Look at the f'ing coaches tape and tell me what the guy CAN do. Who the hell goes into an interview and assesses what they CAN'T do?!?!? This is my biggest peeve about the whole draft process is players get poked and prodded and overanalyzed so much that when draft day comes all we can talk about is what they're not. They take the prototypical player for the position (who doesn't exist) and then downgrade from there. Why not look at a player's body of work ON THE FREAKING FIELD (don't even get me started about the combine. What a complete waste of time that is) and go with what he did well and from that decide if he can help you or not? I also love when they say "well he didn't play against very good competition." Really genius? IT"S COLLEGE FOOTBALL! It's all he had to go up against. What's going to be a better barometer of how good a guy's going to be? His college football career, or how he does at the combine running wind sprints and lifting weights? Drives me freaking nuts!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
New Amsterdam
As I flip between the Suns/Spurs (I hate San Antonio. But damn they're still good) and Flames/Sharks, I came across this article from one of the two Vancouver dailies, and just had to share. Last Sunday, as you probably know, was April 20th, or International 4/20 day. It's a day where potheads worldwide get together and do what they do every other day: smoke pot. Here in BC it's supposed to be illegal to smoke pot, especially in the middle of downtown Vancouver. As the article there states, over 10,000 people held a "4/20 Rally" where they all smoked dope in public, surrounded by police. Guess how many people were arrested? Zero.
Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning said officers attended the rally to ensure public safety.
"I don't think anybody in this city would think it would be reasonable to go in and arrest 6,000 to 12,000 people who are smoking pot," the (police) spokesman said.
Asked if police inaction against pot-law protesters meant people are free to smoke pot in public in Vancouver, (Vancouver police Const. Tim) Fanning said police enforce the law when drug use occurs around schools and playgrounds, causes disorder or interferes with other people's lawful enjoyment of public or private spaces.
These guys would love Vancouver.
Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning said officers attended the rally to ensure public safety.
"I don't think anybody in this city would think it would be reasonable to go in and arrest 6,000 to 12,000 people who are smoking pot," the (police) spokesman said.
Asked if police inaction against pot-law protesters meant people are free to smoke pot in public in Vancouver, (Vancouver police Const. Tim) Fanning said police enforce the law when drug use occurs around schools and playgrounds, causes disorder or interferes with other people's lawful enjoyment of public or private spaces.
These guys would love Vancouver.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Monday Musings...On a Sunday
* Yes I'm starting The Musings with hockey. NHL Playoff Hockey. In the past, I've told anyone and everyone that was not a hockey fan to watch the playoffs. Just one game. Just one third period of a close game, and you would see the greatness of hockey. Watching the first round series so far, I have realized the problem with this thinking. It's not that the hockey hasn't been great so far (well unless you're a Wild fan: sorry about that). In fact, just about every series has been compelling and well played. The Caps/Flyers tilts have been my favorite so far, as two of the leagues youngest teams have squared off in as entertaining a series as I've seen in years. The pace has been VERY fast, with a lot of odd man rushes, and there's been hits galore. It seems like every time a guy has a puck and gets rid of it in his own end, he gets creamed into the boards. It's been the perfect blend of speed, agility and physicality that the game can be at its peak. If you can't watch this series and be enthralled with the game, you should hang your head in shame.
So what's the problem? The 80 freaking regular season games that come before the playoffs, that's what! I love the GAME of hockey, but cannot be bothered to watch regular season games. And keep in mind I live in one of the top two or three most NHL hockey-crazed markets in the world (For the record, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are the top 3. It's not that The Wild aren't supported well or Minnesotans don't love their team, it's just that the Wild are WAY down the pecking order for sports in the Twin Cities. The Canucks, Canadiens and the f$&*ing Maple Leafs are not just front page of the sports, their front page news anytime all the time). The Canucks themselves are an awfully boring team to watch, but it's not just them: the pace of regular season games compared to the playoffs is night and day difference. It's slower, clogged, and almost TOO physical (too much clutching and grabbing). The playoffs are a brand new Mustang while the regular season is like an 82 Chevy Suburban with an engine that's spewing oil out the exhaust.
The thing that bothers me is I don't have a clue how to fix it. While changing the rules (bigger nets, smaller goalie equipment, larger rinks?) could make the regular season better, we are clearly seeing that when teams, coaches and players are motivated to play the game the right way, that it CAN be played the right way with the current rules. So I don't get it. I guess I'll recommend that if you want to see some awesome hockey, watch the playoffs: but then don't turn a hockey game back on until next April.
* The NBA playoffs are already a day old, but there's my quick "day old preview":
I really want a Lakers/Celtics finals. I do. This would be awesome. While I think the Celtics have a REALLY good chance of getting there (John HOllinger, who I definitely have a man-crush on for his vast NBA knowledge as well as he concrete and rational way of using stats to back up his opinions, says the Celtics are way better than people think, and will cruise to the Finals. I hope he's right), I'm more worried about the LAkers. It's not that they're not good, but how amazing is it that their first round opponent, Denver, won 50 FREAKING GAMES?!?!? While it would be an upset if the Lakers lost, there's no way you could call it monumental when LA only won seven more games than Denver. I think everybody but Houston and Denver have a legit shot at getting to the Finals. After watching San Antonio survive Phoenix in double OT yesterday, I have a bad feeling the Spurs aren't quite done yet, and the Suns might be. Too quick to jump to conclusions? Maybe. But watching that game yesterday, the Spurs always had someone to take and make the big shots, whereas the Suns had trouble getting easy baskets down the stretch. They just don't have one guy who own his man and score at will. That will be a factor.
Anyway, here's my picks/hopes:
WEST
LA over Denver in 5
Utah over Houston in 5
San Antonio over Phoenix in 6
New Orleans over Dallas in 5
LA beats Utah in 7
San Antonio beats New Orleans in 6
LA over San Antonio in 7
EAST
Honestly, does anybody care what happens out there, just as long as the Celtics win the conference? Didn't think so.
Celts over Hawks in 4,
Cavs over Wiz in 6
Pistons over 76ers in 4
Magic over Raptors in 5
Celts beat Cavs in 5 (the refs- I MEAN- Lebron steals at least one game)
Pistons beat Magic in 7 (Dwight Howard becomes a household name)
Celts over Pistons in 5
Celts beat Lakers in 6
So what's the problem? The 80 freaking regular season games that come before the playoffs, that's what! I love the GAME of hockey, but cannot be bothered to watch regular season games. And keep in mind I live in one of the top two or three most NHL hockey-crazed markets in the world (For the record, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are the top 3. It's not that The Wild aren't supported well or Minnesotans don't love their team, it's just that the Wild are WAY down the pecking order for sports in the Twin Cities. The Canucks, Canadiens and the f$&*ing Maple Leafs are not just front page of the sports, their front page news anytime all the time). The Canucks themselves are an awfully boring team to watch, but it's not just them: the pace of regular season games compared to the playoffs is night and day difference. It's slower, clogged, and almost TOO physical (too much clutching and grabbing). The playoffs are a brand new Mustang while the regular season is like an 82 Chevy Suburban with an engine that's spewing oil out the exhaust.
The thing that bothers me is I don't have a clue how to fix it. While changing the rules (bigger nets, smaller goalie equipment, larger rinks?) could make the regular season better, we are clearly seeing that when teams, coaches and players are motivated to play the game the right way, that it CAN be played the right way with the current rules. So I don't get it. I guess I'll recommend that if you want to see some awesome hockey, watch the playoffs: but then don't turn a hockey game back on until next April.
* The NBA playoffs are already a day old, but there's my quick "day old preview":
I really want a Lakers/Celtics finals. I do. This would be awesome. While I think the Celtics have a REALLY good chance of getting there (John HOllinger, who I definitely have a man-crush on for his vast NBA knowledge as well as he concrete and rational way of using stats to back up his opinions, says the Celtics are way better than people think, and will cruise to the Finals. I hope he's right), I'm more worried about the LAkers. It's not that they're not good, but how amazing is it that their first round opponent, Denver, won 50 FREAKING GAMES?!?!? While it would be an upset if the Lakers lost, there's no way you could call it monumental when LA only won seven more games than Denver. I think everybody but Houston and Denver have a legit shot at getting to the Finals. After watching San Antonio survive Phoenix in double OT yesterday, I have a bad feeling the Spurs aren't quite done yet, and the Suns might be. Too quick to jump to conclusions? Maybe. But watching that game yesterday, the Spurs always had someone to take and make the big shots, whereas the Suns had trouble getting easy baskets down the stretch. They just don't have one guy who own his man and score at will. That will be a factor.
Anyway, here's my picks/hopes:
WEST
LA over Denver in 5
Utah over Houston in 5
San Antonio over Phoenix in 6
New Orleans over Dallas in 5
LA beats Utah in 7
San Antonio beats New Orleans in 6
LA over San Antonio in 7
EAST
Honestly, does anybody care what happens out there, just as long as the Celtics win the conference? Didn't think so.
Celts over Hawks in 4,
Cavs over Wiz in 6
Pistons over 76ers in 4
Magic over Raptors in 5
Celts beat Cavs in 5 (the refs- I MEAN- Lebron steals at least one game)
Pistons beat Magic in 7 (Dwight Howard becomes a household name)
Celts over Pistons in 5
Celts beat Lakers in 6
Monday, April 07, 2008
The Monday Musings
A few thoughts before Memphis takes Kansas out behind the woodshed tonight...
* Hey let's all make a big deal about Tigers freshman guard Derrick Rose, who SHOULD be the #1 pick in this June's NBA draft, missing a media session because of a stomach ache caused by eating too many gummy worms and candy. I don't know about you, but I ALWAYS ate healthy foods when I was 19, and still do to this day...or wait, no I ate horrible amounts of horrible food at horrible hours when I was 19. And 20. And 21...you get the idea. He's a college freshman, away from home for the first time, and away from mom's cooking for the first time. If the worst thing he does this season is eat too much junk food, I'd feel pretty good about if I were any NBA team with the first pick this June. Of course too much will be made of this, as well as the "fact" you just "can't" take a point guard not named Magic Johnson with the first pick. Yes I'm going to beat this to death until June's draft, and yes you're probably going to get sick of it.
* Speaking of June's draft, the NBA is going to have to come up with a new way to prevent teams from tanking to improve their draft position, because for a second straight year, at least one team is openly tanking. Last year it was the Boston Celtics and Memphis Grizzlies, whose starters magically came down with mysterious ailments that sidelined them for the last month of the season, forcing the teams to play their bench and pull people out of the stands to fill out the roster. This year it's the Miami Heat, who first shelved Dwyane Wade for the year, and now its forward Shawn Marion who's done for the season with a foot ailment of some sort. A really severe case of athlete's foot, or maybe one of those bad blisters you get from a pair of new shoes? Anyway, there's no way Marion, who over the past five years has been a real iron man by averaging 80 games a year, can play through this one. So their two best players are "out" and since beating the hapless Bucks (who aren't tanking, but are just this terrible) March 24th, the Heat have lost seven straight, six by double digits. If A-hole Stern is serious about the integrity of his league- well other than allowing a carpet-bagging redneck friend to steal a basketball team from the good people of Seattle who have supported the league for 41 years- then he's going to have to come up with something else besides the draft lottery to stop teams from tanking games. Not that I have any sympathy for the mostly bandwagon fans of Miami who live by the beach in gorgeous weather every day, but wouldn't you be a little ticked if you were paying good money to watch a team who didn't try? The Wolves are bad but at least they're trying right? Anyway, this is going longer than I planned and is an argument for another day. One thing I AM interested in is the following: the Grizz and Celts ended up with the worst possible picks they could have last year. I want to see if the Heat, who appear to be the only team openly tanking this season, end up having the same thing happen to them on ping-pong-ball-day. I mean of course it would just be, you know, coincidence because David Stern would never rig a draft to prove a point...or give the Knicks Patrick Ewing...or Michael Jordan the first pick when he was in Washington while giving the Bulls the worst possible pick they could have gotten...all just coincidence. Anyway, something to ponder.
* Don't look now but some baseball fans are in a PANIC!!!!!!! after one, count them, ONE week of baseball. ONE. Nothing like an extremely small sample size here people. Yup, the Orioles (this will not continue long) and Royals (this could- not like "World Series contender" could, but "definitely hang around .500 and make a run at the wild card" kind of could) are tops in the AL while the Florida Marlins (fiesty) and the St. Louis Cardinals (never underestimate the power of Tony LaRussa's tinted glasses. They are a baseball power unto itself, full of reverance, power, and strang wonders! Wait where was I?) lead the NL. Ben Broussard and something called Xavier Nady lead the league in homers while AJ Pierzynski (who's more annoying? AJ or Hawk Harrelson? Wait this is like the would you rather question when it's "would you rather_________ or watch the WNBA?" It's always the WNBA just as it's always Hawk Harrelson! No broadcaster is worse! Noone is more annoying! Nobody is more of a homer! Nobody makes me want to stab my eye out with a pen more! Fine, you know what? I'm throwing it down right here, right now: would you rather listen to a game called by Hawk Harrelson, or watch a WNBA game?" You have to choose one. And if you choose option c, which is "I'd rather burn in hell", just remember that under that option that while said burning is occurring, you also have to watch a WNBA game called by Hawk Harrelson. So whatever you do, don't choose c) and Jason Kendall lead their respective leagues in batting average. People, it's the first week of the season. Calm the $%&* down! This happens every year. Give it a month or two before you start heading for the ledge- well unless you're a fan of Minnesota, Seattle, San Fran or Houston, in which case, start thinking about football season.
* Or the NHL playoffs!! That's right, if you're one of the seven lucky homes in the United States that have access to some cable channel called Versus, then starting Wednesday night you too can enjoy the thrills and excitement that is Stanley Cup playoff action!! Ok seriously the NHL playoffs are always great, and the overtime games are some of the best in sports. That should be fun. I will spare you my rant on the Canucks missing the playoffs (long story short: they over-achieved last year, and this year's finish is much more indicative of their true talent level. They're not very good. They're goalie's the best in the league, their D is solid, and their forwards might be the worst in the league. Also they're boring as hell to watch. Trade the Sedins NOW before you have to pay $6 million a year each to be 2nd line players who disappear in the playoffs- just like most European forwards, and invest in good North American players who actually grow up dreaming of winning the Stanley Cup. Just a thought), and despite them not being in it, there's still plenty of intrigue. Well actually for me just with two teams: the Caps and Pens. Alex Ovechkin is the exception to the "Euros never show up in the playoffs" rule and is the best player in the league right now. If starting a franchise, he's my #1 choice. I would love, love, LOVE to see a Pens/Caps 2nd round series. It's about all I'm hoping for other than some good overall playoff hockey.
* If you're sincerely interested about the NHL playoffs, and want to listen to some guys who actually know what they're talking about, go on I-Tunes and search "Coast to Coast NHL Hockey" for the Coast to Coast NHL Hockey podcast. They're 6 guys I went to BCIT with who do a great job, really know their stuff, and they get good hockey media people from across Canada on the show. Check it out.
OK done with hockey talk, I promise. Enjoy the National Final tonight. Let's hope Kansas can make a game of it.
* Hey let's all make a big deal about Tigers freshman guard Derrick Rose, who SHOULD be the #1 pick in this June's NBA draft, missing a media session because of a stomach ache caused by eating too many gummy worms and candy. I don't know about you, but I ALWAYS ate healthy foods when I was 19, and still do to this day...or wait, no I ate horrible amounts of horrible food at horrible hours when I was 19. And 20. And 21...you get the idea. He's a college freshman, away from home for the first time, and away from mom's cooking for the first time. If the worst thing he does this season is eat too much junk food, I'd feel pretty good about if I were any NBA team with the first pick this June. Of course too much will be made of this, as well as the "fact" you just "can't" take a point guard not named Magic Johnson with the first pick. Yes I'm going to beat this to death until June's draft, and yes you're probably going to get sick of it.
* Speaking of June's draft, the NBA is going to have to come up with a new way to prevent teams from tanking to improve their draft position, because for a second straight year, at least one team is openly tanking. Last year it was the Boston Celtics and Memphis Grizzlies, whose starters magically came down with mysterious ailments that sidelined them for the last month of the season, forcing the teams to play their bench and pull people out of the stands to fill out the roster. This year it's the Miami Heat, who first shelved Dwyane Wade for the year, and now its forward Shawn Marion who's done for the season with a foot ailment of some sort. A really severe case of athlete's foot, or maybe one of those bad blisters you get from a pair of new shoes? Anyway, there's no way Marion, who over the past five years has been a real iron man by averaging 80 games a year, can play through this one. So their two best players are "out" and since beating the hapless Bucks (who aren't tanking, but are just this terrible) March 24th, the Heat have lost seven straight, six by double digits. If A-hole Stern is serious about the integrity of his league- well other than allowing a carpet-bagging redneck friend to steal a basketball team from the good people of Seattle who have supported the league for 41 years- then he's going to have to come up with something else besides the draft lottery to stop teams from tanking games. Not that I have any sympathy for the mostly bandwagon fans of Miami who live by the beach in gorgeous weather every day, but wouldn't you be a little ticked if you were paying good money to watch a team who didn't try? The Wolves are bad but at least they're trying right? Anyway, this is going longer than I planned and is an argument for another day. One thing I AM interested in is the following: the Grizz and Celts ended up with the worst possible picks they could have last year. I want to see if the Heat, who appear to be the only team openly tanking this season, end up having the same thing happen to them on ping-pong-ball-day. I mean of course it would just be, you know, coincidence because David Stern would never rig a draft to prove a point...or give the Knicks Patrick Ewing...or Michael Jordan the first pick when he was in Washington while giving the Bulls the worst possible pick they could have gotten...all just coincidence. Anyway, something to ponder.
* Don't look now but some baseball fans are in a PANIC!!!!!!! after one, count them, ONE week of baseball. ONE. Nothing like an extremely small sample size here people. Yup, the Orioles (this will not continue long) and Royals (this could- not like "World Series contender" could, but "definitely hang around .500 and make a run at the wild card" kind of could) are tops in the AL while the Florida Marlins (fiesty) and the St. Louis Cardinals (never underestimate the power of Tony LaRussa's tinted glasses. They are a baseball power unto itself, full of reverance, power, and strang wonders! Wait where was I?) lead the NL. Ben Broussard and something called Xavier Nady lead the league in homers while AJ Pierzynski (who's more annoying? AJ or Hawk Harrelson? Wait this is like the would you rather question when it's "would you rather_________ or watch the WNBA?" It's always the WNBA just as it's always Hawk Harrelson! No broadcaster is worse! Noone is more annoying! Nobody is more of a homer! Nobody makes me want to stab my eye out with a pen more! Fine, you know what? I'm throwing it down right here, right now: would you rather listen to a game called by Hawk Harrelson, or watch a WNBA game?" You have to choose one. And if you choose option c, which is "I'd rather burn in hell", just remember that under that option that while said burning is occurring, you also have to watch a WNBA game called by Hawk Harrelson. So whatever you do, don't choose c) and Jason Kendall lead their respective leagues in batting average. People, it's the first week of the season. Calm the $%&* down! This happens every year. Give it a month or two before you start heading for the ledge- well unless you're a fan of Minnesota, Seattle, San Fran or Houston, in which case, start thinking about football season.
* Or the NHL playoffs!! That's right, if you're one of the seven lucky homes in the United States that have access to some cable channel called Versus, then starting Wednesday night you too can enjoy the thrills and excitement that is Stanley Cup playoff action!! Ok seriously the NHL playoffs are always great, and the overtime games are some of the best in sports. That should be fun. I will spare you my rant on the Canucks missing the playoffs (long story short: they over-achieved last year, and this year's finish is much more indicative of their true talent level. They're not very good. They're goalie's the best in the league, their D is solid, and their forwards might be the worst in the league. Also they're boring as hell to watch. Trade the Sedins NOW before you have to pay $6 million a year each to be 2nd line players who disappear in the playoffs- just like most European forwards, and invest in good North American players who actually grow up dreaming of winning the Stanley Cup. Just a thought), and despite them not being in it, there's still plenty of intrigue. Well actually for me just with two teams: the Caps and Pens. Alex Ovechkin is the exception to the "Euros never show up in the playoffs" rule and is the best player in the league right now. If starting a franchise, he's my #1 choice. I would love, love, LOVE to see a Pens/Caps 2nd round series. It's about all I'm hoping for other than some good overall playoff hockey.
* If you're sincerely interested about the NHL playoffs, and want to listen to some guys who actually know what they're talking about, go on I-Tunes and search "Coast to Coast NHL Hockey" for the Coast to Coast NHL Hockey podcast. They're 6 guys I went to BCIT with who do a great job, really know their stuff, and they get good hockey media people from across Canada on the show. Check it out.
OK done with hockey talk, I promise. Enjoy the National Final tonight. Let's hope Kansas can make a game of it.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Final Four Musings: Memphis 78 UCLA 63
Well my final of UCLA/North Carolina is going down in flames as we speak. Memphis dominated the Bruins earlier, and now Kansas is taking it to a level beyond domination as they're up 31-10 on Carolina midway through the first half. Some thoughts on the second half of the first game (I was looking for apartments during the first half).
* I had only seen Memphis play once before the Tourney, in their only loss of the season to Tennessee. In that game, while the Tigers certainly looked athletic and plenty talented, they didn't look any better than Tennessee, and ended up losing because of their free throw shooting. My thinking heading into the tourney was that yes, the Tigers are freakishly athletic and pretty damn talented, but they would eventually run into someone else who was just as good, and then Memphis dismal free throw shooting would do them in. Well after five tourney games, it hasn't happened yet. At this point I'm wondering how many NBA teams would give this group a run.
****
With 7:32 left in the first half, Billy Packer has just declared the Kansas/Carolina game over. 38-10 Rock Chalk Jayhawks. Kinda hard to argue with Billy right now.
****
During the first weekend of the tourney, I saw an interview with Memphis coach John Calipari, and of course they asked his team's free throw shooting. His answer? That when the time came, they'd shoot it well. He believed his kids had good form, and when the time came, they'd get it done. I laughed out loud when I heard that, wondering how a coach who had accomplished as much could be so naive. If your kids can't shoot free throws all year, why in the hell would they just suddenly get better? And if they could, wouldn't this mean they weren't trying all year? No matter how you looked at it, this looked like a dumb statement.
Of course, now I'm the one looking dumb. Memphis shot 20-23 from the stripe today, good for 87%. I guess Coach Cal knows his team a little better than I do. I still don't like what that says that his kids CAN shoot free throws well and don't all year, but considering they're in the title game Monday night and are definitely the team to beat, I guess it doesn't matter much, does it?
* UCLA is a damn good basketball team, and well deserving of their seed and their spot in the Final Four: but they got outworked and outplayed badly today. Memphis was AT LEAST 15 points better today, at least in the second half. Defensively they could not contain Derrick Rose or Chris Douglas-Roberts, and they could not get a rebound. Didn't it seem like Memphis was getting second, third and fourth opportunities on offense? It also seemed like Memphis was getting a lot of easy baskets, or were at least getting to the rim much more often than the Bruins.
When the Bruins got on offense, they had to work really, REALLY hard just to get a shot off, and it always seemed like they had to settle for outside jumpers. Not only that, but watching the highlights after the game, whenever UCLA put up an outside jumper, there were ALWAYS three or four white shirts under the basket, while Love was usually the only blue shirt anywhere near the bucket. For the game Memphis outrebounded UCLA 42-35, and only 14-12 on the offensive glass, but I'd love to see the second half numbers, because it looked much more lopsided than that.
* After hearing the hype all season about the freshman Rose, I just hadn't seen what all the fuss was about. Well I'm a believer after today's game. He finished with 25 points, nine boards (four offensive), four assists and was 11-12 from the free throw line. And maybe most impressive: In 37 minutes, while playing at a furious pace, he had just one turnover, which wasn't even his fault. The turnover he was given was the gorgeous lob pass to Joey Dorsey with five minutes left in the second half. He couldn't have run up and PLACED the ball at a better position around the rim and yet Dorsey, who seems to have decent hands, just plain dropped it on the way up. Anyway, if Rose doesn't go #1 overall in the NBA draft in June, the team who passes on him better have a damn good reason. And it better be more than "well nobody ever takes a point guard number one overall." This is the same thinking that dropped Chris Paul to fifth while Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams went first and second overall. Rose will make someone look very foolish if they pass on him too.
* Chris Douglas-Roberts has one ugly game. He looks like he should be playing in an over-40 men's league at the Y. How many dirty, greasy, old-man moves did he have in that ball game? How many ugly shots did he hoist up at odd angles that found their way in? And yet at the end of the game, he finishes with a game-high 28 points. And what's more, as a first team All-American, he's been doing this all year. He'll probably go late in the first round or sometime in the second, getting passed over for guys with more "upside" but he could be a a crafty scorer of the bench for a good team.
* I know Joey Dorsey's only offensive move is dunking (and that's when he actually catches the lob passes), but I'd take him on my team anytime. 15 boards (six offensive), two blocks, a steal, and zero turnovers? At 6-9 and 265 pounds, he'll also get passed over on most draft boards for guy with more "upside" but could he, or could he not, develop into another Ben Wallace?
* Who's going to be a bigger bust: that stupid Speed Racer movie they've shown 9,457 commercials for, or Bruins guard Darren Collison? Collison, who's been trying to prove he's an NBA point guard, finished with two points, four boards, four assists and two steals, but also had five turnovers and fouled out. He couldn't get a decent shot off all day, and what's worse, he couldn't find any for his teammates either. And defensively, Rose, Douglas-Roberts, and Antonio Anderson absolutely owned him. Whichever guy he picked up, they'd make sure to take advantage. You can stick a fork in Collison's pro prospects after today's game.
Well Carolina is trying to make a game of it, but still down a ways 44-27 at the half, they've got a long way to go to prevent a Kansas/Memphis final. We shall see.
* I had only seen Memphis play once before the Tourney, in their only loss of the season to Tennessee. In that game, while the Tigers certainly looked athletic and plenty talented, they didn't look any better than Tennessee, and ended up losing because of their free throw shooting. My thinking heading into the tourney was that yes, the Tigers are freakishly athletic and pretty damn talented, but they would eventually run into someone else who was just as good, and then Memphis dismal free throw shooting would do them in. Well after five tourney games, it hasn't happened yet. At this point I'm wondering how many NBA teams would give this group a run.
****
With 7:32 left in the first half, Billy Packer has just declared the Kansas/Carolina game over. 38-10 Rock Chalk Jayhawks. Kinda hard to argue with Billy right now.
****
During the first weekend of the tourney, I saw an interview with Memphis coach John Calipari, and of course they asked his team's free throw shooting. His answer? That when the time came, they'd shoot it well. He believed his kids had good form, and when the time came, they'd get it done. I laughed out loud when I heard that, wondering how a coach who had accomplished as much could be so naive. If your kids can't shoot free throws all year, why in the hell would they just suddenly get better? And if they could, wouldn't this mean they weren't trying all year? No matter how you looked at it, this looked like a dumb statement.
Of course, now I'm the one looking dumb. Memphis shot 20-23 from the stripe today, good for 87%. I guess Coach Cal knows his team a little better than I do. I still don't like what that says that his kids CAN shoot free throws well and don't all year, but considering they're in the title game Monday night and are definitely the team to beat, I guess it doesn't matter much, does it?
* UCLA is a damn good basketball team, and well deserving of their seed and their spot in the Final Four: but they got outworked and outplayed badly today. Memphis was AT LEAST 15 points better today, at least in the second half. Defensively they could not contain Derrick Rose or Chris Douglas-Roberts, and they could not get a rebound. Didn't it seem like Memphis was getting second, third and fourth opportunities on offense? It also seemed like Memphis was getting a lot of easy baskets, or were at least getting to the rim much more often than the Bruins.
When the Bruins got on offense, they had to work really, REALLY hard just to get a shot off, and it always seemed like they had to settle for outside jumpers. Not only that, but watching the highlights after the game, whenever UCLA put up an outside jumper, there were ALWAYS three or four white shirts under the basket, while Love was usually the only blue shirt anywhere near the bucket. For the game Memphis outrebounded UCLA 42-35, and only 14-12 on the offensive glass, but I'd love to see the second half numbers, because it looked much more lopsided than that.
* After hearing the hype all season about the freshman Rose, I just hadn't seen what all the fuss was about. Well I'm a believer after today's game. He finished with 25 points, nine boards (four offensive), four assists and was 11-12 from the free throw line. And maybe most impressive: In 37 minutes, while playing at a furious pace, he had just one turnover, which wasn't even his fault. The turnover he was given was the gorgeous lob pass to Joey Dorsey with five minutes left in the second half. He couldn't have run up and PLACED the ball at a better position around the rim and yet Dorsey, who seems to have decent hands, just plain dropped it on the way up. Anyway, if Rose doesn't go #1 overall in the NBA draft in June, the team who passes on him better have a damn good reason. And it better be more than "well nobody ever takes a point guard number one overall." This is the same thinking that dropped Chris Paul to fifth while Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams went first and second overall. Rose will make someone look very foolish if they pass on him too.
* Chris Douglas-Roberts has one ugly game. He looks like he should be playing in an over-40 men's league at the Y. How many dirty, greasy, old-man moves did he have in that ball game? How many ugly shots did he hoist up at odd angles that found their way in? And yet at the end of the game, he finishes with a game-high 28 points. And what's more, as a first team All-American, he's been doing this all year. He'll probably go late in the first round or sometime in the second, getting passed over for guys with more "upside" but he could be a a crafty scorer of the bench for a good team.
* I know Joey Dorsey's only offensive move is dunking (and that's when he actually catches the lob passes), but I'd take him on my team anytime. 15 boards (six offensive), two blocks, a steal, and zero turnovers? At 6-9 and 265 pounds, he'll also get passed over on most draft boards for guy with more "upside" but could he, or could he not, develop into another Ben Wallace?
* Who's going to be a bigger bust: that stupid Speed Racer movie they've shown 9,457 commercials for, or Bruins guard Darren Collison? Collison, who's been trying to prove he's an NBA point guard, finished with two points, four boards, four assists and two steals, but also had five turnovers and fouled out. He couldn't get a decent shot off all day, and what's worse, he couldn't find any for his teammates either. And defensively, Rose, Douglas-Roberts, and Antonio Anderson absolutely owned him. Whichever guy he picked up, they'd make sure to take advantage. You can stick a fork in Collison's pro prospects after today's game.
Well Carolina is trying to make a game of it, but still down a ways 44-27 at the half, they've got a long way to go to prevent a Kansas/Memphis final. We shall see.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
NBA Odds & Ends
Biggest news today is that the Knicks have hired Indiana Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh to try and fix the colossal mess that Isiah Thomas has made of the League's Most Important Franchise. Besides getting one the NBA's best GM's (yes the Pacers suck right now, but before the Brawl at the Palace the Pacers might have been the league's best team, and I seem to remember the team being pretty damn good in the Reggie Miller/Rik Smits Era in the 1990's), according to the story "the Knicks yielded to Walsh's wishes on several key terms regarding authority and autonomy" that they had not given to past GM's like Isiah. While owner Jimmy Dolan, who like Glen Taylor in Minnesota should be held as responsible for his team's disaster as the man he lets run the team, will still probably be far too involved, at least relenting some control to Walsh shows he realizes there's a problem here, and he's going about a different way to fix it than just giving Isiah extensions and expecting different results.
Much has been made already about whether Isiah will stay on as coach, and you know what? It's completely irrelevant. I'm sure Knick fans would like to be rid of Isiah as a way of cleansing the franchise of five years of awful, but NBA head coaches have the least effect on their team's outcome of any professional sport. While they can make minor differences, they're basically glorified baby sitters. I've been saying it for as long as Jer and I have had this website, but the inmates run the asylum in the NBA. If you have good players and leaders, you're going to win a lot. That coach might make the difference in a few key moments, but overall it's about the players on the floor.
So whether Isiah stays or goes as coach is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is that a) he's never allowed to make a personel decision again, and b) Walsh can give them enough cap room in the summer of 2010 to make a run at Lebron, DWade, or Chris Bosh. That's it. Do those two things and they'll be fine. Not that clearing that cap space will be easy, but it can be done. According to hoopshype for the 2010-2011 season the Knicks currently have $27.5 million in guaranteed money committed to Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford, and have team or qualifying offers totaling $7.75 million available to Renaldo Balkman (keep him), Wilson Chandler (nope), and Mardy Collins (ditto). So that's roughly $36 million against a possible $55 million cap number. That right there is pretty nice, but there's two big issues to add to it: David Lee (who I'd keep) and Nate Robinson (who I wouldn't) will be free agents the summer before, so decisions will have to be made on both. The other much bigger issue is two underachieving players with gigantic player options for the summer of 2010 who would be stupid not to exercise them: Eddy Curry ($17.333 million! MILLION!) and Jared Jeffries ($6.9 MILLION!!!). So those guys would obviously push the Knicks right back into Luxury Tax land if they're still on the roster. So Walsh's big job will be trying to get rid of those two and/or Randolph and/or Crawford or all of the above. Good luck to Walsh, but at least the Knicks finally have the right guy to do it.
********
While the sky was falling for the rest of the province as they were watching the Canucks blow their playoff hopes against the Colorado Avalanche, I was watching the Nuggets improve theirs against the Suns. If you're at all interested in pro hoops, the Western Conference playoffs have to make you giddy. It's going to be ridiculously good. However, I STILL believe the league needs to grow some cahones, and seed the playoffs 1-16 regardless of conference. Some of the arguments against this include "people like it the way it is" (if by "people" you mean owners of crappy Eastern Conference teams that have no business being in the playoffs but will get in because there's only three good teams out there), we want to build rivalries (this doesn't make sense to anyone), "look how exciting the Western Conference will be!" (while true it would be even MORE exciting if the nine teams in the west who will win 50 games would all get in), or "This just makes far too much sense." (Ok that's really an argument against it, but I haven't heard a good one to dispel this myself).
A-Hole Stern claims that the league is cyclical, and that when the Jordan Bulls dominated in the 90's the East had better teams. One, I checked wikipedia and this is simply not true. While the Bulls were obviously superior to everyone, the West, in most years of that decade, still had more good teams. And since Jordan's retirement, which was full on 10 YEARS AGO, the West has dominated. It hasn't been close. And if you look at the current rosters, it's not changing anytime soon.
My question to you is: which would you prefer? Under the current system, Dallas, Denver or Golden State will miss the playoffs despite winning 50 games, which by the way, would put them possibly as high as THIRD and no worse than FOURTH in the East (not to mention Portland, who at 2 games above .500 right now could be as high as fifth seed in the East!). Or, if we dared to get crazy and take a chance-take a chance-take a chance-chance we could seed it the following way (we'll give the top team in each conference the top 2 seeds):
1. Boston (59-15) vs. 16. Toronto (38-36)
2. New Orleans (51-22) vs. 15. Washington (38-36)
3. Detroit (53-21) vs. 14. Portland (38-36)
4. San Antonio (52-23) vs. 13. Cleveland (41-33)
5. LA Lakers (50-24) vs. 12. Golden State (45-29)
6. Phoenix (50-25) vs. 11. Denver (46-29)
7. Houston (49-25) vs. 10. Dallas (46-28)
8. Utah (49-26) vs. 9. Orlando (47-28)
Any questions? You're telling me there's not plenty of excitement and intrigue with those matchups? Maybe it's just me, but I just happen to be a big fan of the 16 best teams making the playoffs. Call me crazy.
Much has been made already about whether Isiah will stay on as coach, and you know what? It's completely irrelevant. I'm sure Knick fans would like to be rid of Isiah as a way of cleansing the franchise of five years of awful, but NBA head coaches have the least effect on their team's outcome of any professional sport. While they can make minor differences, they're basically glorified baby sitters. I've been saying it for as long as Jer and I have had this website, but the inmates run the asylum in the NBA. If you have good players and leaders, you're going to win a lot. That coach might make the difference in a few key moments, but overall it's about the players on the floor.
So whether Isiah stays or goes as coach is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is that a) he's never allowed to make a personel decision again, and b) Walsh can give them enough cap room in the summer of 2010 to make a run at Lebron, DWade, or Chris Bosh. That's it. Do those two things and they'll be fine. Not that clearing that cap space will be easy, but it can be done. According to hoopshype for the 2010-2011 season the Knicks currently have $27.5 million in guaranteed money committed to Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford, and have team or qualifying offers totaling $7.75 million available to Renaldo Balkman (keep him), Wilson Chandler (nope), and Mardy Collins (ditto). So that's roughly $36 million against a possible $55 million cap number. That right there is pretty nice, but there's two big issues to add to it: David Lee (who I'd keep) and Nate Robinson (who I wouldn't) will be free agents the summer before, so decisions will have to be made on both. The other much bigger issue is two underachieving players with gigantic player options for the summer of 2010 who would be stupid not to exercise them: Eddy Curry ($17.333 million! MILLION!) and Jared Jeffries ($6.9 MILLION!!!). So those guys would obviously push the Knicks right back into Luxury Tax land if they're still on the roster. So Walsh's big job will be trying to get rid of those two and/or Randolph and/or Crawford or all of the above. Good luck to Walsh, but at least the Knicks finally have the right guy to do it.
********
While the sky was falling for the rest of the province as they were watching the Canucks blow their playoff hopes against the Colorado Avalanche, I was watching the Nuggets improve theirs against the Suns. If you're at all interested in pro hoops, the Western Conference playoffs have to make you giddy. It's going to be ridiculously good. However, I STILL believe the league needs to grow some cahones, and seed the playoffs 1-16 regardless of conference. Some of the arguments against this include "people like it the way it is" (if by "people" you mean owners of crappy Eastern Conference teams that have no business being in the playoffs but will get in because there's only three good teams out there), we want to build rivalries (this doesn't make sense to anyone), "look how exciting the Western Conference will be!" (while true it would be even MORE exciting if the nine teams in the west who will win 50 games would all get in), or "This just makes far too much sense." (Ok that's really an argument against it, but I haven't heard a good one to dispel this myself).
A-Hole Stern claims that the league is cyclical, and that when the Jordan Bulls dominated in the 90's the East had better teams. One, I checked wikipedia and this is simply not true. While the Bulls were obviously superior to everyone, the West, in most years of that decade, still had more good teams. And since Jordan's retirement, which was full on 10 YEARS AGO, the West has dominated. It hasn't been close. And if you look at the current rosters, it's not changing anytime soon.
My question to you is: which would you prefer? Under the current system, Dallas, Denver or Golden State will miss the playoffs despite winning 50 games, which by the way, would put them possibly as high as THIRD and no worse than FOURTH in the East (not to mention Portland, who at 2 games above .500 right now could be as high as fifth seed in the East!). Or, if we dared to get crazy and take a chance-take a chance-take a chance-chance we could seed it the following way (we'll give the top team in each conference the top 2 seeds):
1. Boston (59-15) vs. 16. Toronto (38-36)
2. New Orleans (51-22) vs. 15. Washington (38-36)
3. Detroit (53-21) vs. 14. Portland (38-36)
4. San Antonio (52-23) vs. 13. Cleveland (41-33)
5. LA Lakers (50-24) vs. 12. Golden State (45-29)
6. Phoenix (50-25) vs. 11. Denver (46-29)
7. Houston (49-25) vs. 10. Dallas (46-28)
8. Utah (49-26) vs. 9. Orlando (47-28)
Any questions? You're telling me there's not plenty of excitement and intrigue with those matchups? Maybe it's just me, but I just happen to be a big fan of the 16 best teams making the playoffs. Call me crazy.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Baseball's Back Baby!!!!
(I'll get to the Final Four later in the week, but I will say this could be the best Final Four ever. There's not only four number one seeds, but after watching every game these last four days, they were clearly the best teams- although Davidson and Stephen Curry? Wow. Just wow. Without even realizing it I stood up out of my chair every time Curry put up a three because I was expecting it to go in. Just electric. He will be missed but there's some great hoops to come.)
Monday is one of the best sports days of the year, right up there with the opening Thursday and Friday of March Madness. When I rule the world these WILL be national holidays, since every guy is trying to skip work to watch. Well except for Canada- while their March Madness coverage has been excellent, let's just say the opening day baseball coverage is lacking. Severely. 14 games tomorrow, and guess how many are being broadcasted by any one of the THREE Canadian sports networks? If you guessed ZERO, well then you are correct. What are they showing instead? Curling, poker, MMA, and the Canucks game. I wish I were kidding.
Despite this, I'm still really excited for Opening Day (and by the way, we're pretending the season didn't start a week ago with a couple of games in Japan. Because if that happened it would be nothing short of retarded. No sport in their right mind would pull such a stunt- well except hockey if it still existed), and thought I should put up a mini-preview in its honor. Since I tend to rip others for their picks, I might as well man up and give mine.
WARNING: I did not put a lot of thought, research or time into this!!
AL
EAST
1. Boston
2. New York*
3. Tampa Bay
4. Toronto
9,483. Baltimore
* Wild Card. They damn well better with a $200 million payroll.
Not really going out on a limb here, but the Sox look to be the best team in the division, and the Yankees are the Yankees and will figure out a way. I'm really, really, REALLY bullish about Tampa Bay. They will be in the wild card hunt well into August, and if their bullpen doesn't explode (their one real weakness right now), into September too. Like the football team in that town did years ago, the "Rays" will go from punchline to front-of-the line starting next year. They're very well run and are absolutely LOADED with good young talent. Beware the Rays. I feel the same way about the Blue Jays as I do about any other Toronto team, so my opinion of them is far from rational, but let's be honest: anyone from outside of Toronto takes one look at that team and says "wow, those guys blow." And Baltimore will be the worst team in baseball.
CENTRAL
1. Detwah
2. Chicago
3. Cleveland
4. Minnesota
5. Kansas City
The Tiggers are my pick to win the whole thing. The bullpen is an issue, but it's also the easiest of any area to fix. Solid starters and the scariest offense we've seen in a long time. It's not that I love the White Sox, it's that I think Cleveland won't be as good as expected. They had a LOT go right last year (well besides Travis Hafner), and a repeat of that will be tough (sketchy pen, Hafner won't rebound back to his old self, and who's playing corner OF or 3rd?). I also think the Sox could bounce back, and be better than people think. There's ALWAYS at least one team who's much better, and one who's much worse than people think. These are my two in the AL I guess. The Twins? Wow. It hurts. Some good young talent but they're going to fall a ways I think. Better than the Royals, but not much better. And 2009 the Royals might be better. Twins Fever! Catch it! Seriously though, because they still have Mauer, Morneau, Cuddy, Nathan, and a stable of decent starters, they'll be ok, but there's just so many questions. And their infield other than Morneausy? Are you serious? I LOVE the Adam Everett signing because although he's one of the worst hitters in baseball, he's one of the best defenders. But since you're going to get nothing out of Everett at the plate, you need more offense in the lineup and the Twins don't have any. Whoever plays second will be the worst second baseman in the AL (I will wait for you to look it up if you want, or you can just trust me), and Mike Lamb is damn close to the worst at third. Hey look on the bright side Twins fans: at least you're paying for a brand new ballpark so your owner can REDUCE his payroll! Um let's just move on.
WEST
1. Orange County Angels
2. Seattle
3. Oakland
4. Texas
Not a good division, especially with the injury issues the Halos are having now with Escobar AND Lackey. Still I don't think Seattle is better, and Texas and Oakland are both rebuilding, although both will be better than expected. Not a good division. Be glad you don't have to watch anybody out here.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
EAST
1. Mets
2. Atlanta
3. Philadelphia
4. Florida
5. Warshington Nayshunuls
You can't not pick the Mets with Johan there. While they're not a perfect team, all of their issues are managable. Hotlanta's kind of a bandwagon pick, but I'm making it. Pitching will keep the Phils from the playoffs, Florida is getting good again but not that good and hey at least Warshington gets to play in a shiny new ballpark (did anybody watch the Sunday night game? Did the park look good? Because none of the 3 "Sports" networks carried that game either.)
CENTRAL
1. Milwaukee
2. Chicago*
3. Cincinnati
4. St Louis
5. Pittsburgh
6. Houston
How do we have six teams in this division and only four in the AL West? A bunch of freaking geniuses running baseball right now. Anywho, yes I love the Brew Crew IF stud pitcher Yolani Gallardo comes back healthy and soon from injury (he's supposed to be back by late April). You haven't heard of him but you will. Their rotation is solid, they have enough arms in the pen if Gagne falters (I believe he'll be ok- not Dodgers days of old Ok but not "gasoline on a fire" like he was with the Red Sox either), and their lineup could be downright scary. I'm bullish on Ricky Weeks finally figuring things out, think Billy Hall will regain a bit of his stroke back at third, and LOVE the Mike Cameron signing. Defensively, Cameron in center (one of the best defenders in baseball) + Hall at 3B + Ryan Braun in left (not great but not gawd-awful like he was at third) will make a YUGE difference for them. You've probably heard plenty about the Cubbies already, and while I like them enough to grab the wild card, not quite enough to win the division. Cincy's looking pesky with better pitching than they've had in a long time (not saying much I know), and a solid order. Defense? Not so much, but playing in that small park if the ball actually stays in the yard guys don't have to run very far to get to it. With the Cards, Bucs and Stros? Flip a coin. They'll all be varying shades of unwatchable.
WEST
1. Los Angeles
2. German for a Whale's V&*^%a
3. Colorado
4. Arizona
8,473. San Francisco
I really like the Dodgers- like "could go to the World Series" kind of like. Tons of pitching depth, great pen, decent defense, and an offense with potential. While Jeff Kent is in decline and NO-MAH is d-o-n-e, they've got plenty of other bats and some good young kids. Also look for bounce-back years from Raffy Furcal and Andruw Jones. San Diego (founded by the German's in 1904) is a real sleeper. If they can get any offense at all, they could be tough. The Rocks return to earth a bit, and the D-Backs, well, I just never understood what made them good last year. Seriously, look at their lineup: what the deuce? THAT's the offense of a playoff team? Really? On what planet? I mean, I know the National League is the inferior league right now, but come on! I've seen "experts" picking them to win the division again because of how well they did last year AND now they have Dan Haren. Ok, fine their 1-2 punch in the rotation is awesome- BUT THE REST OF THEIR TEAM SUCKS!!!! I don't get it. The Giants will battle the O's for the worst team in the history of the universe.
MVP
AL: Miggy Cabrera, 3B, Tiggers
NL: Prince Fielder, 1B, Brewers
CY YOUNG:
AL: KING FELIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Just kidding, it's Justin Verlander of the Tiggers)
NL: Johan Santana, Mets
Monday is one of the best sports days of the year, right up there with the opening Thursday and Friday of March Madness. When I rule the world these WILL be national holidays, since every guy is trying to skip work to watch. Well except for Canada- while their March Madness coverage has been excellent, let's just say the opening day baseball coverage is lacking. Severely. 14 games tomorrow, and guess how many are being broadcasted by any one of the THREE Canadian sports networks? If you guessed ZERO, well then you are correct. What are they showing instead? Curling, poker, MMA, and the Canucks game. I wish I were kidding.
Despite this, I'm still really excited for Opening Day (and by the way, we're pretending the season didn't start a week ago with a couple of games in Japan. Because if that happened it would be nothing short of retarded. No sport in their right mind would pull such a stunt- well except hockey if it still existed), and thought I should put up a mini-preview in its honor. Since I tend to rip others for their picks, I might as well man up and give mine.
WARNING: I did not put a lot of thought, research or time into this!!
AL
EAST
1. Boston
2. New York*
3. Tampa Bay
4. Toronto
9,483. Baltimore
* Wild Card. They damn well better with a $200 million payroll.
Not really going out on a limb here, but the Sox look to be the best team in the division, and the Yankees are the Yankees and will figure out a way. I'm really, really, REALLY bullish about Tampa Bay. They will be in the wild card hunt well into August, and if their bullpen doesn't explode (their one real weakness right now), into September too. Like the football team in that town did years ago, the "Rays" will go from punchline to front-of-the line starting next year. They're very well run and are absolutely LOADED with good young talent. Beware the Rays. I feel the same way about the Blue Jays as I do about any other Toronto team, so my opinion of them is far from rational, but let's be honest: anyone from outside of Toronto takes one look at that team and says "wow, those guys blow." And Baltimore will be the worst team in baseball.
CENTRAL
1. Detwah
2. Chicago
3. Cleveland
4. Minnesota
5. Kansas City
The Tiggers are my pick to win the whole thing. The bullpen is an issue, but it's also the easiest of any area to fix. Solid starters and the scariest offense we've seen in a long time. It's not that I love the White Sox, it's that I think Cleveland won't be as good as expected. They had a LOT go right last year (well besides Travis Hafner), and a repeat of that will be tough (sketchy pen, Hafner won't rebound back to his old self, and who's playing corner OF or 3rd?). I also think the Sox could bounce back, and be better than people think. There's ALWAYS at least one team who's much better, and one who's much worse than people think. These are my two in the AL I guess. The Twins? Wow. It hurts. Some good young talent but they're going to fall a ways I think. Better than the Royals, but not much better. And 2009 the Royals might be better. Twins Fever! Catch it! Seriously though, because they still have Mauer, Morneau, Cuddy, Nathan, and a stable of decent starters, they'll be ok, but there's just so many questions. And their infield other than Morneausy? Are you serious? I LOVE the Adam Everett signing because although he's one of the worst hitters in baseball, he's one of the best defenders. But since you're going to get nothing out of Everett at the plate, you need more offense in the lineup and the Twins don't have any. Whoever plays second will be the worst second baseman in the AL (I will wait for you to look it up if you want, or you can just trust me), and Mike Lamb is damn close to the worst at third. Hey look on the bright side Twins fans: at least you're paying for a brand new ballpark so your owner can REDUCE his payroll! Um let's just move on.
WEST
1. Orange County Angels
2. Seattle
3. Oakland
4. Texas
Not a good division, especially with the injury issues the Halos are having now with Escobar AND Lackey. Still I don't think Seattle is better, and Texas and Oakland are both rebuilding, although both will be better than expected. Not a good division. Be glad you don't have to watch anybody out here.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
EAST
1. Mets
2. Atlanta
3. Philadelphia
4. Florida
5. Warshington Nayshunuls
You can't not pick the Mets with Johan there. While they're not a perfect team, all of their issues are managable. Hotlanta's kind of a bandwagon pick, but I'm making it. Pitching will keep the Phils from the playoffs, Florida is getting good again but not that good and hey at least Warshington gets to play in a shiny new ballpark (did anybody watch the Sunday night game? Did the park look good? Because none of the 3 "Sports" networks carried that game either.)
CENTRAL
1. Milwaukee
2. Chicago*
3. Cincinnati
4. St Louis
5. Pittsburgh
6. Houston
How do we have six teams in this division and only four in the AL West? A bunch of freaking geniuses running baseball right now. Anywho, yes I love the Brew Crew IF stud pitcher Yolani Gallardo comes back healthy and soon from injury (he's supposed to be back by late April). You haven't heard of him but you will. Their rotation is solid, they have enough arms in the pen if Gagne falters (I believe he'll be ok- not Dodgers days of old Ok but not "gasoline on a fire" like he was with the Red Sox either), and their lineup could be downright scary. I'm bullish on Ricky Weeks finally figuring things out, think Billy Hall will regain a bit of his stroke back at third, and LOVE the Mike Cameron signing. Defensively, Cameron in center (one of the best defenders in baseball) + Hall at 3B + Ryan Braun in left (not great but not gawd-awful like he was at third) will make a YUGE difference for them. You've probably heard plenty about the Cubbies already, and while I like them enough to grab the wild card, not quite enough to win the division. Cincy's looking pesky with better pitching than they've had in a long time (not saying much I know), and a solid order. Defense? Not so much, but playing in that small park if the ball actually stays in the yard guys don't have to run very far to get to it. With the Cards, Bucs and Stros? Flip a coin. They'll all be varying shades of unwatchable.
WEST
1. Los Angeles
2. German for a Whale's V&*^%a
3. Colorado
4. Arizona
8,473. San Francisco
I really like the Dodgers- like "could go to the World Series" kind of like. Tons of pitching depth, great pen, decent defense, and an offense with potential. While Jeff Kent is in decline and NO-MAH is d-o-n-e, they've got plenty of other bats and some good young kids. Also look for bounce-back years from Raffy Furcal and Andruw Jones. San Diego (founded by the German's in 1904) is a real sleeper. If they can get any offense at all, they could be tough. The Rocks return to earth a bit, and the D-Backs, well, I just never understood what made them good last year. Seriously, look at their lineup: what the deuce? THAT's the offense of a playoff team? Really? On what planet? I mean, I know the National League is the inferior league right now, but come on! I've seen "experts" picking them to win the division again because of how well they did last year AND now they have Dan Haren. Ok, fine their 1-2 punch in the rotation is awesome- BUT THE REST OF THEIR TEAM SUCKS!!!! I don't get it. The Giants will battle the O's for the worst team in the history of the universe.
MVP
AL: Miggy Cabrera, 3B, Tiggers
NL: Prince Fielder, 1B, Brewers
CY YOUNG:
AL: KING FELIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Just kidding, it's Justin Verlander of the Tiggers)
NL: Johan Santana, Mets
Friday, March 28, 2008
All-Americans
No, not high school or college, but I'm thinking about NBA All-Americans. It's weird timing with the tourney going and all, but after reading John Hollinger's now annual list of the Top 30 Foreign Players in the NBA (although this is "Insider" content, as of right now it's a free read for everybody), I felt compelled to put together a list of the top 12 American players that would square off against this team (although I am fully American, kindly insert joke here about how I'm a Canadian living in Canada composing an American team. Thank you). If you can't read his article, Hollinger (whose work I love- can't stress that enough) includes guys like Tim Duncan (Virgin Islands), Al Horford (Dominican Republic), Raja Bell (Virgin Islands), and Wally Szczerbiak (yes that same Wally World. Did you know he was born in Spain? Me neither) because they were all foreign born even though most people, including myself, would consider them American players. For the sake of argument, and for this post, we'll keep them on Hollinger's list.
While he puts them in a list, I thought it'd be fun (because I'm a nerd like that) to give a starting five and seven bench guys for both squads. I'm only making one change to Hollinger's list by excluding Zydrunas Ilgauskas (who he ranks 9th) because I just don't feel he's one of the top 12 Euros (while I know there's a more correct term, and that players like Nash and Ginobili and Yao are not technically Euros, let's be honest: they're all Euros). Before I get to that, what stands out to me is that there's not a lot of young blood on the Euro team. Not many young guys banging on the door of the top 12. Of the 30 listed there's only five (and this includes Horford, who I don't consider foreign) who are 24 or under. Remember a few years ago with Darko and the flood of foreign players that were going to take over the NBA? Yeah that didn't happen. When we get closer to the draft I'm putting up the biggest post I've ever done on why you should never ever draft a white center, domestic or foreign, in the first round under any circumstances. Seriously, never. Ever. Anyway, in researching that I was amazed at how few foreign guys have actually panned out. For awhile there I think everybody was scared to death to miss the Next Dirk, but the failure rate for the Foreign guys has been so high it looks like GM's are more than willing to take that risk again.
ANYWAY here's the Euro Team from Hollinger's list:
Starting Five
C Yao Ming, 27, Rockets, China
PF Tim Duncan, 31, Spurs, Virgin Islands
SF Dirk Nowitzki, 29, Mavs, Germany (Can you believe he's only 29?)
SG Manu Ginobili, 30, Spurs, Argentina
PG Steve Nash, 34, Suns, South Africa (now Canadian)
Um wow. That's a helluva starting five right there. Not an athletic group, but great players and a lot of good ol' fashioned fundamentals.
Bench (this is in order of who's coming off the bench first):
PF Pau Gasol, 27, Lakers, Spain
PG Tony Parker, 25, Spurs, France
PG Jose Calderon, 26, Raptors, Spain
SF Luol Deng, 24, Bulls, Sudan
SF Hedo Turkoglu, 29, Magic, Turkey
PF Andrei Kirilenko, 27, Jazz, Russia
C Andris Biedrins, 21, Warriors, Latvia
Drops off pretty fast after Parker, doesn't it? Some good players but no real big stars after that. While Kirilenko's had a couple of rough years and Biedrins is young, I'd still take those two over Big Z and anybody else available.
AMERICAN TEAM
Starting Five
C Dwight, Howard, 22, Magic
PF Kevin Garnett, 31, Celtics
SF Lebron James, 23, Cavs
SG Kobe Bryant, 29, Lakers (like Dirk it's hard to believe he's not even 30)
PG Chris Paul, 22, Hornets
As good as the Euro's starting five is, this one blows it away. Howard's an absolute beast, and while you could debate putting Amare Stoudemire over Garnett, KG's leadership and willingness to share make him perfect for this lineup. King James, Black Mamba and CP3 are simply the three best players in the league right now.
BENCH
PF Amare Stoudemire, 25, Suns
SG Dwyane Wade, 26, Heat
SF Carmelo Anthony, 23, Nuggets (not a misprint: he's really only 23. Wow)
PG Baron Davis, 28, Warriors (another shocker for me)
PG Deron Williams, 23, Jazz
C Marcus Camby, 34, Nuggets
C Shaquille O'Neal, 36, Heat
You cannot argue the first two, but there's plenty of debate after Amare and DWade.
OK I'm going to have to devote an entire paragraph to Dwade. This started as a quick bracket comment but needs much more than that. So what happened to Wade? It was just two years ago he was in the conversation with Bronbron and Kobe for the best player on the planet. Now? Definitely not. This is a hypothetical team, and if he's 100% healthy I'd definitely take him, but if he plays in the Olympics this summer he's certifiably insane. Crazy. If he cares at all about his career he needs to skip it because his health has become a major major issue. Looking at his bio, in his five years in the league he's only played in at least 75 games twice, played only 61 his first year, and in the past two he's only played in 51 apiece. That's alarming right there. The Heat shut him down to get him fully healthy for next year (and also to get better draft positioning for Mike Beasley or Derrick Rose), and next year will be a YUGE one to determine if he's going to continue on the path to be one of the all-time greats, or become one of those Bernard King/Shawn Kemp/Chris Webber types who had a few unreal years but couldn't put a hall-of-fame career together. The knock on Wade when he was drafted was whether his smaller frame (only 6'4) would be able to handle his kamikaze-style of attacking the basket. After absorbing nine million hard fouls (he's shot a mind-boggling 2879 free throws in just five years) on his way to the basket, he's clearly taking a beating, and his body is not holding up well. Can he learn to pull up for the mid-range jumper or do a better job of avoiding contact? If he wants a long career, he's going to have to.
This is also a good time to point out how ridiculously good and tough Allen Iverson is considering he's built like a kicker (6'0, 165 lbs), yet drives to the basket hard all the time, and is in his ELEVENTH SEASON averaging almost 70 games a year, over 40 minutes a night, and is still scoring in the mid 20's and averaging over 7 assists. Wow. Still, I wouldn't put him on the team because he wouldn't be one of my first three or four guys off the bench, and would worry about how he'd handle a reduced role. It was him or Baron Davis for that spot, and I'd rather have Baron right now. I actually debated having Baron at all, but he's playing SO well this year, he has to be there (and he's only 28? Seriously? Wasn't he at UCLA with Tyus Edney, the O'Bannon brothers, Toby Bailey, Don McLean and Tracy Murray. Apparently it just seems that way). After that Melo provides instant offense off the bench as a swing man, and Deron Williams is a great backup true point.
Camby? So underrated and so good for this team. Second in the league in rebounding and first in blocks by almost a full block per game, and in the last five years he's been healthy, averaging double digits boards and 3 blocks a game. I don't think he's ever shaken the frail injury-prone tag he rightly got stuck with early in his career, but he has not been that guy in awhile. He'd be perfect for this team as he doesn't have to score to be effective or happy.
And finally for the 12th man- I thought about Mark Madsen to wave a towel and give awkward high-fives, but after seeing what Shaq's done for the chemistry in Phoenix, he gets my vote. He'd be great for team morale, and I THINK would accept a role of playing in short spurts. Plus he seems like a guy who really likes beating up and dunking on Euros. So if he'd accept the role, he's in.
So there's my team, and I'm stressing TEAM here as Camby and Shaq aren't the 11th or 12th best American players available. But to make the best team to win, this is my group.
While he puts them in a list, I thought it'd be fun (because I'm a nerd like that) to give a starting five and seven bench guys for both squads. I'm only making one change to Hollinger's list by excluding Zydrunas Ilgauskas (who he ranks 9th) because I just don't feel he's one of the top 12 Euros (while I know there's a more correct term, and that players like Nash and Ginobili and Yao are not technically Euros, let's be honest: they're all Euros). Before I get to that, what stands out to me is that there's not a lot of young blood on the Euro team. Not many young guys banging on the door of the top 12. Of the 30 listed there's only five (and this includes Horford, who I don't consider foreign) who are 24 or under. Remember a few years ago with Darko and the flood of foreign players that were going to take over the NBA? Yeah that didn't happen. When we get closer to the draft I'm putting up the biggest post I've ever done on why you should never ever draft a white center, domestic or foreign, in the first round under any circumstances. Seriously, never. Ever. Anyway, in researching that I was amazed at how few foreign guys have actually panned out. For awhile there I think everybody was scared to death to miss the Next Dirk, but the failure rate for the Foreign guys has been so high it looks like GM's are more than willing to take that risk again.
ANYWAY here's the Euro Team from Hollinger's list:
Starting Five
C Yao Ming, 27, Rockets, China
PF Tim Duncan, 31, Spurs, Virgin Islands
SF Dirk Nowitzki, 29, Mavs, Germany (Can you believe he's only 29?)
SG Manu Ginobili, 30, Spurs, Argentina
PG Steve Nash, 34, Suns, South Africa (now Canadian)
Um wow. That's a helluva starting five right there. Not an athletic group, but great players and a lot of good ol' fashioned fundamentals.
Bench (this is in order of who's coming off the bench first):
PF Pau Gasol, 27, Lakers, Spain
PG Tony Parker, 25, Spurs, France
PG Jose Calderon, 26, Raptors, Spain
SF Luol Deng, 24, Bulls, Sudan
SF Hedo Turkoglu, 29, Magic, Turkey
PF Andrei Kirilenko, 27, Jazz, Russia
C Andris Biedrins, 21, Warriors, Latvia
Drops off pretty fast after Parker, doesn't it? Some good players but no real big stars after that. While Kirilenko's had a couple of rough years and Biedrins is young, I'd still take those two over Big Z and anybody else available.
AMERICAN TEAM
Starting Five
C Dwight, Howard, 22, Magic
PF Kevin Garnett, 31, Celtics
SF Lebron James, 23, Cavs
SG Kobe Bryant, 29, Lakers (like Dirk it's hard to believe he's not even 30)
PG Chris Paul, 22, Hornets
As good as the Euro's starting five is, this one blows it away. Howard's an absolute beast, and while you could debate putting Amare Stoudemire over Garnett, KG's leadership and willingness to share make him perfect for this lineup. King James, Black Mamba and CP3 are simply the three best players in the league right now.
BENCH
PF Amare Stoudemire, 25, Suns
SG Dwyane Wade, 26, Heat
SF Carmelo Anthony, 23, Nuggets (not a misprint: he's really only 23. Wow)
PG Baron Davis, 28, Warriors (another shocker for me)
PG Deron Williams, 23, Jazz
C Marcus Camby, 34, Nuggets
C Shaquille O'Neal, 36, Heat
You cannot argue the first two, but there's plenty of debate after Amare and DWade.
OK I'm going to have to devote an entire paragraph to Dwade. This started as a quick bracket comment but needs much more than that. So what happened to Wade? It was just two years ago he was in the conversation with Bronbron and Kobe for the best player on the planet. Now? Definitely not. This is a hypothetical team, and if he's 100% healthy I'd definitely take him, but if he plays in the Olympics this summer he's certifiably insane. Crazy. If he cares at all about his career he needs to skip it because his health has become a major major issue. Looking at his bio, in his five years in the league he's only played in at least 75 games twice, played only 61 his first year, and in the past two he's only played in 51 apiece. That's alarming right there. The Heat shut him down to get him fully healthy for next year (and also to get better draft positioning for Mike Beasley or Derrick Rose), and next year will be a YUGE one to determine if he's going to continue on the path to be one of the all-time greats, or become one of those Bernard King/Shawn Kemp/Chris Webber types who had a few unreal years but couldn't put a hall-of-fame career together. The knock on Wade when he was drafted was whether his smaller frame (only 6'4) would be able to handle his kamikaze-style of attacking the basket. After absorbing nine million hard fouls (he's shot a mind-boggling 2879 free throws in just five years) on his way to the basket, he's clearly taking a beating, and his body is not holding up well. Can he learn to pull up for the mid-range jumper or do a better job of avoiding contact? If he wants a long career, he's going to have to.
This is also a good time to point out how ridiculously good and tough Allen Iverson is considering he's built like a kicker (6'0, 165 lbs), yet drives to the basket hard all the time, and is in his ELEVENTH SEASON averaging almost 70 games a year, over 40 minutes a night, and is still scoring in the mid 20's and averaging over 7 assists. Wow. Still, I wouldn't put him on the team because he wouldn't be one of my first three or four guys off the bench, and would worry about how he'd handle a reduced role. It was him or Baron Davis for that spot, and I'd rather have Baron right now. I actually debated having Baron at all, but he's playing SO well this year, he has to be there (and he's only 28? Seriously? Wasn't he at UCLA with Tyus Edney, the O'Bannon brothers, Toby Bailey, Don McLean and Tracy Murray. Apparently it just seems that way). After that Melo provides instant offense off the bench as a swing man, and Deron Williams is a great backup true point.
Camby? So underrated and so good for this team. Second in the league in rebounding and first in blocks by almost a full block per game, and in the last five years he's been healthy, averaging double digits boards and 3 blocks a game. I don't think he's ever shaken the frail injury-prone tag he rightly got stuck with early in his career, but he has not been that guy in awhile. He'd be perfect for this team as he doesn't have to score to be effective or happy.
And finally for the 12th man- I thought about Mark Madsen to wave a towel and give awkward high-fives, but after seeing what Shaq's done for the chemistry in Phoenix, he gets my vote. He'd be great for team morale, and I THINK would accept a role of playing in short spurts. Plus he seems like a guy who really likes beating up and dunking on Euros. So if he'd accept the role, he's in.
So there's my team, and I'm stressing TEAM here as Camby and Shaq aren't the 11th or 12th best American players available. But to make the best team to win, this is my group.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Oh There's the Upsets!
So how's your bracket looking on the the third day? (Notice I didn't say "brackets" since I not only believe but know that the correct and true way is to fill out ONE bracket and then submit that ONE same bracket for every pool you are in. People who fill out a different bracket with different results in different pools, I mean, what does that prove? How hard is that? That's like taking a multiple choice final exam but instead of submitting one test you submit ten, all with different answers, and you tell the prof "whichever one of these ten gets the most right answers is the one you'll take." It's ridiculous, and it's wrong. Just plain wrong!). Speaking of wrong, so far I have picked 10 wrong games out of the first 32, putting me at the bottom of most of my pools. Already I'm kicking myself for changing my answers before submitting them (Again with the multiple choice exam example, you should always go with your first instincts if you're not sure), and for not following a reminder I made for myself last year: don't pick too many upsets. I don't know about you, but when filling out my bracket I always get the feeling that there'll be upsets galore, but with the exception of the crazy George Mason Tourney a few years back, there's never as many as you think.
As we all know, there's ALWAYS at least one 12 over 5 upset, and there seems to be a 13 over 4 as well as an 11 beating a 6. Knowing this, I didn't like any real upset possibilities in the 5/12 matches, and picked the wrong one (Temple over Michigan State). For the 4/13 games, I originally had, and I swear it, Siena beating Vandy. Vandy had struggled down the stretch and Siena seemed fiesty, but then I started reading about how Vandy has the SEC player of the year and blah blah blah and changed it Wednesday night. Deciding that i still needed a 13 over 4 I dumbly took Winthrop over Washington State.
I did not pick an 11 to beat a 6, so I missed K-State over USC. I thought USC was too hyped and was surprised to see some "experts" picking them to the Elite 8 or Final Four, but I at least thought they'd beat K-State. Nope. With the 7/10 games I, like seemingly the rest of the world, picked Davidson over Gonzaga, but missed WVU over Arizona (I thought Arizona had too much talent to lose in the 1st round, but I suppose that's why they were a 10 seed in the first place), and had St Mary's beating Miami. Again, too many upset picks!! I did get three of the four 8/9 games, missing A&M over BYU.
Two of my Sweet 16 teams are gone (Clemson and Drake), but still have my Elite 8 intact: Carolina over Tennessee, Kansas over Bucky Badger (watching Wisconsin play basketball should replace the death penalty. Make a tape of murderers being forced to watch Badger hoops, like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange", and I guarantee murder rates would drop dramatically. Seriously while I greatly respect the Badgers and the program they've built, and in no way am I being sarcastic about my respect for them, watching them play makes LISTENING or HEARING paint dry seem exciting. Yet as ugly and boring and slow as they play, they still took the Big 10 regular season and tourney titles, so that's why I have them in the Elite 8. They will bore you to death), Texas over Pitt (Memphis' woeful free throw shooting will come back to haunt them, although as somebody pointed out Pitt does well in the Big East tourney EVERY year and then flames out in the big dance. Frick I'm an idiot!), and UCLA over Duke (who is trailing by 7 to West Virginia right now. Good gosh I would love to see the damn Dookies lose here. Why do I ever pick them out of the first weekend when they are probably my least favorite team on earth? Mental note for next year: don't pick Duke out of the first weekend! Noted. Thanks brain).
I picked UCLA over Carolina in the finals because I think Carolina is loaded and can play any style of basketball...until they play UCLA apparently. I don't know, I didn't like taking the top-seeded Tar Heels even though it made the most sense. So I went with UCLA because it felt right, and then I saw the Sports Guy made the same pick and knew I was screwed. But hey, I was picking to my picks!!- Well except for Siena over Vandy...long story short, as Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men "you want me in your bracket pool! You NEED me in your bracket pool!" I mean with reasoning like this, who wouldn't want me in their pool? Enjoy the rest of the weekend everybody, and happy Easter!
As we all know, there's ALWAYS at least one 12 over 5 upset, and there seems to be a 13 over 4 as well as an 11 beating a 6. Knowing this, I didn't like any real upset possibilities in the 5/12 matches, and picked the wrong one (Temple over Michigan State). For the 4/13 games, I originally had, and I swear it, Siena beating Vandy. Vandy had struggled down the stretch and Siena seemed fiesty, but then I started reading about how Vandy has the SEC player of the year and blah blah blah and changed it Wednesday night. Deciding that i still needed a 13 over 4 I dumbly took Winthrop over Washington State.
I did not pick an 11 to beat a 6, so I missed K-State over USC. I thought USC was too hyped and was surprised to see some "experts" picking them to the Elite 8 or Final Four, but I at least thought they'd beat K-State. Nope. With the 7/10 games I, like seemingly the rest of the world, picked Davidson over Gonzaga, but missed WVU over Arizona (I thought Arizona had too much talent to lose in the 1st round, but I suppose that's why they were a 10 seed in the first place), and had St Mary's beating Miami. Again, too many upset picks!! I did get three of the four 8/9 games, missing A&M over BYU.
Two of my Sweet 16 teams are gone (Clemson and Drake), but still have my Elite 8 intact: Carolina over Tennessee, Kansas over Bucky Badger (watching Wisconsin play basketball should replace the death penalty. Make a tape of murderers being forced to watch Badger hoops, like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange", and I guarantee murder rates would drop dramatically. Seriously while I greatly respect the Badgers and the program they've built, and in no way am I being sarcastic about my respect for them, watching them play makes LISTENING or HEARING paint dry seem exciting. Yet as ugly and boring and slow as they play, they still took the Big 10 regular season and tourney titles, so that's why I have them in the Elite 8. They will bore you to death), Texas over Pitt (Memphis' woeful free throw shooting will come back to haunt them, although as somebody pointed out Pitt does well in the Big East tourney EVERY year and then flames out in the big dance. Frick I'm an idiot!), and UCLA over Duke (who is trailing by 7 to West Virginia right now. Good gosh I would love to see the damn Dookies lose here. Why do I ever pick them out of the first weekend when they are probably my least favorite team on earth? Mental note for next year: don't pick Duke out of the first weekend! Noted. Thanks brain).
I picked UCLA over Carolina in the finals because I think Carolina is loaded and can play any style of basketball...until they play UCLA apparently. I don't know, I didn't like taking the top-seeded Tar Heels even though it made the most sense. So I went with UCLA because it felt right, and then I saw the Sports Guy made the same pick and knew I was screwed. But hey, I was picking to my picks!!- Well except for Siena over Vandy...long story short, as Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men "you want me in your bracket pool! You NEED me in your bracket pool!" I mean with reasoning like this, who wouldn't want me in their pool? Enjoy the rest of the weekend everybody, and happy Easter!
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Day the (Polka) Music Died
The world has officially ended in Wisconsin. Judgement Day is upon the fine folks of the cheese state. The collective will to live has been taken from them, as they sing Bye Bye Mr. American Pie: Brett Favre officially announced his retirement today. Governor Jim Doyle has sent everyone home to mourn in their own way (i.e. liquor stores across the state will be sold out any minute now), and flags are flying at half mast. The Man that every Packer man and woman wants and every Wisconsin man and woman wants to be has left them for good, riding off into the sunset on his garden tractor, never to take the hallowed frozen tundra of Lambeau Field again.
This child (assuming life goes on in Wisconsin) will grow up in a Cheesehead world without Favre, without #4, without the guy who just loved playing the game. This lil' tyke will never get to hear announcers on every network fall all over themselves to applaud, praise, and practically make out with Favre every chance they get as they continually call him "Brett" like they're his best friend.
So if you live anywhere near the state of Wisconsin, stay away. Stay FAR away. Anyone daring to enter does so at their own peril, as Scony's statewide will be operating heavy machinery and driving motor vehicles at a time when they should be doing neither. God help you if you live in Wisconsin. Trying to get out of there will be like a scene from Escape from New York.
This man was just trying to escape the reality of Life Without Brett, and really who could blame him? While the last 17 Years of Brett has been bliss for the green and gold, let us not forget in between the glory days of the Packers that ended with a Super Bowl in Vince Lombardi's last game in 1967 and Favre's first in 1992 were dark days, and they are upon Packer fans again.
So just lock up your family, hide in the basement, and secure your rations of Old Mil, brats, and Wisconsin cheese. Everything will be ok...well at least until Packer fans realize that THIS man is your new starting quarterback:
We as Vikings fans say good luck with that.
This child (assuming life goes on in Wisconsin) will grow up in a Cheesehead world without Favre, without #4, without the guy who just loved playing the game. This lil' tyke will never get to hear announcers on every network fall all over themselves to applaud, praise, and practically make out with Favre every chance they get as they continually call him "Brett" like they're his best friend.So if you live anywhere near the state of Wisconsin, stay away. Stay FAR away. Anyone daring to enter does so at their own peril, as Scony's statewide will be operating heavy machinery and driving motor vehicles at a time when they should be doing neither. God help you if you live in Wisconsin. Trying to get out of there will be like a scene from Escape from New York.
This man was just trying to escape the reality of Life Without Brett, and really who could blame him? While the last 17 Years of Brett has been bliss for the green and gold, let us not forget in between the glory days of the Packers that ended with a Super Bowl in Vince Lombardi's last game in 1967 and Favre's first in 1992 were dark days, and they are upon Packer fans again.So just lock up your family, hide in the basement, and secure your rations of Old Mil, brats, and Wisconsin cheese. Everything will be ok...well at least until Packer fans realize that THIS man is your new starting quarterback:
We as Vikings fans say good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
