And so, the worst kept story in the NFL has come to fruition: the Colts have parted ways with the franchise, Peyton Manning. As I wrote here (much to the shock of most who know me), I found myself unexpectedly missing Manning after neck injuries kept him out. I also wondered how he could ever consider coming back when he A) made more money doing nothing last year than I will make in my life, and B) was dealing with a neck injury, not a knee injury, shoulder injury, or something else. Still, as Manning progressed and the Colts fell into their worst season since, well Manning came to the franchise as the number one pick. Suddenly, the Colts had the number one pick. Conundrum, right?
Well, not so much if you are a raging insane person who is so self absorbed that you don't know when you have a good thing. Yes, I'm looking at you Jim Irsay. The same Jim Irsay who caused the city of L.A. to say "thanks for the offer of bringing your team to us, but we'd rather not have to deal with you." Jim Irsay pulled a Jerry Krause. Instead of keeping the core of a winner together, he went nuclear on it. Fire the GM who took your team from decade plus long laughingstock to playoff lock every year. Then can the coaching staff. Then blow up all the team. Finally, cut the franchise player who made it all possible, even though he still wants to play.
And so Jim Irsay has no upset his fan base, polarizing them in favor of Manning. Right? Well, wrong. In fact, 98% of Colts fans seem totally fine to kick Manning to the curb, ignore all he did for the franchise, and move on to the next best thing. Of course, of that 98% over half of these "fans" stopped following football all together last year as their team didn't win. Colts fans have happily joined Jim Irsay in kicking Manning to the curb, and Manning has handled it with class.
I'm most troubled by this because I know that any true fans that would really be okay with kicking their franchise player to the curb. The Celtics wouldn't have done it with Bird, and the Bulls fans certainly wouldn't have done it with Michael. The gambit the Colts are playing is that Luck will be to Manning what Steve Young was to Joe Montana, but what happens if Luck is one of the 50% of QB prospects who don't make it? What if he is more Tim Couch or David Carr, rather than Peyton Manning? What if five years from now the team is drafting there next Manning all over again? And what happens if Peyton goes out and wins again? It's not likely ... history indicates that Manning will probably have a few more years being an above average QB, leading his team to the playoffs, and then will fade ... but wouldn't it have been better for his legacy and the Colts fans if it happened with them? In the end Irsay is the nutcase we thought he was, and the Colts fans are also what we thought they were: shortsighted incompetents who aren't really sports fans. If they were they would be putting up a much bigger stink.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
On Nostalgia and Van Halen
"Here's to your thin red line ... oh, I'm stepping over"
What is it about the past that draws us in? The obvious answer is the comfort of being somewhere we’ve been before. It gives us a sense of comfort … perhaps even a sense of control. We feel like we know the rules, we know the game, and, accordingly, we are in control of the outcomes. The power of nostalgia is clearly exhibited by the progression of a child through school. Every step up through school leaves the child looking to the past and what was. Of course, the irony is that just about the time that the child “masters” a school level (elementary, Jr. High or High School) they are moved on to the next. (Of course, by the time you master college you move into the real world, and then everything appears as an idealistic memory of how great it was). Conversely, you live life, have kids, achieve professional competency, retire … and then you get old and want to move “back home.” Life really has a way of book ending things, but that search for home is really a search for the past, and for a comfort level which is, more than anything, a trick of our imagination.
And that, via digression, brings me to Van Halen. The consummate 1980s rock band is back on tour again, and they are once again touring with David Lee Roth as their front man. Diamond Dave, the consummate 1980s rock star is back on the road. As I caught wind of the impending tour I quickly looked at the tour dates, saw a February 24th date at the United Center, and booked tickets for The Wiese and I to go see the boys. The nostalgia train was moving out of the station, and I quickly: A) rediscovered my old Van Halen albums, B) Listened to them repeatedly, and C) purchased the new album (the theoretical reason for the tour), then forced myself to like it by playing nothing else for a few weeks. (By the way, it worked: I love the new Van Halen album. Although I suspect this is in no small part due to the fact that at least half the album is just reworked songs from the 1970s which were never put on an album before, which, in turn, made the music sound more like what I was already familiar with).
Van Halen is in an interesting stage of rock stardom now. They’ve been through the stereotypical break up; the group has always been about Eddie (on guitar) and Alex (on the drums), but their history with their front men have in many ways defined the group. They seem strangely perfect to talk about lost love, or the struggles of love, since the break up of the group and David Lee Roth seemed straight out of a high school romance playbook. Guy (Eddie and Alex) is with girl (David Lee). Guy and girl split (Diamond Dave and the Van Halen’s plus Michael Anthony splitting). Guy gets a new girl and is equally popular, but somehow different (Alex, Eddie and Michael teaming with Sammy Hagar to create Van Hagar… I mean, Van Halen). Before you know it, it’s a well established relationship with everyone on the outside figuring it’ll last forever. But it doesn’t (Hagar leaves), and the first girl is still around (the recording of the greatest hits), and before you know it the guy is comparing his first and second love (Diamond Dave and Hagar), then goes slumming for awhile (I can’t even tell you who, but they had another front man). Eventually a part of the guy changes fundamentally as his innocence is lost (Michael Anthony is no longer with the band). But then, when you least expect it, the guy gets back with the girl who started it all (Diamond Dave teaming up with Eddie, Alex, and new bass player Wolfgang Van Halen, Eddie’s son, for a new album). On the outside you are looking to see if this is real. Do they still have feelings for one another? Can they make it work? Who has aged the worst from the whole experience?
In the case of the improbable, yet totally expected reunion between the Van Halen’s and Diamond Dave these are somewhat difficult questions to answer. The show clearly demonstrated that the group was happy to play together again, but the tension was still evident. David Lee Roth still does his thing and seems hell-bent on taking the attention. Eddie still allows himself to fade into the background more than he should (he is, after all, one of the top five guitarists of his generation). Alex is still removed from everything, although underrated as a drummer. The interesting addition that makes it all work is Eddie’s son, Wolfgang. Just when you doubt that there is devotion in what they are doing, and you start thinking it’s 100% about the money, you see Wolfgang and Eddie come side by side and jam together, or hear them hit the harmony together perfect. That’s when you see that it might mean more to the group. There was also one semi-genuine hug between Eddie and Dave, fleeting, but strong enough to hint something might be there.
As far as if they can make it work, there is little doubt that Eddie realizes now, after his struggles with addictions, that time is fleeting. The opportunity to play with your son and brother in front of stadiums packed full with fans is a unique chance to create memories most can’t dream of. Dave just brings you back to the first part of the band’s evolution, and his antics (yelling at the sound guy, telling the crowd he doesn’t give a ****, and generally playing the part of pompous rock star as well as anyone ever has) seem at home, but still draw from the whole product. One thing is for sure: Diamond Dave has aged the worst out of the whole experience. Eddie and Alex were still spot on; Dave, not so much. He may still be a draw, but the three Van Halen’s looked like they still belonged on the pinnacle of rock music; Dave made you wonder if time had passed him by.
All said, the band did deliver for the crowd. I have to say that I am 100% satisfied, yet I also don’t think I’d feel the need to see them again. Going to a show for Van Halen reminded me a lot of seeing the Goo Goo Dolls: I’m glad I did it once, but there isn’t a force pulling me back over and over again. Billy Joel I would see any chance I got. My love for Dave Matthews Band is well defined in this space, and I’m already giddy with excitement of the seven (hopefully more) shows I plan on going to this summer. Van Halen was much better than my experience seeing Bob Dylan (I’m still not convinced he isn’t dead and they aren’t just touring his body Weekend at Bernie’s style), but even my strong nostalgia for their music, taking me back to my early youth, couldn’t overcome reality. You see, Billy Joel loves the music more, and is has a much greater ability to connect with the crowd in a way that makes a 25,000 seat stadium feel like a small bar. Dave Matthews Band love playing together in a way that Van Halen probably never has and never will. In turn, the crowd reflects that love back, amplifying the experience. Van Halen was well worth the money, but also something that doesn’t need to be repeated. In other words, it’s like most of the memories we carry with us and reminisce on longingly.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Links - Happy Comp Day Edition
Having recovered from the horror that was the Giants victory/Patriots collapse, I'm back to share some articles and quic
k hits that are not all to do with sports. It's always nice to be able to take a day off because you've worked too much recently. I highly recommend each article I link to, and I'll explain why:
- First, an article from a few months ago that popped back into my head following class last Thursday night. We were discussing the process of eminent domain, the law which allows the government decide to purchase private land if it is determined that the land could better serve the public in another capacity. You see this when the government buys up a bunch of houses, bulldozes them, then widens the road. Or in Chicago, when O'Hare airport needs longer runways. What caught my mind drifting back to this article was one simple thing: the former owner of the New Jersey Nets managed to turn a HUGE profit by using eminent domain and pushing the team towards a move to Brooklyn. The article is brilliant, a quick read, and by Malcolm Gladwell, so enjoy.
- A second article takes you inside a very realistic doomsday scenario that I bet 99.3% of Americans have no idea about. Think about this: I'd say the odds of this happening are at least 5% in the next few years, yet the overwhelming majority of Americans would have the following reaction if it happened: "What the hell? What happened? How did they (read "Obama" for they) let this happen?" That doomsday scenario is a massive solar flare (aka a coronal mass ejection) frying and completely decimating the North American power grid. Estimates vary, but it seems logical to me that it could take years to rebuild the grid if it is hit by a storm the likes of which we've seen in the last 200 years. If it's even worse? Needless to say, it's disheartening to realize how likely this is, as we approach solar maximum, and to look at how little is being done to prevent it. This article, from Popular Mechanics, does a good job of running you through this little thought of but increasingly possible catastrophic situation.
- A third article, really an interview of sorts, is a five book recommendation from Phil Plait. Mr. Plait wrote "Death From The Skies," which is a totally scientific breakdown of the various ways the world could end from the heavens (hint: coronal mass ejections are discussed). I haven't read any of these five books, but the man (who you can read here as the "Bad Astronomer") has a unique ability to communicate complicated subjects in accessible ways.
- The Atlantic has an in depth breakdown of the Obama Presidency thus far. I'm only part of the way through this, but it raises some good questions. In my opinion I'd say that Obama is a shrewd political player who has been hamstrung by an impossible political atmosphere. If a politician as smooth and centrist as Obama is unable to deal with this gridlock God help us all if we get someone much more extreme or unable to bring people around a central tenant.
- Speaking of Obama, this article on Politico reminds you that no matter what the guy does someone is demonizing him. Whether the right or the left, nothing he does is good enough for somebody. Why would he even want to run again? Gotta be the power, huh?
- This post, from Universe Today, looks at the potential effects of tidal heating on exo planets. An exo planet, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is a planet orbiting a star other than our own Sun. I greatly enjoy the search for these new worlds, as I deeply hope that sometime in my life we might be able to find the signs of life, any life, somewhere else so that we can dispel the myth that we are alone in the universe. Although, given the way we react to things, I'm not sure it would have the unifying effect I'd hope for.
- Joe Posnaski (of Sports Illustrated) has a good post on the 70th birthday of Muhammad Ali. Many of his themes (heroes in athletes, aging athletes, childhood perceptions of sports) are themes I've written on before. I find the rise, the suspension, the comeback, and the eventual fall and end of Ali's career to be fascinating. Watching Ali in his prime (thank you Youtube) reminds me of what it was like to watch Jordan in his prime. So rarely do we see someone, anyone, who transcends the rest of society. Ali did it. Jordan did it. Tiger did it for a time. All lose it, although the fall is different for each. Think of the athletes who were truly great who didn't have a downfall and left on top. How many can you name? I can think of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders right away. Peyton Manning, if he never takes another snap, would be close, although the injury still has to factor in and take some of that luster away. Who else? It's so hard for someone as competitive as we demand our athletes to be to walk away with anything left in the tank. What Brown and Sanders did would be akin to LeBron walking away in three years when he was at his apex. It's unfathomable; it's why Jordan's final shot in Chicago and subsequent retirement were so shocking and such a fairytale of sorts. I'd be curious to hear what you think.
- Finally, I'm going to see Van Halen at the United Center on the 24th. Should be a good time, and at the very least it will be nice to unwind a bit. But the big news comes out later this month (week hopefully!) when Dave Matthews Band unveils their tour schedule for this summer. With us expecting a full tour again, it could be epic. I'm looking forward to trying to top last summer (7 shows) by getting to eight shows. Thank goodness I have a girlfriend who agrees...
k hits that are not all to do with sports. It's always nice to be able to take a day off because you've worked too much recently. I highly recommend each article I link to, and I'll explain why:- First, an article from a few months ago that popped back into my head following class last Thursday night. We were discussing the process of eminent domain, the law which allows the government decide to purchase private land if it is determined that the land could better serve the public in another capacity. You see this when the government buys up a bunch of houses, bulldozes them, then widens the road. Or in Chicago, when O'Hare airport needs longer runways. What caught my mind drifting back to this article was one simple thing: the former owner of the New Jersey Nets managed to turn a HUGE profit by using eminent domain and pushing the team towards a move to Brooklyn. The article is brilliant, a quick read, and by Malcolm Gladwell, so enjoy.
- A second article takes you inside a very realistic doomsday scenario that I bet 99.3% of Americans have no idea about. Think about this: I'd say the odds of this happening are at least 5% in the next few years, yet the overwhelming majority of Americans would have the following reaction if it happened: "What the hell? What happened? How did they (read "Obama" for they) let this happen?" That doomsday sce
nario is a massive solar flare (aka a coronal mass ejection) frying and completely decimating the North American power grid. Estimates vary, but it seems logical to me that it could take years to rebuild the grid if it is hit by a storm the likes of which we've seen in the last 200 years. If it's even worse? Needless to say, it's disheartening to realize how likely this is, as we approach solar maximum, and to look at how little is being done to prevent it. This article, from Popular Mechanics, does a good job of running you through this little thought of but increasingly possible catastrophic situation.- A third article, really an interview of sorts, is a five book recommendation from Phil Plait. Mr. Plait wrote "Death From The Skies," which is a totally scientific breakdown of the various ways the world could end from the heavens (hint: coronal mass ejections are discussed). I haven't read any of these five books, but the man (who you can read here as the "Bad Astronomer") has a unique ability to communicate complicated subjects in accessible ways.
- The Atlantic has an in depth breakdown of the Obama Presidency thus far. I'm only part of the way through this, but it raises some good questions. In my opinion I'd say that Obama is a shrewd political player who has been hamstrung by an impossible political atmosphere. If a politician as smooth and centrist as Obama is unable to deal with this gridlock God help us all if we get someone much more extreme or unable to bring people around a central tenant.
- Speaking of Obama, this article on Politico reminds you that no matter what the guy does someone is demonizing him. Whether the right or the left, nothing he does is good enough for somebody. Why would he even want to run again? Gotta be the power, huh?
- This post, from Universe Today, looks at the potential effects of tidal heating on exo planets. An exo planet, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is a planet orbiting a star other than our own Sun. I greatly enjoy the search for these new worlds, as I deeply hope that sometime in my life we might be able to find the signs of life, any life, somewhere else so that we can dispel the myth that we are alone in the universe. Although, given the way we react to things, I'm not sure it would have the unifying effect I'd hope for.
- Joe Posnaski (of Sports Illustrated) has a good post on the 70th birthday of Muhammad Ali. Many of his themes (heroes in athletes, aging athletes, childhood perceptions of sports) are themes I've written on before. I find the rise, the suspension, the comeback, and the eventual fall and end of Ali's career to be fascinating. Watching Ali in his prime (thank you Youtube) reminds me of what it was like to watch Jordan in his prime. So rarely do we see someone, anyone, who transcends the rest of society. Ali did it. Jordan did it. Tiger did it for a time. All lose it, although the fall is different for each. Think of the athletes who were truly great who didn't have a downfall and left on top. How many can you name? I can think of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders right away. Peyton Manning, if he never takes another snap, would be close, although the injury still has to factor in and take some of that luster away. Who else? It's so hard for someone as competitive as we demand our athletes to be to walk away with anything left in the tank. What Brown and Sanders did would be akin to LeBron walking away in three years when he was at his apex. It's unfathomable; it's why Jordan's final shot in Chicago and subsequent retirement were so shocking and such a fairytale of sorts. I'd be curious to hear what you think.
- Finally, I'm going to see Van Halen at the United Center on the 24th. Should be a good time, and at the very least it will be nice to unwind a bit. But the big news comes out later this month (week hopefully!) when Dave Matthews Band unveils their tour schedule for this summer. With us expecting a full tour again, it could be epic. I'm looking forward to trying to top last summer (7 shows) by getting to eight shows. Thank goodness I have a girlfriend who agrees...
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The P.O.V. Super Bowl Pick
Giants .... Patriots ... at least I got the conference title games right. What can happen on Sunday? Ultimately only time will tell. You can read all the previews you want to, and you'll see that most of the experts are picking the Giants. The public, certainly, seems to be favoring the Giants heavily, as the Vegas line has down shifted from +3.5 ... to +3.0 ... to +2.5 now in some places. So where does that leave the pick? Consider:
- I already tried the "too many people believe in the Giants" theory when the public came in heavy on them against the Packers ... didn't work.
- I tried the "Patriots are a juggernaut, and will handle the AFC title game" theory against the Ravens ... didn't work, as I needed a miracle to get the Pats to this game.
- I've considered that the Pats only last week won their first game of the year against a winning team, needing a miracle to do it.
- Conversely, the Giants might have needed the bigger miracle to win last week, and have gotten lots of bounces their way to get through the last two weeks of the playoffs.
At the end of the day we've got to ask one question: what's the best story? The last time these teams faced off in the Super Bowl the best story was the upset, and it happened. This time? Think of this:
... Brady's fourth Super Bowl, matching Montana for first all time ...
... The Patriots matching the Steelers of the 1970s ... the 49ers of the 1980s .... and that's the list, as the four time super bowl dynasties...
... Peyton Manning can watch it all in his home town ...
... and all those jagoff Colts fans can watch all this go down on their homefield ...
Come ON! How can that not happen? Well, consider:
Since Jordan retired I've had to deal with a decade of terrible Bulls basketball while the NBA fell apart .... The Hoosiers falling into obscurity ... continued Cubs pain, including 2003 and 2008... watching the Cardinals win not one, but two World Series ... watching the White Sox win the series ... watching the Red Sox break their curse ... Watching my Bears fall to the Colts ... and Peyton Manning winning a title to salvage his legacy (taking him from Marino to Elway level, and nearly to Greatest of All Time level) ... Eli Manning winning a Super Bowl... the Pack winning last year ... and worst of all, my brother falling to the dark side and rooting for the cheese heads ...
Yeah. You get it. More times than not the story line I want doesn't work out. But consider:
... Tracy Porter intercepting Manning to win the game ... Dirk Nowitzki saving us from year one of the Miami threesome... the Bulls resurgence ... the IU resurgence ... Jerry Angelo getting canned ... Theo coming to Chicago ...
Sometimes good things happen. The tie breaker? The Giants website today had a banner declaring "Giants win Super Bowl" which linked to a place to buy championship gear. Bad karma. Check Mate.
The Pick:
Pats (-2.5) over Giants
Pats 31 - Giants 24
Go New England. Screw the Giants, and the horse Eli is riding in Indy this week. :-)
...
- I already tried the "too many people believe in the Giants" theory when the public came in heavy on them against the Packers ... didn't work.
- I tried the "Patriots are a juggernaut, and will handle the AFC title game" theory against the Ravens ... didn't work, as I needed a miracle to get the Pats to this game.
- I've considered that the Pats only last week won their first game of the year against a winning team, needing a miracle to do it.
- Conversely, the Giants might have needed the bigger miracle to win last week, and have gotten lots of bounces their way to get through the last two weeks of the playoffs.
At the end of the day we've got to ask one question: what's the best story? The last time these teams faced off in the Super Bowl the best story was the upset, and it happened. This time? Think of this:
... Brady's fourth Super Bowl, matching Montana for first all time ...
... The Patriots matching the Steelers of the 1970s ... the 49ers of the 1980s .... and that's the list, as the four time super bowl dynasties...
... Peyton Manning can watch it all in his home town ...
... and all those jagoff Colts fans can watch all this go down on their homefield ...
Come ON! How can that not happen? Well, consider:
Since Jordan retired I've had to deal with a decade of terrible Bulls basketball while the NBA fell apart .... The Hoosiers falling into obscurity ... continued Cubs pain, including 2003 and 2008... watching the Cardinals win not one, but two World Series ... watching the White Sox win the series ... watching the Red Sox break their curse ... Watching my Bears fall to the Colts ... and Peyton Manning winning a title to salvage his legacy (taking him from Marino to Elway level, and nearly to Greatest of All Time level) ... Eli Manning winning a Super Bowl... the Pack winning last year ... and worst of all, my brother falling to the dark side and rooting for the cheese heads ...
Yeah. You get it. More times than not the story line I want doesn't work out. But consider:
... Tracy Porter intercepting Manning to win the game ... Dirk Nowitzki saving us from year one of the Miami threesome... the Bulls resurgence ... the IU resurgence ... Jerry Angelo getting canned ... Theo coming to Chicago ...
Sometimes good things happen. The tie breaker? The Giants website today had a banner declaring "Giants win Super Bowl" which linked to a place to buy championship gear. Bad karma. Check Mate.
The Pick:
Pats (-2.5) over Giants
Pats 31 - Giants 24
Go New England. Screw the Giants, and the horse Eli is riding in Indy this week. :-)
...
Friday, January 20, 2012
The Picks: NFL Playoffs 2012, Part 3
0-4 against the spread ... 2-2 straight up ... last week was the most brutal week of picking playoff games I can ever remember. Every angle I decided on was wrong. It was brutal.
So this week I'm taking a different angle: what do I think will bring the best ratings on Super Bowl Sunday? Does that match up with what can happen? At this point any outcome of these games have to be possible. We've got three teams that talk up their defense left (49ers, Giants, Ravens) and one team that hasn't had a defense all year, but has a potent (the most potent?) offense in the Pats. So, after guaranteeing myself a losing playoff record against the spread with my crap-tastic picks, here's what I'm thinking:
Sunday (3pm) - Baltimore at New England (-9)
My Logic: Tom Brady has yet another chance to cement his legacy as one of the two greatest quarter backs of all time. With three Super Bowl wins he is on the edge of that discussion. With a fourth? It's him and Montana, and nobody else comes close. Today there is a chance (albeit a poor chance) that Manning wins another one and people put his legacy against Brady's again. If it wasn't for my man Tracy Porter two years ago that probably would be where we are at today. But if he wins a fourth? Game, set, match. The Patriots have blown their last two chances to win number four in Tom's career (against the Colts in 2006, when they surely would have beat my Bears) and against the Giants the following year in the Super Bowl. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this but would their be a more iconic way for him to win number four than in Indy, playing...
Sunday (6:30pm) - NY Giants at San Francisco (-3)
My Logic: They New York Giants, and Eli Manning? You know that Brady carries that Super Bowl loss with him always. If they win that game, and complete the perfect season, then he leaps Montana into undisputed Greatest of All Time poll position. Instead, it's left open. Since then he has missed a year thanks to Pollard's hit, had a good come back year, then had arguably the greatest season ever for a QB last year. But doesn't it feel like the Giants have to be the obstacle for Brady to overcome? On the other hand ... beating Montana's team in the Super Bowl would have some appeal as well. In this game, it comes down to this: who do I believe in more? Alex Smith? Eli Manning? I've been telling people for awhile now: Eli has irrational confidence in his ability to win games, make throws, and generally be a elite QB. Funny thing is: he's become an elite QB because of that irrational confidence. Down three with one minute left Alex Smith might be able to win it for you, but even he's not sure. Eli knows he's going to win it for you. You wouldn't take him ahead of Rodgers, Brady, Manning the Older or Big Ben ... but he'd think you would. He'd tell you "you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall," and he'd do it with a straight face. He believes in his ability irrationally ... and that makes him dangerous, and the right pick. Eli wins this game. He goes into his brother's house to face off against his brother's nemesis in a rematch of the game where he kept his brother's chance of going down as the Greatest of All Time alive. And Peyton watches, in his hometown, knowing deep down inside ... he's never playing again. The day after the Super Bowl the Andrew Luck era will start in Indy, an all time great will walk into the sunset, and we will be left to marvel at Eli either having the same resume as his brother (two Super Bowl's, one win) or a superior resume (two Super Bowl wins). I just got goose bumps writing that sentence. That's what tells me it's right.
The Picks:
Patriots (-9) over Baltimore
Patriots 31 - Baltimore 20
Giants (+3) over San Francisco
Giants 27 - San Francisco 24
Now you can go bet on the other teams :-)
So this week I'm taking a different angle: what do I think will bring the best ratings on Super Bowl Sunday? Does that match up with what can happen? At this point any outcome of these games have to be possible. We've got three teams that talk up their defense left (49ers, Giants, Ravens) and one team that hasn't had a defense all year, but has a potent (the most potent?) offense in the Pats. So, after guaranteeing myself a losing playoff record against the spread with my crap-tastic picks, here's what I'm thinking:
Sunday (3pm) - Baltimore at New England (-9)
My Logic: Tom Brady has yet another chance to cement his legacy as one of the two greatest quarter backs of all time. With three Super Bowl wins he is on the edge of that discussion. With a fourth? It's him and Montana, and nobody else comes close. Today there is a chance (albeit a poor chance) that Manning wins another one and people put his legacy against Brady's again. If it wasn't for my man Tracy Porter two years ago that probably would be where we are at today. But if he wins a fourth? Game, set, match. The Patriots have blown their last two chances to win number four in Tom's career (against the Colts in 2006, when they surely would have beat my Bears) and against the Giants the following year in the Super Bowl. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this but would their be a more iconic way for him to win number four than in Indy, playing...
Sunday (6:30pm) - NY Giants at San Francisco (-3)
My Logic: They New York Giants, and Eli Manning? You know that Brady carries that Super Bowl loss with him always. If they win that game, and complete the perfect season, then he leaps Montana into undisputed Greatest of All Time poll position. Instead, it's left open. Since then he has missed a year thanks to Pollard's hit, had a good come back year, then had arguably the greatest season ever for a QB last year. But doesn't it feel like the Giants have to be the obstacle for Brady to overcome? On the other hand ... beating Montana's team in the Super Bowl would have some appeal as well. In this game, it comes down to this: who do I believe in more? Alex Smith? Eli Manning? I've been telling people for awhile now: Eli has irrational confidence in his ability to win games, make throws, and generally be a elite QB. Funny thing is: he's become an elite QB because of that irrational confidence. Down three with one minute left Alex Smith might be able to win it for you, but even he's not sure. Eli knows he's going to win it for you. You wouldn't take him ahead of Rodgers, Brady, Manning the Older or Big Ben ... but he'd think you would. He'd tell you "you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall," and he'd do it with a straight face. He believes in his ability irrationally ... and that makes him dangerous, and the right pick. Eli wins this game. He goes into his brother's house to face off against his brother's nemesis in a rematch of the game where he kept his brother's chance of going down as the Greatest of All Time alive. And Peyton watches, in his hometown, knowing deep down inside ... he's never playing again. The day after the Super Bowl the Andrew Luck era will start in Indy, an all time great will walk into the sunset, and we will be left to marvel at Eli either having the same resume as his brother (two Super Bowl's, one win) or a superior resume (two Super Bowl wins). I just got goose bumps writing that sentence. That's what tells me it's right.
The Picks:
Patriots (-9) over Baltimore
Patriots 31 - Baltimore 20
Giants (+3) over San Francisco
Giants 27 - San Francisco 24
Now you can go bet on the other teams :-)
Monday, January 16, 2012
The 50 Greatest Players In NBA History - The Bottom Ten
On June 22nd 2009 I ambitiously set out to revise the 50 greatest players in NBA history list. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and so I wrote an introductory blog explaining why I was doing it and, among other things, why Reggie Miller didn't fit in the group. In fact, I might have started that whole project just to explain why Reggie sucks. Who knows? Anyway, on July 10, 2009 I put in my second installment, entitled "The Last 12 Out." Click the link if you need a refresher course on those twelve, the group that just didn't make my cut.
And then ... I kept blogging about other things. I kept the idea in my mind, but Bill Simmons came out with a book which essential did this very thing in 2010, and my computer with the original list from 2009 began to have issues, so I didn't have easy access to the spreadsheet. Or maybe I just didn't go on with the list because, you know, I really just wanted to rip on Reggie. He does suck, after all.
But never fear, sports fans: I am as strong headed as they come, and I don't hesitate to put out an idea, fail to follow through on it for years, then come back to it at a moments notice. Remember my plans to chronicle all the teams in the NFL, MLB and NBA in a power ranking of my favorite to least favorite? I entitled those three posts "The Ultimate Rankings." And don't you worry, I'm sure I'll finish them sometime too ... although I'll undoubtedly have to reconsider them by the time I do. LeBron will probably be retired by then, and Peyton almost certainly will be. At any rate, I'm coming back to the 50 greatest revisited right now, because my mind can't stare at the COA standards for my practicum a minute more. To keep it fair to the initial intent, this is how I felt in 2009, after the 2008-2009 finals (Kobe's fourth title), and prior to Simmons book. I encourage you to look back at the two previous posts under "50 Greatest" to review my bullet proof logic. And now, on to the bottom ten.
50. Allen Iverson - SG - Philadelphia/Denver/Detroit/Memphis
And ... I just lost my uncle. So now there are two of you reading this. His stated dislike of the N.G.A. aside, I did think long and hard about Iverson's career when originally formulating these rankings. I considered his style of play, which was helped by the emphasis on street ball in the ost Jordan (the second time) era. I considered his lack of a championship, and his lack of an average shooting percentage (.425 for his career, a point which I drove home in a Sophomore year of high school speech entitled "Why Michael Jordan is better at 39 in a Wizards Uniform Than any Player in the NBA Period ... and if you don't agree then you SUCK" repeatedly). I considered his general demeanor and his video clips (yes ... click for the "Practice" link ... and for fun, count how many times he says the word).
But here's what I kept coming back to: was there every a player with his stature who was able to put his body through what he did, night in and night out? In the history of the game I can't think of one. His final numbers reflect that of a cold and calculated scorer (26.7ppg, 3.7rpg, 6.2apg), but he also played an insane 41.1 minutes per game over his career. Iverson actually played in over 40 minutes per game 12 straight years, only missing 14 straight because he only averaged 39.4 his second year in the league. That is an insane amount of work for a player of his size. And the final tie breaker, for me, was the one team he carried to the finals to lose to Shaq's Lakers. That team was awful, and that might not be a strong enough word. Matt Geiger. Eric Snow. Aaron Mckie. Outside of an aging Mutombo in the middle, there was nobody worth anything. And Iverson carried them to the finals, and then WON A GAME against Shaq and Kobe. He wasn't a player I'd want on my team, but he was inside the top 50 all time ... I just can't put him any higher than this. And, oh by the way, in the year he took the 76ers to the finals he averaged 46.2 minutes per game over 22 games.
49. Paul Pierce - SF - Boston Celtics
Pierce has done nothing but make this ranking look solid since 2009. He has put in two more quality years as the best player on a good Boston team. While his scoring has decreased slightly, he has now made it twelve straight years scoring at least 18 points per game. His career averages indicate a swing man you could build a winner around (22.1ppg, 6.1rpg, 3.8apg, 1.5spg). Pierce has never been a shut down defender, but he has worked his way into the category of good team defender. He works hard, and he combined with Ray Allen (#58) and Kevin Garnett to bring basketball back to Boston in a meaningful way. He has been a nine time all-star, won the finals MVP in 2008, and made three All-NBA 3rd teams and one All-NBA 2nd team. The biggest argument against him is that he never finished higher than 7th in MVP voting, and only once finished in the top ten. But Pierce is one of the toughest players of his generation, and when I drew up this rankings I assumed he'd win a second title in Boston. While that looks unlikely to happen, he continues to be a top player in the NBA, so I'm okay with leaving him here.
48. Dave Bing - G - Detroit/Washington/Boston
Back to old(er) school players with a Piston who the fans have ranked #126. I'll give Bing the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons. One, he played on some bad Detroit teams, yet found a way to keep the teams competitive. His career averages (20.3ppg, 3.8rpg, 6.0apg) are not mind blowing, but I'm giving Bing credit for his peak (27.1ppg, 4.7rpg, 6.4apg) and for being an Iverson-like player in an era where that player was not likely to be as successful. I'm very happy to admit I was probably way off on this ranking, as looking at peripheral recognition (7 All-Star nods, 3 starts, 3 top ten finishes for MVP but none higher than 3rd) would indicate. But Bing at his apex was enough for me to put him here.
47. Nate Thurmond - C - San Francisco (Golden State)/Chicago/Cleveland
Okay, time for a confession: I've always had a soft spot for Nate Thurmond. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I know that doesn't make any sense given that Nate retired when I was nine years away from being born. But as I began my dive into sports fandom, I became fascinated with Nate, the center who was overshadowed by Wilt, later Kareem. It always seemed (in hindsight) that he was forced to play second or third fiddle, when in most other eras he would have been more appreciated. And maybe that's true. Or maybe it's not, and in that case it is simply possible that as an elementary school child I became fascinated with the concept that this guy was a hell of a center, but not quite good enough to get recognized as an All-Time Great. He finished his career with 15.0ppg, 15.0rpg, and 2.7apg, and was known as a good defender and shot blocker in an era before they counted blocks. He made 7 All-Star teams, played in 5 and started in two. He made five all-defensive teams, and finished in the top ten of MVP voting 3 times (second once!). But, in light of Bing being at 48, I'm starting to think I was off base when I drew up these ratings.
46. Robert Parish - C - Golden State/Boston/Charlotte/Chicago
The other day I was driving home and on the sports radio they were talking about Parish ... I don't know why. I also don't know why, but I imagined I was asked "what teams did he play for" and I knew that if I got that question on who wants to be a millionaire I'd nail it. I loved basketball cards in the early 1990s. At any rate, Parish is a little lower here than most people would have him, but he played in Bird and McHale's shadow. He was a great center though, finishing with career averages of 14.5ppg and 9.1rpg, numbers which were brought down because of his longevity. He played til he was 43 and picked up one last ring with Jordan's Bulls. He made 9 All-Star teams, two All-NBA teams, had two years in the top ten of MVP voting, and was a Hall of Fame center on a Celtics dynasty team. Good enough for me.
45. Kevin McHale - F - Boston
McHale, Simmons has pointed out, had a wider and more effective repertoire of post moves than just about anyone. At his apex he was momentarily on a level near Bird (26.1ppg, 9.9rpg), and he made seven All-Star teams, won the sixth man of the year award twice, and was a six time all-defensive team member (once all-NBA). Besides that, he was a winner, and I give credence to that.
44. Nate Archibald - G - Cincinnati (Kansas City)/New York/Boston/Milwaulkee
"Tiny" was a point guard who led the league in assists and points per game ... in the same year. He was like Iverson on crack: more dynamic scoring, much better passing. His career also petered out quickly due to injuries, age, and ineffectiveness. He made six All-Star teams, had five top ten finishes in the MVP voting, made five All-NBA teams (three first, two second), and was a role player on a Celtics championship team.
43. Jason Kidd - G - Dallas/Phoenix/New Jersey/Dallas
Career averages of 13.2ppg, 6.5rpg, 9.1apg and 2.0spg speak volumes about his versatility, but his ability to reinvent himself as a three point assassin late in his career, his devotion to quality defense, and his ability to run a team transcend those numbers. It's sad to see him now, as washed up as he is, but the poor guy is 38. That also makes me feel old, as I remember when he was drafted. At least he outlasted Mashburn and Jackson. He'll always have that.
42. Dave DeBusschere - G/F - Detroit/New York
Career numbers of 16.1ppg and 11.0rpg for this defensive maniac from the 60s and 70s. 8 All-star appearances, 6 all-defensive teams, and two championships for the Knicks.
41. Walt Frazier - G - New York/Cleveland
It always amuses me to see the teams that some of these legends ended up on. Who really could remember that "Clyde" finished up with parts of three seasons in Cleveland? His career numbers (18.9ppg, 5.9rpg 6.1apg) demonstrate how well rounded he was. Seven All-Star nods (all starts), six all-NBA and seven all-defensive teams show how well regarded he was.
Until 2014 ... Unless the Mayans were right.
And then ... I kept blogging about other things. I kept the idea in my mind, but Bill Simmons came out with a book which essential did this very thing in 2010, and my computer with the original list from 2009 began to have issues, so I didn't have easy access to the spreadsheet. Or maybe I just didn't go on with the list because, you know, I really just wanted to rip on Reggie. He does suck, after all.
But never fear, sports fans: I am as strong headed as they come, and I don't hesitate to put out an idea, fail to follow through on it for years, then come back to it at a moments notice. Remember my plans to chronicle all the teams in the NFL, MLB and NBA in a power ranking of my favorite to least favorite? I entitled those three posts "The Ultimate Rankings." And don't you worry, I'm sure I'll finish them sometime too ... although I'll undoubtedly have to reconsider them by the time I do. LeBron will probably be retired by then, and Peyton almost certainly will be. At any rate, I'm coming back to the 50 greatest revisited right now, because my mind can't stare at the COA standards for my practicum a minute more. To keep it fair to the initial intent, this is how I felt in 2009, after the 2008-2009 finals (Kobe's fourth title), and prior to Simmons book. I encourage you to look back at the two previous posts under "50 Greatest" to review my bullet proof logic. And now, on to the bottom ten.
50. Allen Iverson - SG - Philadelphia/Denver/Detroit/Memphis
And ... I just lost my uncle. So now there are two of you reading this. His stated dislike of the N.G.A. aside, I did think long and hard about Iverson's career when originally formulating these rankings. I considered his style of play, which was helped by the emphasis on street ball in the ost Jordan (the second time) era. I considered his lack of a championship, and his lack of an average shooting percentage (.425 for his career, a point which I drove home in a Sophomore year of high school speech entitled "Why Michael Jordan is better at 39 in a Wizards Uniform Than any Player in the NBA Period ... and if you don't agree then you SUCK" repeatedly). I considered his general demeanor and his video clips (yes ... click for the "Practice" link ... and for fun, count how many times he says the word).
But here's what I kept coming back to: was there every a player with his stature who was able to put his body through what he did, night in and night out? In the history of the game I can't think of one. His final numbers reflect that of a cold and calculated scorer (26.7ppg, 3.7rpg, 6.2apg), but he also played an insane 41.1 minutes per game over his career. Iverson actually played in over 40 minutes per game 12 straight years, only missing 14 straight because he only averaged 39.4 his second year in the league. That is an insane amount of work for a player of his size. And the final tie breaker, for me, was the one team he carried to the finals to lose to Shaq's Lakers. That team was awful, and that might not be a strong enough word. Matt Geiger. Eric Snow. Aaron Mckie. Outside of an aging Mutombo in the middle, there was nobody worth anything. And Iverson carried them to the finals, and then WON A GAME against Shaq and Kobe. He wasn't a player I'd want on my team, but he was inside the top 50 all time ... I just can't put him any higher than this. And, oh by the way, in the year he took the 76ers to the finals he averaged 46.2 minutes per game over 22 games.
49. Paul Pierce - SF - Boston Celtics
Pierce has done nothing but make this ranking look solid since 2009. He has put in two more quality years as the best player on a good Boston team. While his scoring has decreased slightly, he has now made it twelve straight years scoring at least 18 points per game. His career averages indicate a swing man you could build a winner around (22.1ppg, 6.1rpg, 3.8apg, 1.5spg). Pierce has never been a shut down defender, but he has worked his way into the category of good team defender. He works hard, and he combined with Ray Allen (#58) and Kevin Garnett to bring basketball back to Boston in a meaningful way. He has been a nine time all-star, won the finals MVP in 2008, and made three All-NBA 3rd teams and one All-NBA 2nd team. The biggest argument against him is that he never finished higher than 7th in MVP voting, and only once finished in the top ten. But Pierce is one of the toughest players of his generation, and when I drew up this rankings I assumed he'd win a second title in Boston. While that looks unlikely to happen, he continues to be a top player in the NBA, so I'm okay with leaving him here.
48. Dave Bing - G - Detroit/Washington/Boston
Back to old(er) school players with a Piston who the fans have ranked #126. I'll give Bing the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons. One, he played on some bad Detroit teams, yet found a way to keep the teams competitive. His career averages (20.3ppg, 3.8rpg, 6.0apg) are not mind blowing, but I'm giving Bing credit for his peak (27.1ppg, 4.7rpg, 6.4apg) and for being an Iverson-like player in an era where that player was not likely to be as successful. I'm very happy to admit I was probably way off on this ranking, as looking at peripheral recognition (7 All-Star nods, 3 starts, 3 top ten finishes for MVP but none higher than 3rd) would indicate. But Bing at his apex was enough for me to put him here.
47. Nate Thurmond - C - San Francisco (Golden State)/Chicago/Cleveland
Okay, time for a confession: I've always had a soft spot for Nate Thurmond. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I know that doesn't make any sense given that Nate retired when I was nine years away from being born. But as I began my dive into sports fandom, I became fascinated with Nate, the center who was overshadowed by Wilt, later Kareem. It always seemed (in hindsight) that he was forced to play second or third fiddle, when in most other eras he would have been more appreciated. And maybe that's true. Or maybe it's not, and in that case it is simply possible that as an elementary school child I became fascinated with the concept that this guy was a hell of a center, but not quite good enough to get recognized as an All-Time Great. He finished his career with 15.0ppg, 15.0rpg, and 2.7apg, and was known as a good defender and shot blocker in an era before they counted blocks. He made 7 All-Star teams, played in 5 and started in two. He made five all-defensive teams, and finished in the top ten of MVP voting 3 times (second once!). But, in light of Bing being at 48, I'm starting to think I was off base when I drew up these ratings.
46. Robert Parish - C - Golden State/Boston/Charlotte/Chicago
The other day I was driving home and on the sports radio they were talking about Parish ... I don't know why. I also don't know why, but I imagined I was asked "what teams did he play for" and I knew that if I got that question on who wants to be a millionaire I'd nail it. I loved basketball cards in the early 1990s. At any rate, Parish is a little lower here than most people would have him, but he played in Bird and McHale's shadow. He was a great center though, finishing with career averages of 14.5ppg and 9.1rpg, numbers which were brought down because of his longevity. He played til he was 43 and picked up one last ring with Jordan's Bulls. He made 9 All-Star teams, two All-NBA teams, had two years in the top ten of MVP voting, and was a Hall of Fame center on a Celtics dynasty team. Good enough for me.
45. Kevin McHale - F - Boston
McHale, Simmons has pointed out, had a wider and more effective repertoire of post moves than just about anyone. At his apex he was momentarily on a level near Bird (26.1ppg, 9.9rpg), and he made seven All-Star teams, won the sixth man of the year award twice, and was a six time all-defensive team member (once all-NBA). Besides that, he was a winner, and I give credence to that.
44. Nate Archibald - G - Cincinnati (Kansas City)/New York/Boston/Milwaulkee
"Tiny" was a point guard who led the league in assists and points per game ... in the same year. He was like Iverson on crack: more dynamic scoring, much better passing. His career also petered out quickly due to injuries, age, and ineffectiveness. He made six All-Star teams, had five top ten finishes in the MVP voting, made five All-NBA teams (three first, two second), and was a role player on a Celtics championship team.
43. Jason Kidd - G - Dallas/Phoenix/New Jersey/Dallas
Career averages of 13.2ppg, 6.5rpg, 9.1apg and 2.0spg speak volumes about his versatility, but his ability to reinvent himself as a three point assassin late in his career, his devotion to quality defense, and his ability to run a team transcend those numbers. It's sad to see him now, as washed up as he is, but the poor guy is 38. That also makes me feel old, as I remember when he was drafted. At least he outlasted Mashburn and Jackson. He'll always have that.
42. Dave DeBusschere - G/F - Detroit/New York
Career numbers of 16.1ppg and 11.0rpg for this defensive maniac from the 60s and 70s. 8 All-star appearances, 6 all-defensive teams, and two championships for the Knicks.
41. Walt Frazier - G - New York/Cleveland
It always amuses me to see the teams that some of these legends ended up on. Who really could remember that "Clyde" finished up with parts of three seasons in Cleveland? His career numbers (18.9ppg, 5.9rpg 6.1apg) demonstrate how well rounded he was. Seven All-Star nods (all starts), six all-NBA and seven all-defensive teams show how well regarded he was.
Until 2014 ... Unless the Mayans were right.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The pov playoff picks - round two
Submitted via phone due to my crazy work and school schedule:
- Saints (-4) over 49ers
The Saints are too hot; that said, this line is way too high. It should be a pick 'em.
Saints 24 - 49ers 17
- Broncos (+14) over Patriots
The last game was closer than the final score. T.C. will keep it close. How can you doubt him after last week?
Patriots 31 - Broncos 21
- Baltimore (-9) over Houston
I already don't like this pick, but I can't take T.J. Yates in the road in the playoffs against Ray Lewis.
Baltimore 27 - Houston 17
- Green Bay (-9) over NY Giants
I was ready to take the Giants. All week I was ready to do it. But way too many people are on their bandwagon now, and Eli isn't very hood when people expect him to be. Pack rolls.
Green Bay 34 - NY Giants 17
Last week against the spread: 2-2
Last week straight up: 3-1 (I got tebowed)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)