Mercury...
I just...
I don't have words... The only thing I hope he does is...
This
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Question Below
Do you think Indy's win over Tennessee (and any subsequent win) will be enough to save Caldwell's job? Was that job in jeopardy to begin with? Why or why not?
I don't think that Caldwell's job was ever in jeopardy, although it should be. In a strange twist the injury to Peyton Manning may have actually saved him for a year or even two. Logically, most fans and observers are assuming that the Colts are the worst team in football only because they lost Manning, I say that's just impossible.
(Now, to be fair I should disclaim that I am quite possibly the biggest Manning hater in the world. I can't stand anything that guy does and I think he's such a phony, pompous, media darling that actually chokes puppies and abuses his teammates when the cameras aren't rolling...)
Anyway, I say again, that's impossible. There is no way Manning makes up 10 wins himself. Everyone forgets, they weren't very good last year. They struggled to get to 10-6 and didn't do much to improve in the off-season. Everyone has reacted to this Colts season based on two faulty lines of thought. First, that this was still the Colts team of '05-'09 when they had one of the best offenses in football, it's not. Marvin Harrison isn't walking through that door and if he does he'll probably have a gun in his hand.
Second, people have such a selective memory about Manning that they forget that he wasn't particularly dominant last year. For some reason the media and some fans put the blinders on about this guy. He had 17 interceptions in 2010 against 33 touchdowns. Tom Brady had 36 touchdowns against only four interceptions. Aaron Rodgers had 28 and 11. Brady, Rodgers, Vick, and Roethlisberger all had QB ratings over 100, Manning's rating was just north of 90. Hall-of-Fame names like Schaub, Rivers, Flacco, and Freeman all had markedly better seasons than Manning in '10 in terms of QB rating, touchdown to interception ratio, and efficiency. Taking the 11th best quarterback (no joke check it out) in the NFL off of the Colts did not make them a one win team. I'm not suggesting that they wouldn't have been better with him, but there is very little chance that team makes the playoffs even with a healthy Manning.
Luckily for Caldwell hardly anyone agrees with me. He's going to get a completely free pass for this season from the fans and the media. Then when the Colts trade Manning to the Cowboys or 49ers next year so they can start Luck right away he will get another free pass because of his rookie QB.
So, with a healthy Manning and an 8-8 record Caldwell would probably be on a very hot seat right now, but because of the injury and the resultant zero-expectations his team is going to win one or two games and he'll be completely safe. And it's all because of selective memory and a gross distortion of Manning's value and the quality of the Colts team as a whole.
I don't think that Caldwell's job was ever in jeopardy, although it should be. In a strange twist the injury to Peyton Manning may have actually saved him for a year or even two. Logically, most fans and observers are assuming that the Colts are the worst team in football only because they lost Manning, I say that's just impossible.
(Now, to be fair I should disclaim that I am quite possibly the biggest Manning hater in the world. I can't stand anything that guy does and I think he's such a phony, pompous, media darling that actually chokes puppies and abuses his teammates when the cameras aren't rolling...)
Anyway, I say again, that's impossible. There is no way Manning makes up 10 wins himself. Everyone forgets, they weren't very good last year. They struggled to get to 10-6 and didn't do much to improve in the off-season. Everyone has reacted to this Colts season based on two faulty lines of thought. First, that this was still the Colts team of '05-'09 when they had one of the best offenses in football, it's not. Marvin Harrison isn't walking through that door and if he does he'll probably have a gun in his hand.
Second, people have such a selective memory about Manning that they forget that he wasn't particularly dominant last year. For some reason the media and some fans put the blinders on about this guy. He had 17 interceptions in 2010 against 33 touchdowns. Tom Brady had 36 touchdowns against only four interceptions. Aaron Rodgers had 28 and 11. Brady, Rodgers, Vick, and Roethlisberger all had QB ratings over 100, Manning's rating was just north of 90. Hall-of-Fame names like Schaub, Rivers, Flacco, and Freeman all had markedly better seasons than Manning in '10 in terms of QB rating, touchdown to interception ratio, and efficiency. Taking the 11th best quarterback (no joke check it out) in the NFL off of the Colts did not make them a one win team. I'm not suggesting that they wouldn't have been better with him, but there is very little chance that team makes the playoffs even with a healthy Manning.
Luckily for Caldwell hardly anyone agrees with me. He's going to get a completely free pass for this season from the fans and the media. Then when the Colts trade Manning to the Cowboys or 49ers next year so they can start Luck right away he will get another free pass because of his rookie QB.
So, with a healthy Manning and an 8-8 record Caldwell would probably be on a very hot seat right now, but because of the injury and the resultant zero-expectations his team is going to win one or two games and he'll be completely safe. And it's all because of selective memory and a gross distortion of Manning's value and the quality of the Colts team as a whole.
Friday, December 16, 2011
If you were to put together a Jeter-style "thanks for riding" gift bag for your one-night-only lady friends, what would be in it?
Three cards. It could all fit in an envelope.
1. A comment/feedback card (because everyone could use improvement).
2. A Starbucks gift card that may or may not have any money on it.
3. The D-Man's business card.
1. A comment/feedback card (because everyone could use improvement).
2. A Starbucks gift card that may or may not have any money on it.
3. The D-Man's business card.
Do you think the Pats will be able to freeze Tebow Time?
I had this conversation last night...
The short answer is yes, I think the Patriots will win on Sunday and put the Tebow mania on hold for a week.
However, I'm scared. I feel about this game the way I feel when they play the Jets. I know the Patriots are better and I know that they should win. But I'm not convinced that they will. And it's compounded by how badly I want them to stomp the Broncos and shut-up Tebow's Bible thumping minions for a few days.
The problem is that right now New England's defense is really good at making opposing quarterbacks looks good. Rex Grossman went up and down the field on them last week and made it look easy. Without a lucky bounce on the last possession that game is probably headed to overtime. Tebow isn't as good as Grossman but he doesn't need to be because Denver's defense is much better than Washington's.
I know everyone thinks the Patriots are going to come out and put their foot down right from kickoff, and I hope they're right. I'm just not convinced that they can get enough stops to build the huge lead that it would take for me to be comfortable in the fourth quarter. If it comes down to Tebow-time it's going to be one stressful scene in Bar 96... I'll take Brady-time over Tebow-time every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but still it's hard to game plan for magic and fairy dust which is what the Broncos have seemingly been winning on.
On a slight aside I think this game will actually be a good test for Tebow. If he can't move the ball for three quarters against the putrid Patriots defense then he just isn't any good. EVERYONE has been gashing this defense, particularly through the air. You have to figure the Pats are going to do everything they can to make him throw it (surprisingly their rush defense is not nearly as bad as their pass defense) and if he struggles it will go a long way towards proving his ultimate ineptitude. If he has some success, like I think he will, it will fuel his blind devotees even more but I really don't care as long as the Patriots come home from Denver at 11-3.
The short answer is yes, I think the Patriots will win on Sunday and put the Tebow mania on hold for a week.
However, I'm scared. I feel about this game the way I feel when they play the Jets. I know the Patriots are better and I know that they should win. But I'm not convinced that they will. And it's compounded by how badly I want them to stomp the Broncos and shut-up Tebow's Bible thumping minions for a few days.
The problem is that right now New England's defense is really good at making opposing quarterbacks looks good. Rex Grossman went up and down the field on them last week and made it look easy. Without a lucky bounce on the last possession that game is probably headed to overtime. Tebow isn't as good as Grossman but he doesn't need to be because Denver's defense is much better than Washington's.
I know everyone thinks the Patriots are going to come out and put their foot down right from kickoff, and I hope they're right. I'm just not convinced that they can get enough stops to build the huge lead that it would take for me to be comfortable in the fourth quarter. If it comes down to Tebow-time it's going to be one stressful scene in Bar 96... I'll take Brady-time over Tebow-time every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but still it's hard to game plan for magic and fairy dust which is what the Broncos have seemingly been winning on.
On a slight aside I think this game will actually be a good test for Tebow. If he can't move the ball for three quarters against the putrid Patriots defense then he just isn't any good. EVERYONE has been gashing this defense, particularly through the air. You have to figure the Pats are going to do everything they can to make him throw it (surprisingly their rush defense is not nearly as bad as their pass defense) and if he struggles it will go a long way towards proving his ultimate ineptitude. If he has some success, like I think he will, it will fuel his blind devotees even more but I really don't care as long as the Patriots come home from Denver at 11-3.
If you're Chris Paul, what is your reaction to being the NBA ownership's PDA (public display of authority)?
Chris Paul comes out of this with an interesting legacy. In practical terms he was barely involved. He may have requested to be traded from New Orleans but that was totally superfluous, he was on his way out of there regardless and everyone knew it. This has really been a story about Stern, the owners, and why it's a terrible idea for a league to collectively own a team. On the other hand, Paul's name was the headline on all the coverage and he's inextricable from what happened, whether he did anything to deserve it or not.
He's also now unavoidably connected to the lockout, in fact he is probably now the third face of it with Stern and Billy Hunter. One side will see his case as proof that the lockout worked and that the owners reasserted some power. The other side will see it as proof of the opposite and that the commissioner's time in the captain's chair is running out. Both sides are at least half right. When the book about the last six months in the NBA's history is written the final chapter will likely be about the CP3 saga and how the league went completely off the tracks for two weeks trying to prove...something.
To answer your question about how he feels about it I can only assume that he's thrilled with the result but not the process. While I'm sure that he felt like a very well-paid piece of rope being used for the tug-of-war between the teams and the league this has actually ended up being a lot of free publicity for Paul and the Clippers.
Unless CP3 is a total idiot he had to know that trade talks starting the same day the new CBA was signed were bound to draw some negative attention. I'm sure he didn't expect the rain of nonsense that ultimately resulted, but he had to expect some backlash. When it all started spiraling he probably thought that he was going to be stuck in New Orleans or end up in a similarly small market under league mandate for this season. That, along with the label (fair or not) of discontented superstar could not have made him very happy. But now let's look at the results.
First, he's out of New Orleans, which is exactly what he wanted. Win.
Second, he's in L.A., which is a huge market and an awesome city in which to be young and rich. Win.
Third, he's not on the Lakers, which means he doesn't have to play with Kobe, hear all the talk about whether they can coexist, and try to win on a team with no big-men. Oh and as an added bonus the rest of the basketball world doesn't automatically hate him for appearing to force his way to such a loath-able team. He and Kobe together would have had a Miami Heat-sized target on their back. Win.
Lastly, he got paid. Who doesn't want that?
I'm sure if you gave him the choice he would rather have not been the test subject for the new CBA and for Stern's declining influence and authority. However, you can't say that he's a loser in this deal and I'm sure he's pretty happy with it now that it's done.
He's also now unavoidably connected to the lockout, in fact he is probably now the third face of it with Stern and Billy Hunter. One side will see his case as proof that the lockout worked and that the owners reasserted some power. The other side will see it as proof of the opposite and that the commissioner's time in the captain's chair is running out. Both sides are at least half right. When the book about the last six months in the NBA's history is written the final chapter will likely be about the CP3 saga and how the league went completely off the tracks for two weeks trying to prove...something.
To answer your question about how he feels about it I can only assume that he's thrilled with the result but not the process. While I'm sure that he felt like a very well-paid piece of rope being used for the tug-of-war between the teams and the league this has actually ended up being a lot of free publicity for Paul and the Clippers.
Unless CP3 is a total idiot he had to know that trade talks starting the same day the new CBA was signed were bound to draw some negative attention. I'm sure he didn't expect the rain of nonsense that ultimately resulted, but he had to expect some backlash. When it all started spiraling he probably thought that he was going to be stuck in New Orleans or end up in a similarly small market under league mandate for this season. That, along with the label (fair or not) of discontented superstar could not have made him very happy. But now let's look at the results.
First, he's out of New Orleans, which is exactly what he wanted. Win.
Second, he's in L.A., which is a huge market and an awesome city in which to be young and rich. Win.
Third, he's not on the Lakers, which means he doesn't have to play with Kobe, hear all the talk about whether they can coexist, and try to win on a team with no big-men. Oh and as an added bonus the rest of the basketball world doesn't automatically hate him for appearing to force his way to such a loath-able team. He and Kobe together would have had a Miami Heat-sized target on their back. Win.
Lastly, he got paid. Who doesn't want that?
I'm sure if you gave him the choice he would rather have not been the test subject for the new CBA and for Stern's declining influence and authority. However, you can't say that he's a loser in this deal and I'm sure he's pretty happy with it now that it's done.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
What the hell is going on with the CP3 trade attempts?
There are so many possibilities and opinions on this circus that it may become the subject of a book someday. "The Trading of Chris Paul and the Pointless Lockout" or "When David Stern's Dementia Became Obvious: A Laker Executive's Memoir". But here's my take.
The biggest wrenches in this situation are perception and timing. In some minds, the NBA was locked out for five months was as a direct result of what Lebron and more importantly Carmelo Anthony did last year. You can talk all you want about splitting revenues, sign and trade restrictions, and contract length. All of those terms and considerations gloss over one primary concern: power.
Without getting into too much boring detail here, David Stern and the NBA made the decision years ago to market the league based on its stars, rather than its franchises. It's a game where success and failure can literally be determined by one player, (ask Cleveland) and so using the stars as the vehicle to sell the league made (and still makes) sense. You don't hear promotions for the Knicks against the Hornets on ESPN, you hear about CP3 against Melo etc. etc.
By doing this in the 90's (Jordan, Barkley, Malone, the tail end of Bird etc.) and now (Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Howard, CP3, etc.) the NBA has achieved its highest levels of success ever (granted there was a huge post-Jordan talent vacuum in between). But it's a level of success that comes at a cost. A player that can win games single handed, sell tickets by showing up, and command millions in endorsements is no longer a pawn, no longer an employee in the traditional sense. It would be more accurate to refer to him as a limited partner, but one whose income is tied only to his own performance in the long-term, not on a nightly basis.
Which leads to a shifting in power. Players still can't pay their own salaries, build their own arenas, or fill their own rosters (yet). But in a media hungry world where fans crave unprecedented access and coverage of their favorite athletes, players can shape their own messages and wield considerable leverage. All it takes is star tweeting that he wants to play in New York and the rumors start. Every time he misses a clutch shot he's tanking to get traded. If he's on the bench more than usual the coach is tired of his whining about wanting to get out of town. When they lose he answers questions about his trade demands and when they win...he answers questions about his trade demands. It's a cycle that impacts everyone, including the owners.
People tend to see what they want to see or what they fear they will see. So imagine you are an owner of an NBA franchise and your star player who is up for free agency at the end of the year (or two) comes out and demands a trade. You know from past experience (watching other gazillionaire white guys deal with it) that once this happens performance often starts to decline along with attitude. Now the owner is hyper-sensitive to anything that even looks like petulance or pouting so he sees it in every missed free-throw, every blown defensive assignment, and every disagreement with a coach. It doesn't take long before the owner (or the GM) says, "Enough!" and trades the player for $0.75 on the dollar to, "get something for him."
With the new CBA (and even prior to it) players are perhaps even more motivated to make these trades happen during the final season of their current contracts through a sign and trade. The reason is simply financial, they are allowed to sign longer extensions with their current teams prior to being moved than they would be allowed to sign with their new teams after the trade. Some look at it as win-win. The player gets a longer deal and and the owner and his franchise get something for a player that was going to leave for nothing anyway. Nobody wants to be the next Cleveland.
This idea that a player (an "employee") could determine his own trade destination, was such a sticking point for the owners that they were willing to lock the players out and miss nearly 20 games each to stop it. Not all the owners of course, but most (and the ones who benefit from this type of movement sat very quietly hoping nobody would notice them when this came up). It's not the money, it's not even that players want to leave for greener pastures, it's the power that the media and enlarged player personalities can generate and its ability to erode the power of ownership. It's not a surprise that many stars eventually end up playing in big markets, the problem is that there is a developing perception around the league that they can decide to force their way there whenever they feel like it or whenever one of their friends signs there.
So rewind to three weeks ago with that long-winded back story. The lockout, that was supposed to regulate player movement and restore power to ownership, has been over for 3.5 seconds. What are the first stories that come out? "Where are Chis Paul and Dwight Howard going to end up?" You can't blame the owners for saying, "...wait...we just lost millions in an ugly and public CBA battle to change...nothing? Superstars can still force their way out of small markets whenever they feel like it? Oh heeeelllll no! ... Oh and by the way we own the damn team so why are we going to screw ourselves over by making the Lakers better?"
When the first trade proposal sending Paul to the Lakers came through it seemed like most observers' reactions were, "Already?" But many owners reactions more closely resembled, "GVOISNDBEO#$*&@@!!!!! LKVNEOIVNEO#$*!&@!!!!!!" Which roughly translates to, "You have to be fucking kidding me, I'm going to kill one of my lawn guys for sport this afternoon."
Which probably would have happened, but luckily for at least 29 lawn guys there was yet another wrinkle here which almost never happens...
All the owners were together in the same place... Because they had JUST signed the new CBA, that was going to prevent this type of player leverage, at the NBA offices in New York. It had been approved and announced a few days earlier but not actually signed. Had the trade been approved by the teams even three hours later CP3 probably ends up a Laker... But it didn't. So these arrogant rich guys got to sit in a room together and stew, and vent, and rage, and ultimately concoct an argument for Stern that probably went something like this...
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhhh!
Owners: WE own the Hornets!? WHY did WE trade one of the best players in the league to the Lakers... Sorry Mr. Buss.
Stern: Mmm?
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhh!! No, kill another lawn guy for chrissakes, I'll cancel the deal.
So he did, and now the league finds itself embroiled in quite possibly the most awkward conflict of interest in the history of sports.
They collectively own a franchise that has an unbelievably valuable commodity in Chris Paul that is going to be playing somewhere else at the end of the season, one way or another. They just locked out their own businesses in part to stop small market teams, like New Orleans, from being pressured into trading unhappy superstars to larger markets, like LA. If they trade him on the same day that the agreement is signed they're essentially saying that the lockout was for nothing and they get the added benefit of looking completely impotent or incompetent (take your pick). If they don't trade him the franchise that they own collectively might go under before someone can buy it from them AND Paul is leaving anyway. And not to mention that one of these owners has to sign off on trading for Paul while collectively agreeing to trade him to himself. Conflict. Of. Interest.
So to sum up this extremely long winded argument the problem with the attempts to trade Paul are:
1. The timing was horrible. The first act the league completes after a five month lockout in part due to unrestrained player movement cannot be an apparently unrestrained move by a player.
2. The league cannot have the perception, true or false, that they sold a marquee player from a small market to a large one. Again, why did we have a lockout?
Perception and timing.
What's the solution?
Umm... there isn't one.
Unless of course they want to trade him to the Celtics...
The biggest wrenches in this situation are perception and timing. In some minds, the NBA was locked out for five months was as a direct result of what Lebron and more importantly Carmelo Anthony did last year. You can talk all you want about splitting revenues, sign and trade restrictions, and contract length. All of those terms and considerations gloss over one primary concern: power.
Without getting into too much boring detail here, David Stern and the NBA made the decision years ago to market the league based on its stars, rather than its franchises. It's a game where success and failure can literally be determined by one player, (ask Cleveland) and so using the stars as the vehicle to sell the league made (and still makes) sense. You don't hear promotions for the Knicks against the Hornets on ESPN, you hear about CP3 against Melo etc. etc.
By doing this in the 90's (Jordan, Barkley, Malone, the tail end of Bird etc.) and now (Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Howard, CP3, etc.) the NBA has achieved its highest levels of success ever (granted there was a huge post-Jordan talent vacuum in between). But it's a level of success that comes at a cost. A player that can win games single handed, sell tickets by showing up, and command millions in endorsements is no longer a pawn, no longer an employee in the traditional sense. It would be more accurate to refer to him as a limited partner, but one whose income is tied only to his own performance in the long-term, not on a nightly basis.
Which leads to a shifting in power. Players still can't pay their own salaries, build their own arenas, or fill their own rosters (yet). But in a media hungry world where fans crave unprecedented access and coverage of their favorite athletes, players can shape their own messages and wield considerable leverage. All it takes is star tweeting that he wants to play in New York and the rumors start. Every time he misses a clutch shot he's tanking to get traded. If he's on the bench more than usual the coach is tired of his whining about wanting to get out of town. When they lose he answers questions about his trade demands and when they win...he answers questions about his trade demands. It's a cycle that impacts everyone, including the owners.
People tend to see what they want to see or what they fear they will see. So imagine you are an owner of an NBA franchise and your star player who is up for free agency at the end of the year (or two) comes out and demands a trade. You know from past experience (watching other gazillionaire white guys deal with it) that once this happens performance often starts to decline along with attitude. Now the owner is hyper-sensitive to anything that even looks like petulance or pouting so he sees it in every missed free-throw, every blown defensive assignment, and every disagreement with a coach. It doesn't take long before the owner (or the GM) says, "Enough!" and trades the player for $0.75 on the dollar to, "get something for him."
With the new CBA (and even prior to it) players are perhaps even more motivated to make these trades happen during the final season of their current contracts through a sign and trade. The reason is simply financial, they are allowed to sign longer extensions with their current teams prior to being moved than they would be allowed to sign with their new teams after the trade. Some look at it as win-win. The player gets a longer deal and and the owner and his franchise get something for a player that was going to leave for nothing anyway. Nobody wants to be the next Cleveland.
This idea that a player (an "employee") could determine his own trade destination, was such a sticking point for the owners that they were willing to lock the players out and miss nearly 20 games each to stop it. Not all the owners of course, but most (and the ones who benefit from this type of movement sat very quietly hoping nobody would notice them when this came up). It's not the money, it's not even that players want to leave for greener pastures, it's the power that the media and enlarged player personalities can generate and its ability to erode the power of ownership. It's not a surprise that many stars eventually end up playing in big markets, the problem is that there is a developing perception around the league that they can decide to force their way there whenever they feel like it or whenever one of their friends signs there.
So rewind to three weeks ago with that long-winded back story. The lockout, that was supposed to regulate player movement and restore power to ownership, has been over for 3.5 seconds. What are the first stories that come out? "Where are Chis Paul and Dwight Howard going to end up?" You can't blame the owners for saying, "...wait...we just lost millions in an ugly and public CBA battle to change...nothing? Superstars can still force their way out of small markets whenever they feel like it? Oh heeeelllll no! ... Oh and by the way we own the damn team so why are we going to screw ourselves over by making the Lakers better?"
When the first trade proposal sending Paul to the Lakers came through it seemed like most observers' reactions were, "Already?" But many owners reactions more closely resembled, "GVOISNDBEO#$*&@@!!!!! LKVNEOIVNEO#$*!&@!!!!!!" Which roughly translates to, "You have to be fucking kidding me, I'm going to kill one of my lawn guys for sport this afternoon."
Which probably would have happened, but luckily for at least 29 lawn guys there was yet another wrinkle here which almost never happens...
All the owners were together in the same place... Because they had JUST signed the new CBA, that was going to prevent this type of player leverage, at the NBA offices in New York. It had been approved and announced a few days earlier but not actually signed. Had the trade been approved by the teams even three hours later CP3 probably ends up a Laker... But it didn't. So these arrogant rich guys got to sit in a room together and stew, and vent, and rage, and ultimately concoct an argument for Stern that probably went something like this...
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhhh!
Owners: WE own the Hornets!? WHY did WE trade one of the best players in the league to the Lakers... Sorry Mr. Buss.
Stern: Mmm?
Owners: We're going to kill you.
Stern: Agghhh!! No, kill another lawn guy for chrissakes, I'll cancel the deal.
So he did, and now the league finds itself embroiled in quite possibly the most awkward conflict of interest in the history of sports.
They collectively own a franchise that has an unbelievably valuable commodity in Chris Paul that is going to be playing somewhere else at the end of the season, one way or another. They just locked out their own businesses in part to stop small market teams, like New Orleans, from being pressured into trading unhappy superstars to larger markets, like LA. If they trade him on the same day that the agreement is signed they're essentially saying that the lockout was for nothing and they get the added benefit of looking completely impotent or incompetent (take your pick). If they don't trade him the franchise that they own collectively might go under before someone can buy it from them AND Paul is leaving anyway. And not to mention that one of these owners has to sign off on trading for Paul while collectively agreeing to trade him to himself. Conflict. Of. Interest.
So to sum up this extremely long winded argument the problem with the attempts to trade Paul are:
1. The timing was horrible. The first act the league completes after a five month lockout in part due to unrestrained player movement cannot be an apparently unrestrained move by a player.
2. The league cannot have the perception, true or false, that they sold a marquee player from a small market to a large one. Again, why did we have a lockout?
Perception and timing.
What's the solution?
Umm... there isn't one.
Unless of course they want to trade him to the Celtics...
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Question Below
Everyone is talking about Eli Manning proving himself as an "elite" quarterback this year; I say he's still tier 2 (and an ass clown). Why am I right?
(Huge sigh) You're not.
Excuse me while I go puke in my shoes.
He's really good, and even better late in games. It nauseates me to say but he's extremely clutch and he's doing it on a team that isn't overly talented. His wide receivers don't scare you much more than the average, if at all. The defense has taken huge steps back from their previous dominance. Their coach's face is grotesquely deformed due to exposure to frigid temperatures. He's the Giants' best player and they're going to win their division...
Excuse me once again while I puke into my shoes.
Now, to your point that he's second tier I would agree with that in the strictest sense depending on how you define your tiers. There are three QB's that, this season, have set themselves apart from the rest statistically: Rodgers, Brady, and Brees (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no Peyton....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA). All three have a chance to break Marino's single season record for passing yards and combined they have six total losses. They are the top tier using those measures.
Unfortunately I think looking at it that way is flawed because what by so doing you're saying is that the top tier consists of the best quarterbacks on the best offensive teams which isn't exactly fair. It's almost like the Heisman conversation from yesterday, to judge a player based solely on the success of his team is not a true measure of his value. Manning is having a tremendous season because his team isn't very good and he might be one of a small handful of reasons that they're winning. Roethlisberger is another example. His team is doing well and he is having probably the best season of his career but he wouldn't be ranked among the league's best by the previous measures.
All that being said if I'm starting a team I'm not taking Manning with my first pick or even my first five picks. But if I need to win a game in the fourth quarter right now I'd probably take him over everyone but Brady (maybe Tebow-time...hehehehe) and even that might be because I'm a homer. Rodgers is better but less proven in the clutch and Brees just is not as good in those crunch time situations.
So like I said... (huge sigh) ... You're not right.
(Huge sigh) You're not.
Excuse me while I go puke in my shoes.
He's really good, and even better late in games. It nauseates me to say but he's extremely clutch and he's doing it on a team that isn't overly talented. His wide receivers don't scare you much more than the average, if at all. The defense has taken huge steps back from their previous dominance. Their coach's face is grotesquely deformed due to exposure to frigid temperatures. He's the Giants' best player and they're going to win their division...
Excuse me once again while I puke into my shoes.
Now, to your point that he's second tier I would agree with that in the strictest sense depending on how you define your tiers. There are three QB's that, this season, have set themselves apart from the rest statistically: Rodgers, Brady, and Brees (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no Peyton....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA). All three have a chance to break Marino's single season record for passing yards and combined they have six total losses. They are the top tier using those measures.
Unfortunately I think looking at it that way is flawed because what by so doing you're saying is that the top tier consists of the best quarterbacks on the best offensive teams which isn't exactly fair. It's almost like the Heisman conversation from yesterday, to judge a player based solely on the success of his team is not a true measure of his value. Manning is having a tremendous season because his team isn't very good and he might be one of a small handful of reasons that they're winning. Roethlisberger is another example. His team is doing well and he is having probably the best season of his career but he wouldn't be ranked among the league's best by the previous measures.
All that being said if I'm starting a team I'm not taking Manning with my first pick or even my first five picks. But if I need to win a game in the fourth quarter right now I'd probably take him over everyone but Brady (maybe Tebow-time...hehehehe) and even that might be because I'm a homer. Rodgers is better but less proven in the clutch and Brees just is not as good in those crunch time situations.
So like I said... (huge sigh) ... You're not right.
Under what scenario could TJ Yeats lead the Texans beyond the divisional playoffs?
The only way that T.J. Yates leads the Texans beyond the divisional playoffs is if T.J. Yates does not have to "lead" the Texans, AND Andre Johnson comes back, AND they have home field advantage. I'm not going to go on and on about how Yates isn't any good, I actually think he is serviceable, especially compared to some of the truly lousy quarterbacks out there. (I'm looking at you Matt Moore and Caleb Hanie.)
Rather than ability the larger issue for Yates is that he's a rookie and his team is very light on talent and depth at the running back position. It's not like they can just line up and smash it 50 times and only throw on 3rd 8+. He's going to have to win them games, which is already difficult enough in the playoffs but if you take away Johnson and put Houston on the road in the cold in Pittsburgh, New England, or Baltimore I don't think it will be pretty.
But, if they can hold onto home field, get Denver-esque defense (turnovers), and not fall behind to where they would need to throw to come back then I wouldn't rule them out. That defense is vicious even without Mario Williams and they can run it enough with Tate when they're playing from the front. In order to hang onto home field however, they won't be able to lose, not even one out of three because either Pittsburgh or New England are running the table.
Rather than ability the larger issue for Yates is that he's a rookie and his team is very light on talent and depth at the running back position. It's not like they can just line up and smash it 50 times and only throw on 3rd 8+. He's going to have to win them games, which is already difficult enough in the playoffs but if you take away Johnson and put Houston on the road in the cold in Pittsburgh, New England, or Baltimore I don't think it will be pretty.
But, if they can hold onto home field, get Denver-esque defense (turnovers), and not fall behind to where they would need to throw to come back then I wouldn't rule them out. That defense is vicious even without Mario Williams and they can run it enough with Tate when they're playing from the front. In order to hang onto home field however, they won't be able to lose, not even one out of three because either Pittsburgh or New England are running the table.
Monday, December 12, 2011
I feel like I'm seeing 15-yard penalties everywhere....is the the NFL getting soft?
The NFL isn't getting soft, it's getting scared. With all the attention paid to concussions and the life-altering effects they have had on previous generations of players the NFL really has no choice but to try to keep their players safer. The only way to do that is to flag anything and everything that looks like a dangerous hit.
Rule changes come along in every sport, players are going to have to adapt. I'll grant you there are a lot of plays where a defender gets flagged for a hit and I don't know what his alternative was. Football is a fast moving game and you can't plan every collision to avoid the head and land perfectly on the shoulder, meaning some of these flags are not necessarily the fault of the offending player. That being said possibly being considered soft is better than having to open your own hospital to care for all your retirees in vegetative states.
I think the real question is whether the flags are working. The intent is good but are players actually safer? Are concussions down? Will the life-span and quality of life for retired players improve? I don't have an answer to any of those, but those are the things the NFL should be worrying about, not a perception of softness.
Rule changes come along in every sport, players are going to have to adapt. I'll grant you there are a lot of plays where a defender gets flagged for a hit and I don't know what his alternative was. Football is a fast moving game and you can't plan every collision to avoid the head and land perfectly on the shoulder, meaning some of these flags are not necessarily the fault of the offending player. That being said possibly being considered soft is better than having to open your own hospital to care for all your retirees in vegetative states.
I think the real question is whether the flags are working. The intent is good but are players actually safer? Are concussions down? Will the life-span and quality of life for retired players improve? I don't have an answer to any of those, but those are the things the NFL should be worrying about, not a perception of softness.
Does RGIII deserve the Heisman? Did he deserve it 1 month ago? What changed? What does it mean for Andrew Luck and is Indianapolis now sucking for
I think the Heisman is such a flawed award. I don't even know what qualifies someone as deserving anymore. Is it an MVP award or does it go to the best player (if you think about it those really are two totally different things)? Does your team need to be really good / nationally relevant in order for you to be the best player? Is it really just an award for the best offensive player on the best team? What role to do politics and campaigning play?
The Griffin case was such an anomaly in my opinion and, at the risk of being overly dramatic, such a reflection on our current media culture. To answer your second question, I don't know if Griffin deserved the Heisman a month ago, but he certainly would not have won it. In this, "what have you done for me lately," 24 hour news cycle, immediate gratification culture that we live in it is apparently more important to be scheduled to play on the last weekend of the season than it is to actually be the best player. It's also apparently very helpful, if you going to lose, to do it early in the season when people aren't paying close attention and won't remember.
Luck was punished by a couple of things. First, he didn't play on the last Saturday of the season so he wasn't "fresh" in voters minds. (This is totally mind boggling to me, the kid has been an unstoppable machine for three years but by virtue of not playing one more game before the votes were due he's all of a sudden not as good as a QB from fucking Baylor? I digress...) Stanford lost to Oregon on national TV and he threw a costly interception. (Never mind the 50+ points his defense allowed.) Other than that game Stanford's games weren't broadcast nationally very often and by virtue of playing in California many of their games started late on the east coast. That relative lack of exposure and one notable failure seemingly created this perception that he wasn't quite as good as he was last year. Whether that's true or not is debatable but if Stanford beat Oregon and played in the Pac-12 championship game Luck is your Heisman winner, guaranteed.
If you look at Griffin's, and maybe more importantly Baylor's season you'll see what I mean. As I said above Luck was punished for losing on national TV to Oregon on November 5th. That was Stanford's only loss. Baylor has three losses, K-State, Oklahoma State, and ... wait for it ... A&M (yup you read that right). And in case you forgot (I did) they didn't just lose to A&M, they got demolished 55-28. They also got thumped by Oklahoma State 59-24. So what's the difference? Baylor's last loss was October 29th at OK-State, a week before Stanford's loss. It was on TV but it was regional coverage on ABC at 2:30 PM, meaning viewers on the east and west coasts could have been watching something else. The entire college football world watched Luck lose to Oregon but very few watched (and even fewer remember) Griffin get crushed in Stillwater, nobody remembers anything about the A&M or K-State losses ... and that makes him more deserving of the Heisman? Baylor lost three times in one month, Stanford lost once all year... 'Splain to me how the "Luck lost the Heisman against Oregon" argument makes any sense?
As you can probably deduce I think Luck got screwed and is the better player. Griffin was sort of the Newt Gingrich of the Heisman race, showed up late, caught fire, didn't screw up publicly, and was on TV when it mattered. Perhaps a better analogy is Spaz's hiring at BC. What were his distinguishing characteristics? He was there, he was loyal, he wasn't going to leave, he had a ton of experience, Gene D. loved him. All of those are helpful but should they be the only reason you hire someone? No. What were Griffin's distinguishing characteristics? He played well in a game on December 2nd, he didn't lose on national TV, he didn't lose after Halloween, and his team beat Oklahoma and Texas on TV.
Do those things really make someone the best football player in the country? Absolutely not, but they do answer the question, what have you done for me lately?
As for the NFL part of your question, I think there is almost no chance to Colts even consider Griffin. Think about their successes of late. They have all been due to the ability of a very traditional pocket passer, I don't see them trying to change their entire system to fit Griffin's style, especially not when a better player is available that makes more sense. Griffin is going to go high in the draft (he should send Cam Newton a thank-you note) but where the voters failed to have any perspective on the Heisman the NFL has the luxury of time to actually look at them and determine who the better player is based on....you know... PLAYING. Not arbitrary scheduling and flukes of TV coverage.
The Griffin case was such an anomaly in my opinion and, at the risk of being overly dramatic, such a reflection on our current media culture. To answer your second question, I don't know if Griffin deserved the Heisman a month ago, but he certainly would not have won it. In this, "what have you done for me lately," 24 hour news cycle, immediate gratification culture that we live in it is apparently more important to be scheduled to play on the last weekend of the season than it is to actually be the best player. It's also apparently very helpful, if you going to lose, to do it early in the season when people aren't paying close attention and won't remember.
Luck was punished by a couple of things. First, he didn't play on the last Saturday of the season so he wasn't "fresh" in voters minds. (This is totally mind boggling to me, the kid has been an unstoppable machine for three years but by virtue of not playing one more game before the votes were due he's all of a sudden not as good as a QB from fucking Baylor? I digress...) Stanford lost to Oregon on national TV and he threw a costly interception. (Never mind the 50+ points his defense allowed.) Other than that game Stanford's games weren't broadcast nationally very often and by virtue of playing in California many of their games started late on the east coast. That relative lack of exposure and one notable failure seemingly created this perception that he wasn't quite as good as he was last year. Whether that's true or not is debatable but if Stanford beat Oregon and played in the Pac-12 championship game Luck is your Heisman winner, guaranteed.
If you look at Griffin's, and maybe more importantly Baylor's season you'll see what I mean. As I said above Luck was punished for losing on national TV to Oregon on November 5th. That was Stanford's only loss. Baylor has three losses, K-State, Oklahoma State, and ... wait for it ... A&M (yup you read that right). And in case you forgot (I did) they didn't just lose to A&M, they got demolished 55-28. They also got thumped by Oklahoma State 59-24. So what's the difference? Baylor's last loss was October 29th at OK-State, a week before Stanford's loss. It was on TV but it was regional coverage on ABC at 2:30 PM, meaning viewers on the east and west coasts could have been watching something else. The entire college football world watched Luck lose to Oregon but very few watched (and even fewer remember) Griffin get crushed in Stillwater, nobody remembers anything about the A&M or K-State losses ... and that makes him more deserving of the Heisman? Baylor lost three times in one month, Stanford lost once all year... 'Splain to me how the "Luck lost the Heisman against Oregon" argument makes any sense?
As you can probably deduce I think Luck got screwed and is the better player. Griffin was sort of the Newt Gingrich of the Heisman race, showed up late, caught fire, didn't screw up publicly, and was on TV when it mattered. Perhaps a better analogy is Spaz's hiring at BC. What were his distinguishing characteristics? He was there, he was loyal, he wasn't going to leave, he had a ton of experience, Gene D. loved him. All of those are helpful but should they be the only reason you hire someone? No. What were Griffin's distinguishing characteristics? He played well in a game on December 2nd, he didn't lose on national TV, he didn't lose after Halloween, and his team beat Oklahoma and Texas on TV.
Do those things really make someone the best football player in the country? Absolutely not, but they do answer the question, what have you done for me lately?
As for the NFL part of your question, I think there is almost no chance to Colts even consider Griffin. Think about their successes of late. They have all been due to the ability of a very traditional pocket passer, I don't see them trying to change their entire system to fit Griffin's style, especially not when a better player is available that makes more sense. Griffin is going to go high in the draft (he should send Cam Newton a thank-you note) but where the voters failed to have any perspective on the Heisman the NFL has the luxury of time to actually look at them and determine who the better player is based on....you know... PLAYING. Not arbitrary scheduling and flukes of TV coverage.
Do you think Tom Coughlin took his kicker-icing cues from Jason Garrett's moves last week? (i.e. did he see that Bailey was successfully iced last wee
I don't think what happened last week had anything to do with Coughlin's decision to call timeout. That's such a common move in the NFL these days, even though I think it rarely works and has backfired as much as it has paid off. There have been plenty of cases where the kicker missed the first kick only to get a second chance because of the timeout (which makes a coach look very very bad as the second kick is sailing through the uprights).
Another thing to remember in this case is that Bailey wasn't really iced, the kick was blocked. It's not like he went out there and shanked it 30 yards to the right, the Giants line just made a great push. The timeout didn't do anything to Bailey, it just have the D a second chance to get to him. Coughlin's going to get credit for pushing the right button at the right time but it's such an overrated move, especially when it works, and it's too fickle in my opinion. If you do it and it works you're a genius, if it fails you're a clueless buffoon... The only thing that anyone knows for sure? Don't ice your own kicker.
Another thing to remember in this case is that Bailey wasn't really iced, the kick was blocked. It's not like he went out there and shanked it 30 yards to the right, the Giants line just made a great push. The timeout didn't do anything to Bailey, it just have the D a second chance to get to him. Coughlin's going to get credit for pushing the right button at the right time but it's such an overrated move, especially when it works, and it's too fickle in my opinion. If you do it and it works you're a genius, if it fails you're a clueless buffoon... The only thing that anyone knows for sure? Don't ice your own kicker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)