And now, finally, we head into week 17, the last week of full NFL football for over a year if the owners have anything to say about it. It has been a wild and whacky year, and so in hindsight I'll review my preseason picks (posted here) and figure out what I was right about, what I was wrong about, and what just doesn't make any sense. Then, starting next week, we'll go with the playoff picks.
AFC EAST
Preseason predictions: New England (11-5), Miami (10-6), NY Jets (7-9), Buffalo (3-13)
Through week sixteen: New England (13-2), NY Jets (10-5), Miami (7-8), Buffalo (4-11)
What I was right about: in August my Uncle and I had a discussion about New England, and Tom Brady in particular. I stated that I thought Brady would have a resurgent year, due in large part to having a year under his belt since his knee injury. My Uncle proclaimed Brady to be done, based on the logic that he had the rings, the super model wife, and wasn't going to be as devoted to the trade as in years past. We agreed to disagree. For once I was more than right; Brady's season might be the best year a QB has had in NFL history, particularly when you consider that one of his four interceptions was on an end of half Hail Mary, the talent around him was either rebounding from serious injury (Welker), over the hill (Branch) or unknown castoffs (rookie TEs, Woodhead and Green-Ellis). One year after I lamented the fact that Manning was on the verge of making "Manning or Brady" a legitimate argument, Brady has made it laughable again.
What I was wrong about: I expected the Jets to fall much more spectacularly, and while I was mostly right about their flaws (highly overrated QB, poor decision switching Thomas Jones for Tomlinson, a defense with too many egos and not enough discipline), they are good enough to make the playoffs, and they have enough talent to make some noise again this year. So, by default, I was wrong in calling for the Jets demise this year. Leading the Jets to consecutive playoff appearances is quite the feat for Rex Ryan.
What doesn't make any sense: The Miami Dolphins: 1 and 7 at home, 6 and 1 on the road. Miami fans have had a rough year, between the Heat having to teach their fans how to be fans, and the Dolphins having the exact opposite of a home court advantage.
AFC North
Preseason predictions: Pittsburgh (12-4), Baltimore (10-6), Cincinnati (7-9), Cleveland (4-12)
Through week sixteen: Pittsburgh (11-4), Baltimore (11-4), Cleveland (5-10), Cincinnati (4-11)
What I was right about: in the preseason I stated that "even with a porous offensive line the Steelers will reassert themselves as the top team in the AFC north." So far, so good. I also correctly projected a playoff year for Baltimore, and a regression from the Division Champ to out of the playoffs for Cincinnati, as well as a poor year for Cleveland.
What I was wrong about: I also wrote about Cincinnati that "Cincinnati has all kinds of warning flags for me: a QB who has looked progressively more washed up with every year, a RB who has no heart and poor secondary numbers, two big mouthed diva WRs, and a coach who nobody is sure is actually good." Even with realizing all of that I didn't devalue the Bengals enough. This is how bad the Bengals season was: a co-worker of mine, a life long Bengals fan, finally decided enough was enough this year, and he dumped the team. That's right, he disowned them, held a multi-week search for a new team, and finally settled on the New York Jets. I can't say I condone this action, but I at least appreciate what drove him to it.
What doesn't make any sense: I'm still puzzled by Cleveland giving millions of dollars to Jake Delhomme's corpse. It doesn't make any more sense now than it did at the time. Thank God, for the city of Cleveland's sake, that Delhomme got hurt. Only Jake's play could make Colt McCoy look like a franchise savior.
AFC South
Preseason predictions: Indianapolis (13-3), Houston (11-5), Tennessee (8-8), Jacksonville (8-8)
Through week sixteen: Indianapolis (9-6), Jacksonville (8-7), Tennessee (6-9), Houston (5-10)
What I was right about: Check out my quote from the preseason and tell me this isn't hauntingly prophetic: "the Colts have become like a bad horror movie: every time you think they are dead you walk away, fail to finish the deed, then they come back and maul you. Someone needs to cut their head off, but looking at this group I'm not sure anyone is capable of it." Now, flash forward to week 14. The Colts are 6-6, the Jags are in control of the division, even Houston and Tennessee have outside chances. Three weeks later, and none of the group were capable of finishing the Colts off. Somehow, this team is going to be in the playoffs again, as the division champs again.
What I was wrong about: I vastly overrated Houston's ability to capitalize on all their talent. They should have just collectively retired after beating the Colts week one. That was the high point of their season.
What doesn't make any sense: Ok, the idea that Peyton Manning is playing with a group of players so inferior to Tom Brady this year is ridiculous. Peyton, welcome to Tom's world: playing with castoffs, late round draft picks, and washed up veterans. With the lone exception of a two year honeymoon with Randy Moss, that's been his entire career. You know, while you've been berating a few guys by the names of Harrison, James, Faulk, Wayne, and Clark. The Manning myth is the most impressive thing the NFL has ever constructed.
AFC West
Preseason predictions: Oakland Raiders (9-7), San Diego Charges (8-8), Denver Broncos (7-9), Kansas City (6-10)
Through week sixteen: Kansas City (10-5), San Diego (8-7), Oakland (7-8), Denver (4-11)
What I was right about: The Chargers really did find a way to blow the division, and Oakland really did improve quite a bit. My preseason Oakland prediction wasn't actually as crazy as you thought, was it?
What I was wrong about: I vastly underrated the impact that the Chiefs would get out of getting the band back together: Charlie Wise and Romeo Crennel both did wonders for their respective sides of the ball, and for the second time in three years Matt Cassell looks like a competent QB. Thomas Jones just keeps on delivering playoff appearances for whatever team wakes up and realizes he still a productive running back. I'm so glad the Bears dumped him a few years back for Cedric Benson. Jerry and Lovie, you guys are absolute geniuses. (Help me. Lovie has a gun to my head right now. SEND HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
What doesn't make any sense: The Chargers have the second best offense in the league, and the best defense in the league. Can we all just agree to fire Norv Turner now, and never rehire him? I feel like I need to hold an intervention for NFL owners. Seriously guys, this never ends well. The Norv train ain't never late.
NFC East
Preseason predictions: Dallas (13-3), NY Giants (10-6), Washington Redskins (8-8), Philadelphia (6-10)
Through week sixteen: Philadelphia (10-5), NY Giants (9-6), Washington (6-9), Dallas (5-10)
What I was right about: Not much. I suppose you can say that I was pretty spot on in my analysis of the New York Giants, even though most in the media didn't like them to return to the playoffs. I was also right in my "why this won't happen" section, when I stated "Wade Phillips outweighs his talent."
What I was wrong about: I clearly stated that Dallas had too much talent to do exactly what they did: crap the bed, or billion dollar stadium, so to speak. Can we also agree never to hire Wade Phillips again? If only I'd followed my Norv logic through to the end I wouldn't have missed this one by so much. I also didn't envision Michael Vick becoming the captain of the most exciting offense in the NFL. Although I did see it coming after his week one performance, when I picked him up for my fantasy teams.
What doesn't make any sense: Mike Shanahan just benched Donovan McNabb, right after extending him for $78 million dollars, for Rex Grossman. I take back my preseason assessment that you wouldn't mind having Shanahan run your team.
NFC North
Preseason predictions: Green Bay (11-5), Chicago (10-6), Minnesota (7-9), Detroit (6-10)
Through week sixteen: Chicago (11-4), Green Bay (9-6), Minnesota (6-9), Detroit (5-10)
What I was right about: Almost everything; in fact, were it not for a multitude of injuries for Green Bay I'm thinking I might have been dead on. I told you that the Bears would win just enough for management to extend Lovie. And I couldn't be more excited about it. The man truly is a coaching genius. Who's Mike Ditka? (PLEASE SEND HELP. I'M AFRAID LOVIE IS GOING TO STAY THROUGH THE WEEKEND SINCE HE WILL ALMOST UNDOUBTEDLY MAIL THIS WEEK'S GAME IN, A TERRIBLE ... I MEAN, GREAT STRATEGY. I SAID GREAT STRATEGY LOVIE. WAIT, LOVIE .... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!)
What I was wrong about: Pretty much nothing except for not projecting that Green Bay would look more like a trauma ward and less like a football team this year.
What doesn't make any sense: Why does Brian Urlacher not care anymore? Did last year really mellow him out this much? While watching the Bears get ripped apart by New England the most depressing part of the game was that nobody seemed to care. Three years ago Urlacher would have ended someone on the sidelines, on the field, something. What happened big guy? Who knew your heart was actually located in the wrist?
NFC South
Preseason predictions: New Orleans (14-2), Carolina (11-5), Atlanta (9-7), Tampa Bay (5-11)
Through week sixteen: Atlanta (12-3), New Orleans (11-4), Tampa Bay (9-6), Carolina (2-13)
What I was right about: The streak of non-concurrent division winners continues ... which I mentioned in the section about why my prediction for this division would not happen. Crap.
What I was wrong about: I refuse to believe that I picked Carolina to go 11-5 this year. This part of the picks section had to have been hijacked by The Wiese. There is no way that I would have ever typed the words "I believe in Matt Moore."
What doesn't make any sense: Why I was stupid enough to pick Carolina to go 11-5. On the whole I didn't do too bad this year. But this pick is pretty embarrassing. Even Lovie is laughing at me.
NFC West
Preseason predictions: San Francisco (11-5), Arizona (8-8), St. Louis (5-11), Seattle (4-12)
Through week sixteen: St. Louis (7-8), Seattle (6-9), San Francisco (5-10), Arizona (5-10)
What I was right about: That's a good question. I guess I was right about this division not being any good, and being "super weak." I was so right about that read that we are getting the following promo this Sunday night: "Rams! Seahawks! A five hundred or worse playoff team is only sixty minutes from being crowned. A playoff play in on NBC!" Even Collinsworth can't sell this right?
What I was wrong about: I'm sorry Mike Singletary. I believed in you. I'll still wear your jersey proudly. But you were not very good as a coach.
What doesn't make any sense: I'm having trauma echos about betting against the NFC West champ in the first round, and I don't even know who they champ will be yet. The reason? Betting three straight rounds against "the worst team to ever make the playoffs" two years ago (9-7 Arizona) only to have them march to the Super Bowl. History can't repeat itself ... right?
Preseason Playoff Predictions
AFC PLAYOFF TEAMS (by seed)
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. New England Patriots
4. Oakland Raiders
5. Houston Texans
6. Baltimore Ravens
NFC PLAYOFF TEAMS (by seed)
1. New Orleans Saints
2. Dallas Cowboys
3. San Francisco 49ers
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Carolina Panthers
6. New York Giants
Likely Playoff Teams through week 16.
AFC:
1. New England
2. Pittsburgh
3. Kansas City
4. Indianapolis
5. Baltimore
6. NY Jets
(this could be shifted upside down if Pittsburgh and KC lose, and the Colts, Ravens, and Jets win. Then it would be 1. New England, 2. Baltimore, 3. Indianapolis, 4. Kansas City, 5. NY Jets and 6. Pittsburgh. And yes, I have that memorized. Seeding is important for playoff picks. And even though it isn't likely to happen, I suppose the Jags beaten corpse could win, with the Colts losing, resulting in the Colts missing the playoffs and the Jags as the 4 seed. Please?)
NFC:
1. Atlanta
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. St. Louis
5. New Orleans
6. Green Bay
(Atlanta could still lose the number one seed or division heading into the final week. Fear the Panthers Atlanta. This is John Fox's last game, and like I ... I mean, like The Wiese said earlier this year, the Panthers are going all out for him. It's time for win number three baby!
...
...
I'm back. Beyond that, Seattle could be the 4 seed if they beat St. Louis, the Bears could be the one seed if they win and Atlanta and New Orleans lose, the NY Giants could be in if they win and Green Bay falls to Chicago. But that six looks likely to me. So there.)
And so, in comparison, I (most likely) got four of six AFC teams correct (New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Indy) while missing on the AFC west (KC not Oakland) and the other wild card team (NY Jets, not Houston ... never Houston). I only got one certain, and no more than two NFC teams correct (New Orleans and probably Green Bay.
50%
That's the NFL baby. At least my preseason prediction for the Super Bowl (New Orleans over Pittsburgh) is still alive. Although I could have sworn I took Pittsburgh. Maybe The Wiese wrote that part too, huh Lovie?
Friday, December 31, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Ron Santo
I wish life wasn't quite so busy. If it wasn't I would have time to write more, but I felt the need to take a break from my semester paper to share my Ron Santo story.
About ten years ago my father, brother and I went to Chicago in the dead of winter to attend the Cubs Convention. For those of you who have not been to this event, it is all things Cubs, all the time. We listened to panel discussions, we stood in line to meet former and current Cubs, and we ducked out to catch a Bulls game in the post-MJ era; a decision I think we all regretted as soon as the opening tip happened. The Cubs convention held two iconic moments in my mind. The first was standing next to Ernie Banks, Mr. Cub himself, with my father and brother and getting our picture taken. Mr. Banks was kind enough to call us up even though his time was up and we had been told that he had to go. He asked if we wanted autographs; we replied uniformly that it was more meaningful to have the opportunity to shake his hand.
If you ask my brother and father what their iconic memory of that trip was I am sure they'd say meeting Ernie Banks, mixed in with the morons who let us pass them in line because they weren't there to see Mr. Banks ... they were there to see Kyle Farnsworth. But while this memory shines for me, I have a different moment that meant the world to me. As we were sitting in the room waiting for a panel discussion to start, an event that included a great number of Cubs greats, I saw Ron Santo walk in. You have to understand, this was a group that included Ryne Sandburg and other Cubs greats, but Santo stole the show. I noticed him immediately; he as the voice of the Cubs, the man who had taught me more than any other the joy and pain that came with rooting for the Northsiders. I quickly grabbed the calendar that was a door giveaway, and asked my father for a pen. He handed over his fine-ink banker pen, and off I went (all of ten or twelve at the time), dodging through people so that I could get to Ron before he made it to the stage.
I made it to him and said "Mr. Santo, could I have your autograph please?" Ron smiled at me, said "sure kid" and took the pen and calendar out of my hands. I felt like a million bucks as he took the cap off the pen, went to sign it ... and the pen wouldn't write on the calendar. The material wasn't made for a banker pen. My heart sank, as I realized I had just blown my opportunity to get Ron Santo's autograph, and made myself look like a young fool in the process. As I tried to work up the fortitude to turn and walk away (entirely ready to forget the calendar and the pen) I heard Ron say "hey, does anybody have a sharpie so I can sign this calendar for this young man?" I turned in time to see someone pass a sharpie over (lesson learned: sharpies are the best autograph hunting tools to carry), and Ron signed the calendar, handed it to me with a smile, then headed up to the stage. I, in turn, left with much more than an autograph of a player who was retired long before I came around; I left with a lesson on class and kindness.
I think I know where that calendar is right now, but I can't be sure. Life gets in the way, and things come and go. Ron Santo will not fade, however, in my mind, or in the hearts of millions of other Cubs fans around the world. Santo is a rare entity in the sports world: a legend who is revered by many, but largely under-appreciated. That he is not in the Hall of Fame goes a long way towards making that institution a sham. I also have little doubt that the powers that be will put him in the hall shortly; it has long been thought that they'd wait him out, and give him that acknowledgment only after he passed. If and when that happens, I hope that whoever gives his induction speech sends the simplest of messages, one that Ron sent time and again: you guys missed your chance. Ron Santo, through all of his trials, became bigger than most players in one crucial way: he defined a franchise, a passion for the game, and an entire nation of Cubs fans. When his number was retired at Wrigley he reached his absolution; the rest is just peanuts. And now, just like that, he's gone. Quietly, without complaint, which was Ronnie's style. I can't begin to fathom tuning into 720 this spring, summer and fall, and not hearing Ron Santo's ecstatic "yes!" or depressing "Jeez!" Ron taught me all I needed to know about being a sports fan: you stick by your team through thick and thin. You always believe, and never forget that you are blessed each time you walk into the hallowed grounds of Wrigley. Ronnie, I wish I could say this season was for you, that we were gonna win it all in your name. Maybe we will, but I doubt it. What I do know is that Eddie Vedder spoke what you lived: "when the day comes with that last winning run, and I'm crying and covered in beer, I look to the sky and know I was right to think 'someday we'll go all the way.'"
Mr. Santo, thanks for the memories. You will be missed.
About ten years ago my father, brother and I went to Chicago in the dead of winter to attend the Cubs Convention. For those of you who have not been to this event, it is all things Cubs, all the time. We listened to panel discussions, we stood in line to meet former and current Cubs, and we ducked out to catch a Bulls game in the post-MJ era; a decision I think we all regretted as soon as the opening tip happened. The Cubs convention held two iconic moments in my mind. The first was standing next to Ernie Banks, Mr. Cub himself, with my father and brother and getting our picture taken. Mr. Banks was kind enough to call us up even though his time was up and we had been told that he had to go. He asked if we wanted autographs; we replied uniformly that it was more meaningful to have the opportunity to shake his hand.
If you ask my brother and father what their iconic memory of that trip was I am sure they'd say meeting Ernie Banks, mixed in with the morons who let us pass them in line because they weren't there to see Mr. Banks ... they were there to see Kyle Farnsworth. But while this memory shines for me, I have a different moment that meant the world to me. As we were sitting in the room waiting for a panel discussion to start, an event that included a great number of Cubs greats, I saw Ron Santo walk in. You have to understand, this was a group that included Ryne Sandburg and other Cubs greats, but Santo stole the show. I noticed him immediately; he as the voice of the Cubs, the man who had taught me more than any other the joy and pain that came with rooting for the Northsiders. I quickly grabbed the calendar that was a door giveaway, and asked my father for a pen. He handed over his fine-ink banker pen, and off I went (all of ten or twelve at the time), dodging through people so that I could get to Ron before he made it to the stage.
I made it to him and said "Mr. Santo, could I have your autograph please?" Ron smiled at me, said "sure kid" and took the pen and calendar out of my hands. I felt like a million bucks as he took the cap off the pen, went to sign it ... and the pen wouldn't write on the calendar. The material wasn't made for a banker pen. My heart sank, as I realized I had just blown my opportunity to get Ron Santo's autograph, and made myself look like a young fool in the process. As I tried to work up the fortitude to turn and walk away (entirely ready to forget the calendar and the pen) I heard Ron say "hey, does anybody have a sharpie so I can sign this calendar for this young man?" I turned in time to see someone pass a sharpie over (lesson learned: sharpies are the best autograph hunting tools to carry), and Ron signed the calendar, handed it to me with a smile, then headed up to the stage. I, in turn, left with much more than an autograph of a player who was retired long before I came around; I left with a lesson on class and kindness.
I think I know where that calendar is right now, but I can't be sure. Life gets in the way, and things come and go. Ron Santo will not fade, however, in my mind, or in the hearts of millions of other Cubs fans around the world. Santo is a rare entity in the sports world: a legend who is revered by many, but largely under-appreciated. That he is not in the Hall of Fame goes a long way towards making that institution a sham. I also have little doubt that the powers that be will put him in the hall shortly; it has long been thought that they'd wait him out, and give him that acknowledgment only after he passed. If and when that happens, I hope that whoever gives his induction speech sends the simplest of messages, one that Ron sent time and again: you guys missed your chance. Ron Santo, through all of his trials, became bigger than most players in one crucial way: he defined a franchise, a passion for the game, and an entire nation of Cubs fans. When his number was retired at Wrigley he reached his absolution; the rest is just peanuts. And now, just like that, he's gone. Quietly, without complaint, which was Ronnie's style. I can't begin to fathom tuning into 720 this spring, summer and fall, and not hearing Ron Santo's ecstatic "yes!" or depressing "Jeez!" Ron taught me all I needed to know about being a sports fan: you stick by your team through thick and thin. You always believe, and never forget that you are blessed each time you walk into the hallowed grounds of Wrigley. Ronnie, I wish I could say this season was for you, that we were gonna win it all in your name. Maybe we will, but I doubt it. What I do know is that Eddie Vedder spoke what you lived: "when the day comes with that last winning run, and I'm crying and covered in beer, I look to the sky and know I was right to think 'someday we'll go all the way.'"
Mr. Santo, thanks for the memories. You will be missed.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Greatest There Was...
... The Greatest There Ever Will Be.
I'll be back in a few to write more on the NFL, the NBA and such ... but man, oh man, does this clip light a fire under me. Talk about inspiration.
I'll be back in a few to write more on the NFL, the NBA and such ... but man, oh man, does this clip light a fire under me. Talk about inspiration.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Are the Democrats the New Republics?
Ok, pop quiz: who is Alan Grayson? I'll give you a picture to make this easier:
...
...
Ok, time is up. I will give full credit for the following answer:
"Alan Grayson is the Democratic Congressman from Florida's eight district."
I will also give extra credit for any answer coming close to this:
"Alan Grayson is a loose cannon who has no concept of honor, only the concept of taking cheap shots at opponents rather than developing policy positions."
Now, a little more background:
He ran for the seat in 2006 but could not get in despite the intense ground swelling for Democrats in that year. Grayson quickly announced that 2008 would be his year instead, and on the coattails of now President Obama Grayson was swept into office. As a self-proclaimed 'center right' Democrat, Grayson has had a bit of controversy that has followed him around from place to place. As his biography page will happily tell you, Grayson is independently wealthy, the beneficiary of hard work and the American dream. He was the first President of IDT Corp., a cable/internet firm that his hard work (we're led to believe) drove from the 2nd floor of a funeral parlor* to a firm valued at over $2 billion dollars by Forbes.
*"on the 2nd floor of a funeral parlor" might also double as an apt description of Grayson's political existence if his campaign this fall is any indicator. Just saying
The good news? Grayson walked away from all of that. I'm sure he did so while renouncing his fortune, instead stating a genuine desire for the life of a public servant. Or maybe he did it, and nobody really wants to know how IDT Corp. became that rich, nor what corporate "connections" still control this man. I'm not sure anymore. Either way, Grayson went into politics with what we can assume is a substantial amount of theoretical wealth (stocks, investments, etc), and probably a whole heck of a lot of people to answer to.
Still, all of this is small bananas for the really good stuff. Grayson, in addition to being the proud owner of a biography that makes my stomach church, also happens to have the inability to have his "stupid detector" stop him from saying things which are ... well ... stupid. Among the real winners:
- Grayson on the Republican approach to health care: "the Republican health care plan is this: 'don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly'" (Even if you think it's true doesn't mean it's politically savvy ... and this guy defended his statements by essentially saying "hey, what the heck, it brought in more donations for my campaign.")
- Grayson then upped the ante on health care, stating “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America." (But, as Grayson pointed out later, he is, in fact, Jewish ... which I guess makes the whole holocaust-Republican health care plan thing ok. Oh wait. No it doesn't.)
- On people who attended a Glen Beck rally, Grayson said "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."
- Um, check out this video next:
The problem with this? Um ... it's not even remotely accurate. In fact, it's a lie. He clipped up and distorted this video clip:
After seeing this how can you not feel all good about what Alan Grayson brings to the table? If this man is willing to slice and dice a man's words to make him look like a misogynist tool, what, pray tell, would be his moral limits?
- Finally, check out this amazing article. Alan Grayson, friends, is the gift that keeps giving. In this recent bout of verbal diarrhea Grayson decides to bring Sarah Palin into the fray, and to illustrate he inability to be a politician ... because she uses Twitter. Not because of her positions. Not because he is anti-Alaskan. Not because he is against her daughter on "Dancing With The Stars." Because she uses Twitter. Check out this awesome piece of Grayson-speak:
"What is it about Sarah Palin and Twitter? Is Palin fond of tweeting because she can draft a tweet on her palm? Is it that 140 characters represents the maximum length of Sarah Palin's attention span?"
*For those who don't know, "burn" is a phrase the kids use to describe someone who was just made fun of. That's what Grayson tried to do here from what I can tell. Burn Palin.
So, friends, you can see by now what my central thesis is: the Democrats should not maintain this seat. Not with this guy. I don't care what his political views and motivations are any more. I just care that his actions hurt people. They hurt the process. They are disingenuous, and they aim to take full advantage of people who don't know any better. I shutter to think how many poor Floridans are walking around RIGHT NOW thinking that:
A) Dan Webster is a male-chauvinist pig
and
B) Dan Webster is actually a member of the Taliban
... all because Alan Grayson submitted himself to the lowest common denominator in politics: he who is about to get his butt kicked should sling mud ... and if you have a chance to take advantage of your constituents stupidity, you gotta do that too. Unless Dan Webster is, in fact, Osama Bin Laden I can't imagine he'd be less reprehensible. But maybe I'll break him down next just to find out, and then implore people to write in Sarah Palin.
......
Ok, time is up. I will give full credit for the following answer:
"Alan Grayson is the Democratic Congressman from Florida's eight district."
I will also give extra credit for any answer coming close to this:
"Alan Grayson is a loose cannon who has no concept of honor, only the concept of taking cheap shots at opponents rather than developing policy positions."
Now, a little more background:
He ran for the seat in 2006 but could not get in despite the intense ground swelling for Democrats in that year. Grayson quickly announced that 2008 would be his year instead, and on the coattails of now President Obama Grayson was swept into office. As a self-proclaimed 'center right' Democrat, Grayson has had a bit of controversy that has followed him around from place to place. As his biography page will happily tell you, Grayson is independently wealthy, the beneficiary of hard work and the American dream. He was the first President of IDT Corp., a cable/internet firm that his hard work (we're led to believe) drove from the 2nd floor of a funeral parlor* to a firm valued at over $2 billion dollars by Forbes.
*"on the 2nd floor of a funeral parlor" might also double as an apt description of Grayson's political existence if his campaign this fall is any indicator. Just saying
The good news? Grayson walked away from all of that. I'm sure he did so while renouncing his fortune, instead stating a genuine desire for the life of a public servant. Or maybe he did it, and nobody really wants to know how IDT Corp. became that rich, nor what corporate "connections" still control this man. I'm not sure anymore. Either way, Grayson went into politics with what we can assume is a substantial amount of theoretical wealth (stocks, investments, etc), and probably a whole heck of a lot of people to answer to.
Still, all of this is small bananas for the really good stuff. Grayson, in addition to being the proud owner of a biography that makes my stomach church, also happens to have the inability to have his "stupid detector" stop him from saying things which are ... well ... stupid. Among the real winners:
- Grayson on the Republican approach to health care: "the Republican health care plan is this: 'don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly'" (Even if you think it's true doesn't mean it's politically savvy ... and this guy defended his statements by essentially saying "hey, what the heck, it brought in more donations for my campaign.")
- Grayson then upped the ante on health care, stating “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America." (But, as Grayson pointed out later, he is, in fact, Jewish ... which I guess makes the whole holocaust-Republican health care plan thing ok. Oh wait. No it doesn't.)
- On people who attended a Glen Beck rally, Grayson said "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."
- Um, check out this video next:
The problem with this? Um ... it's not even remotely accurate. In fact, it's a lie. He clipped up and distorted this video clip:
After seeing this how can you not feel all good about what Alan Grayson brings to the table? If this man is willing to slice and dice a man's words to make him look like a misogynist tool, what, pray tell, would be his moral limits?
- Finally, check out this amazing article. Alan Grayson, friends, is the gift that keeps giving. In this recent bout of verbal diarrhea Grayson decides to bring Sarah Palin into the fray, and to illustrate he inability to be a politician ... because she uses Twitter. Not because of her positions. Not because he is anti-Alaskan. Not because he is against her daughter on "Dancing With The Stars." Because she uses Twitter. Check out this awesome piece of Grayson-speak:
"What is it about Sarah Palin and Twitter? Is Palin fond of tweeting because she can draft a tweet on her palm? Is it that 140 characters represents the maximum length of Sarah Palin's attention span?"
I have not seen an argument that intellectually developed since 3rd grade. I work with kids who will never be considered intelligent, but even they would listen to that and go "burn!"* In doing this, Alan Grayson managed to do something I had previously thought to be impossible: he made Sarah Palin seem like the well centered, intelligent, logical individual. All she said was that Grayson's opponent should "keep moving forward w/positive,strong,sharp message of truth! (As opposed to opponent who disgraced himself w/that ad)." Does anyone disagree with the sentiment that anyone should move forward with a positive message and not fall to the depths that Grayson did? Did Alan Grayson really just make Sarah Palin seem well-adjusted?
*For those who don't know, "burn" is a phrase the kids use to describe someone who was just made fun of. That's what Grayson tried to do here from what I can tell. Burn Palin.
So, friends, you can see by now what my central thesis is: the Democrats should not maintain this seat. Not with this guy. I don't care what his political views and motivations are any more. I just care that his actions hurt people. They hurt the process. They are disingenuous, and they aim to take full advantage of people who don't know any better. I shutter to think how many poor Floridans are walking around RIGHT NOW thinking that:
A) Dan Webster is a male-chauvinist pig
and
B) Dan Webster is actually a member of the Taliban
... all because Alan Grayson submitted himself to the lowest common denominator in politics: he who is about to get his butt kicked should sling mud ... and if you have a chance to take advantage of your constituents stupidity, you gotta do that too. Unless Dan Webster is, in fact, Osama Bin Laden I can't imagine he'd be less reprehensible. But maybe I'll break him down next just to find out, and then implore people to write in Sarah Palin.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
And this?
Ok ... are you KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.......
.......
At least the Colts lost... (check the link on "kidding me" to see what I'm saying. Goodnight)
.......
.......
At least the Colts lost... (check the link on "kidding me" to see what I'm saying. Goodnight)
The Massacre at the Meadowlands
The Massacre at the Meadowlands ... I just got home from work at 11PM EST, turned on the Bears-Giants game ... and holy crap. I guess we found out that the Bears are who we thought they were: a poorly coached, poorly managed team that lost week one (let's be honest here) and were handed a game last week.
Now hear me out, because I know the "you just hate Lovie" chants can't be far behind ...
- Last year our offensive line was ... well ... offensive. We couldn't run the ball or protect our QB all year long. So what did we do to improve it this offseason? Well ... nothing. At all. We brought back the same group of scrubs that we trotted out last year. During the first three weeks of the season it was painfully obvious that if Cutler were to make it through the year upright it would be a miracle. Tonight, from what I can tell, all hell broke loose. Cutler knocked out of the game, Todd Collins knocked out of the game (I'll get back to him in a minute) ... nothing. All because our brilliant management decided the offensive line would magically improve.
- We cut a young QB with upside (Dan LeFevour) to keep an antique version of a clip-board holder (Todd Collins) ... and then we actually played Collins? How is this guy still in the league? He wasn't good back when he could actually stand upright, and now we expect him to QB for us after Cutler goes down? Are you serious? In what world does this make sense?
- Finally, I didn't see the game, so I have to go to my right hand man, the Bowser, for his analysis:
"The Coaching is awful, and I mean bad. This is the most ridiculous game I've ever watched. It's completely pathetic. I want Lovie one on one in a cage match."
This is the breakdown of an individual who: a) knows football, b) loves the Bears, and C) is generally pretty logical about these things. I don't need to rewatch the tape to know that if it struck him this way it was a really poorly coached game. But, friends, it all starts up front, and due to Lovie and Jerry's magic plan of crossing their fingers to fix the o-line we may be in deep junk.
So ... can we fire these pathetic excuses for coaches and front office personnel yet?
Lazy Sunday Mornings
Just about to go into work, but here are a few topics I'm thinking about:
- I saw the movie "The Social Network" last night, and was impressed ... I think. I had known a little bit about the invention of Facebook, and I had a seat to watching it explode from a very cool college networking tool (2004) to the bane of my existence (2007), until, finally, my mom is on it but I'm not (2010). What this movie did well, above everything else, was show the inner workings of becoming an accidental billionaire. The acting was pretty well done (the movie even had a solid performance by ex-boy band icon Justin Timberlake), but it was the story, with its biting, interwoven dialogue which made the movie a winner in my books. Mark Zuckerberg ... youngest billionaire in the world. All because he took someone's idea, improved it, spread it, and finally sold it. Hard to believe he did it all because he was socially inept with women.
- The movie did take me to a second line of thought: what would I do if I had $1,000,000,000? For someone who works in social work, such as myself, this is a hard concept to even wrap my mind around. I'm not even sure what I would do if I had $10,000, much less a billion dollars. Still, as I discussed the topic I came to some very defined conclusions: I would donate enough money to make my non-for-profit place of employment solvent for the rest of my life even if the government decided to cut all funding off. I would donate a considerable amount of money to the relief organization I collaborated on the Gulf Coast with. I would set up a big trust fund for my nephew, but quite a few people houses, and try to make life easier for those around me. And I'd buy a 42 inch television. Just a step up from where I'm at, but anything bigger wouldn't fit in my front room. And I have to stay in this house for five years or I have to pay back $7,500 in grant money. And, even as an imaginary billionaire, I wouldn't want to do that.
- The Cubs season (thankfully) comes to an end today in Houston. This is the first year in quite some time (2001? 2002?) that I didn't make it to one Cubs game. This team was done in April, and I proclaimed it as such ... and, well, sometimes it sucks to be right. The questions now start to focus on how the team can move forward, and those questions start with who will be the captain of the ship come spring training 2011. Ryne Sandberg has to be the front runner, but Joe Girardi could steal that away from him if he decides he is ready to leave the House that George built. Mike Quade has done an admirable job down the stretch, and if we weren't talking about a billion dollar investment by the Ricketts family that might be enough. I'm sure other names (Bob Melvin, Bob Brenley, Bobby Valentine, etc) will be brought up as well, but the smart money here is that Sandberg will get the job because he has name and face recognition, and the brand is as important as anything in Wrigley.
- I did make it to Wrigley to see Dave Matthews Band two weeks ago. The last two shows of the last summer tour (ever?) were filled front to back, and again I was fortunate to be at the show. I know that there are quite a few people out there who don't have any use for DMB, but for my money it's one of the best shows out there. If only I was independently wealthy I'd get to Charlottesville to see their final two shows of the fall season, as I'm sure they will blow it out.
- Finally, goodbye to Rick Sanchez, former CNN "journalist" and world class tool. Everybody, the lesson, as always, is this: in this day and age you can't say anything even remotely inflammatory without expecting to lose your job for it. At least Rick will always be in our hearts for this magical moment (skip to the 1:10 mark for the good stuff):
- I saw the movie "The Social Network" last night, and was impressed ... I think. I had known a little bit about the invention of Facebook, and I had a seat to watching it explode from a very cool college networking tool (2004) to the bane of my existence (2007), until, finally, my mom is on it but I'm not (2010). What this movie did well, above everything else, was show the inner workings of becoming an accidental billionaire. The acting was pretty well done (the movie even had a solid performance by ex-boy band icon Justin Timberlake), but it was the story, with its biting, interwoven dialogue which made the movie a winner in my books. Mark Zuckerberg ... youngest billionaire in the world. All because he took someone's idea, improved it, spread it, and finally sold it. Hard to believe he did it all because he was socially inept with women.
- The movie did take me to a second line of thought: what would I do if I had $1,000,000,000? For someone who works in social work, such as myself, this is a hard concept to even wrap my mind around. I'm not even sure what I would do if I had $10,000, much less a billion dollars. Still, as I discussed the topic I came to some very defined conclusions: I would donate enough money to make my non-for-profit place of employment solvent for the rest of my life even if the government decided to cut all funding off. I would donate a considerable amount of money to the relief organization I collaborated on the Gulf Coast with. I would set up a big trust fund for my nephew, but quite a few people houses, and try to make life easier for those around me. And I'd buy a 42 inch television. Just a step up from where I'm at, but anything bigger wouldn't fit in my front room. And I have to stay in this house for five years or I have to pay back $7,500 in grant money. And, even as an imaginary billionaire, I wouldn't want to do that.
- The Cubs season (thankfully) comes to an end today in Houston. This is the first year in quite some time (2001? 2002?) that I didn't make it to one Cubs game. This team was done in April, and I proclaimed it as such ... and, well, sometimes it sucks to be right. The questions now start to focus on how the team can move forward, and those questions start with who will be the captain of the ship come spring training 2011. Ryne Sandberg has to be the front runner, but Joe Girardi could steal that away from him if he decides he is ready to leave the House that George built. Mike Quade has done an admirable job down the stretch, and if we weren't talking about a billion dollar investment by the Ricketts family that might be enough. I'm sure other names (Bob Melvin, Bob Brenley, Bobby Valentine, etc) will be brought up as well, but the smart money here is that Sandberg will get the job because he has name and face recognition, and the brand is as important as anything in Wrigley.
- I did make it to Wrigley to see Dave Matthews Band two weeks ago. The last two shows of the last summer tour (ever?) were filled front to back, and again I was fortunate to be at the show. I know that there are quite a few people out there who don't have any use for DMB, but for my money it's one of the best shows out there. If only I was independently wealthy I'd get to Charlottesville to see their final two shows of the fall season, as I'm sure they will blow it out.
- Finally, goodbye to Rick Sanchez, former CNN "journalist" and world class tool. Everybody, the lesson, as always, is this: in this day and age you can't say anything even remotely inflammatory without expecting to lose your job for it. At least Rick will always be in our hearts for this magical moment (skip to the 1:10 mark for the good stuff):
Friday, September 10, 2010
NFL 2010 - The Pre-Season Picks
I'm busy, you're busy, and instead of giving excuses for why it has been almost two months since I blogged, here's my NFL breakdown for 2010:
- A few reminders: I always play it out to the Super Bowl this early, even when I end up looking like a complete moron (see last year's post for the details on that one). Still, I've hit on occasion (had the Steelers winning two years ago, had the Pats winning it three years ago when they went perfect until the big game, and I had Colts over Bears four years ago, a decision that, right as it was, haunts me to this day).
- I like to pick random records that sound right to put by the teams, but I don't take the time to look at the entire schedule and figure out if these records are even possible all together. I have a life. I think.
- Finally, a shout out again to Drew Brees, Tracy Porter, Sean Payton and the rest of the New Orleans Saints ... thanks for saving my sanity by beating the Colts last year. Here's to hoping someone can do it again.
AFC EAST
1. New England Patriots (11-5)
2. Miami Dolphins (10-6)
3. New York Jets (7-9)
4. Buffalo Bills (3-13)
Why this will happen: The Pats are still the class of the NFL; they've won three titles in the past decade, gone 16-0 through a regular season, and have a seamless power structure. Brady is now two years removed from his catastrophic knee injury, which all the doctors will tell you is a big deal: it takes two years to fully recover from the injury he had. Still, on a not fully recovered knee, he threw for over 4200 yards with 28 TDs last year. Let's just say that if the Bears had a QB EVER who could do what Brady did last year, in what people are saying was the "beginning of the end" for the man, I would be overjoyed. So, until further notice, I pick Brady and the Pats. As for the rest of the division, Miami has a young QB with more weapons this year, as well as a solid running game, solid offensive line, and solid defense. The NY Jets have all the hype in the world, and 73% of the NFL's big egos. Does anyone other than me remember that the Jets were only 9-7 last year, and needed the Colts and Bengals to lay down in concurrent games to even make the playoffs? Signing Revis was huge, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Jets (and the national media) seem to think this team was a dynamo last year. They weren't. As for the Bills, they are hunting the top pick in the draft, and I am just hoping that Fred Jackson gets more carries than C.J. Spiller, for fantasy purposed.
Why this won't happen: Brady gets hurt, the Pats D can't get to the QB, Mark Sanchez makes "the jump" a year early, LaDanian Tomlinson isn't washed up after all, Chad Henne craps the bed, and Buffalo ... well, they'd still finish last even if all that happened. Sorry Bills fans.
AFC North
1. Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)
2. Baltimore Ravens (10-6)
3. Cincinnati Bengals (7-9)
4. Cleveland Browns (4-12)
Why this will happen: Pittsburgh will have the number one defense in the league this year if Polamalu stays healthy, and they will be getting Big Ben back with a good many weapons to help him. Rashard Mendenhall will make the jump this year, and even with a porous offensive line the Steelers will reassert themselves as the top team in the AFC North. Baltimore has a good chance to stop this from happening, but big WRs usually struggle when changing teams, and Ed Reed is not healthy, which hurts the defense a great deal. Cincinnati has all kinds of warning flags for me: a QB who has looked progressively more washed up with every year, a RB who has no heart and poor secondary numbers, two big mouthed diva WRs, and a coach who nobody is sure is actually good. They have a good defense, but so do the other two teams, only their offense is much more suspect. Cleveland should be more competitive this year in theory, but Jake Delhomme's Corpse is a rough person to prop up as your starting QB. In fact, just typing his name made me take their projected record from 6-10 to 4-12.
Why this won't happen: Cincinnati's offense explodes with the TO-Ocho connection, Baltimore is the juggernaut people say they are, and Big Ben's life, and subsequently his game, is devastated by the public telling of his sexcapades in the same way Eldrick's was.
AFC South
1. Indianapolis Colts (13-3)
2. Houston Texans (11-5)
3. Tennessee Titans (8-8)
4. Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8)
Why this will happen: Because God likes to spite me. Also because Peyton Manning is one of the greatest regular season QBs of all time. Also because the Colts have become like a bad horror movie: every time you think they are dead you walk away, fail to finish the deed, then they come back and maul you. Someone needs to cut their head off, but looking at this group I'm not sure anyone is capable of it. The Texans are loaded with talent all over the field, but have shown time and again that they don't have the stones in the fourth quarter (seriously, if I have to watch one more game where the Texans have the Colts down but don't finish them I think I'm going to cry). Houston will be even better with Arian Foster at RB, but I just don't think Matt Schaub has the killer instinct; he plays all the time like Peyton plays in big games. As for Tennessee, Vince Young still does nothing for me, and so even though Chris Johnson is amazing, and even though the Titans went 8-2 down the stretch last year, I don't see them making the jump with Vince. Jacksonville is in a similar boat with David Garrard, only they have a worse D. It's a tough division all around, but all the teams still fear Peyton, which is why he will continue to have his way with them.
Why this won't happen: God looks down and says "Mike, you've lived through the sports fan's equivalent of the Book of Job. You had it good, and were faithful to your teams thanks to Michael Jordan and Bobby Knight. I decided to test you, and so the Jerry's ran MJ out of town, and Miles Brand dispersed with the General. Still you were faithful. So I tested you again, and gave you 2001, 2005 and 2006 with the Bears. I gave you 2003, 2007 and 2008 with the Cubs. I gave you the Hoosiers in the National Title Game. I gave you the Bulls nearly signing Kobe, then LeBron or Wade. I gave you Eric Gordon at Indiana, and I gave you a winning year for IU football. But then I really put the screws down, and I gave you a Red Sox, then Cardinals, the White Sox World Series wins. I gave you Kobe winning multiple rings. I gave you Duke winning national titles, Purdue becoming the top basketball team in the Big Ten, and above all else, I gift wrapped a Super Bowl for Peyton. Through it all you stuck with your teams and your convictions. Now I will give you Peyton abruptly retiring, and the Colts going 1-15."
...
...
...
Okay, I'm back.
AFC West
1. Oakland Raiders (9-7)
2. San Diego Chargers (8-8)
3. Denver Broncos (7-9)
4. Kansas City Chiefs (6-10)
Why this will happen: This may look crazy, but stick with me for a moment: Oakland will have a really tough defense, and a decent running game. They have great special teams, and thus the ability to control field position. And now they have a QB who can manage a game, with talent around him (albeit really really RAW talent). If you couple this with how badly San Diego seems to want to blow this division, it makes some sense that another team would jump in. The Chargers seriously approached this offseason saying "I think we'll draft a promising young back (good idea!) but to counter it we'll keep our choke-artist of a kicker, and piss off our cornerstone left tackle and WR so they don't play. That'll help Philip Rivers for sure!" Jason Campbell is easily equal to Kyle Orton, and both looked better than Matt Cassell last year. The Raiders D is better. That's why this weak division will go this way.
Why this won't happen: I just picked the Raiders. Seriously. ANYTHING could be an explanation for why this won't happen. It just makes sense to me.
NFC EAST
1. Dallas Cowboys (13-3)
2. New York Giants (10-6)
3. Washington Redskins (8-8)
4. Philadelphia Eagles (6-10)
Why this will happen: This is a tough division, but Dallas has so much firepower that it's hard to imagine them dropping the ball, so to speak. New York will improve because their defense won't be as bad as it was last year. Washington will be middle of the road, and could be better if they didn't have a group of running backs who appear washed up in ever sense of the word. Philly fans may not want to admit it, but McNabb at least was a proven commodity; Kolb is the exact opposite of that. Another interesting thing about this division is the fact that two teams (New York and Washington) have accomplished coaches who you wouldn't mind running your team, while the other two (Dallas and Philly) have god-awful coaches who you would trust to do middle management. Still, talent trumps in the regular season, which is why it'll shake out this way.
Why this won't happen: Wade Phillips outweighs his talent, Washington takes advantage of their schedule to swing a few more wins north and into the playoffs, and the New York Giants win the division. I could see it going that way as well.
NFC NORTH
1. Green Bay Packers (11-5)
2. Chicago Bears (10-6)
3. Minnesota Vikings (7-9)
4. Detroit Lions (6-10)
Why this will happen: Green Bay has an electric offense, but had major defensive struggles last year, and didn't really change much. Talent still trumps, and their ability to light it up will put them in every game. Chicago will win just enough to allow the ownership to extend Lovie, because that's what happens. Minnesota is in for a hard fall because Brett's ankle and heart are neither one game ready; the NFC championship game last year killed him in more ways than one. Detroit will be a tough team next year.
Why this won't happen: Chicago implodes, Green Bay runs their win total up to 13 or 14, Minnesota grits out ten wins on talent alone, and the Lions get to .500. Lovie is gone, Bill Cowher is in.
NFC SOUTH
1. New Orleans Saints (14-2)
2. Carolina Panthers (11-5)
3. Atlanta Falcons (9-7)
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-11)
Why this will happen: New Orleans figured out how to play defense last year, and if they can continue that they will remain an imposing team to play. Brees is as comfortable in the pocket as any QB I've ever seen, and they can run the ball as well. Just boatloads of talent on Bourbon Street. Beyond that, I believe in Matt Moore in Carolina, and their running game is also tough. It's John Fox's last year, and a playoff run will help him solidify his resume for free agency this offseason. Atlanta has talent, but is still too young ... I just don't buy it yet. Tampa is two years away.
Why this won't happen: Since this division was created no team has won it back to back years. That pattern alone tells me that something bad will happen to the Saints.
NFC WEST
1. San Francisco 49ers (11-5)
2. Arizona Cardinals (8-8)
3. St. Louis Rams (5-11)
4. Seattle Seahawks (4-12)
Why this will happen: this division, along with the AFC West, is super weak, but San Fran has set themselves up as a potential power. They can run, they play awesome D, they invested in the offensive line, they have a dynamite talent at WR (Michael Crabtree) and at TE (Vernon Davis). It all comes down to Alex Smith. If he finally makes the jump, so do they. If he is even as good as last year, they are the division winner. If he regresses, they are in trouble. Arizona is going to be a mess one week, then fine the next, at least if you buy Derek Anderson (not sure I do). Seattle is going to be sneaky bad, and St. Louis might just be ready to make the jump from 1 or 2 wins to 4 or 5 wins.
Why this won't happen: Maybe Seattle is a little better, but baring Derek Anderson finally finding accuracy (not likely) or Alex Smith completely falling apart (not probable) I feel the most confident in this pick.
AFC PLAYOFF TEAMS (by seed)
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. New England Patriots
4. Oakland Raiders
5. Houston Texans
6. Baltimore Ravens
NFC PLAYOFF TEAMS (by seed)
1. New Orleans Saints
2. Dallas Cowboys
3. San Francisco 49ers
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Carolina Panthers
6. New York Giants
Wild Card Weekend
Houston Texans over Oakland Raiders
New England Patriots over Baltimore Ravens
Green Bay Packers over New York Giants
San Francisco 49ers over Carolina Panthers
Divisional Weekend
Indianapolis Colts over Houston Texans
Pittsburgh Steelers over New England Patriots
San Francisco 49ers over Dallas Cowboys
New Orleans Saints over Green Bay Packers
Conference Championships Weekend
Pittsburgh Steelers over Indianapolis Colts
New Orleans Saints over San Francisco 49ers
Superbowl
New Orleans Saints over Pittsburgh Steelers
Conclusion
And so, in the end, I think I believe in the Saints, as well as Pittsburgh's defense and ground game. Either way, it's great to have football back!
- A few reminders: I always play it out to the Super Bowl this early, even when I end up looking like a complete moron (see last year's post for the details on that one). Still, I've hit on occasion (had the Steelers winning two years ago, had the Pats winning it three years ago when they went perfect until the big game, and I had Colts over Bears four years ago, a decision that, right as it was, haunts me to this day).
- I like to pick random records that sound right to put by the teams, but I don't take the time to look at the entire schedule and figure out if these records are even possible all together. I have a life. I think.
- Finally, a shout out again to Drew Brees, Tracy Porter, Sean Payton and the rest of the New Orleans Saints ... thanks for saving my sanity by beating the Colts last year. Here's to hoping someone can do it again.
AFC EAST
1. New England Patriots (11-5)
2. Miami Dolphins (10-6)
3. New York Jets (7-9)
4. Buffalo Bills (3-13)
Why this will happen: The Pats are still the class of the NFL; they've won three titles in the past decade, gone 16-0 through a regular season, and have a seamless power structure. Brady is now two years removed from his catastrophic knee injury, which all the doctors will tell you is a big deal: it takes two years to fully recover from the injury he had. Still, on a not fully recovered knee, he threw for over 4200 yards with 28 TDs last year. Let's just say that if the Bears had a QB EVER who could do what Brady did last year, in what people are saying was the "beginning of the end" for the man, I would be overjoyed. So, until further notice, I pick Brady and the Pats. As for the rest of the division, Miami has a young QB with more weapons this year, as well as a solid running game, solid offensive line, and solid defense. The NY Jets have all the hype in the world, and 73% of the NFL's big egos. Does anyone other than me remember that the Jets were only 9-7 last year, and needed the Colts and Bengals to lay down in concurrent games to even make the playoffs? Signing Revis was huge, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Jets (and the national media) seem to think this team was a dynamo last year. They weren't. As for the Bills, they are hunting the top pick in the draft, and I am just hoping that Fred Jackson gets more carries than C.J. Spiller, for fantasy purposed.
Why this won't happen: Brady gets hurt, the Pats D can't get to the QB, Mark Sanchez makes "the jump" a year early, LaDanian Tomlinson isn't washed up after all, Chad Henne craps the bed, and Buffalo ... well, they'd still finish last even if all that happened. Sorry Bills fans.
AFC North
1. Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)
2. Baltimore Ravens (10-6)
3. Cincinnati Bengals (7-9)
4. Cleveland Browns (4-12)
Why this will happen: Pittsburgh will have the number one defense in the league this year if Polamalu stays healthy, and they will be getting Big Ben back with a good many weapons to help him. Rashard Mendenhall will make the jump this year, and even with a porous offensive line the Steelers will reassert themselves as the top team in the AFC North. Baltimore has a good chance to stop this from happening, but big WRs usually struggle when changing teams, and Ed Reed is not healthy, which hurts the defense a great deal. Cincinnati has all kinds of warning flags for me: a QB who has looked progressively more washed up with every year, a RB who has no heart and poor secondary numbers, two big mouthed diva WRs, and a coach who nobody is sure is actually good. They have a good defense, but so do the other two teams, only their offense is much more suspect. Cleveland should be more competitive this year in theory, but Jake Delhomme's Corpse is a rough person to prop up as your starting QB. In fact, just typing his name made me take their projected record from 6-10 to 4-12.
Why this won't happen: Cincinnati's offense explodes with the TO-Ocho connection, Baltimore is the juggernaut people say they are, and Big Ben's life, and subsequently his game, is devastated by the public telling of his sexcapades in the same way Eldrick's was.
AFC South
1. Indianapolis Colts (13-3)
2. Houston Texans (11-5)
3. Tennessee Titans (8-8)
4. Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8)
Why this will happen: Because God likes to spite me. Also because Peyton Manning is one of the greatest regular season QBs of all time. Also because the Colts have become like a bad horror movie: every time you think they are dead you walk away, fail to finish the deed, then they come back and maul you. Someone needs to cut their head off, but looking at this group I'm not sure anyone is capable of it. The Texans are loaded with talent all over the field, but have shown time and again that they don't have the stones in the fourth quarter (seriously, if I have to watch one more game where the Texans have the Colts down but don't finish them I think I'm going to cry). Houston will be even better with Arian Foster at RB, but I just don't think Matt Schaub has the killer instinct; he plays all the time like Peyton plays in big games. As for Tennessee, Vince Young still does nothing for me, and so even though Chris Johnson is amazing, and even though the Titans went 8-2 down the stretch last year, I don't see them making the jump with Vince. Jacksonville is in a similar boat with David Garrard, only they have a worse D. It's a tough division all around, but all the teams still fear Peyton, which is why he will continue to have his way with them.
Why this won't happen: God looks down and says "Mike, you've lived through the sports fan's equivalent of the Book of Job. You had it good, and were faithful to your teams thanks to Michael Jordan and Bobby Knight. I decided to test you, and so the Jerry's ran MJ out of town, and Miles Brand dispersed with the General. Still you were faithful. So I tested you again, and gave you 2001, 2005 and 2006 with the Bears. I gave you 2003, 2007 and 2008 with the Cubs. I gave you the Hoosiers in the National Title Game. I gave you the Bulls nearly signing Kobe, then LeBron or Wade. I gave you Eric Gordon at Indiana, and I gave you a winning year for IU football. But then I really put the screws down, and I gave you a Red Sox, then Cardinals, the White Sox World Series wins. I gave you Kobe winning multiple rings. I gave you Duke winning national titles, Purdue becoming the top basketball team in the Big Ten, and above all else, I gift wrapped a Super Bowl for Peyton. Through it all you stuck with your teams and your convictions. Now I will give you Peyton abruptly retiring, and the Colts going 1-15."
...
...
...
Okay, I'm back.
AFC West
1. Oakland Raiders (9-7)
2. San Diego Chargers (8-8)
3. Denver Broncos (7-9)
4. Kansas City Chiefs (6-10)
Why this will happen: This may look crazy, but stick with me for a moment: Oakland will have a really tough defense, and a decent running game. They have great special teams, and thus the ability to control field position. And now they have a QB who can manage a game, with talent around him (albeit really really RAW talent). If you couple this with how badly San Diego seems to want to blow this division, it makes some sense that another team would jump in. The Chargers seriously approached this offseason saying "I think we'll draft a promising young back (good idea!) but to counter it we'll keep our choke-artist of a kicker, and piss off our cornerstone left tackle and WR so they don't play. That'll help Philip Rivers for sure!" Jason Campbell is easily equal to Kyle Orton, and both looked better than Matt Cassell last year. The Raiders D is better. That's why this weak division will go this way.
Why this won't happen: I just picked the Raiders. Seriously. ANYTHING could be an explanation for why this won't happen. It just makes sense to me.
NFC EAST
1. Dallas Cowboys (13-3)
2. New York Giants (10-6)
3. Washington Redskins (8-8)
4. Philadelphia Eagles (6-10)
Why this will happen: This is a tough division, but Dallas has so much firepower that it's hard to imagine them dropping the ball, so to speak. New York will improve because their defense won't be as bad as it was last year. Washington will be middle of the road, and could be better if they didn't have a group of running backs who appear washed up in ever sense of the word. Philly fans may not want to admit it, but McNabb at least was a proven commodity; Kolb is the exact opposite of that. Another interesting thing about this division is the fact that two teams (New York and Washington) have accomplished coaches who you wouldn't mind running your team, while the other two (Dallas and Philly) have god-awful coaches who you would trust to do middle management. Still, talent trumps in the regular season, which is why it'll shake out this way.
Why this won't happen: Wade Phillips outweighs his talent, Washington takes advantage of their schedule to swing a few more wins north and into the playoffs, and the New York Giants win the division. I could see it going that way as well.
NFC NORTH
1. Green Bay Packers (11-5)
2. Chicago Bears (10-6)
3. Minnesota Vikings (7-9)
4. Detroit Lions (6-10)
Why this will happen: Green Bay has an electric offense, but had major defensive struggles last year, and didn't really change much. Talent still trumps, and their ability to light it up will put them in every game. Chicago will win just enough to allow the ownership to extend Lovie, because that's what happens. Minnesota is in for a hard fall because Brett's ankle and heart are neither one game ready; the NFC championship game last year killed him in more ways than one. Detroit will be a tough team next year.
Why this won't happen: Chicago implodes, Green Bay runs their win total up to 13 or 14, Minnesota grits out ten wins on talent alone, and the Lions get to .500. Lovie is gone, Bill Cowher is in.
NFC SOUTH
1. New Orleans Saints (14-2)
2. Carolina Panthers (11-5)
3. Atlanta Falcons (9-7)
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-11)
Why this will happen: New Orleans figured out how to play defense last year, and if they can continue that they will remain an imposing team to play. Brees is as comfortable in the pocket as any QB I've ever seen, and they can run the ball as well. Just boatloads of talent on Bourbon Street. Beyond that, I believe in Matt Moore in Carolina, and their running game is also tough. It's John Fox's last year, and a playoff run will help him solidify his resume for free agency this offseason. Atlanta has talent, but is still too young ... I just don't buy it yet. Tampa is two years away.
Why this won't happen: Since this division was created no team has won it back to back years. That pattern alone tells me that something bad will happen to the Saints.
NFC WEST
1. San Francisco 49ers (11-5)
2. Arizona Cardinals (8-8)
3. St. Louis Rams (5-11)
4. Seattle Seahawks (4-12)
Why this will happen: this division, along with the AFC West, is super weak, but San Fran has set themselves up as a potential power. They can run, they play awesome D, they invested in the offensive line, they have a dynamite talent at WR (Michael Crabtree) and at TE (Vernon Davis). It all comes down to Alex Smith. If he finally makes the jump, so do they. If he is even as good as last year, they are the division winner. If he regresses, they are in trouble. Arizona is going to be a mess one week, then fine the next, at least if you buy Derek Anderson (not sure I do). Seattle is going to be sneaky bad, and St. Louis might just be ready to make the jump from 1 or 2 wins to 4 or 5 wins.
Why this won't happen: Maybe Seattle is a little better, but baring Derek Anderson finally finding accuracy (not likely) or Alex Smith completely falling apart (not probable) I feel the most confident in this pick.
AFC PLAYOFF TEAMS (by seed)
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. New England Patriots
4. Oakland Raiders
5. Houston Texans
6. Baltimore Ravens
NFC PLAYOFF TEAMS (by seed)
1. New Orleans Saints
2. Dallas Cowboys
3. San Francisco 49ers
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Carolina Panthers
6. New York Giants
Wild Card Weekend
Houston Texans over Oakland Raiders
New England Patriots over Baltimore Ravens
Green Bay Packers over New York Giants
San Francisco 49ers over Carolina Panthers
Divisional Weekend
Indianapolis Colts over Houston Texans
Pittsburgh Steelers over New England Patriots
San Francisco 49ers over Dallas Cowboys
New Orleans Saints over Green Bay Packers
Conference Championships Weekend
Pittsburgh Steelers over Indianapolis Colts
New Orleans Saints over San Francisco 49ers
Superbowl
New Orleans Saints over Pittsburgh Steelers
Conclusion
And so, in the end, I think I believe in the Saints, as well as Pittsburgh's defense and ground game. Either way, it's great to have football back!
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Fire Joe Morgan Treatment
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the "Fire Joe Morgan" treatment involves taking a piece of writing and breaking it down, bit by bit, usually to show how stupid it is. An example can be found on the since defunct website here. I decided to do it because I've been reading about the Michael Jordan versus LeBron debate, and I thought I'd weigh in. Before diving straight for this TrueHoop post, I would also like to recommend these two articles on the whole thing: Ian Thomson's five things from last Friday and Dan Shaughnessy's take, which is more in line with my views. Check it out, the write back with your thoughts. Without further delay, here is my first (official) F.J.M. post (their comments in black, mine in red):
THE MICHAEL JORDAN VIEW OF LeBRON
Michael Jordan has weighed in on the LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh "SuperFriends" team in Miami:
In so many ways, Michael Jordan is the most appropriate person in the world to comment on LeBron James and his legacy, but not for the reasons you might expect.
I'm sure that you're going to tell us why Michael Jordan is the most appropriate person in the world to comment soon. I must say that I hate this literary device: hint at something, then don't answer it, but instead tap dance around it. Let's see how long it takes them to get to the point.
He is helping to solve one of the biggest mysteries in sports.
Holy Crap Batman, really? One of the biggest mysteries in sports? Let's see: is he helping us solve why the Cubs can't seem to win? No? Then it must be that he is helping us solve the mystery of if Lance Armstrong used P.E.D.'s to help recover from testicular cancer and vault to seven Tour de France titles! No? ... Is he helping us determine what's wrong with Tiger's swing, or if Federer is washed up, or if Jay Cutler is ready to run Mike Martz' offense? Seriously, no?
The question is: When James announced that he was taking his talents to South Beach, why did he instantly become the guy sports fans love to hate? What's so reprehensible about joining a good team?
That's the question? That's the big mystery? I think I already answered that in this post, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion.
He's the man
Michael Jordan was, is, and will always be the man. Yes, in italics.
You don't need me to define that, but just for fun: It means essentially the most aggressive, victorious, macho, indomitable player in the sport. The most feared, and the most fearless.
This utter lack of restraint, in the face of any challenges, is no small part of how Jordan inspires us.
We are in agreement on this point: Jordan was the man, he feared no challenge, and he was the most feared person in the game. Just look at this picture of the Utah crowd as he took the final shot. He was bullet proof.
Hell no I don't need help.
It's a real and valid way to view the game. You have to respect the sheer number of players, former players, executives and coaches who see the game through this lens. The best player is the man. Basically, that's the guy who, of the few superstars who produce in huge numbers and win a lot of games, is most fearless and ferocious.
The list of players who were "the man" in NBA history is extensive: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Young Kareem, young Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, young Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Kobe, Tim Duncan, John Stockton, and Hakeem Olajuwon to name a few.
This is often measured in terms of being willing to shoot with the game on the line.
Notice the key word here: often. In a moment our fearless writer will attempt to change "often" to "all the time" without telling us. I will agree with the fact that this is often measured in these terms, although it would be then measured incorrectly. Being "the man" simply means that you are the alpha dog on your team. Russell rarely shot the last shot, but nobody on those Celtics teams had any role confusion over who "the man" was. For that matter, neither did Wilt. The league knew it was Russell first, others after him.
When people heard that James was teaming up with Wade and Bosh, though ... wow. You know how men have this reputation as not being willing to pull over and ask for directions?
Hell no I don't need help.
Jordan, Barkley and others are making fun of James -- perhaps the most biting of all of Jordan's words was "kid" -- for getting help. If the whole idea is to show that you're the baddest man on the planet, what do we care about all these SuperFriends? (Similarly, Jordan said the other day that Bryant was the best player in the NBA. He's the most fearless, that's for sure.)
First, I don't sense that they are "making fun" of James, but rather that they are critiquing his move. Which is their right. I did it; they can do it as well. Quite honestly, Barkley and Jordan have more of a right to critique these guys than I do, and even more of a right than the sports writer who wrote this piece. They played the game, they know what it's like.
The problem with the critique is twofold. For one thing, he's not bad as the man. James shoots plenty with the game on the line, already produces like one of the two best players in NBA history (hitting at a better career rate than Bryant), wins a lot of games and even called himself leader of Team USA.
I start to see this article veering to the side here, so let's break it down:
1) James may not be "bad" as the man, but he has proven time and again to not be willing to take the game over himself. Michael passed to a number of teammates at the end of games, but if those teammates hadn't taken the shot or wanted the ball Jordan was not going to hide from it. LeBron has and will. Jordan was willing to let Bill Wennington win the game he scored 55 at Madison Square Garden, or Steve Kerr win the 5th title, or John Paxson the 3rd title, but he wasn't opposed to taking over. James is.
2) The argument that James "called himself leader of Team USA" is kindergarten style: who cares what he called himself? At the end we know Kobe took over and James just watched. In International competition that's fine, but using "he called himself leader of Team USA" carries as much weight as if I call myself leader of Team USA.
3) There is, and always will be, a huge difference between "producing" like one of the two best players in NBA history and being one of the best of all time. This isn't baseball where you can produce at astounding levels and be considered great. Wilt produced unlike anyone ever, and others had stat lines that were far superior to "the greats" but were held back by the fact that they only produced, they didn't win. Karl Malone had amazing stat lines for his entire career, but he fell short when it mattered, and faded in close games: that's why Stockton was "the man" in Utah.
But more importantly, how do we know James' end goal is to be the man?
We don't; in fact, we now know the opposite. James' goal is to win without having to be "the man." Also known as Karl Malone syndrome. It's not as bad as Wilt Chamberlin syndrome (where the player cares more about being "the man" than winning), but it's a heck of a lot worse than Russell-Magic-Larry-Michael syndrome. Also, I'm not quite sure which group Kobe fits in, but that's a post for another day.
It's a team game. Jordan and Bryant are self-reliant types who didn't come naturally to the idea that crunch time ought to be played as a team. Both have had to be coached into passing with the game on the line.
In fairness to Michael, did you SEE the players he was asked to pass to early on? What a craptastic combo! As for Kobe, that is a large part of why I'm not sure if he fits the MJ class, or is more in the Wilt class.
But that they think like that doesn't mean we all have to go along. In your personal life, do you find it true that real men don't pass the ball, or share, or have friends, or smile or all that? The Jordan/Bryant way was one way to do it, but it's hardly the only way to get the job done.
This isn't the real world; this is sports. Of course Michael Jordan's leadership model won't work in my professional or personal life, but then again I don't get paid to play a kids game. This is a silly argument.
When Jordan started passing -- to open teammates like Steve Kerr and John Paxson -- the Bulls started winning titles. Bill Russell owned basketball to the tune of 11 titles and he never thought it was his job to take the last shot. He was a different kind of "man," and won plenty.
Men who pull over and ask for directions may lose hombre points, but we all agree they waste less time driving around, right?
This misses the point: Jordan and Russell had control of their locker rooms equally. Jordan was a far superior offensive player to Russell, but if Bill Russell had thought his team's best chance to win was to score 50 he probably would have done it. He just looked at the talent surrounding him and said "we'll win if I do this." Jordan had no scoring talent around him, but a bunch of tough defenders and passers, along with some great spot up shooters. So he used that in the same way the Russell used Cooz and Tommy.
The man vs. the team
Sometimes you have to ask yourself what your end goal is: To win the individual sport of being the man, or the team sport of basketball? They usually go together. There's a reason Bryant and Jordan have all those championship rings.
I feel obligated to tell you that Jordan and Bryant have all those championships for entirely different reasons. Jordan was the best, Kobe had Shaq for three.
But sometimes the best thing for basketball is to not put everything on your shoulders, and instead get some help.
Think about Kevin Garnett. There are several different really smart analyses to show that when he was in Minnesota losing all those games he was literally the best player in the NBA (the same analysis, over the last two years, would say James is that player now). If you use some kind of smart objective metrics, Garnett's is the name that comes up most from those years. But Garnett had no help! After he grew distraught with the team's endless rebuilding, the Timberwolves found him a home in Boston with some serious help in the form of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Even though Garnett did not play his best basketball in Boston, he did his best winning there, and the result has been a profound transformation of both how the world sees Garnett and how the city of Boston feels about basketball in the 2000s. It's a model anyone would want to copy -- a new home with talented teammates became a story of pure, unrestrained basketball joy for all involved who aren't Timberwolves fans.
I was wondering when we'd get to the Kevin Garnett analogy. By the time Garnett went to Boston nobody could begrudge him because he had tried, and failed, so many times. But there is a large subcontext here: Garnett's biggest failing as a player is the same as LeBron's. Both are the best player in the league, and both are afraid to take over the game at the end to ensure a win. Garnett was roundly, and correctly, criticized for this. It's why he won't crack the top twenty greatest players of all time although he had the talent to be top five. Those Minnesota teams could have gone farther if KG was willing to dominate. He wasn't. The same can be said for Cleveland the last three years.
Similarly, before the Lakers got Pau Gasol, Bryant was among the most unhappiest campers in NBA history and was caught on camera phone talking about the inadequacy of his teammates and his willingness to be traded. When Gasol arrived, Bryant started winning more than ever, and he was proved absolutely right that he could win a lot more with more with help.
As I mentioned before, Kobe straddles a weird place between Wilt and MJ, and so much of this only serves to amplify that. Bryant vacillates frequently between a desire to be "the man" in the way Wilt was (scoring all the time, carrying the team by himself) and a realization that he needs help (Shaq, then Gasol). Jordan didn't have that same uncertainty, certainly not by Kobe's current age.
Imagine if you will, crazy as it may sound, that back in the day, Jordan had somehow charmed Barkley or David Robinson to join the Bulls?
By the metrics of being the man, Jordan would have been a failure. Talk about pulling over to ask for directions. But Jordan would have been a better winner. He'd be more valuable to his team and his fans in every way if somehow he had pulled that off.
He would have been more valuable to his team and fans? How? Robinson was soft and wanted to be a second banana for sure, but Barkley wanted to win one as the alpha dog, and wouldn't have fit well. Either way, how much more valuable could Jordan have been? He won six titles in his last six full years. That's about as valuable as you can be.
Hell no I don't need help.
If refusing help when it's available is the end goal, then in my mind we have cooked up one silly, old-fashioned definition of being the man.
Again, our author is confusing the real world with the sports world. He's also missing another defining point: that the great players stay in one place long enough to win, and that those who need to move to get help are inevitably viewed as lesser. That's why Wade will come out of this smelling better than LeBron: Miami is his town, has been his town, and he's simply getting help to further his legacy. That LeBron had a quick one pulled over on him by Wade is one of the funniest running subplots in this entire deal.
Playing executive is smart
Jordan is affixed in our minds as the portrait of a winner, but take the long view of not just his playing days, but his life to date.
Through all the millions, the TV ads, the golf games and the casino trips, maybe there's nothing to regret.
But something funny happened in Springfield, Mass. Remember his Hall of Fame acceptance speech? Didn't we all come away from that with the news that life inside Jordan's shoes is not all peachy? He's bitter! About a lot of things! With the world's blessing to discuss whatever he wanted, Jordan mostly just spat insults.
I covered this here, and as I said there, what we loved most about Jordan is what we don't feel quite comfortable with now. It's just the way he's built. He is hyper-competitive, but it's what fueled the fire. We can't have our cake and eat it too; Jordan is that guy who we loved in sports but not as much in the real world. That's why this is sports we are talking about, and not a non-for-profit organization.
One of the first things he brought up was the guy who built the Bulls team he won all those titles with, Jerry Krause. "Jerry’s not here," explains Jordan. "I don’t know who’d invite him. I didn’t. ... " All this bitterness, even though they won championships together!
The reason I bring this up is: Jordan proved right there and then that letting someone else build the roster for you can make you a very bitter man, even if you win six titles.
Players have the power of free agency, which, James and Wade have demonstrated, is one new way to solve that problem.
Jordan's career is widely seen as an example of why James and Wade ought not play together. It costs them both points as the man.
But you can also see Jordan's life to date as a textbook case of why building your own roster might be the smartest thing you can do, even if it isn't how things used to be done.
This is an interesting argument in the end: because Michael was bitter and couldn't separate fantasy (Jerry Krause is sticking it to me so I need to win) from reality (Jerry Krause is an idiot, but he got me the talent I needed), now LeBron needs to build his own dynasty? Where's the fun in this? And ... wait a minute. Is that the mystery Michael helped us to understand? This article ends abruptly, but as near as I can tell we are supposed to love LeBron for giving up on Cleveland and running to D-Wade for help, and we are supposed to feel sorry for Michael for doing it on his own and winning in a dominate fashion that only Bill Russell could relate to. I'm totally confused.
THE MICHAEL JORDAN VIEW OF LeBRON
Michael Jordan has weighed in on the LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh "SuperFriends" team in Miami:
"There's no way, with hindsight, I would've ever called up Larry, called up Magic and said, 'Hey, look, let's get together and play on one team,' " Jordan said after playing in a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada. "But that's ... things are different. I can't say that's a bad thing. It's an opportunity these kids have today. In all honesty, I was trying to beat those guys."We start the article with a simple quote from MJ, telling us what we already knew, which is that he would not have been willing to go play with Magic and Larry Legend because ... wait for it ... he wanted to beat them, not join them. I know this news flash is tremendous, that MJ was hyper competitive, but I'm sure that True Hoop has a good reason for writing an article with this seemingly obvious quote as a starting point.
In so many ways, Michael Jordan is the most appropriate person in the world to comment on LeBron James and his legacy, but not for the reasons you might expect.
I'm sure that you're going to tell us why Michael Jordan is the most appropriate person in the world to comment soon. I must say that I hate this literary device: hint at something, then don't answer it, but instead tap dance around it. Let's see how long it takes them to get to the point.
He is helping to solve one of the biggest mysteries in sports.
Holy Crap Batman, really? One of the biggest mysteries in sports? Let's see: is he helping us solve why the Cubs can't seem to win? No? Then it must be that he is helping us solve the mystery of if Lance Armstrong used P.E.D.'s to help recover from testicular cancer and vault to seven Tour de France titles! No? ... Is he helping us determine what's wrong with Tiger's swing, or if Federer is washed up, or if Jay Cutler is ready to run Mike Martz' offense? Seriously, no?
The question is: When James announced that he was taking his talents to South Beach, why did he instantly become the guy sports fans love to hate? What's so reprehensible about joining a good team?
That's the question? That's the big mystery? I think I already answered that in this post, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion.
He's the man
Michael Jordan was, is, and will always be the man. Yes, in italics.
You don't need me to define that, but just for fun: It means essentially the most aggressive, victorious, macho, indomitable player in the sport. The most feared, and the most fearless.
This utter lack of restraint, in the face of any challenges, is no small part of how Jordan inspires us.
We are in agreement on this point: Jordan was the man, he feared no challenge, and he was the most feared person in the game. Just look at this picture of the Utah crowd as he took the final shot. He was bullet proof.
Hell no I don't need help.
It's a real and valid way to view the game. You have to respect the sheer number of players, former players, executives and coaches who see the game through this lens. The best player is the man. Basically, that's the guy who, of the few superstars who produce in huge numbers and win a lot of games, is most fearless and ferocious.
The list of players who were "the man" in NBA history is extensive: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Young Kareem, young Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, young Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Kobe, Tim Duncan, John Stockton, and Hakeem Olajuwon to name a few.
This is often measured in terms of being willing to shoot with the game on the line.
Notice the key word here: often. In a moment our fearless writer will attempt to change "often" to "all the time" without telling us. I will agree with the fact that this is often measured in these terms, although it would be then measured incorrectly. Being "the man" simply means that you are the alpha dog on your team. Russell rarely shot the last shot, but nobody on those Celtics teams had any role confusion over who "the man" was. For that matter, neither did Wilt. The league knew it was Russell first, others after him.
When people heard that James was teaming up with Wade and Bosh, though ... wow. You know how men have this reputation as not being willing to pull over and ask for directions?
Hell no I don't need help.
Jordan, Barkley and others are making fun of James -- perhaps the most biting of all of Jordan's words was "kid" -- for getting help. If the whole idea is to show that you're the baddest man on the planet, what do we care about all these SuperFriends? (Similarly, Jordan said the other day that Bryant was the best player in the NBA. He's the most fearless, that's for sure.)
First, I don't sense that they are "making fun" of James, but rather that they are critiquing his move. Which is their right. I did it; they can do it as well. Quite honestly, Barkley and Jordan have more of a right to critique these guys than I do, and even more of a right than the sports writer who wrote this piece. They played the game, they know what it's like.
The problem with the critique is twofold. For one thing, he's not bad as the man. James shoots plenty with the game on the line, already produces like one of the two best players in NBA history (hitting at a better career rate than Bryant), wins a lot of games and even called himself leader of Team USA.
I start to see this article veering to the side here, so let's break it down:
1) James may not be "bad" as the man, but he has proven time and again to not be willing to take the game over himself. Michael passed to a number of teammates at the end of games, but if those teammates hadn't taken the shot or wanted the ball Jordan was not going to hide from it. LeBron has and will. Jordan was willing to let Bill Wennington win the game he scored 55 at Madison Square Garden, or Steve Kerr win the 5th title, or John Paxson the 3rd title, but he wasn't opposed to taking over. James is.
2) The argument that James "called himself leader of Team USA" is kindergarten style: who cares what he called himself? At the end we know Kobe took over and James just watched. In International competition that's fine, but using "he called himself leader of Team USA" carries as much weight as if I call myself leader of Team USA.
3) There is, and always will be, a huge difference between "producing" like one of the two best players in NBA history and being one of the best of all time. This isn't baseball where you can produce at astounding levels and be considered great. Wilt produced unlike anyone ever, and others had stat lines that were far superior to "the greats" but were held back by the fact that they only produced, they didn't win. Karl Malone had amazing stat lines for his entire career, but he fell short when it mattered, and faded in close games: that's why Stockton was "the man" in Utah.
But more importantly, how do we know James' end goal is to be the man?
We don't; in fact, we now know the opposite. James' goal is to win without having to be "the man." Also known as Karl Malone syndrome. It's not as bad as Wilt Chamberlin syndrome (where the player cares more about being "the man" than winning), but it's a heck of a lot worse than Russell-Magic-Larry-Michael syndrome. Also, I'm not quite sure which group Kobe fits in, but that's a post for another day.
It's a team game. Jordan and Bryant are self-reliant types who didn't come naturally to the idea that crunch time ought to be played as a team. Both have had to be coached into passing with the game on the line.
In fairness to Michael, did you SEE the players he was asked to pass to early on? What a craptastic combo! As for Kobe, that is a large part of why I'm not sure if he fits the MJ class, or is more in the Wilt class.
But that they think like that doesn't mean we all have to go along. In your personal life, do you find it true that real men don't pass the ball, or share, or have friends, or smile or all that? The Jordan/Bryant way was one way to do it, but it's hardly the only way to get the job done.
This isn't the real world; this is sports. Of course Michael Jordan's leadership model won't work in my professional or personal life, but then again I don't get paid to play a kids game. This is a silly argument.
When Jordan started passing -- to open teammates like Steve Kerr and John Paxson -- the Bulls started winning titles. Bill Russell owned basketball to the tune of 11 titles and he never thought it was his job to take the last shot. He was a different kind of "man," and won plenty.
Men who pull over and ask for directions may lose hombre points, but we all agree they waste less time driving around, right?
This misses the point: Jordan and Russell had control of their locker rooms equally. Jordan was a far superior offensive player to Russell, but if Bill Russell had thought his team's best chance to win was to score 50 he probably would have done it. He just looked at the talent surrounding him and said "we'll win if I do this." Jordan had no scoring talent around him, but a bunch of tough defenders and passers, along with some great spot up shooters. So he used that in the same way the Russell used Cooz and Tommy.
The man vs. the team
Sometimes you have to ask yourself what your end goal is: To win the individual sport of being the man, or the team sport of basketball? They usually go together. There's a reason Bryant and Jordan have all those championship rings.
I feel obligated to tell you that Jordan and Bryant have all those championships for entirely different reasons. Jordan was the best, Kobe had Shaq for three.
But sometimes the best thing for basketball is to not put everything on your shoulders, and instead get some help.
Think about Kevin Garnett. There are several different really smart analyses to show that when he was in Minnesota losing all those games he was literally the best player in the NBA (the same analysis, over the last two years, would say James is that player now). If you use some kind of smart objective metrics, Garnett's is the name that comes up most from those years. But Garnett had no help! After he grew distraught with the team's endless rebuilding, the Timberwolves found him a home in Boston with some serious help in the form of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Even though Garnett did not play his best basketball in Boston, he did his best winning there, and the result has been a profound transformation of both how the world sees Garnett and how the city of Boston feels about basketball in the 2000s. It's a model anyone would want to copy -- a new home with talented teammates became a story of pure, unrestrained basketball joy for all involved who aren't Timberwolves fans.
I was wondering when we'd get to the Kevin Garnett analogy. By the time Garnett went to Boston nobody could begrudge him because he had tried, and failed, so many times. But there is a large subcontext here: Garnett's biggest failing as a player is the same as LeBron's. Both are the best player in the league, and both are afraid to take over the game at the end to ensure a win. Garnett was roundly, and correctly, criticized for this. It's why he won't crack the top twenty greatest players of all time although he had the talent to be top five. Those Minnesota teams could have gone farther if KG was willing to dominate. He wasn't. The same can be said for Cleveland the last three years.
Similarly, before the Lakers got Pau Gasol, Bryant was among the most unhappiest campers in NBA history and was caught on camera phone talking about the inadequacy of his teammates and his willingness to be traded. When Gasol arrived, Bryant started winning more than ever, and he was proved absolutely right that he could win a lot more with more with help.
As I mentioned before, Kobe straddles a weird place between Wilt and MJ, and so much of this only serves to amplify that. Bryant vacillates frequently between a desire to be "the man" in the way Wilt was (scoring all the time, carrying the team by himself) and a realization that he needs help (Shaq, then Gasol). Jordan didn't have that same uncertainty, certainly not by Kobe's current age.
Imagine if you will, crazy as it may sound, that back in the day, Jordan had somehow charmed Barkley or David Robinson to join the Bulls?
By the metrics of being the man, Jordan would have been a failure. Talk about pulling over to ask for directions. But Jordan would have been a better winner. He'd be more valuable to his team and his fans in every way if somehow he had pulled that off.
He would have been more valuable to his team and fans? How? Robinson was soft and wanted to be a second banana for sure, but Barkley wanted to win one as the alpha dog, and wouldn't have fit well. Either way, how much more valuable could Jordan have been? He won six titles in his last six full years. That's about as valuable as you can be.
Hell no I don't need help.
If refusing help when it's available is the end goal, then in my mind we have cooked up one silly, old-fashioned definition of being the man.
Again, our author is confusing the real world with the sports world. He's also missing another defining point: that the great players stay in one place long enough to win, and that those who need to move to get help are inevitably viewed as lesser. That's why Wade will come out of this smelling better than LeBron: Miami is his town, has been his town, and he's simply getting help to further his legacy. That LeBron had a quick one pulled over on him by Wade is one of the funniest running subplots in this entire deal.
Playing executive is smart
Jordan is affixed in our minds as the portrait of a winner, but take the long view of not just his playing days, but his life to date.
Through all the millions, the TV ads, the golf games and the casino trips, maybe there's nothing to regret.
But something funny happened in Springfield, Mass. Remember his Hall of Fame acceptance speech? Didn't we all come away from that with the news that life inside Jordan's shoes is not all peachy? He's bitter! About a lot of things! With the world's blessing to discuss whatever he wanted, Jordan mostly just spat insults.
I covered this here, and as I said there, what we loved most about Jordan is what we don't feel quite comfortable with now. It's just the way he's built. He is hyper-competitive, but it's what fueled the fire. We can't have our cake and eat it too; Jordan is that guy who we loved in sports but not as much in the real world. That's why this is sports we are talking about, and not a non-for-profit organization.
One of the first things he brought up was the guy who built the Bulls team he won all those titles with, Jerry Krause. "Jerry’s not here," explains Jordan. "I don’t know who’d invite him. I didn’t. ... " All this bitterness, even though they won championships together!
The reason I bring this up is: Jordan proved right there and then that letting someone else build the roster for you can make you a very bitter man, even if you win six titles.
Players have the power of free agency, which, James and Wade have demonstrated, is one new way to solve that problem.
Jordan's career is widely seen as an example of why James and Wade ought not play together. It costs them both points as the man.
But you can also see Jordan's life to date as a textbook case of why building your own roster might be the smartest thing you can do, even if it isn't how things used to be done.
This is an interesting argument in the end: because Michael was bitter and couldn't separate fantasy (Jerry Krause is sticking it to me so I need to win) from reality (Jerry Krause is an idiot, but he got me the talent I needed), now LeBron needs to build his own dynasty? Where's the fun in this? And ... wait a minute. Is that the mystery Michael helped us to understand? This article ends abruptly, but as near as I can tell we are supposed to love LeBron for giving up on Cleveland and running to D-Wade for help, and we are supposed to feel sorry for Michael for doing it on his own and winning in a dominate fashion that only Bill Russell could relate to. I'm totally confused.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Billy Joel: An Album By Album Power Ranking
What better to do with my moments of spare time than write about subjects that most people will feel are arbitrary and odd, but which nevertheless entertain me immensely? So, without further ado, here is my take on Billy Joel’s discography:
Billy Joel, as many of you know, is one of my favorite artists of all time. In fact, in this post in which I tried to determine how good Dave Matthews Band really was, I ranked Billy Joel as my all time favorite music act. So he has that going for him, which is nice.
Billy had 12 studio albums which were released from 1971 to 1993. That’s a pretty impressive run which only ended because Joel decided to walk away in Jordan fashion after River of Dreams topped the charts in 1993. Of his 12 studio albums, four reached the top of the charts (River of Dreams, Storm Front, Glass Houses and 52nd Street), with another (The Stranger) reaching the number two spot. Starting with The Stranger in 1977, Joel also had a streak of eight 
consecutive albums which topped out between number one and number seven on the charts.
To that end, by anyone’s estimation, Joel has had a stellar music career. When I finally saw him live, in 2007, Billy still had his fastball. Putting on a great show, Joel was able to deliver everything I could have asked for growing up as such a big fan. After finishing the intro songs Joel introduced himself as "Billy's father," noting that "Billy of course is tall, much better looking, and with more hair." He then proceeded to rock the stage for the next few hours, pulling from nearly all of his discography. Using those twelve albums as a springboard, here is my breakdown of the best of Billy Joel, twelve through one:
12. Streetlife Serenade – 1974
Streetlife Serenade reached a high water mark of 35 on the US charts, and was the follow up album to Joel’s breakthrough 1973 album Piano Man. Serenade is likeable enough, with catchy tunes like “Last of the Bigtime Spenders” and the title inspiration “Streetlife Serenader,” as well as the big single from the album, “The Entertainer” in which Joel decries the music industry as a whole. Serenade has a bit of a more folksy feel to it, which is not uncommon throughout Joel’s early catalogue, but it lacks the memorable nature of many of his other early works. In sum, it’s fun to pop in the player once every few years just to refresh a bit, but it’s not worth playing over and over again.
11. Glass Houses – 1980
Glass Houses topped the charts at number one, becoming Joel’s second album to do so. So why do I have it ranked so low? Two reasons jump out, and both are equally legitimate. First, this is how deep Billy Joel’s discography is in my opinion, that one of his best received albums could be his next to worst album. Second, the album just doesn’t have the staying power of some of his other works. Sure, it has a few epic singles (“You May Be Right” and “It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me,” as well as “Don’t Ask Me Why” to a lesser degree), but beyond those three … it just seems lacking. Some Joel fans go crazy over songs like “Sleeping With the Television On” and “C’Etait Toi (You Were the One)” but I am not among them. I do enjoy “Sometimes a Fantasy,” but that song alone isn’t enough to hold this album up. The first four songs of this album are solid, even spectacular at times, but the final five songs are forgettable. Joel did much better.
10. Innocent Man – 1983
Innocent Man, which topped out at number four in the US charts, is a bit of an enigma for me. I look at the track list and think “how can it rank this low?” and so I then review the next few albums, and I find that for whatever reason I just like them more. Innocent Man had a plethora of radio singles, ranging from the top ten singles (“Tell Her About it” (#1), “Uptown Girl” (#3) and “Innocent Man” (#10)) to the complementary singles (“The Longest Time,” “Leave a Tender Moment Alone,” “Keeping The Faith” and “This Night”).
Upon further reflection, this album just doesn’t fit right to me; it feels, rather, like at least two albums which were forced together into one. It doesn’t have a sense of continuity, or building towards something as a completed work of art. On the one had you have the soulful ballad “Innocent Man” which, I suspect, would be in my top five favorite Joel songs. After all, it is the song I chose to sing as my Senior solo in high school. Then it has a great rock/pop song in “Keeping The Faith,” as well as “Leave a Tender Moment Alone.” On the flip side, the more poppy “Uptown Girl,” “Tell Her About It” and “The Longest Time” feel out of place to me, and, particularly with “Uptown Girl,” borderline annoying after a few listens. I understand where Joel was going with this album, using it as a homage to a variety of styles of music, but as great of an album as it was, it only has the place of #10 on this list.
9. The Bridge – 1986
Honoring my birth year, The Bridge reached a peak position of number seven on the charts. This album lacks the single power of Innocent Man, but it plays as a much better album front to back. It has a number of songs that, while not hits, I enjoy immensely. “Running on Ice” has a pace and beat that I find infectious, and that always gets me going. “Temptation” is a beautiful song written, surprisingly, about his daughter. The crown jewel of the album, however, is not these, nor the album’s top radio singles (including “This is the Time,” and “A Matter of Trust”). Working with Ray Charles on the song “Baby Grand,” Joel successfully made a song that can transcend generations, and also showcases two of the greatest American musicians of all time. The Bridge was solid, if unspectacular, whereas Innocent Man was spectacular, but not solid. 
8. The Nylon Curtain – 1982
Also reaching number seven on the US charts, The Nylon Curtain had one of the iconic songs of the early 1980s in “Allentown.” Joel’s ability to bring attention to a social situation was showcased here, and the song stayed in the top 20 for six weeks in 1983. Again, what makes this album is not the singles, but instead the songs which complement the singles (singles which also include “Pressure,” and the epic “Goodnight Saigon.”) The songs like “Laura,” “She’s Right On Time” and “A Room of Our Own” are catchy, and still play very well to this day. “Scandinavian Skies” is a fascinating listen, which uses an almost detached voice of Joel through violent musical movements to paint an uneasy picture. All in all The Nylon Curtain remains a solid album which delivers on a variety of levels.
7. Cold Spring Harbor – 1971
This is where a cursory Joel fan would start screaming at me. His first album, Cold Spring Harbor was mixed poorly, recorded poorly, made Joel sound like a chipmunk, and had no singles of any consequence (and therefore, no radio play). Add all that together, and the album reached no higher than 158 on the US Charts. That said, this album is pure gold. “She’s Got a Way” has become a solid fan favorite for its simplicity and beauty, but the album is a ten for ten in my opinion. In other words, I can listen to it front to back and love every track. My personal favorites include “Everybody Loves You Now,” “Falling of the Rain,” “Nocturne” which is piano only, and “Got to Begin Again.” This album is stripped of all the pomp and circumstance of later albums, and is a simple example of how talented a musician Joel really is. All of 22 years old at this point, it is fresh and exciting, particularly if your only experience with Joel is his pop hits. I highly recommend it.
6. Turnstiles – 1976
How this album only made it to number 122 on the US charts is simply beyond me. It has single power (“New York State of Mind” and “Say Goodbye to Hollywood” as two prime examples), but many of these songs didn’t really catch on until well after the fact. In reality, most of them didn’t catch on until they were re-released as live versions on 1981’s Songs in the Attic, which featured some of Joel’s favorite songs which he felt were underappreciated. This album had only eight songs, but in addition to the two mentioned above it also had songs such as “James,” “Miami 2017” and “Angry Young Man” which are stellar. “I’ve Loved These Days” found its way into my senior commencement speech for its ability to put things in perspective. In sum, I can understand how this album was stuck so low, but for a true Joel fan it should rank pretty high.
5. Storm Front – 1989
Now into the top five, and leading off is Storm Front, which hit the top of the charts at number one. “We Didn’t Start The Fire” became a number one hit, and other singles from the album (including “Leningrad,” “I Go To Extremes,” “And So It Goes,” and “The Downeaster ‘Alexa”) give this album a loaded feel, much like the New York Yankees lineup. All of these songs are catchy and worth listening to again and again, but other songs like “Shameless” and “Stormfront” continue to add to the album’s attractiveness. With this album it is easy to see why it reached the top of the charts.
4. River of Dreams – 1993
Topping the charts at number one, River of Dreams was the album Joel released which I first jumped into, and was also the last album he made. Far from being singles drive, the album has an impressive flow to it, starting with “No Man’s Land” and ending with the prophetic final track “Famous Last Words.” Joel’s ability to show perspective was rarely as succinct as in the song “Two Thousand Years,” where he takes a philosophical viewpoint to the world:
"Sometimes I wonder 'why are we so blind to fate?' Without compassion there can be no end to hate, no end to sorry caused by the same endless fears. Why can't we learn from all we've been through after two thousand years? There will be miracles after the last war is won. Science and poetry rule in the new world to come. Prophets and angels gave us the power to see what an amazing future there will be."A gift to his fans, Joel’s last album became his living will and testament, illustrating his worldview and his philosophical and theological beliefs, and giving us something deep to ponder on. Beyond all of that, however, is one heck of a catchy album.
3. Piano Man – 1973 
At a high point of number 27 on the US charts, it would seem that this album is out of place, and it might be. It lacks the deep introspection of Joel’s later albums, as well as the massive pop success of his intermediate albums. But it has the folksy nature of a fresh, un-jaded upstart, and it hits the ball out of the park on two songs. The title track, “Piano Man,” has, of course, become an absolute epic, although it never reached higher than number twenty five itself in the moment. Go into any bar, any frat house, and concert in America and play “Piano Man” and I guarantee you that everyone will know it. The song itself is a strong reason why the album ranks this high. But the title track is also counterbalanced by another fan favorite, and epic track: “Captain Jack.” An outright anti-drug song, “Captain Jack” talks about something close to Joel’s heart, as he noted in Songs in the Attic that if Vietnam didn’t kill his friends, drugs often did. Beyond the two heavyweights of the album, the rest of the songs have the fresh feel of Cold Spring Harbor, and they include another huge fan favorite in the historically inaccurate “The Ballad of Billy the Kid.” All in all, Piano Man laid many of the ground roots for what Joel was to become, and the album has stood the test of time.
2. 52nd Street – 1978
Topping the charts at number one, 52nd street was the first album of Joel’s to accomplish that feat. And, as the second best of his albums, it was deserving of that crown. With three top forty singles (“Big Shot,” “My Life” and “Honesty”) the album had popularity, and the rest the album has a catchy feel to it that draws you in and won’t let you out. This album screams about youth and the potential of any night, as well as the potential downfalls. From the “don’t tell me what to do” aspects of “My Life,” through the “anything can happen” described in “Half a Mile Away,” through the descriptions in “Zanzibar” and “Until the Night,” and ending with the end result in “Big Shot,” this album is a good fit for the time period in Joel’s life.
1. The Stranger – 1977
Reaching number two in the US charts, The Stranger was Joel’s big breakthrough (he had never been higher
than 27 before, and was coming off of Turnstiles which clocked in at 122). The Stranger is still Joel’s best selling non-compilation album to date, and has been re-released a number of times to make good on its popularity. With a murderers row of hits (“Movin’ Out,” “She’s Always a Woman,” “Scenes From an Italian Restaurant,” “Just the way You Are,” “Only the Good Die Young” and “The Stranger”) the album is a work of art. It is backed up with “Vienna” and “Everybody has a Dream,” as well as “Get it Right the First Time.” The album is a work of art, and is generally accepted as Joel’s epic. I agree.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The "King's" Decision
Driving home from class tonight I got a text message from an acquaintance who I knew was mass texting everyone announcing where LeBron James had decided to go. I mulled over viewing it because, as a Bulls fan, I knew that the split second I had left was the last split second I'd have to dream about our team landing either Wade (preferably) or James. I looked, and it read as such:
"King James! Going to Miami!!!"
This news wasn't much of a shock really; in today's 24 hour news cycle it is increasingly rare when a broken story isn't true, and this story has been broke for awhile. No, James to Miami had become common knowledge, and anyone who didn't feel that way in the last few days was simply in denial. But there are a few things that need to be said about the choice Mr. James made, and the way he made it. And, of course, I'm willing to take that challenge. Without further delay, here are the top story lines of LeBron's decision 2010 (and don't kid yourself, there will be another round of this the next time he's a free agent):
1. LeBron decides he doesn't have the fortitude to be Michael, and chooses instead to be Scottie
Let's be clear on one thing: the Miami Heat have been, and will continue to be Dwyane Wade's team. Wade is the alpha dog, and Wade has already won the title. Wade was the person who Pat Riley sent out before the free agent period started to talk people into coming to play with him. Moreover, Wade has proven that he has the fortitude, that when the game is on the line he wants to ball, and that his team will live and die with him. Call this the "Jordan quality" if you want, but it really predates Jordan. Bird had it, and so did West, any number of Celtic greats, and even Kobe Bryant today. These players wanted the rock in their hands when the game was on the line. This quality is what separates the greats from those who are really, really good. It creates a differentiation between the Batmans and the Robins of the world.
We all know that Kobe has it today, even if he isn't quite good enough to capitalize on it as often as Jordan or Bird did. But that's missing the point: nobody has done it better than MJ or Larry Legend, not in the history of the game. Watch tapes of the Celtics before Bird's back went out, or watch Jordan between 1990 and 1998: they didn't miss too often when they took over. Time tends to help us forget what has happened, so feel free to watch the following clip to refresh your memory; it comes from game 6 of the 1998 NBA finals:
Jordan's ability to take over a game was unprecedented, but the final 40 seconds was something that only the most elite ever could hope to accomplish. In the ultimate team sport, Michael Jordan won the game by himself through sheer force of will.
Wade has shown this desire, as well as the ability to finish. Look at the 2006 NBA Finals: the referees might have been bailing him out with all kinds of foul calls, but Wade was smart enough and fearless enough to keep going at it. And since that time, since he won an NBA championship with a pretty talentless team, the fortunes of the Heat have ebbed and flowed with him. Wade and Kobe, that's the list in the league right now of players who are capable of being all time greats. Maybe Kevin Durant gets there; I think he will, others are less certain. But there is one things we know: LeBron isn't there, nor does he even want to be.
Consider games five and six of this year's playoff series with Boston. Not only did LeBron crap the bed with one of the worst games of his career in game five, but he followed it up by turning the ball over NINE TIMES in game six. His season, and perhaps his legacy, was on the line in that game and he failed. But even that isn't the ultimate statement of LeBron's lack of fortitude. After turning the ball over at the 8:30 mark in the fourth quarter, LeBron basically disappeared, and he stood by passively and allowed his teammates to let the Celtics run the clock out on his season. There have been many times in Kobe's career when he has shot his team out of games, but he has always wanted the ball. LeBron almost hides from it.
All this adds up to one thing that makes perfect sense: of course LeBron wants to go to Miami to play with Wade and Chris Bosh, because in that scenario he won't be asked to be "the man." He can take over the game in the first three quarters and look great, but when the going gets tough it'll be on D-Wade. And that's what LeBron wants. He has actively decided to become Scottie Pippen, rather than trying to be Michael Jordan. When he announced last year that he was going to be changing his number from 23 little did we know that it was because he had decided that he no longer was up to the challenge of taking on MJ's legacy. And you can take this to the bank: if the Heat win a title or two (and that is a much bigger if than you think) it will be more glowing on Wade's resume than LeBron's. LeBron is going to be remembered as the coward who couldn't come through when he needed to. Wade will be remembered as the visionary who went and got himself a supporting cast.
2. The Three Biggest Free Agents Choose Insane Pressure To Win Over Better Chances To Win.
Let me ask you this: which roster would be better set up to win next year? Chicago with a starting lineup of Derrick Rose, LeBron James, Luol Deng, Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah, Miami with a starting lineup of D-Wade, LeBron, Chris Bosh and two veteran minimum signings, or New Jersey with Devin Harris, LeBron, Brooke Lopez and young talent around them? I point this out only because it is far from a sure thing that these three will win in Miami, but if they fail to win the pressure will be even greater than if they had gone their separate ways. By choosing Miami and assuming they will win, they are assuming the following:
A) LeBron, Wade and Bosh will all be willing to see a noticeable drop in their statistics
B) Quality talent is going to be willing to take the league minimum to play with them, when they could make four or five times more playing elsewhere
C) Orlando, Boston and Chicago will fail to improve their rosters significantly
D) The Los Angeles Lakers won't be able to beat them, nor will Dallas, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, or any of the other potential Western Conference foes
E) All three "stars" will stay healthy
If you ask me, these are a bunch of crazy assumptions. First, NEVER in NBA history has a team with three alpha dog stars won an NBA title. All NBA teams have a hierarchy, and this team won't have one easily because my bet is that LeBron won't like playing the Pippen role as much as he thinks he will, and that Bosh will HATE the Horace Grant/Lamar Odom/Otis Thorpe role. These guys have egos; look at how they've handled this entire process. Furthermore, they won't have any talent around them except, maybe, Michael Beasley (who, for what it's worth, is an enigma who will hate being the fourth banana when he was supposed to be number two). They won't have the Steve Kerr or John Paxson type. They won't have any of that. They will have the big three, and little else.
The second part of this lack of logic is that they assume other teams will roll over and die. I don't, for one, believe that. What if the Bulls manage to be smart, keep their cap space, and sign Carmelo Anthony next offseason? A team of Rose, Anthony, Boozer and Noah with better role players around them would easily be able to compete with Wade, James and Bosh. Can you count the Celtics out after what we saw this year? I don't think so. And Orlando is also dangerous. All of that is also completely ignoring the Western Conference, and the Lakers in particular, because you know Kobe is foaming at the mouth dreaming of beating these guys in the finals next year so he can continue building his "Greatest of All Time" case. The target these guys just put on their back is tremendous, and the first three game losing streak they have will lead the media to go into a slew of "what's wrong in Miami" story lines. They will be expected to break the record for wins in a year. They won't come close. This strategy of piling up superstars in their prime has never worked, and it has rarely worked even when the players are older and wiser. I've got no reason to believe it'll start now.
3. LeBron Just Put Himself In Contention With Tiger For Most Impressive Character Suicide Of The Decade
Before the start of the playoffs, as I've recounted here, I debated with my friends that LeBron wouldn't even be the best player of his generation, that Durant would be. I was laughed at then, but I hit the nail on the head thus far, especially if you factor in likeability, which is a huge part of being a superstar. Durant quietly accepts and extension in OK City, while LeBron has an hour long TV special to announce what?
That he is stabbing Cleveland in the back.
If you're going to leave your hometown, you do it with more class than this. LeBron just mailed the entire city a veritable turd sandwich, then stabbed them in the back while they were vomiting from the smell. His move was that of a villain, not a superstar. And, for a young man who has been savvy thus far, it was remarkably stupid from a marketing standpoint. Let's get it out there: I don't have any love lost for Cleveland or their whining fanbase. All they do is complain, talk down Jordan and Payton, and generally over glorify their own. It's their own fault as much as anyone that LeBron has this big of a head because they immortalized him for doing jack. Maybe they felt they had to do this in order to keep him happy, but all the "Witness" crap didn't amount to anything when the chips fell. LeBron was just gone.
All that said, I now feel bad for the city. The poor schmucks actually thought he was staying. Bryan Bucher, my favorite Cleveland fan, actually spent his time writing this about how LeBron was staying. He believed it. So did most Cleveland fans. They thought they had a chance, but I promise you they were only ahead of the Clippers in this race. He was never coming back. You could see it in his face when he quite on the team in game 6 this year. He was done with the city. He'll tell you that it's okay because he's donating money to the Akron, OH Boy's and Girl's Club. I hope he sees his "fans" who he is asking to follow him to Miami now burning his jerseys. Much like he burned his own chance at being a global icon.
4. The Sickest Part Of This? The NBA Will Be Done Next Year.
They say that those who don't learn from history are prone to repeat the same mistakes. The NBA just had a spending frenzy (sadly, it's not over) akin to the mid to late 1990s when Shawn Kemp, Shaq and others took down huge contracts. The NBA reacted to their own overspending by locking the players out during the 1999 season. Now they reach the same bridge again, and because of the way they handled it they are set to ruin another generation of NBA fans much like they did me. Growing up the NBA was my favorite sport, now it's lodged in a heated battle for my third favorite with Hockey. I'm not special; this will happen again.
And, to that end, all I can say is that I will now root against the Heat, and for any team they play. Not because of Wade or Bosh, because what they did actually made sense for each of them, and the league. The Association is better off with Wade and Bosh teamed together. No, I'll root against the Heat because LeBron James has decided to become the biggest villain in all of sports. And that's saying a lot. Because we all know how I feel about this guy:
"King James! Going to Miami!!!"
This news wasn't much of a shock really; in today's 24 hour news cycle it is increasingly rare when a broken story isn't true, and this story has been broke for awhile. No, James to Miami had become common knowledge, and anyone who didn't feel that way in the last few days was simply in denial. But there are a few things that need to be said about the choice Mr. James made, and the way he made it. And, of course, I'm willing to take that challenge. Without further delay, here are the top story lines of LeBron's decision 2010 (and don't kid yourself, there will be another round of this the next time he's a free agent):
1. LeBron decides he doesn't have the fortitude to be Michael, and chooses instead to be Scottie
Let's be clear on one thing: the Miami Heat have been, and will continue to be Dwyane Wade's team. Wade is the alpha dog, and Wade has already won the title. Wade was the person who Pat Riley sent out before the free agent period started to talk people into coming to play with him. Moreover, Wade has proven that he has the fortitude, that when the game is on the line he wants to ball, and that his team will live and die with him. Call this the "Jordan quality" if you want, but it really predates Jordan. Bird had it, and so did West, any number of Celtic greats, and even Kobe Bryant today. These players wanted the rock in their hands when the game was on the line. This quality is what separates the greats from those who are really, really good. It creates a differentiation between the Batmans and the Robins of the world.
We all know that Kobe has it today, even if he isn't quite good enough to capitalize on it as often as Jordan or Bird did. But that's missing the point: nobody has done it better than MJ or Larry Legend, not in the history of the game. Watch tapes of the Celtics before Bird's back went out, or watch Jordan between 1990 and 1998: they didn't miss too often when they took over. Time tends to help us forget what has happened, so feel free to watch the following clip to refresh your memory; it comes from game 6 of the 1998 NBA finals:
Jordan's ability to take over a game was unprecedented, but the final 40 seconds was something that only the most elite ever could hope to accomplish. In the ultimate team sport, Michael Jordan won the game by himself through sheer force of will.
Wade has shown this desire, as well as the ability to finish. Look at the 2006 NBA Finals: the referees might have been bailing him out with all kinds of foul calls, but Wade was smart enough and fearless enough to keep going at it. And since that time, since he won an NBA championship with a pretty talentless team, the fortunes of the Heat have ebbed and flowed with him. Wade and Kobe, that's the list in the league right now of players who are capable of being all time greats. Maybe Kevin Durant gets there; I think he will, others are less certain. But there is one things we know: LeBron isn't there, nor does he even want to be.
Consider games five and six of this year's playoff series with Boston. Not only did LeBron crap the bed with one of the worst games of his career in game five, but he followed it up by turning the ball over NINE TIMES in game six. His season, and perhaps his legacy, was on the line in that game and he failed. But even that isn't the ultimate statement of LeBron's lack of fortitude. After turning the ball over at the 8:30 mark in the fourth quarter, LeBron basically disappeared, and he stood by passively and allowed his teammates to let the Celtics run the clock out on his season. There have been many times in Kobe's career when he has shot his team out of games, but he has always wanted the ball. LeBron almost hides from it.
All this adds up to one thing that makes perfect sense: of course LeBron wants to go to Miami to play with Wade and Chris Bosh, because in that scenario he won't be asked to be "the man." He can take over the game in the first three quarters and look great, but when the going gets tough it'll be on D-Wade. And that's what LeBron wants. He has actively decided to become Scottie Pippen, rather than trying to be Michael Jordan. When he announced last year that he was going to be changing his number from 23 little did we know that it was because he had decided that he no longer was up to the challenge of taking on MJ's legacy. And you can take this to the bank: if the Heat win a title or two (and that is a much bigger if than you think) it will be more glowing on Wade's resume than LeBron's. LeBron is going to be remembered as the coward who couldn't come through when he needed to. Wade will be remembered as the visionary who went and got himself a supporting cast.
2. The Three Biggest Free Agents Choose Insane Pressure To Win Over Better Chances To Win.
Let me ask you this: which roster would be better set up to win next year? Chicago with a starting lineup of Derrick Rose, LeBron James, Luol Deng, Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah, Miami with a starting lineup of D-Wade, LeBron, Chris Bosh and two veteran minimum signings, or New Jersey with Devin Harris, LeBron, Brooke Lopez and young talent around them? I point this out only because it is far from a sure thing that these three will win in Miami, but if they fail to win the pressure will be even greater than if they had gone their separate ways. By choosing Miami and assuming they will win, they are assuming the following:
A) LeBron, Wade and Bosh will all be willing to see a noticeable drop in their statistics
B) Quality talent is going to be willing to take the league minimum to play with them, when they could make four or five times more playing elsewhere
C) Orlando, Boston and Chicago will fail to improve their rosters significantly
D) The Los Angeles Lakers won't be able to beat them, nor will Dallas, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, or any of the other potential Western Conference foes
E) All three "stars" will stay healthy
If you ask me, these are a bunch of crazy assumptions. First, NEVER in NBA history has a team with three alpha dog stars won an NBA title. All NBA teams have a hierarchy, and this team won't have one easily because my bet is that LeBron won't like playing the Pippen role as much as he thinks he will, and that Bosh will HATE the Horace Grant/Lamar Odom/Otis Thorpe role. These guys have egos; look at how they've handled this entire process. Furthermore, they won't have any talent around them except, maybe, Michael Beasley (who, for what it's worth, is an enigma who will hate being the fourth banana when he was supposed to be number two). They won't have the Steve Kerr or John Paxson type. They won't have any of that. They will have the big three, and little else.
The second part of this lack of logic is that they assume other teams will roll over and die. I don't, for one, believe that. What if the Bulls manage to be smart, keep their cap space, and sign Carmelo Anthony next offseason? A team of Rose, Anthony, Boozer and Noah with better role players around them would easily be able to compete with Wade, James and Bosh. Can you count the Celtics out after what we saw this year? I don't think so. And Orlando is also dangerous. All of that is also completely ignoring the Western Conference, and the Lakers in particular, because you know Kobe is foaming at the mouth dreaming of beating these guys in the finals next year so he can continue building his "Greatest of All Time" case. The target these guys just put on their back is tremendous, and the first three game losing streak they have will lead the media to go into a slew of "what's wrong in Miami" story lines. They will be expected to break the record for wins in a year. They won't come close. This strategy of piling up superstars in their prime has never worked, and it has rarely worked even when the players are older and wiser. I've got no reason to believe it'll start now.
3. LeBron Just Put Himself In Contention With Tiger For Most Impressive Character Suicide Of The Decade
Before the start of the playoffs, as I've recounted here, I debated with my friends that LeBron wouldn't even be the best player of his generation, that Durant would be. I was laughed at then, but I hit the nail on the head thus far, especially if you factor in likeability, which is a huge part of being a superstar. Durant quietly accepts and extension in OK City, while LeBron has an hour long TV special to announce what?
That he is stabbing Cleveland in the back.
If you're going to leave your hometown, you do it with more class than this. LeBron just mailed the entire city a veritable turd sandwich, then stabbed them in the back while they were vomiting from the smell. His move was that of a villain, not a superstar. And, for a young man who has been savvy thus far, it was remarkably stupid from a marketing standpoint. Let's get it out there: I don't have any love lost for Cleveland or their whining fanbase. All they do is complain, talk down Jordan and Payton, and generally over glorify their own. It's their own fault as much as anyone that LeBron has this big of a head because they immortalized him for doing jack. Maybe they felt they had to do this in order to keep him happy, but all the "Witness" crap didn't amount to anything when the chips fell. LeBron was just gone.
All that said, I now feel bad for the city. The poor schmucks actually thought he was staying. Bryan Bucher, my favorite Cleveland fan, actually spent his time writing this about how LeBron was staying. He believed it. So did most Cleveland fans. They thought they had a chance, but I promise you they were only ahead of the Clippers in this race. He was never coming back. You could see it in his face when he quite on the team in game 6 this year. He was done with the city. He'll tell you that it's okay because he's donating money to the Akron, OH Boy's and Girl's Club. I hope he sees his "fans" who he is asking to follow him to Miami now burning his jerseys. Much like he burned his own chance at being a global icon.
4. The Sickest Part Of This? The NBA Will Be Done Next Year.
They say that those who don't learn from history are prone to repeat the same mistakes. The NBA just had a spending frenzy (sadly, it's not over) akin to the mid to late 1990s when Shawn Kemp, Shaq and others took down huge contracts. The NBA reacted to their own overspending by locking the players out during the 1999 season. Now they reach the same bridge again, and because of the way they handled it they are set to ruin another generation of NBA fans much like they did me. Growing up the NBA was my favorite sport, now it's lodged in a heated battle for my third favorite with Hockey. I'm not special; this will happen again.
And, to that end, all I can say is that I will now root against the Heat, and for any team they play. Not because of Wade or Bosh, because what they did actually made sense for each of them, and the league. The Association is better off with Wade and Bosh teamed together. No, I'll root against the Heat because LeBron James has decided to become the biggest villain in all of sports. And that's saying a lot. Because we all know how I feel about this guy:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)