I hope everyone out there had a very Happy Thanksgiving. Now that we've all gained five pounds, it's time to take a look at what went on this past weekend. And, boy, is there a lot to talk about.
Separating the Men from the Boys: Week 13 in the NFL helped us separate the big guns from the paper lions:
* The Steelers are for real: Pittsburgh's dominating win over the Patriots is a signal to the rest of the AFC. Before you go and crown the Titans or Jets the favorites to win the conference, take a closer look at the Steelers. Ben Roethlisberger's throwing combined with the running of Willie Parker and Mewelde Moore makes the offense scary. The defense is what puts Mike Tomlin's team over the top. Tennessee and New York better be scared if they wind up facing the Steelers in January
* The Jets are not who we thought they were: Sure, the win over the Titans last week was great. And sure, Jet fans loved getting the better of New England on national TV a couple of weeks ago. But, if Denver can come into the Meadowlands and beat them, then the Jets shouldn't be making reservations for Tampa just yet.
* The Giants do not need Plax: No Plaxico Burress, no problem for the Giants, who complete the season sweep over the Redskins thanks to a 23-7 win yesterday. Eli Manning is coming into his own. Earth, Wind and Fire are as tough a running trio as there is in the league. And the Giants should be taken as a serious threat to repeat as Super Bowl Champs
* The Bucs and Falcons are good stories, but not quite ready for primetime: Tampa and Atlanta both posted nice wins yesterday, but neither team is prepared to make a deep run into January. The Bucs are good defensively but offensively challenged. The Falcons have a lot of talent but are just too young, especially at the QB spot.
* Colts fans shouldn't get too happy: Sure, the Colts have won five in a row. But they aren't on the same level as the Titans or Steelers. When you go to Cleveland and struggle the way they did against a team looking for a place to fall, it's not a good sign. The torch in the AFC has been passed from the Colts and Pats to Tennessee and Pittsburgh.
Thanksgiving Turkeys: How many times can Giants WR Plaxico Burress screw up? Shooting himself in the thigh might be the least of his problems. NY Police are going to charge him in the case. The NFL is going to want to talk to him about his off the field conduct. And even though the Giants spent big money on him, do you really think they want to keep him around? They can win without him, as they have proven this season.
Hey Plax, you might want to brush up that resume of yours. You might be looking for work. That is, after the NFL gets done with you (could we see a suspension for violating the personal conduct policy?).
* Could the NFL have given us anything worse to watch than Titans-Lions? The game was watchable for all of about six-and-a-half minutes! Once the Titans seized control, there was no reason to watch. But, with nothing else on, you had to watch. The NFL should be embarrassed about what it gave us. The Lions should not be allowed to host another Thanksgiving Day game until they become a respectable NFL franchise (which should take about six years considering who their owner is). And, why put Rod Marinelli (a genuinely nice man) through another week of this? Put the man out of his misery and fire him already!
* The Cowboys-Seahawks game was not much better. But, it will be interesting to watch how the Cowboys fare without Marion Barber (remember Felix Jones is already hurt). It will also be entertaining to watch Tony Romo work with T.O., Roy Williams, and Jason Witten. There is no better WR tandem than Williams and Owens (with apologies to Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin in Arizona), and Jason Witten is one of the best TE's in the league.
On the other sideline, it is sad to see how Mike Holmgren's career is winding down. If it really is winding down, and would you really be surprised if he winds up coaching in San Francisco next season?
* The Eagles-Cardinals game was ugly as well, but, considering most of the country doesn't get the NFL Network, it flew under the radar.
Bottom line, the NFL needs to give us better games on Thanksgiving Day. Take Detroit out of the mix, give the fans either some divisional rivalries (who wouldn't want to see Redskins-Cowboys on Thanksgiving Day?) or give us an AFC-NFC matchup that could actually be a Super Bowl preview (that Steelers-Cowboys game, scheduled for next weekend, would qualify). The fans deserve it, and the league would clean up, ratings-wise!
BCS Mess: Alabama retained the BCS' #1 ranking with a win over Auburn in The Iron Bowl. Oklahoma, thanks to a convincing win over Oklahoma State in Stillwater, jumped over Texas for the #2 ranking. That means it will be Texas and Missouri in the Big 12 Championship Game next weekend.
If you are against the BCS, here's what you should be hoping for. Missouri to beat the Sooners in the Big 12 while Florida beats Alabame in the SEC. That would give you a Texas-Florida Championship game. That would also make the BCS shake a little bit in their boots. How could Texas, who would not have played for their own conference championship, play for the National Championship?
And you know that 12-0 Utah would complain long and hard about being left out.
Say it with me. Playoff! Playoff! Playoff! Get on that, President-Elect Obama!
Charlie's Fate: Notre Dame has a decision to make regarding the future of head coach Charlie Weis after the pounding the Irish took at the hands of USC. Bring him back for another year and hope that his young Fighting Irish continue to take the next step in their development or let him go and let someone else try to bring the Irish back to prominence.
Firing Weis now would not be the right thing to do. Sure he won in his first couple of years with Ty Willingham's players. But, he has rebuilt to a degree. Last season was an unmitigated disaster. The Irish were too young to compete, and it showed in their record. They did take a step forward from where they were a year ago. Sure, the Syracuse loss was tough to take, but there was enough progress made this year that firing him would be a rash decision.
Besides, who would Notre Dame replace him with? The sexy names are not out there this time around. Lane Kiffin is going to be the new coach in Tennessee. Outside of Kiffin, who is out there? The same old suspects, that's who. If Weis is still a better choice than his possible replacements, you have to keep him.
One more, thing. While Weis did win big with Willingham's players early in his ND tenure, Willingham did nothing at Washington. Not with Keith Gilbertson's recruits. Not with his own recruits his last couple of years. That's why Ty is out of a job right now.
The Fire Charlie campaigns that are being waged need to shut down for one more year.
NBA Egos out of control: In case you missed it, Knicks coach Mike D'antoni asked Stephon Marburyto help his shorthanded team out and play. For the second time in less than a week, Marbury said no, and then decided to rip the team afterwards. Now it seems like the Knicks and Marbury are finally going to go their separate ways.
This can't happen soon enough. Marbury is a classic example of what is wrong with the NBA. He is all about his $21.9M dollar salary. He refuses to put himself on the line for his team, and this divorce is ending worse than any of his others did, whether it was the one in Minnesota, New Jersey, or Phoenix.
The sad part is someone is going to pick this cancer up and give him a chance to play. Because, in pro sports, it doesn't matter what kind of person you are. If you can help a team win, someone is going to give you a chance.
In the meantime, did you catch what Allen Iverson of the Pistons pulled on Thanksgiving Day? Pistons coach Michael Curry wanted to hold a practice, but Mr. We're Talking About Practice decided he wasn't going to show. Curry kept him out of the starting lineup against Milwaukee on Friday night. But, Iverson did play and had a key role in Detroit's win over the Bucks.
What Curry should have done was hold him out the entire game. That would have sent a message, something a rookie coach like Curry needs to do. Would it have created friction between him and Iverson? Certainly. But, with Joe Dumars running the show, you can bet he would have settled it, and put The Answer in his place.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Check the Date
So, the Cavs took on the Knicks in New York City last night. What do you think the headlines were this morning? Was there anything about the game? No. It was all about Lebron James possibly coming to the Knicks as a free agent in July.... of 2010!
You read that correctly. July of 2010. In case you have not been keeping track, the best ever NBA free agent class is two years away. The class includes Lebron, Dwayne Wade, Amare Stoudemire, and Chris Bosh. Teams are falling all over themselves trying to clear cap room. The Detroit Pistons got the ball rolling by trading Chauncey Billups for an expiring contract in Allen Iverson.
The Knicks then kicked it into overdrive, dealing Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph - two very large contracts - for a has been in Cuttino Mobley, and a never was in Tim Thomas.
The Knicks accomplished a few things here. First they got someone to take those awful contracts off their hands (they still have a bunch of bad deals though). Second, they cleared cap room. Third, they officially went from being a team that looked like it was improving to a team that is pretty much guaranteed to stink out loud for the next two years.
Most don't have a problem with it. In fact, you hear fans from every other team around the league imploring their beloved franchises to deal away their big contracts so they can position themselves to make a run at one of The Fab Four. Simply put, it's a bad idea.
Why would you want to tank the next two seasons like the Knicks are doing? People in New York already are losing interest. Two more years of bad basketball is going to make Madison Square Garden what it was in the early 1980's - empty.
And let's just say it's not the Knicks. Let's say it's a team in a smaller market like the Minnesota Timberwolves. The fan base is ticked off to the point that the best selling jersey in that city is Kevin Garnett's #21. Why risk further alienating the fan base?
There's no guarantee that just because a team has the room under the cap that one of The Fab Four is going to come there. If you were one of those free agents, why would you go to Minnesota, Sacramento, or Indiana when you could play for New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles (let's throw in Miami and Orlando too, considering the state of Florida has no income tax)?
Sure, the base salary might be the same, but there's no way one of these players could make as much in endorsements in one of the NBA's smaller market as opposed to the New York's of the world.
Simply put, it's not a good idea to tank for the next two years on the off chance one of The Fab Four is going to save the franchise. If these organizations tank and then don't sign one of these players, they will have a hard time rebuilding.
And fans in the smaller NBA cities can dream all they want of Lebron wearing their colors. But, it's not going to happen. Those franchises are better off continuing their rebuilding plan as opposed to subscribing to a pipe dream.
You read that correctly. July of 2010. In case you have not been keeping track, the best ever NBA free agent class is two years away. The class includes Lebron, Dwayne Wade, Amare Stoudemire, and Chris Bosh. Teams are falling all over themselves trying to clear cap room. The Detroit Pistons got the ball rolling by trading Chauncey Billups for an expiring contract in Allen Iverson.
The Knicks then kicked it into overdrive, dealing Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph - two very large contracts - for a has been in Cuttino Mobley, and a never was in Tim Thomas.
The Knicks accomplished a few things here. First they got someone to take those awful contracts off their hands (they still have a bunch of bad deals though). Second, they cleared cap room. Third, they officially went from being a team that looked like it was improving to a team that is pretty much guaranteed to stink out loud for the next two years.
Most don't have a problem with it. In fact, you hear fans from every other team around the league imploring their beloved franchises to deal away their big contracts so they can position themselves to make a run at one of The Fab Four. Simply put, it's a bad idea.
Why would you want to tank the next two seasons like the Knicks are doing? People in New York already are losing interest. Two more years of bad basketball is going to make Madison Square Garden what it was in the early 1980's - empty.
And let's just say it's not the Knicks. Let's say it's a team in a smaller market like the Minnesota Timberwolves. The fan base is ticked off to the point that the best selling jersey in that city is Kevin Garnett's #21. Why risk further alienating the fan base?
There's no guarantee that just because a team has the room under the cap that one of The Fab Four is going to come there. If you were one of those free agents, why would you go to Minnesota, Sacramento, or Indiana when you could play for New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles (let's throw in Miami and Orlando too, considering the state of Florida has no income tax)?
Sure, the base salary might be the same, but there's no way one of these players could make as much in endorsements in one of the NBA's smaller market as opposed to the New York's of the world.
Simply put, it's not a good idea to tank for the next two years on the off chance one of The Fab Four is going to save the franchise. If these organizations tank and then don't sign one of these players, they will have a hard time rebuilding.
And fans in the smaller NBA cities can dream all they want of Lebron wearing their colors. But, it's not going to happen. Those franchises are better off continuing their rebuilding plan as opposed to subscribing to a pipe dream.
I just want to take this opportunity to wish everyone out there a Happy Thanksgiving! I wish everyone out there nothing but the best.
I am going to take the rest of the week off from blogging, and will return Monday morning with a brand new blog!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Please Stop the Rodgers/Favre Comparisons!
I love sports talk radio. I love listening to it. I love hosting shows. Heck, I've been in the business since 1991 and have seen firsthand how the format has evolved. But it finally happened. I finally have had my fill, especially when it comes to Packer Talk.
I turned on the two local shows we have in Milwaukee yesterday afternoon, and on one of them I heard what was an interesting debate on who is to blame for the Packers defensive problems. And it really was an interesting debate, pitting coaching (Defensive Co-ordinator Bob Sanders against General Manager Ted Thompson). You could make arguments for both.
But then it happened. One of the hosts went to break and teased a text poll. Aaron Rodgers' approval rating. I turned the radio off.
For those that don't understand what it's been like since the Brett Favre divorce became final, let me break it down for you. You have the pro-Brett faction and the pro-Packer faction. The Brett backers think that he walks on water; that he can do no wrong.
Then there are the Packer Backers. They see things in more of a big picture way and are supportive of Aaron Rodgers.
Now that we have the two factions laid out for you, let me give you a little insight as to what happens the day after every.. single.. Packer.. game. If the Packers win, Rodgers gets a lot of support. If the Packers lose, Rodgers gets hammered, even when he isn't the main reason for the loss.
To ask, after eleven games, for a Rodgers approval rating, is just silly. By now, don't you know what you're going to get?
I have tired of the Favre talk. I have tired of the Rodgers talk. Like it or not, the hosts of these shows set the agenda for what people in the market are talking about. And, because the Favre/Rodgers thing always draws full lines, always gets a large amount of emails, always gets people to react, the stations keep going back to the 'bread and butter.'
It's time for the hosts of these shows to expand their horizons. Think outside the same two or three things that always get talked about. There are so many other things to talk about with this Packer team besides Rodgers/Favre.
The discussion on who is to blame for the defensive problems is a good start. But it doesn't go far enough.
This team is 5-6 after eleven games. They are in real danger of not making the playoffs. Don't you think that should be the focus of the discussion around here?
Now, please do not take this as me bashing my former colleagues. That's not the case. I like them on a personal basis. This has nothing to do with that. I just disagree with the agenda that was set yesterday. I don't want to listen to more of the same old stuff. And, my guess is, fans don't either.
I turned on the two local shows we have in Milwaukee yesterday afternoon, and on one of them I heard what was an interesting debate on who is to blame for the Packers defensive problems. And it really was an interesting debate, pitting coaching (Defensive Co-ordinator Bob Sanders against General Manager Ted Thompson). You could make arguments for both.
But then it happened. One of the hosts went to break and teased a text poll. Aaron Rodgers' approval rating. I turned the radio off.
For those that don't understand what it's been like since the Brett Favre divorce became final, let me break it down for you. You have the pro-Brett faction and the pro-Packer faction. The Brett backers think that he walks on water; that he can do no wrong.
Then there are the Packer Backers. They see things in more of a big picture way and are supportive of Aaron Rodgers.
Now that we have the two factions laid out for you, let me give you a little insight as to what happens the day after every.. single.. Packer.. game. If the Packers win, Rodgers gets a lot of support. If the Packers lose, Rodgers gets hammered, even when he isn't the main reason for the loss.
To ask, after eleven games, for a Rodgers approval rating, is just silly. By now, don't you know what you're going to get?
I have tired of the Favre talk. I have tired of the Rodgers talk. Like it or not, the hosts of these shows set the agenda for what people in the market are talking about. And, because the Favre/Rodgers thing always draws full lines, always gets a large amount of emails, always gets people to react, the stations keep going back to the 'bread and butter.'
It's time for the hosts of these shows to expand their horizons. Think outside the same two or three things that always get talked about. There are so many other things to talk about with this Packer team besides Rodgers/Favre.
The discussion on who is to blame for the defensive problems is a good start. But it doesn't go far enough.
This team is 5-6 after eleven games. They are in real danger of not making the playoffs. Don't you think that should be the focus of the discussion around here?
Now, please do not take this as me bashing my former colleagues. That's not the case. I like them on a personal basis. This has nothing to do with that. I just disagree with the agenda that was set yesterday. I don't want to listen to more of the same old stuff. And, my guess is, fans don't either.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Aftermath of a Monday Night Mauling
There are a lot of ways you could describe last night's 51-29 loss by the Packers to the New Orleans Saints. There are a lot of words you could use. Most of them would not be fit for this website. So, instead of using four letter words we'll just say it was disappointing (and that's an understatement).
How in the world could the Packers go from dominating the Chicago Bears and earning a share of first place in the NFC North just nine days ago to looking as bad as they looked last night in the second half? This team is so inconsistent. One week they look like world beaters. The next week they look like a completely different team. Because of that, would you be shocked if they beat Carolina on Sunday at Lambeau? Of course not, but before we can get to that game, we have to deal with the aftermath of last night.
So, what went wrong last night? There were a few things. Firstly, Aaron Rodgers had his problems. Yes, he ran for a touchdown and threw for another two scores. But, his two second half interceptions (the third one late in the game was more like a punt) are going to overshadow everything else. The two picks were all his fault, no doubt about it. But, once the Packers went down by that 31-21 margin in the third quarter, they had to abandon the run (which was successful in the first half). That meant Rodgers had to play a perfect half of football on the road against a team that was playing inspired defense. It just wasn't going to happen.
After eleven games, it's clear that Rodgers has a bright future. What's also obvious is that he hasn't come up big in a tight spot just yet. Brett Favre spoiled Packer fans because he came through in the clutch right off the bat. You can't expect Rodgers to do what Favre did, but at some point, he's going to have to do it at least one time.
The rest of Green Bay's problems all came on defense. Drew Brees carved them up. The numbers are horrifying to look at, as Brees went 20-26 for 323 yards and four touchdowns, including a couple of seventy yarders. Some of it was on the secondary, to be sure. Atari Bigby looked pretty bad on New Orleans' first score of the game (the Lance Moore 70 yard TD catch). That being said, when the opposing quarterback has all day to throw, when he can stand in the pocket, read the Journal Sentinel from front to back before having to get rid of the ball, bad things are going to happen.
The Packers has one sack last night. One. And it wasn't even the highly paid defensive end in Aaron Kampman that got it. Bargain basement free agent pickup Brandon Chillar (who did not cost Ted Thompson a lot of money) picked up Green Bay's only sack.
The pass rush has been a problem all season long, and much of the blame for that can be placed on the head of GM Ted Thompson. Kampman is the only pass rusher this team has. KGB was never the same after knee surgery in late May and is now gone. Mike Montgomery is not a fulltime player. Jeremy Thompson, the GM's prized fourth round pick, has not been effective. Cullen Jenkins is hurt, and even if he wasn't, he is just not a pass rusher. And, the trade of Corey Williams is looking worse by the game.
The Packers do not have to address anything offensively when the off-season rolls around. What they need to do is concentrate on beefing up the pass rush. Whether it's through free agency or the draft, the pass rush needs to be shored up. If Ted is tempted to draft one of his 'finds' at a position that doesn't need fixing up, one of his assistants needs to do everything in his power to stop him.
Until the Packers can get to the off-season, maybe defensive co-ordinator Bob Sanders should try something revolutionary. Blitz!!!! Al Davis, in his more lucid days, put it best when he said 'The quarterback must go down and he must go down hard.' Sanders would be wise to try and make the quarterback go down. Hard. Corner blitzes, safety blitzes, jailhouse blitzes. Whatever it takes. Just get to the opposing quarterback.
Not only was the pass rush non existent last night, but get a load of this. Pierre Thomas, not Deuce McAllister or Reggie Bush, ran for 87 yards and two touchdowns. Let that sink in for a minute. Pierre Thomas.
If you're looking for a silver lining to this loss, it's that the Pack is only a game out of first place in the NFC North with five games left to go. Carolina this coming Sunday is probably the toughest game left on the schedule. It's still very possible for the Packers to go 9-7 and win the division. For that to happen, the defense is going to have to step their game up.
How in the world could the Packers go from dominating the Chicago Bears and earning a share of first place in the NFC North just nine days ago to looking as bad as they looked last night in the second half? This team is so inconsistent. One week they look like world beaters. The next week they look like a completely different team. Because of that, would you be shocked if they beat Carolina on Sunday at Lambeau? Of course not, but before we can get to that game, we have to deal with the aftermath of last night.
So, what went wrong last night? There were a few things. Firstly, Aaron Rodgers had his problems. Yes, he ran for a touchdown and threw for another two scores. But, his two second half interceptions (the third one late in the game was more like a punt) are going to overshadow everything else. The two picks were all his fault, no doubt about it. But, once the Packers went down by that 31-21 margin in the third quarter, they had to abandon the run (which was successful in the first half). That meant Rodgers had to play a perfect half of football on the road against a team that was playing inspired defense. It just wasn't going to happen.
After eleven games, it's clear that Rodgers has a bright future. What's also obvious is that he hasn't come up big in a tight spot just yet. Brett Favre spoiled Packer fans because he came through in the clutch right off the bat. You can't expect Rodgers to do what Favre did, but at some point, he's going to have to do it at least one time.
The rest of Green Bay's problems all came on defense. Drew Brees carved them up. The numbers are horrifying to look at, as Brees went 20-26 for 323 yards and four touchdowns, including a couple of seventy yarders. Some of it was on the secondary, to be sure. Atari Bigby looked pretty bad on New Orleans' first score of the game (the Lance Moore 70 yard TD catch). That being said, when the opposing quarterback has all day to throw, when he can stand in the pocket, read the Journal Sentinel from front to back before having to get rid of the ball, bad things are going to happen.
The Packers has one sack last night. One. And it wasn't even the highly paid defensive end in Aaron Kampman that got it. Bargain basement free agent pickup Brandon Chillar (who did not cost Ted Thompson a lot of money) picked up Green Bay's only sack.
The pass rush has been a problem all season long, and much of the blame for that can be placed on the head of GM Ted Thompson. Kampman is the only pass rusher this team has. KGB was never the same after knee surgery in late May and is now gone. Mike Montgomery is not a fulltime player. Jeremy Thompson, the GM's prized fourth round pick, has not been effective. Cullen Jenkins is hurt, and even if he wasn't, he is just not a pass rusher. And, the trade of Corey Williams is looking worse by the game.
The Packers do not have to address anything offensively when the off-season rolls around. What they need to do is concentrate on beefing up the pass rush. Whether it's through free agency or the draft, the pass rush needs to be shored up. If Ted is tempted to draft one of his 'finds' at a position that doesn't need fixing up, one of his assistants needs to do everything in his power to stop him.
Until the Packers can get to the off-season, maybe defensive co-ordinator Bob Sanders should try something revolutionary. Blitz!!!! Al Davis, in his more lucid days, put it best when he said 'The quarterback must go down and he must go down hard.' Sanders would be wise to try and make the quarterback go down. Hard. Corner blitzes, safety blitzes, jailhouse blitzes. Whatever it takes. Just get to the opposing quarterback.
Not only was the pass rush non existent last night, but get a load of this. Pierre Thomas, not Deuce McAllister or Reggie Bush, ran for 87 yards and two touchdowns. Let that sink in for a minute. Pierre Thomas.
If you're looking for a silver lining to this loss, it's that the Pack is only a game out of first place in the NFC North with five games left to go. Carolina this coming Sunday is probably the toughest game left on the schedule. It's still very possible for the Packers to go 9-7 and win the division. For that to happen, the defense is going to have to step their game up.
Here's What I Learned in Week 12
Some thoughts while watching a day's worth of NFL action:
* Let's not anoint the NY Jets as the team to beat in the AFC just yet. Yes, the win over the Titans in Tennesssee was impressive, but keep in mind that the Titans didn't scare a whole lot of people like last year's unbeaten team, the Patriots did. They were a good story, but considering what they have at the wide receiver spot, if you could get ahead of them and force them out of their game plan, you could probably beat them. Don't get me wrong, the win in Nashville is big, but no Jets fan should start making plane and hotel reservations for Tampa in early February.
And, for those bitter packer fans that will point to this game and use it against Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre was not the only reason the Jets won yesterday. Yes, he played well. Yes, he played it safe for the most part, but do not discount the role of the running game and the defense. Thomas Jones and Leon Washongton got the yards when the Jets needed them, especially Washington on his touchdown run in the third quarter. The running game helped Brett to play it safe. The defense never allowed rookie Chris Johnson or LenDale White to get going. If you make the Titans one dimensional, they are not the same team.
It was a team win for the Jets yesterday, and they are definitely on a roll. But, after a lifetime of watching this team, I'm going to play it safe myself. I'm not going to anoint them as the best team in the AFC.
* The Patriots bounced back in a big way and blitzed the Dolphins in a game they had to have. They wanted revenge against Miami and got it. Matt Cassel had another huge game and is going to be someone's starting quarterback next year. That someone just isn't going to be New England, and they shouldn't prevent the kid from making his mark by designating him as their franchise player. He came out of nowhere, hadn't started a game since high school, and has show he can play well at this level.
* The Donovan McNabb era in Philadelphia is pretty much over. To be benched at halftime against Baltimore when you were only down 10-7? There's a message being sent to Donovan here, and that message is simply this. Your days as an Eagle are numbered. Even if Kevin Kolb doesn't play well down the stretch it's clear after years if injuries that McNabb and the Eagles need to go their separate ways.
* T.O. and the Cowboys had no problems yesterday against the 49ers. In fact, Owens is pretty much a one man wrecking crew against the team that drafted him in 1996. If the Cowboys can do to Seattle on Thursday what they did to San Francisco yesterday, then you have to factor them in to the NFC race once again.
* Why does Rod Marinelli still have a job? The Lions were up by 17 on the Bucs and lost by 18. If there ever was a coach that needed to be fired (or put out of his misery) it's Marinelli. I know you don't fire a coach three days before his next game (remember they play Tennessee on Thanksgiving), but how Marinelli's key card still works is beyond me. Then again, this is the team that kept Matt Millen employed for all those years. This is also the team that kept Wayne Fontes in his office years after he should have been out of there.
* Arizona may have lost to the Giants yesterday but the Cardinals didn't get embarrassed. I'm not into moral victories, but the Cardinals might have beaten any other NFC team except the Giants yesterday. Their offense is explosive (and no one runs against the Giants by the way). Their defense is better than it's given credit for. This team could, repeat could win a playoff game in January.
* Tyler Thigpen is a great story. Kid comes out of nowhere (Coastal Caroline) to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Great stories don't do much for teams looking for wins in the NFL, though. The Chiefs used to be one of the toughest road games for anyone, and Buffalo put up 54 on Kansas City at Arrowhead yesterday. If it were me, I'd clean house. That means Carl Peterson, Herm Edwards, and especially Gunther Cunningham all need to go. The Chiefs need to start over.
* Oakland wins! Oakland wins! I had to write it twice just to believe it myself.
* The Packers will score on the Saints tonight in New Orleans. Whether they win the game depends entirely on the defense. If the firm of Harris and Woodson can keep the Saints receivers in check, the Packers will win easy. If Drew Brees can make those connections, it might be a shootout. You know, one of those last team with the ball wins kind of games. I say the Packers come away with a 37-30 win.
* Let's not anoint the NY Jets as the team to beat in the AFC just yet. Yes, the win over the Titans in Tennesssee was impressive, but keep in mind that the Titans didn't scare a whole lot of people like last year's unbeaten team, the Patriots did. They were a good story, but considering what they have at the wide receiver spot, if you could get ahead of them and force them out of their game plan, you could probably beat them. Don't get me wrong, the win in Nashville is big, but no Jets fan should start making plane and hotel reservations for Tampa in early February.
And, for those bitter packer fans that will point to this game and use it against Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre was not the only reason the Jets won yesterday. Yes, he played well. Yes, he played it safe for the most part, but do not discount the role of the running game and the defense. Thomas Jones and Leon Washongton got the yards when the Jets needed them, especially Washington on his touchdown run in the third quarter. The running game helped Brett to play it safe. The defense never allowed rookie Chris Johnson or LenDale White to get going. If you make the Titans one dimensional, they are not the same team.
It was a team win for the Jets yesterday, and they are definitely on a roll. But, after a lifetime of watching this team, I'm going to play it safe myself. I'm not going to anoint them as the best team in the AFC.
* The Patriots bounced back in a big way and blitzed the Dolphins in a game they had to have. They wanted revenge against Miami and got it. Matt Cassel had another huge game and is going to be someone's starting quarterback next year. That someone just isn't going to be New England, and they shouldn't prevent the kid from making his mark by designating him as their franchise player. He came out of nowhere, hadn't started a game since high school, and has show he can play well at this level.
* The Donovan McNabb era in Philadelphia is pretty much over. To be benched at halftime against Baltimore when you were only down 10-7? There's a message being sent to Donovan here, and that message is simply this. Your days as an Eagle are numbered. Even if Kevin Kolb doesn't play well down the stretch it's clear after years if injuries that McNabb and the Eagles need to go their separate ways.
* T.O. and the Cowboys had no problems yesterday against the 49ers. In fact, Owens is pretty much a one man wrecking crew against the team that drafted him in 1996. If the Cowboys can do to Seattle on Thursday what they did to San Francisco yesterday, then you have to factor them in to the NFC race once again.
* Why does Rod Marinelli still have a job? The Lions were up by 17 on the Bucs and lost by 18. If there ever was a coach that needed to be fired (or put out of his misery) it's Marinelli. I know you don't fire a coach three days before his next game (remember they play Tennessee on Thanksgiving), but how Marinelli's key card still works is beyond me. Then again, this is the team that kept Matt Millen employed for all those years. This is also the team that kept Wayne Fontes in his office years after he should have been out of there.
* Arizona may have lost to the Giants yesterday but the Cardinals didn't get embarrassed. I'm not into moral victories, but the Cardinals might have beaten any other NFC team except the Giants yesterday. Their offense is explosive (and no one runs against the Giants by the way). Their defense is better than it's given credit for. This team could, repeat could win a playoff game in January.
* Tyler Thigpen is a great story. Kid comes out of nowhere (Coastal Caroline) to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Great stories don't do much for teams looking for wins in the NFL, though. The Chiefs used to be one of the toughest road games for anyone, and Buffalo put up 54 on Kansas City at Arrowhead yesterday. If it were me, I'd clean house. That means Carl Peterson, Herm Edwards, and especially Gunther Cunningham all need to go. The Chiefs need to start over.
* Oakland wins! Oakland wins! I had to write it twice just to believe it myself.
* The Packers will score on the Saints tonight in New Orleans. Whether they win the game depends entirely on the defense. If the firm of Harris and Woodson can keep the Saints receivers in check, the Packers will win easy. If Drew Brees can make those connections, it might be a shootout. You know, one of those last team with the ball wins kind of games. I say the Packers come away with a 37-30 win.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Badgers Undeserving of Bowl Bid
The final score read Wisconsin 36, Cal Poly 35 (OT). The win gave the Badgers a 7-5 record, which probably makes representatives from the Insight Bowl feel better about extending this team a bid to play (likely against Kansas) on New Year's Eve. The final score doesn't tell the story.
The story is this. Cal Poly gave the Badgers everything they could handle yesterday, and then some. In fact, had Andrew Gardner made just one of the two extra points he missed during regulation, the Badgers would have suffered an embarrassment as big as Michigan did a year ago when Appalachian State came to The Big House and beat the once mighty Wolverines.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good I guess. Because yesterday, the Badgers weren't good. Not by a long shot. They were lucky. They couldn't handle the triple option offense Cal Poly brought into Camp Randall Stadium. The offense at times shot itself in the foot. In fact, the only time the offense looked good was in the two minute drill at the end of both halves.
The story shouldn't be that Wisconsin survived against an FCS (or, Division 1-AA) team. It should be that they were in a dogfight with an FCS team. How far the mighty have fallen.
They will get a bid to the Insight Bowl, because you have to be really bad not to go to a bowl these days. But, make no mistake about it. This team does not deserve a bowl bid.
I've tried to defend Bret Bielema as much as I can. I think he's a good coach. But he's had a bad season. On offense, he was hurt by not having Travis Beckum, who was hurt for most of the year. He was also hurt by youth and inexperience at wide receiver.
But he also made his share of mistakes. It was one thing to choose Alan Evridge as the starting quarterback. It's another to stick with Evridge when everyone knows he isn't up to the job. That's what happened. Dustin Sherer did not take over until after the Penn State game, and by then it was too late.
Bielema also needed to shake things up at running back. P.J. Hill is a decent back, but John Clay is special. Clay makes Hill look like a rank amateur. I know Clay is young, and some questions his intelligence. But, there's no questioning his talent. And by insisting on a two back system, not putting the best back out there, Bielema did not put his team in the best position to win, and that's his job.
We can talk defense if you want as well. It just never seems to improve. If you run a spread attack, you're going to rack up yards and points against the Badgers. That's been the story for a number of years now. One season could be a fluke. When it's four, you either recruited badly or you're just not making the right adjustments as a coach. Either way it falls on Bielema.
I'm not saying Bielema should be fired. I think he should be given a chance to bounce back next year. But, to go 7-5 and earn a trip to the Insight Bowl when you were supposed to step up and make a run at a BCS bowl, well that's just nothing short of failure.
And, to squeak out a win over an FCS team in overtime to ensure that 7-5 record, well, that just leaves me with a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Let someone else go to the Insight Bowl. The Badgers don't deserve the bid.
The story is this. Cal Poly gave the Badgers everything they could handle yesterday, and then some. In fact, had Andrew Gardner made just one of the two extra points he missed during regulation, the Badgers would have suffered an embarrassment as big as Michigan did a year ago when Appalachian State came to The Big House and beat the once mighty Wolverines.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good I guess. Because yesterday, the Badgers weren't good. Not by a long shot. They were lucky. They couldn't handle the triple option offense Cal Poly brought into Camp Randall Stadium. The offense at times shot itself in the foot. In fact, the only time the offense looked good was in the two minute drill at the end of both halves.
The story shouldn't be that Wisconsin survived against an FCS (or, Division 1-AA) team. It should be that they were in a dogfight with an FCS team. How far the mighty have fallen.
They will get a bid to the Insight Bowl, because you have to be really bad not to go to a bowl these days. But, make no mistake about it. This team does not deserve a bowl bid.
I've tried to defend Bret Bielema as much as I can. I think he's a good coach. But he's had a bad season. On offense, he was hurt by not having Travis Beckum, who was hurt for most of the year. He was also hurt by youth and inexperience at wide receiver.
But he also made his share of mistakes. It was one thing to choose Alan Evridge as the starting quarterback. It's another to stick with Evridge when everyone knows he isn't up to the job. That's what happened. Dustin Sherer did not take over until after the Penn State game, and by then it was too late.
Bielema also needed to shake things up at running back. P.J. Hill is a decent back, but John Clay is special. Clay makes Hill look like a rank amateur. I know Clay is young, and some questions his intelligence. But, there's no questioning his talent. And by insisting on a two back system, not putting the best back out there, Bielema did not put his team in the best position to win, and that's his job.
We can talk defense if you want as well. It just never seems to improve. If you run a spread attack, you're going to rack up yards and points against the Badgers. That's been the story for a number of years now. One season could be a fluke. When it's four, you either recruited badly or you're just not making the right adjustments as a coach. Either way it falls on Bielema.
I'm not saying Bielema should be fired. I think he should be given a chance to bounce back next year. But, to go 7-5 and earn a trip to the Insight Bowl when you were supposed to step up and make a run at a BCS bowl, well that's just nothing short of failure.
And, to squeak out a win over an FCS team in overtime to ensure that 7-5 record, well, that just leaves me with a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Let someone else go to the Insight Bowl. The Badgers don't deserve the bid.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
All Eyes on Norman, Not Columbus
It's the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Normally that means the eyes of college football fans would be locked into the matchup between the Michigan Wolverines and Ohio State Buckeyes. Heck, even in NY, where I grew up (not a college football hotbed) we knew to watch Michigan-Ohio State on the Saturday before Turkey Day.
However, that's not going to be the case this year. This year, with the exception of the Michigan and Ohio State fans, everyone will be watching tonight's showdown between #2 Texas tech and #5 Oklahoma in Norman. I'm one who can't wait for this one to get underway.
Why TTU-OKlahoma as opposed to Michigan-OSU? Well, there are plenty of reasons.
* There's almost no chance the Ohio State-Michigan game is going to be competitive. The Wolverines are 3-8 this season. It's their first eight loss season ever. The Buckeyes have two losses, but they came to USC and Penn State, not Toledo. Michigan is rebuilding, something Ohio State almost never has to do. They just reload.
I know stranger things have happened in this rivalry, and I know there's always the chance that an upset could occur, but that's probably not going to happen.
* The game in Norman is going to be a lot more competitive. Both teams can score at will. Graham Harrell and Sam Bradford are two of the best quarterbacks in the country. Michael Crabtree is an NFL star waiting to happen. Both teams play tough, hard-nosed defense. This is about as even a matchup as we saw between the Red Raiders and Longhorns a few weeks ago.
* There's so much more on the line in the Texas Tech-Oklahoma game. A Red Raiders win puts Tech into the Big 12 Championship Game against #13 Missouri, one step away from playing for the B(C)S Championship. If Oklahoma wins, you get a three-way tie between Tech, Oklahoma, and Texas. In other words, you get B(C)S chaos, which is something I would love to see.
There's also a little thing called the Heisman that could be on the line tonight. if Harrell plays well at Oklahoma then he pretty much wraps up the trophy. If he doesn't, Colt McCoy of the Longhorns has the inside track.
In a couple of years, the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry probably doesn't take a back seat to anyone (as soon as Rich Rodriguez gets more of 'his' players into Ann Arbor). But that's down the line. We're dealing with the here and now, and that's Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma tonight.
Oh, and in case you are interested, I'm picking the Sooners. It's in Norman, Bob Stoops is a better coach than Mike Leach, and as I've said for years, I want B(C)S chaos.
However, that's not going to be the case this year. This year, with the exception of the Michigan and Ohio State fans, everyone will be watching tonight's showdown between #2 Texas tech and #5 Oklahoma in Norman. I'm one who can't wait for this one to get underway.
Why TTU-OKlahoma as opposed to Michigan-OSU? Well, there are plenty of reasons.
* There's almost no chance the Ohio State-Michigan game is going to be competitive. The Wolverines are 3-8 this season. It's their first eight loss season ever. The Buckeyes have two losses, but they came to USC and Penn State, not Toledo. Michigan is rebuilding, something Ohio State almost never has to do. They just reload.
I know stranger things have happened in this rivalry, and I know there's always the chance that an upset could occur, but that's probably not going to happen.
* The game in Norman is going to be a lot more competitive. Both teams can score at will. Graham Harrell and Sam Bradford are two of the best quarterbacks in the country. Michael Crabtree is an NFL star waiting to happen. Both teams play tough, hard-nosed defense. This is about as even a matchup as we saw between the Red Raiders and Longhorns a few weeks ago.
* There's so much more on the line in the Texas Tech-Oklahoma game. A Red Raiders win puts Tech into the Big 12 Championship Game against #13 Missouri, one step away from playing for the B(C)S Championship. If Oklahoma wins, you get a three-way tie between Tech, Oklahoma, and Texas. In other words, you get B(C)S chaos, which is something I would love to see.
There's also a little thing called the Heisman that could be on the line tonight. if Harrell plays well at Oklahoma then he pretty much wraps up the trophy. If he doesn't, Colt McCoy of the Longhorns has the inside track.
In a couple of years, the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry probably doesn't take a back seat to anyone (as soon as Rich Rodriguez gets more of 'his' players into Ann Arbor). But that's down the line. We're dealing with the here and now, and that's Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma tonight.
Oh, and in case you are interested, I'm picking the Sooners. It's in Norman, Bob Stoops is a better coach than Mike Leach, and as I've said for years, I want B(C)S chaos.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Chad Show Should be Cancelled
In a game that most of the country didn't see, the Steelers beat the Bengals 27-10 on Thursday Night Football. That isn't shocking, because the Steelers are a good team and the Bengals aren't.
The other thing that isn't shocking was the news that hit yesterday at about 9AM. Chad Johnson was deactivated for the game because he violated a team rule. Again, something that isn't shocking.
The details of the whole incident go something like this. Johnson apparently decided to show up forty-five minutes late for a team meeting. On top of that, Ocho Cinco (or whatever his name is) decided he was going to take a cat nap during the meeting. To top it all off, when he was confronted by coach Marvin Lewis, Johnson decided that would be a good time to get into a verbal confrontation with what amounts to his boss. Apparently that was the final straw for Lewis.
Certainly what Johnson apparently did was not the worst thing he's ever done. That would be taking a swing at his coach a couple of years back (without the Bengals taking any disciplinary action against him). But, this particular incident marked the last thing that Lewis and the Bengals were going to take, especially when you consider all the drama Johnson provided this past off-season.
The deactivation/de facto suspension was a nice first push back at Johnson, but it doesn't go far enough. What the Bengals should do is cut him. Send him away for good. Fire him, basically.
They could do what Tampa Bay did a few years ago when they parked Keyshawn Johson (Chad's cousin) on the inactive list, but what Chad did was worse than what Keyshawn did. All Keyshawn did was get into an argument with Jon Gruden. Chad took a swing at his coach a few years ago, has been a constant complainer ever since, and topped it off by doing what he did this week. Just cut him already.
It's not like Johnson is still an elite NFL wide receiver. Look at the numbers - 41 catches for 383 yards and four touchdowns. Those aren't elite numbers. They are barely pedestrian. Granted he's had to go from catching passes from Carson Palmer to catching wounded ducks from Ryan Fitzpatrick, but he is 30, and he was productive with Jon Kitna earlier in his career (so why can't he catch passes from Fitzpatrick?). This year's drop off is alarming.
The Bengals, with Johnson, have managed to go 1-9-1 with him in the lineup. They aren't winning with him. What's the difference if he's there or not? Looking at the rest of the schedule, it's very possible they could finish 1-14-1. So, if you might do that with him in the locker room causing a distraction, why not cut him and do it without the distraction.
Whatever the salary cap hit the Bengals would have to take by cutting him, it would be worth it. They don't need the circus act he provides. His production doesn't warrant it. He's not a difference maker. He's a cancer that needs to be cut from the Bengals organization.
The other thing that isn't shocking was the news that hit yesterday at about 9AM. Chad Johnson was deactivated for the game because he violated a team rule. Again, something that isn't shocking.
The details of the whole incident go something like this. Johnson apparently decided to show up forty-five minutes late for a team meeting. On top of that, Ocho Cinco (or whatever his name is) decided he was going to take a cat nap during the meeting. To top it all off, when he was confronted by coach Marvin Lewis, Johnson decided that would be a good time to get into a verbal confrontation with what amounts to his boss. Apparently that was the final straw for Lewis.
Certainly what Johnson apparently did was not the worst thing he's ever done. That would be taking a swing at his coach a couple of years back (without the Bengals taking any disciplinary action against him). But, this particular incident marked the last thing that Lewis and the Bengals were going to take, especially when you consider all the drama Johnson provided this past off-season.
The deactivation/de facto suspension was a nice first push back at Johnson, but it doesn't go far enough. What the Bengals should do is cut him. Send him away for good. Fire him, basically.
They could do what Tampa Bay did a few years ago when they parked Keyshawn Johson (Chad's cousin) on the inactive list, but what Chad did was worse than what Keyshawn did. All Keyshawn did was get into an argument with Jon Gruden. Chad took a swing at his coach a few years ago, has been a constant complainer ever since, and topped it off by doing what he did this week. Just cut him already.
It's not like Johnson is still an elite NFL wide receiver. Look at the numbers - 41 catches for 383 yards and four touchdowns. Those aren't elite numbers. They are barely pedestrian. Granted he's had to go from catching passes from Carson Palmer to catching wounded ducks from Ryan Fitzpatrick, but he is 30, and he was productive with Jon Kitna earlier in his career (so why can't he catch passes from Fitzpatrick?). This year's drop off is alarming.
The Bengals, with Johnson, have managed to go 1-9-1 with him in the lineup. They aren't winning with him. What's the difference if he's there or not? Looking at the rest of the schedule, it's very possible they could finish 1-14-1. So, if you might do that with him in the locker room causing a distraction, why not cut him and do it without the distraction.
Whatever the salary cap hit the Bengals would have to take by cutting him, it would be worth it. They don't need the circus act he provides. His production doesn't warrant it. He's not a difference maker. He's a cancer that needs to be cut from the Bengals organization.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The R Word
There were two stories in sports yesterday that had to do with the 'R' word. Retirement.
They both took place in New York. Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina, who no one expected to win 20 games this past season, did just that, and has apparently decided it's time to hang up the spikes.
Former Packers quarterback Brett Favre, now playing for the Jets, was asked to talk about his future beyond 2008. He refused to do so, saying he doesn't know if he's going to play beyond this season, but that he also isn't thinking about anything other than this Sunday's game against the Titans.
What we have here is someone who knows the right way to exit stage left, and someone who clearly does not.
Look, this is not to say that Favre is supposed to address his future mid-season. But, instead of saying he doesn't know, he should have just said something to the effect of this. "Now's not the time to talk about my future. I'll make a decision shortly after this season comes to an end."
Instead, you got the usual Favre hemming and hawing. You could go to Vegas now and bet the house on another off-season of indecision. This is not a man who makes decisions easily. This is not a man who has shown the ability to stick to those decisions. Ultimately, his inability to make a decision and stick to it was why the Packers decided they needed to turn the page on The Favre Era.
Then there's the case of Mussina. After going 11-10 with a 5.15 ERA in 2007, most wrote Mussina off, figuring he was washed up. But the soon to be forty right hander turned it around in a big way in 2008, going 20-9 with an era of 3.37. He went from being an afterthought to a guy the Yankees wanted to have in the rotation next season. But, what the Yankees want, and what Mussina apparently wants are two different things.
According to reports Mussina has decided to retire. He's leaving money on the table, and he's calling it quits thirty wins short of the magical number of 300. There's a saying in show business. Always leave them wanting more. That's what Mike Mussina is doing.
Now, if only guys like Favre and Randy Johnson (who is five wins short of 300 and desperately trying to find a job somewhere) could look at what Mussina's doing and learn from it, then no one would take them to task.
They both took place in New York. Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina, who no one expected to win 20 games this past season, did just that, and has apparently decided it's time to hang up the spikes.
Former Packers quarterback Brett Favre, now playing for the Jets, was asked to talk about his future beyond 2008. He refused to do so, saying he doesn't know if he's going to play beyond this season, but that he also isn't thinking about anything other than this Sunday's game against the Titans.
What we have here is someone who knows the right way to exit stage left, and someone who clearly does not.
Look, this is not to say that Favre is supposed to address his future mid-season. But, instead of saying he doesn't know, he should have just said something to the effect of this. "Now's not the time to talk about my future. I'll make a decision shortly after this season comes to an end."
Instead, you got the usual Favre hemming and hawing. You could go to Vegas now and bet the house on another off-season of indecision. This is not a man who makes decisions easily. This is not a man who has shown the ability to stick to those decisions. Ultimately, his inability to make a decision and stick to it was why the Packers decided they needed to turn the page on The Favre Era.
Then there's the case of Mussina. After going 11-10 with a 5.15 ERA in 2007, most wrote Mussina off, figuring he was washed up. But the soon to be forty right hander turned it around in a big way in 2008, going 20-9 with an era of 3.37. He went from being an afterthought to a guy the Yankees wanted to have in the rotation next season. But, what the Yankees want, and what Mussina apparently wants are two different things.
According to reports Mussina has decided to retire. He's leaving money on the table, and he's calling it quits thirty wins short of the magical number of 300. There's a saying in show business. Always leave them wanting more. That's what Mike Mussina is doing.
Now, if only guys like Favre and Randy Johnson (who is five wins short of 300 and desperately trying to find a job somewhere) could look at what Mussina's doing and learn from it, then no one would take them to task.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Doing a Flip-Flop
In the Summer of 2005, the Bucks, desperate to remain relevant in the NBA, gave shooting guard Michael Redd a max contract. Redd is a good player, but there was always the question of whether or not he was worth the $91M the Bucks gave him. I always thought the Bucks were right in giving him the money because he was the one thing that gave the team credibility.
I was probably in the minority on that one. Redd's a scorer, but he really doesn't do much else. Don't get me wrong. He tries. But, effort and production are often two different things.
Somehow, someway, Redd survived the Summer of John. New GM John Hammond came in and cleaned house. Mo Williams got traded. So did Yi and Bobby Simmons. Most thought Redd was going to be on his way out, too. But, somehow, he made it through, and once he won the gold medal as part of the Redeem Team, the Bucks knew they couldn't trade him.
Well, times are different now. I've changed my mind. I think the Bucks should trade Michael Redd. It'll take some time, because he has to come back from an injured ankle and then show the other teams around the league that he is healthy. But, the time to deal the former Ohio State star, the self made NBA star, is now.
I didn't always think that way, so I know what's going through your mind (especially since it seemed I was one of his only supporters on the radio). What made me change my mind?
Well, the Bucks are 3-5 in the eight games Redd has missed. But, look at the teams that they lost two. Denver is 6-1 since trading for Chauncey Billups. The Celtics are the defending NBA World Champions. The Suns are a contender, and the Cavs have King James. The Bucks probably would not have won any of these games even if Redd were in the lineup. If he's not going to be a difference maker (and with the changes made on this team over the last six months he's not), then trade him for a piece you need (how about a power forward that Scott Skiles won't nail to the bench?).
The Bucks may be 5-7, but they aren't as bad as they look. They lose to the teams they are clearly worse than and beat the teams they are clearly better than. And, in most of the games they have lost, they have been very competitive. Last year, twenty point blowouts (and sometimes fifty point losses) were the norm. This year, that hasn't been the case. The fans are starting to notice. Trading Redd for a piece that fits better (power forward) will help this team improve, and maybe even make a run at a playoff spot.
Sometimes change needs to be made for change sake (there I go again, ripping off the future leader of the free world). Redd reminds everyone of the last regime the Bucks had. Larry Harris. Terry Porter. Terry Stotts. Larry K. He reminds everyone about the losing. He's not the reason for the losing but he is the embodiment of the losing. Dealing him now would almost wipe the slate clean.
Redd has been a good, sometimes great player for the Bucks over the years, but for the franchise to really move forward, for the Bucks to really be 'Ready to Rise' as the ad campaign says, they need to turn the page on the Michael Redd Era.
I was probably in the minority on that one. Redd's a scorer, but he really doesn't do much else. Don't get me wrong. He tries. But, effort and production are often two different things.
Somehow, someway, Redd survived the Summer of John. New GM John Hammond came in and cleaned house. Mo Williams got traded. So did Yi and Bobby Simmons. Most thought Redd was going to be on his way out, too. But, somehow, he made it through, and once he won the gold medal as part of the Redeem Team, the Bucks knew they couldn't trade him.
Well, times are different now. I've changed my mind. I think the Bucks should trade Michael Redd. It'll take some time, because he has to come back from an injured ankle and then show the other teams around the league that he is healthy. But, the time to deal the former Ohio State star, the self made NBA star, is now.
I didn't always think that way, so I know what's going through your mind (especially since it seemed I was one of his only supporters on the radio). What made me change my mind?
Well, the Bucks are 3-5 in the eight games Redd has missed. But, look at the teams that they lost two. Denver is 6-1 since trading for Chauncey Billups. The Celtics are the defending NBA World Champions. The Suns are a contender, and the Cavs have King James. The Bucks probably would not have won any of these games even if Redd were in the lineup. If he's not going to be a difference maker (and with the changes made on this team over the last six months he's not), then trade him for a piece you need (how about a power forward that Scott Skiles won't nail to the bench?).
The Bucks may be 5-7, but they aren't as bad as they look. They lose to the teams they are clearly worse than and beat the teams they are clearly better than. And, in most of the games they have lost, they have been very competitive. Last year, twenty point blowouts (and sometimes fifty point losses) were the norm. This year, that hasn't been the case. The fans are starting to notice. Trading Redd for a piece that fits better (power forward) will help this team improve, and maybe even make a run at a playoff spot.
Sometimes change needs to be made for change sake (there I go again, ripping off the future leader of the free world). Redd reminds everyone of the last regime the Bucks had. Larry Harris. Terry Porter. Terry Stotts. Larry K. He reminds everyone about the losing. He's not the reason for the losing but he is the embodiment of the losing. Dealing him now would almost wipe the slate clean.
Redd has been a good, sometimes great player for the Bucks over the years, but for the franchise to really move forward, for the Bucks to really be 'Ready to Rise' as the ad campaign says, they need to turn the page on the Michael Redd Era.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Tuesday Morning Mix
I have a lot on my mind this morning, so here we go.
Issue #1: Congrats to Albert Pujols for winning the National League MVP award for the second time in his career. He certainly had the numbers to win the award. That being said, my vote would have gone to Ryan Howard of the World Series Champion Phillies. Howard had a huge September, and granted it was really the only great month he had, but he did carry the Phillies into the playoffs. He also led all of baseball in HR's and RBI's. Finally, Pujols' Cardinals finished a distant fourth in the NL Central.
Issue #2: Mark Cuban has been accused of insider trading by the SEC (no, not that SEC, the other SEC). They apparently are ticked off that advance knowledge led to saving about $750K in losses (did I mention Cuban was a BILLIONAIRE?). Bottom line is this accusation now gives MLB Commissioner Bud Selig what he needs in order to keep Cuban from buying the Cubs. An excuse. Because Selig's been against Cuban from the get go. He's afraid of Cuban's personality but ignores the fact that he's a winner. No one else but Cuban could've turned around the Mavs. Baseball would be better off with Cuban involved (isn't Hank Steinbrenner worse, anyway?).
Issue #3: George Karl says that coaching Allen Iverson sometimes frustrated him because he was a shoot first player. Nooooo, really? Iverson a selfish player?? Come on, I never knew that, Georgie!
Bottom line - Karl should've kept his mouth shut. The trade was made two weeks ago, so why go there? Also, Karl has a habit (and if you look back throughout his career you'll see it) of blaming others when things don't go well. He has a habit of getting into feuds with his own players. It happened in Seattle. It happened in Milwaukee (which was why Ray Allen was really traded). It happened in Denver with AI. George always needs someone to blame. Well, if the Nuggets don't get out of the first round this season, who is next on Karl's hit list? Carmelo Anthony?? Chauncey Billups??? Anthony's the face of the franchise, so that can't happen. Billups is the local boy who comes home to Denver cast as the savior. If it doesn't work this season, Karl's out.
Issue #4: Who says the big stars get the benefit of the doubt in the NBA? Celtics fans might have thought Kevin Garnett got off scott free for his mugging of Milwaukee's Andrew Bogut Saturday night (Bogut was ejected for his flagrant foul but nothing happened to KG), but the NBA reviewed the tape and slapped Garnett with a one game suspension. I bet you the most shocked guy in this whole deal was KG.
Issue #5: It's not official yet, but with FOX pulling out of the bidding for the BCS, ESPN looks like they will land College Football's National Championship (such as it is without a playoff). It was only a matter of time before ESPN wound up landing the right to broadcast a national championship (though I always thought it would wind up being the NHL or NBA - not on ABC).
Five years ago this would have been something to moan and groan about. Now, a different story. ESPN was once a little, tiny network run out of trailers in the middle of nowhere Connecticut. Believe me, I know. I worked in Bristol. I saw what the operation used to be as opposed to what it is now. These days, ESPN landing the rights to a national championship doesn't bother people as much. ESPN is in about 100 million homes. It's everywhere. It's not just a channel, it's a brand. When you think sports, you think ESPN. They are the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
The Final Word: Remember when I asked the Wisconsin media to move beyond the whole Brett Favre issue? Well, it seems like Dave Begel of OnMilwaukee.com hasn't. Check out his latest column here.
In all honesty, Dave and I have not seen eye to eye since he started ripping me about two years ago on a fairly consistent basis. But, he also took time out this past summer to praise me. So, I guess he came around (somewhat).
That being said, Dave, you can love Brett Favre all you want. I'm not telling you that you can't. I'm just saying he's not in Green Bay anymore. Get behind the guy that you have in Aaron Rodgers. He's playing well. If it doesn't work out in the end (and that would be a few years down the road because you can't expect Rodgers to carry the Packers to a Super Bowl in his first ear as a starter), then you can scream and yell for Ted Thompson's firing. And, I might be there with you at that point. But, the time for that is not now. The Packers just got their biggest win of the season, and look to be the favorite to win the NFC North.
So, Dave, stop longing for Brett (the unattainable) and realize what you have in front of your face. A competent quarterback, who is young, improving, and quite possibly, leading the Packers to a division title and playoff spot.
There you go. I've let it all out. And, I feel so much better now.
Issue #1: Congrats to Albert Pujols for winning the National League MVP award for the second time in his career. He certainly had the numbers to win the award. That being said, my vote would have gone to Ryan Howard of the World Series Champion Phillies. Howard had a huge September, and granted it was really the only great month he had, but he did carry the Phillies into the playoffs. He also led all of baseball in HR's and RBI's. Finally, Pujols' Cardinals finished a distant fourth in the NL Central.
Issue #2: Mark Cuban has been accused of insider trading by the SEC (no, not that SEC, the other SEC). They apparently are ticked off that advance knowledge led to saving about $750K in losses (did I mention Cuban was a BILLIONAIRE?). Bottom line is this accusation now gives MLB Commissioner Bud Selig what he needs in order to keep Cuban from buying the Cubs. An excuse. Because Selig's been against Cuban from the get go. He's afraid of Cuban's personality but ignores the fact that he's a winner. No one else but Cuban could've turned around the Mavs. Baseball would be better off with Cuban involved (isn't Hank Steinbrenner worse, anyway?).
Issue #3: George Karl says that coaching Allen Iverson sometimes frustrated him because he was a shoot first player. Nooooo, really? Iverson a selfish player?? Come on, I never knew that, Georgie!
Bottom line - Karl should've kept his mouth shut. The trade was made two weeks ago, so why go there? Also, Karl has a habit (and if you look back throughout his career you'll see it) of blaming others when things don't go well. He has a habit of getting into feuds with his own players. It happened in Seattle. It happened in Milwaukee (which was why Ray Allen was really traded). It happened in Denver with AI. George always needs someone to blame. Well, if the Nuggets don't get out of the first round this season, who is next on Karl's hit list? Carmelo Anthony?? Chauncey Billups??? Anthony's the face of the franchise, so that can't happen. Billups is the local boy who comes home to Denver cast as the savior. If it doesn't work this season, Karl's out.
Issue #4: Who says the big stars get the benefit of the doubt in the NBA? Celtics fans might have thought Kevin Garnett got off scott free for his mugging of Milwaukee's Andrew Bogut Saturday night (Bogut was ejected for his flagrant foul but nothing happened to KG), but the NBA reviewed the tape and slapped Garnett with a one game suspension. I bet you the most shocked guy in this whole deal was KG.
Issue #5: It's not official yet, but with FOX pulling out of the bidding for the BCS, ESPN looks like they will land College Football's National Championship (such as it is without a playoff). It was only a matter of time before ESPN wound up landing the right to broadcast a national championship (though I always thought it would wind up being the NHL or NBA - not on ABC).
Five years ago this would have been something to moan and groan about. Now, a different story. ESPN was once a little, tiny network run out of trailers in the middle of nowhere Connecticut. Believe me, I know. I worked in Bristol. I saw what the operation used to be as opposed to what it is now. These days, ESPN landing the rights to a national championship doesn't bother people as much. ESPN is in about 100 million homes. It's everywhere. It's not just a channel, it's a brand. When you think sports, you think ESPN. They are the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
The Final Word: Remember when I asked the Wisconsin media to move beyond the whole Brett Favre issue? Well, it seems like Dave Begel of OnMilwaukee.com hasn't. Check out his latest column here.
In all honesty, Dave and I have not seen eye to eye since he started ripping me about two years ago on a fairly consistent basis. But, he also took time out this past summer to praise me. So, I guess he came around (somewhat).
That being said, Dave, you can love Brett Favre all you want. I'm not telling you that you can't. I'm just saying he's not in Green Bay anymore. Get behind the guy that you have in Aaron Rodgers. He's playing well. If it doesn't work out in the end (and that would be a few years down the road because you can't expect Rodgers to carry the Packers to a Super Bowl in his first ear as a starter), then you can scream and yell for Ted Thompson's firing. And, I might be there with you at that point. But, the time for that is not now. The Packers just got their biggest win of the season, and look to be the favorite to win the NFC North.
So, Dave, stop longing for Brett (the unattainable) and realize what you have in front of your face. A competent quarterback, who is young, improving, and quite possibly, leading the Packers to a division title and playoff spot.
There you go. I've let it all out. And, I feel so much better now.
Monday, November 17, 2008
NFL Overtime Rules Need to Change (Sorry, President-Elect Obama)
It's been another wild weekend in the NFL. The Packers, who looked pathetic on offense for the last couple of weeks, beat the living daylights out of a Chicago Bears team that might not have been as good as the 5-4 record it had going in to yesterday's game.
Elsewhere the Giants continued to roll, beating up on what was considered a very good Ravens defense. But, those aren't the games I want tot talk about today.
No, I want to talk about the 13-13 tie that the Eagles and Bengals played to yesterday afternoon. Not that I like either of those teams. Not that Icare whether the Eagles make the playoffs or the Bengals go 1-15, but the final outcome (if you can call it that) just leaves me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Simply, put the NFL Overtime rules need to change. The sooner the better, but they need to change. Games need to be played until there's a winner. And, each team should have at least one chance to touch the ball in the O-T. If you're not going to make them play till there's a winner, go with the system the college game has. Not only does it work, but it is very entertaining.
NFL games should not end in ties. As a member of the sports media, the NFL is the sport where we as talk show hosts and writers, use words that are more connected to war than anything else. Words like battle, or combat. It's weird to use those words and then talk about a game which ended in a tie.
The NHL (yes it's still a major sport) used to have this problem. Games would end in ties left and right. It was one of the reasons the NHL lost the lofty position it once enjoyed as a pro sport in the United States. Then the lockout happened. And when the league came back, it basically eliminated the overtime tie by going to a shootout. It's a gimmick, but at least we're not talking about Colorado and Detroit skating to a 3-3 tie. That's a snoozer. The shootout is anything but. (And playoff hockey, which can go to multiple periods of overtime, is still the best hockey there is).
College football got rid of the ties they used to have. It may have taken ten years too long, but they did it. And, as I mentioned earlier, is there anyone out there who doesn't love the college football overtime system? I don't think I have ever heard someone complain about it.
The point is we should play till there is a winner. The Bengals obviously have no chance at making the playoffs. The Eagles, on the other hand, do. To take it away from them (which could happen) based on rules that are archaic and need to change is just wrong.
The NFL needs change. Change for the better. Change we can all get behind. Change to the Overtime rules.
Elsewhere the Giants continued to roll, beating up on what was considered a very good Ravens defense. But, those aren't the games I want tot talk about today.
No, I want to talk about the 13-13 tie that the Eagles and Bengals played to yesterday afternoon. Not that I like either of those teams. Not that Icare whether the Eagles make the playoffs or the Bengals go 1-15, but the final outcome (if you can call it that) just leaves me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Simply, put the NFL Overtime rules need to change. The sooner the better, but they need to change. Games need to be played until there's a winner. And, each team should have at least one chance to touch the ball in the O-T. If you're not going to make them play till there's a winner, go with the system the college game has. Not only does it work, but it is very entertaining.
NFL games should not end in ties. As a member of the sports media, the NFL is the sport where we as talk show hosts and writers, use words that are more connected to war than anything else. Words like battle, or combat. It's weird to use those words and then talk about a game which ended in a tie.
The NHL (yes it's still a major sport) used to have this problem. Games would end in ties left and right. It was one of the reasons the NHL lost the lofty position it once enjoyed as a pro sport in the United States. Then the lockout happened. And when the league came back, it basically eliminated the overtime tie by going to a shootout. It's a gimmick, but at least we're not talking about Colorado and Detroit skating to a 3-3 tie. That's a snoozer. The shootout is anything but. (And playoff hockey, which can go to multiple periods of overtime, is still the best hockey there is).
College football got rid of the ties they used to have. It may have taken ten years too long, but they did it. And, as I mentioned earlier, is there anyone out there who doesn't love the college football overtime system? I don't think I have ever heard someone complain about it.
The point is we should play till there is a winner. The Bengals obviously have no chance at making the playoffs. The Eagles, on the other hand, do. To take it away from them (which could happen) based on rules that are archaic and need to change is just wrong.
The NFL needs change. Change for the better. Change we can all get behind. Change to the Overtime rules.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Rivalries
Being from New York, I know a little bit about rivalries. Among the rivalries I've been a part of, either as a fan or as a member of the media, include:
Yankees-Red Sox
Yankees-Mets
Yankees-Dodgers
Mets-Cubs
Jets-Dolphins
Jets-Patriots
Giants-Cowboys
Giants-Redskins
Knicks-Bulls
Knicks-Heat
Knicks-Celtics
Rangers-Islanders
Rangers-Devils
As someone who was part of not one but two national radio networks (ESPN and Sporting News Radio), I've had the opportunity to experience some other rivalries, including:
Oklahoma-Texas
Michigan-Ohio State
Cowboys-49ers
Giants-Dodgers
Florida-Florida State
Cubs-Cardinals
The list goes on and on. Living in Milwaukee and being a member of the Wisconsin media for the last three years, I've also been able to see rivalries like Brewers-Cubs; Marquette-Wisconsin; Marquette-UM; and Wisconsin-Minnesota.
However, none of them comes close to the blood feud that is Packers vs. Bears.
The 2008 edition of this rivalry kicks off this afternoon at Lambeau Field, where Lovie Smith's Bears haven't always been the most gracious of guests. In fact, since Smith became head coach of the Bears, he pumped brand new life into the rivalry. It had become stale thanks to Green Bay's dominance in the 1990's, but that's not the case anymore.
This is the best rivalry in sports. I'm not just saying it because I live here. I've seen it up close and personal from both sides (having lived in Chicago for six years before coming to Milwaukee), and I've come up with a few good reasons why this rivalry is better than any other I've seen.
* There isn't a person in Wisconsin or Illinois that isn't into this particular rivalry. You're either a Bears fan or a Packers fan. Everyone has the two games these two teams play ever year circled on their calender. At noon today you won't find many cars on the streets. You won't find many people in the stores. You won't find anyone going to a late mass. They'll all be watching the game. Living in New York not everyone got into Yankees-Red Sox. The city had two baseball teams, and if you weren't a Yankees fan you didn't care. The same could be said for many of the rivalries (except the college ones) that I mentioned before.
* This rivalry is competitive once again. The Bears beat the Packers twice in 2007, split the two games in 2006, and have made this a much closer rivalry than it used to be in the nineties. Now, add in this factor. This game could be for the NFC North title. If the Bears win this afternoon they take control of the division (they'll have a two game lead over the Packers with six to go). If the Packers win then the rematch next month likely is for the division title. And, considering the strength of the NFC East, the only team from the North that will go to the playoffs will be the team that wins the division.
Look, what rivalry is the best in sports is a completely subjective question. It makes for some good talk radio when it's done as a topic. There is no right or wrong answer. All I'm saying is that I've had the chance to see a lot of these rivalries. The Packers-Bears rivalry, having experienced it from both sides, is the best in all of sports.
Yankees-Red Sox
Yankees-Mets
Yankees-Dodgers
Mets-Cubs
Jets-Dolphins
Jets-Patriots
Giants-Cowboys
Giants-Redskins
Knicks-Bulls
Knicks-Heat
Knicks-Celtics
Rangers-Islanders
Rangers-Devils
As someone who was part of not one but two national radio networks (ESPN and Sporting News Radio), I've had the opportunity to experience some other rivalries, including:
Oklahoma-Texas
Michigan-Ohio State
Cowboys-49ers
Giants-Dodgers
Florida-Florida State
Cubs-Cardinals
The list goes on and on. Living in Milwaukee and being a member of the Wisconsin media for the last three years, I've also been able to see rivalries like Brewers-Cubs; Marquette-Wisconsin; Marquette-UM; and Wisconsin-Minnesota.
However, none of them comes close to the blood feud that is Packers vs. Bears.
The 2008 edition of this rivalry kicks off this afternoon at Lambeau Field, where Lovie Smith's Bears haven't always been the most gracious of guests. In fact, since Smith became head coach of the Bears, he pumped brand new life into the rivalry. It had become stale thanks to Green Bay's dominance in the 1990's, but that's not the case anymore.
This is the best rivalry in sports. I'm not just saying it because I live here. I've seen it up close and personal from both sides (having lived in Chicago for six years before coming to Milwaukee), and I've come up with a few good reasons why this rivalry is better than any other I've seen.
* There isn't a person in Wisconsin or Illinois that isn't into this particular rivalry. You're either a Bears fan or a Packers fan. Everyone has the two games these two teams play ever year circled on their calender. At noon today you won't find many cars on the streets. You won't find many people in the stores. You won't find anyone going to a late mass. They'll all be watching the game. Living in New York not everyone got into Yankees-Red Sox. The city had two baseball teams, and if you weren't a Yankees fan you didn't care. The same could be said for many of the rivalries (except the college ones) that I mentioned before.
* This rivalry is competitive once again. The Bears beat the Packers twice in 2007, split the two games in 2006, and have made this a much closer rivalry than it used to be in the nineties. Now, add in this factor. This game could be for the NFC North title. If the Bears win this afternoon they take control of the division (they'll have a two game lead over the Packers with six to go). If the Packers win then the rematch next month likely is for the division title. And, considering the strength of the NFC East, the only team from the North that will go to the playoffs will be the team that wins the division.
Look, what rivalry is the best in sports is a completely subjective question. It makes for some good talk radio when it's done as a topic. There is no right or wrong answer. All I'm saying is that I've had the chance to see a lot of these rivalries. The Packers-Bears rivalry, having experienced it from both sides, is the best in all of sports.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Move Beyond Favre.. Please!
There are three certainties in life here in Milwaukee. Death, taxes, and Brett Favre talk. No matter what the scenario happens to be, someone (most likely a radio host) is going to talk about Brett Favre, even when it doesn't make any sense to.
Look, I'll be honest here. I did the same thing, especially when the football season got started. Then I did an unscientific poll asking if listeners (callers and emailers) were as interested in Favre now as they were when Favre-gate was in full swing. The result was resounding. Most people (fans) had moved on. Based on that, so did I (or at least tried to). Once the Brewers got into the playoffs, the only time there was Favre talk on my show was after the whole Tony Romo thing, and I only did that to actually defend Favre (not something I normally did dating back to the July comeback attempt).
Now, the Packers face an almost do or die matchup this Sunday at Lambeau Field against the Chicago Bears. Lose, and then you go down by two games in the division. Since both wildcards in the NFC are likley to come from the East, the Packers have only one path to the playoffs. Win the NFC North. So, I figured I'd turn on the radio and actually hear some talk about the upcoming game. Boy was I wrong.
Instead, I got Brett Favre talk. Would the Packers record be any better if Brett Favre were still the quarterback? That was the question that was being asked. I turned the station off.
I can't understand why the question would be asked. It's a hypothetical for starters. Favre's not the quarterback of the Packers. He's the quarterback of the Jets. Everyone - media and fans included - needs to get over that. Deal with the cards you've been handed. Aaron Rodgers is the quarterback. Not Favre.
Not only is it hypothetical, but who is to say Favre would have beaten some of the teams that the Packers wound up losing to this year. Not for nothing, but Aaron Rodgers has played exactly one bad game all season. There have been other factors contributing to the Packers 4-5 record (defensive problems, playcalling, running game, and injuries). There's no guarantee that Favre would have been able to overcome those deficiencies. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been able to overcome the problems. I'm just saying there's no guarantee he would have been able to do it.
What was on the radio yesterday was an example of the 'Let's talk Brett' mentality that goes on. The Jets played Thursday night and won, so someone thought it'd be a good idea to talk Favre since he was in the news.
Two problems there. One - the game wasn't on in Milwaukee, and how many of us actually went to NFL.com to watch a three plus hour game on a computer (I'm the exception rather than the rule)?
Two- Favre fever has been dying in Milwaukee. You don't need any further proof than this. The rating for the Packers-Vikings game this past Sunday was 34, which means over 307,000 households were tuned into the game in Milwaukee. The Titans game a week earlier had a rating of 35.7 (323,000 plus households). The Jets-Bills game, which aired opposite Packers-Titans, got a rating of 3.0, which means just a little over 27 thousand households were tuned into the game. In fact, ratings for Jets games on the local CBS affiliate in Milwaukee have one down steadily since Week One.
That's a pretty strong signal that the fans have moved on. Talk radio should as well. After all, there's a battle for first place coming up on Sunday against the Packers' main rival. That's the situation at hand. Favre is the past. Leave the past in the past.
Look, I'll be honest here. I did the same thing, especially when the football season got started. Then I did an unscientific poll asking if listeners (callers and emailers) were as interested in Favre now as they were when Favre-gate was in full swing. The result was resounding. Most people (fans) had moved on. Based on that, so did I (or at least tried to). Once the Brewers got into the playoffs, the only time there was Favre talk on my show was after the whole Tony Romo thing, and I only did that to actually defend Favre (not something I normally did dating back to the July comeback attempt).
Now, the Packers face an almost do or die matchup this Sunday at Lambeau Field against the Chicago Bears. Lose, and then you go down by two games in the division. Since both wildcards in the NFC are likley to come from the East, the Packers have only one path to the playoffs. Win the NFC North. So, I figured I'd turn on the radio and actually hear some talk about the upcoming game. Boy was I wrong.
Instead, I got Brett Favre talk. Would the Packers record be any better if Brett Favre were still the quarterback? That was the question that was being asked. I turned the station off.
I can't understand why the question would be asked. It's a hypothetical for starters. Favre's not the quarterback of the Packers. He's the quarterback of the Jets. Everyone - media and fans included - needs to get over that. Deal with the cards you've been handed. Aaron Rodgers is the quarterback. Not Favre.
Not only is it hypothetical, but who is to say Favre would have beaten some of the teams that the Packers wound up losing to this year. Not for nothing, but Aaron Rodgers has played exactly one bad game all season. There have been other factors contributing to the Packers 4-5 record (defensive problems, playcalling, running game, and injuries). There's no guarantee that Favre would have been able to overcome those deficiencies. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been able to overcome the problems. I'm just saying there's no guarantee he would have been able to do it.
What was on the radio yesterday was an example of the 'Let's talk Brett' mentality that goes on. The Jets played Thursday night and won, so someone thought it'd be a good idea to talk Favre since he was in the news.
Two problems there. One - the game wasn't on in Milwaukee, and how many of us actually went to NFL.com to watch a three plus hour game on a computer (I'm the exception rather than the rule)?
Two- Favre fever has been dying in Milwaukee. You don't need any further proof than this. The rating for the Packers-Vikings game this past Sunday was 34, which means over 307,000 households were tuned into the game in Milwaukee. The Titans game a week earlier had a rating of 35.7 (323,000 plus households). The Jets-Bills game, which aired opposite Packers-Titans, got a rating of 3.0, which means just a little over 27 thousand households were tuned into the game. In fact, ratings for Jets games on the local CBS affiliate in Milwaukee have one down steadily since Week One.
That's a pretty strong signal that the fans have moved on. Talk radio should as well. After all, there's a battle for first place coming up on Sunday against the Packers' main rival. That's the situation at hand. Favre is the past. Leave the past in the past.
Friday, November 14, 2008
This Jets Fan Not Jumping for Joy Yet
I admit I'm a masochist. That's probably why I've been a New York Jets fan for all of my life. This is a team that has never, and I mean NEVER given me anything more than a fleeting moment of joy. There was 1982 when they went to the AFC title game, but lost to Miami in the Mud Bowl. There was 1998, when they wernt to the AFC title game and lost at Denver. Other than that, not a damn thing.
There's been plenty to moan and groan about over the years. I'll sum it up in two words. Rich Kotite. Or maybe another two words. Bruce Coslet. This organization has had a revolving door of coaches, quarterbacks, and supporting players without ever once coming close to doing what Joe Willie Namath did in 1969.
Then the Jets went out and traded a conditional draft choice to the Packers for Brett Favre - the first real quarterback they've had since signing Boomer Esiason in 1993 as a free agent. Still, most Jets fans thought this team wouldn't have enough to beat the mighty New England Patriots.
That belief was reinforced in Week 2, when Eric Mangini was too conservative and Matt Cassel did just enough in his first start since Tom Brady went down with a knee injury to get New England the win.
Then came last night's game at New England, a 34-31 OT win by the Jets which about half the country saw because the NFL and the cable companies can't come to an agreement (what a shame). It was an incredible game to watch (on my computer). And I'm thrilled that the Jets won and took sole possession of first place in the AFC East. But, forgive me if I don't want to throw a parade for Gang Green just yet.
First of all the Patriots they just barely beat last night were not the same Patriots that went to the Super Bowl last season on the strength of an undefeated season. Cassel's good, but he's not Brady. The running game New England had last night featured someone named Benjarvus Green Ellis, not Laurence Maroney or Sammy Morris. Offensive lineman Dan Koppen was hurt. So was rookie linebacker Jerod Mayo. The Pats were without Adalius Thomas, who killed the Jets in Week 2. Steve Neal and Ty Warren were also hobbled. In other words, the Jets beat the Patriots Lite last night.
Call me a Negative Nancy if you want, but there's still time for the Jets to screw it up. It's not like they have never done that in the past. Jeez, in 1986 they got off to a 10-1 start only to lose the last five games of the regular season and sneak into the playoffs.
The rest of the schedule isn't as easy as my colleague Mike Greenberg of ESPN Radio would have you believe. Next up is Tennessee, and until someone beats the Titans they are the best team in the NFL. Denver's struggling, but if Jay Cutler is on his game anything is possible. San Francisco's a very winnable game, as is the other remaining road game in Seattle. But, there are still two divisional games, against the Bills and Dolphins. Even though the Jets have beaten both teams this season, it's possible they will lose the rematches. Miami has surprised a few teams this year, and Buffalo's defense keeps them in every game.
Look, it's great that they won. I'm happy. I'll wear my Jets hat and Favre jersey today. But, I won't put the cart before the horse yet. There's still plenty of football left to go.
There's been plenty to moan and groan about over the years. I'll sum it up in two words. Rich Kotite. Or maybe another two words. Bruce Coslet. This organization has had a revolving door of coaches, quarterbacks, and supporting players without ever once coming close to doing what Joe Willie Namath did in 1969.
Then the Jets went out and traded a conditional draft choice to the Packers for Brett Favre - the first real quarterback they've had since signing Boomer Esiason in 1993 as a free agent. Still, most Jets fans thought this team wouldn't have enough to beat the mighty New England Patriots.
That belief was reinforced in Week 2, when Eric Mangini was too conservative and Matt Cassel did just enough in his first start since Tom Brady went down with a knee injury to get New England the win.
Then came last night's game at New England, a 34-31 OT win by the Jets which about half the country saw because the NFL and the cable companies can't come to an agreement (what a shame). It was an incredible game to watch (on my computer). And I'm thrilled that the Jets won and took sole possession of first place in the AFC East. But, forgive me if I don't want to throw a parade for Gang Green just yet.
First of all the Patriots they just barely beat last night were not the same Patriots that went to the Super Bowl last season on the strength of an undefeated season. Cassel's good, but he's not Brady. The running game New England had last night featured someone named Benjarvus Green Ellis, not Laurence Maroney or Sammy Morris. Offensive lineman Dan Koppen was hurt. So was rookie linebacker Jerod Mayo. The Pats were without Adalius Thomas, who killed the Jets in Week 2. Steve Neal and Ty Warren were also hobbled. In other words, the Jets beat the Patriots Lite last night.
Call me a Negative Nancy if you want, but there's still time for the Jets to screw it up. It's not like they have never done that in the past. Jeez, in 1986 they got off to a 10-1 start only to lose the last five games of the regular season and sneak into the playoffs.
The rest of the schedule isn't as easy as my colleague Mike Greenberg of ESPN Radio would have you believe. Next up is Tennessee, and until someone beats the Titans they are the best team in the NFL. Denver's struggling, but if Jay Cutler is on his game anything is possible. San Francisco's a very winnable game, as is the other remaining road game in Seattle. But, there are still two divisional games, against the Bills and Dolphins. Even though the Jets have beaten both teams this season, it's possible they will lose the rematches. Miami has surprised a few teams this year, and Buffalo's defense keeps them in every game.
Look, it's great that they won. I'm happy. I'll wear my Jets hat and Favre jersey today. But, I won't put the cart before the horse yet. There's still plenty of football left to go.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Fire Up the Hot Stove
Free agency is upon us, and here in Milwaukee, what everyone wants to know is whether or not CC Sabathia is going to re-sign with the Brewers.
Well, I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but there is virtually zero chance of that happening. The Brewers made an effort (half-hearted though), by extending Sabathia a reported five year deal worth $100M. That's not going to get the job done, considering the NY Post reported that the Yankees were prepared to offer CC more than the $137M the Mets gave Johan Santana before the 2008 season.
It's a pipe dream for anyone to think CC is going to turn that kind of money down. Yes, he enjoyed his Brewers experience, and yes, he made some close friends on the team, but here's why he will not return to the Brewers.
There's no guarantee that Sabathia will get a second bite at the free agent apple. There's a thought he might take a shorter deal with Milwaukee in order to try and win now, and then try to hit it big in free agency again. It's somewhat sound thinking, considering CC is only 28 years old. But, what happens if he gets hurt? Then there's no second bite at the apple, and taking $140M guaranteed now as opposed to $100M guaranteed now is the better way to go.
You also have to realize how much of a role the union will play in this. CC is the top free agent on the market. There will be consequences if he would leave money on the table. The union is about making money, not anything else. They would probably sanction Sabathia's agents if he didn't take the biggest contract offerred.
It'll be the biggest upset in the history of free agency if Sabathia returns to the Brewers. There's no other way to put it.
A couple of other free agent nuggets from Cheeseland:
* It appears as if Doug Melvin won't close the door on a Ben Sheets return via free agency. Memo to Doug. Please close the door. I was one of Sheets' biggest supporters, but the last injury was the last straw. You cannot afford to commit millions of dollars to a china doll. Simple as that.
* The Cubs traded for a new closer today. It appears as if Kerry Wood will be on the market. Considering the retirement of Salmon Torres, it might make sense for the Brewers to go after him (they pursued Wood last off-season). Buyer beware. Even though Wood was relatively healthy this year, he's still a big risk. There's no way to guarantee his health for 2009. Wood wants Eric Gagne type money ($10M). We saw how that worked out last season. The risk isn't worth the reward.
* If Sabathia leaves as a free agent, the Brewers, who recently picked up a big money option on his good friend Mike Cameron, will look to trade the strikeout prone centerfielder. Word is the Yankees have interest and would part with youngsters Melki Cabrera and Ian Kennedy. If that deal is on the table I'd do it. Cabrera has tremendous upside and has shown he can play on the big league level. Kennedy might thrive in a city like Milwaukee as opposed to the bright lights and media pressure of New York.
Well, I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but there is virtually zero chance of that happening. The Brewers made an effort (half-hearted though), by extending Sabathia a reported five year deal worth $100M. That's not going to get the job done, considering the NY Post reported that the Yankees were prepared to offer CC more than the $137M the Mets gave Johan Santana before the 2008 season.
It's a pipe dream for anyone to think CC is going to turn that kind of money down. Yes, he enjoyed his Brewers experience, and yes, he made some close friends on the team, but here's why he will not return to the Brewers.
There's no guarantee that Sabathia will get a second bite at the free agent apple. There's a thought he might take a shorter deal with Milwaukee in order to try and win now, and then try to hit it big in free agency again. It's somewhat sound thinking, considering CC is only 28 years old. But, what happens if he gets hurt? Then there's no second bite at the apple, and taking $140M guaranteed now as opposed to $100M guaranteed now is the better way to go.
You also have to realize how much of a role the union will play in this. CC is the top free agent on the market. There will be consequences if he would leave money on the table. The union is about making money, not anything else. They would probably sanction Sabathia's agents if he didn't take the biggest contract offerred.
It'll be the biggest upset in the history of free agency if Sabathia returns to the Brewers. There's no other way to put it.
A couple of other free agent nuggets from Cheeseland:
* It appears as if Doug Melvin won't close the door on a Ben Sheets return via free agency. Memo to Doug. Please close the door. I was one of Sheets' biggest supporters, but the last injury was the last straw. You cannot afford to commit millions of dollars to a china doll. Simple as that.
* The Cubs traded for a new closer today. It appears as if Kerry Wood will be on the market. Considering the retirement of Salmon Torres, it might make sense for the Brewers to go after him (they pursued Wood last off-season). Buyer beware. Even though Wood was relatively healthy this year, he's still a big risk. There's no way to guarantee his health for 2009. Wood wants Eric Gagne type money ($10M). We saw how that worked out last season. The risk isn't worth the reward.
* If Sabathia leaves as a free agent, the Brewers, who recently picked up a big money option on his good friend Mike Cameron, will look to trade the strikeout prone centerfielder. Word is the Yankees have interest and would part with youngsters Melki Cabrera and Ian Kennedy. If that deal is on the table I'd do it. Cabrera has tremendous upside and has shown he can play on the big league level. Kennedy might thrive in a city like Milwaukee as opposed to the bright lights and media pressure of New York.
No Buzz About the Bucks
The Bucks hit rock bottom last season after putting up a pathetic 26 wins. So, Senator Herb Kohl cleaned house. In came a new GM, a new coach, some new players. The result up to this point is a team that is 4-5. A team that can beat teams without as much talent as they have (and San Antonio, with Tim Duncan and nothing else because of injury would qualify as being less talented than the Bucks), but can't compete with those that have more talent (in other words, every team they lost to). Still, it's a step up from where they were a year ago, when teams like the 76ers (before they got hot) slapped the Bucks around by nearly 50 points. This current team competes every night, which is something last year's team did not do.
Still, no one in Milwaukee is talking about the team's improvement. The Packers get more attention. The Brewers Hot Stove is getting more attention. The Badgers and their struggles this season get more attention. There's no buzz about the city's pro basketball team.
Do you want proof? Well, last night just a little over 14,000 showed up to the Bradley Center to see the Spurs. Actually, that's not accurate. Fourteen thousand paid for the right to show up, but the building had - maybe - 10,000 in attendance. Granted, the Spurs were 2-4 coming into the game. Granted Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker are out because of injury. But, Tim Duncan is still alive and kicking, and judging by the amount of Spurs jerseys I saw in the crowd last night on television, the Spurs had a good amount of fans in enemy territory.
So, what's going on here? Why is there no love for a Bucks team that is clearly improving (but faces arena issues which has their long term future in Milwaukee in doubt)? Well, there are a few reasons.
Firstly, this team hasn't won since 2001, when they got to Game Seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. It's a moment that Bucks fans still talk about. The team has not come close to getting back to that point. Last year was the low point, with 26 wins. Seven years ago, the Bucks were the hottest ticket in Milwaukee because the Brewers were bad, Marquette was rebuilding, and UWM had not become a big national player. Over the last seven years, roles have changed. The Brewers are where the Bucks used to be. Marquette's now a national power. And UWM has - as far as mid majors are concerned - made more than its share of noise. The Bucks have gone backwards, and may be where the Brewers were in 2001. When you don't win for a while, you lose popularity in the community, and that's what happened with the Bucks.
Then there's the economy. People just don't have the disposable income to spend on the NBA anymore, especially here in Milwaukee where jobs are being cut left and right (and some businesses are leaving for other cities). Add to that the fact the Bucks are now making noise about a new arena (NBA Commissioner David Stern has gotten into it as well, saying Milwaukee needs a new building), and fans just get turned off.
But the biggest reason the Bucks don't generate any buzz is because they don't have a marquee star. Michael Redd, Richard Jefferson, and Andrew Bogut are nice players and nice guys. But, are they on the same level as Kobe, Lebron, and KG? No, not by a long shot. The Bucks don't have that player that you have to go out and see. They haven't had that player for as long as I can remember. Even now, they are still marketing other team's stars (Come see Dwayne Wade and the Miami Heat take on the Bucks!) as opposed to marketing their own.
And considering they don't have the cumulative pieces that Detroit has had over the years (and until the Iverson they didn't have a bona fide superstar on their roster), they are rebuilding. And it's going to take a while before the rebuilding effort comes to a head with a playoff/championship contender. Until then, the Bucks will continue to fly under the radar in Milwaukee.
Still, no one in Milwaukee is talking about the team's improvement. The Packers get more attention. The Brewers Hot Stove is getting more attention. The Badgers and their struggles this season get more attention. There's no buzz about the city's pro basketball team.
Do you want proof? Well, last night just a little over 14,000 showed up to the Bradley Center to see the Spurs. Actually, that's not accurate. Fourteen thousand paid for the right to show up, but the building had - maybe - 10,000 in attendance. Granted, the Spurs were 2-4 coming into the game. Granted Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker are out because of injury. But, Tim Duncan is still alive and kicking, and judging by the amount of Spurs jerseys I saw in the crowd last night on television, the Spurs had a good amount of fans in enemy territory.
So, what's going on here? Why is there no love for a Bucks team that is clearly improving (but faces arena issues which has their long term future in Milwaukee in doubt)? Well, there are a few reasons.
Firstly, this team hasn't won since 2001, when they got to Game Seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. It's a moment that Bucks fans still talk about. The team has not come close to getting back to that point. Last year was the low point, with 26 wins. Seven years ago, the Bucks were the hottest ticket in Milwaukee because the Brewers were bad, Marquette was rebuilding, and UWM had not become a big national player. Over the last seven years, roles have changed. The Brewers are where the Bucks used to be. Marquette's now a national power. And UWM has - as far as mid majors are concerned - made more than its share of noise. The Bucks have gone backwards, and may be where the Brewers were in 2001. When you don't win for a while, you lose popularity in the community, and that's what happened with the Bucks.
Then there's the economy. People just don't have the disposable income to spend on the NBA anymore, especially here in Milwaukee where jobs are being cut left and right (and some businesses are leaving for other cities). Add to that the fact the Bucks are now making noise about a new arena (NBA Commissioner David Stern has gotten into it as well, saying Milwaukee needs a new building), and fans just get turned off.
But the biggest reason the Bucks don't generate any buzz is because they don't have a marquee star. Michael Redd, Richard Jefferson, and Andrew Bogut are nice players and nice guys. But, are they on the same level as Kobe, Lebron, and KG? No, not by a long shot. The Bucks don't have that player that you have to go out and see. They haven't had that player for as long as I can remember. Even now, they are still marketing other team's stars (Come see Dwayne Wade and the Miami Heat take on the Bucks!) as opposed to marketing their own.
And considering they don't have the cumulative pieces that Detroit has had over the years (and until the Iverson they didn't have a bona fide superstar on their roster), they are rebuilding. And it's going to take a while before the rebuilding effort comes to a head with a playoff/championship contender. Until then, the Bucks will continue to fly under the radar in Milwaukee.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Melvin's To Do List Gets Bigger
The Brewers got a double dose of bad news yesterday. As expected, CC Sabathia was not named the NL's Cy Young Award winner (he finished an inexplicable fifth). What was not expected, was the announcement that closer Salomon Torres had decided to retire.
There were rumblings that Torres was not happy being traded by the Pirates a year ago, that he wanted to retire a year ago. But Torres put it off, reported, and his 28 saves while filling in for an injured and ineffective Eric Gagne put the Brewers in position to make their first playoff appearance since 1982.
The Brewers would have picked up his option for next season (which was under four million dollars - cheap by today's standards), but Torres decided now was the time to go home and spend time with his family. No one can get on the guy for doing that. For Torres, it was clearly not about the money.
But his departure leaves the Brewers scrambling. What will they do for a closer? Eric Gagne, Brian Shouse and Guillermo Mota are all free agents. Gagne's no longer a closer. Mota is too inconsistent to be a closer, and Shouse doesn't have the stuff to be a closer.
GM Doug Melvin is already touting Seth McClung as an internal option. I'm not buying. How many contenders go into a season trusting the ninth inning to someone who has never done it before? And how many contenders trust the spot to a guy who never produced before this season. McClung's a nice guy, and he saved the Brewers bacon a few times in 2008, but I'm not making him my closer.
Melvin also says he won't go 'all in' for a free agent like Brian Fuentes. I'm not buying that one either. Firstly, Melvin tried very hard to acquire Fuentes at the trading deadline. If the money paid to CC Sabathia, Ben Sheets, Gagne, Mota, and Mike Cameron (who might be moved if CC winds up signing somewhere else) comes off the books, Melvin will have a lot of money to play with. It would only make sense for him to pursue Fuentes and learn from the mistake of a year ago, when Francisco Cordero left Milwaukee for the Reds over a measley $4M.
Then again, Melvin might have someone else in mind. Someone no one is thinking about. Someone like Danny Kolb, or Eric Gagne, or even Torres, who was not expected to close when the Brewers got him. Melvin has shown the ability to find a closer where there wasn't one before. He probably thinks he can do it again.
But, it's a headache the GM doesn't need. He may have to rebuild his rotation once CC and Sheets take the money and run. We know he needs to bolster the front end of the bullpen. Then there are decisions to be made at third base, Rickie Weeks, and with phenom Alcides Escobar.
Having to go and get a closer was not something Melvin wanted to deal with.
There were rumblings that Torres was not happy being traded by the Pirates a year ago, that he wanted to retire a year ago. But Torres put it off, reported, and his 28 saves while filling in for an injured and ineffective Eric Gagne put the Brewers in position to make their first playoff appearance since 1982.
The Brewers would have picked up his option for next season (which was under four million dollars - cheap by today's standards), but Torres decided now was the time to go home and spend time with his family. No one can get on the guy for doing that. For Torres, it was clearly not about the money.
But his departure leaves the Brewers scrambling. What will they do for a closer? Eric Gagne, Brian Shouse and Guillermo Mota are all free agents. Gagne's no longer a closer. Mota is too inconsistent to be a closer, and Shouse doesn't have the stuff to be a closer.
GM Doug Melvin is already touting Seth McClung as an internal option. I'm not buying. How many contenders go into a season trusting the ninth inning to someone who has never done it before? And how many contenders trust the spot to a guy who never produced before this season. McClung's a nice guy, and he saved the Brewers bacon a few times in 2008, but I'm not making him my closer.
Melvin also says he won't go 'all in' for a free agent like Brian Fuentes. I'm not buying that one either. Firstly, Melvin tried very hard to acquire Fuentes at the trading deadline. If the money paid to CC Sabathia, Ben Sheets, Gagne, Mota, and Mike Cameron (who might be moved if CC winds up signing somewhere else) comes off the books, Melvin will have a lot of money to play with. It would only make sense for him to pursue Fuentes and learn from the mistake of a year ago, when Francisco Cordero left Milwaukee for the Reds over a measley $4M.
Then again, Melvin might have someone else in mind. Someone no one is thinking about. Someone like Danny Kolb, or Eric Gagne, or even Torres, who was not expected to close when the Brewers got him. Melvin has shown the ability to find a closer where there wasn't one before. He probably thinks he can do it again.
But, it's a headache the GM doesn't need. He may have to rebuild his rotation once CC and Sheets take the money and run. We know he needs to bolster the front end of the bullpen. Then there are decisions to be made at third base, Rickie Weeks, and with phenom Alcides Escobar.
Having to go and get a closer was not something Melvin wanted to deal with.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
CC deserves Cy
Major League Baseball will announce the NL Cy Young Award winner this afternoon. The pitcher who deserves it will not win it.
Brad Lidge is considered a good candidate to win the award since he was perfect in save opportunities and helped Philadelphia win their first World Series since 1980. But, closers very rarely win the award, so Lidge probably won't get it.
San Francisco's Tim Lincecum will probably take home the hardware, and the numbers he posted this past season certainly are Cy stuff. Lincecum went 18-5 on an awful Giants team with an ERA of 2.62. He also struck out 265 in 227 innings.
It'll be nice for Lincecum to get the award, to make something of an awful season by the Bay. You can't pooh-pooh Lidge's credentials either, considering what he did this past season and where he was a year ago at this time.
But, neither pitcher would be who I would have voted for. And the guy I would have voted for would have been CC Sabathia.
In fact, you could make the case that Sabathia would have been a lock for the Cy had the Brewers been able to get out of the first round of the playoffs. But they didn't, and enough time has passed that voters probably don't remember what Sabathia meant to his organization and his city.
Sabathia was a combined 17-10 with an ERA of 2.70. He also struck out 251 batters. These numbers are worthy of NL Cy consideration, even more so when you look and see that Sabathia was 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA and 128 K's for the Brewers.
The you look and see that Sabathia made his last four starts on just three days rest. Wins over the Pirates and Cubs in the final week of the season propelled the Brewers to their first playoff spot in twenty-six years. Sure, he didn't look great in the start against Philly in the Division Series, but he needs to be given credit for what he did in helping the Brewers get there.
Then there's Lincecum, whose team was out of the race before the season began. The Giants wound up 72-90. They finished in fourth with Lincecum. They would have finished in fourth without Lincecum (yes, the Padres were that bad).
That's the difference between Sabathia and Lincecum. The Brewers don't get to the playoffs without Sabathia. The Giants would've finished exactly where they finished without Lincecum. To me, it's an easy choice.
There will be some that will say Sabathia only spent a half a season with the Brewers, so he shouldn't get the award. Well, Ryan Howard was having a bad season until September, when he hit .352 with 11 HR's and 32 RBI. Howard hit .251 for the season, but his 48 Homers and 146 RBI led all of Major League Baseball. No one will be surprised if (actually when) Howard is named NL MVP for the second time in his career.
If Howard can win an MVP based on a month's work, then surely CC's four months of work for the Brewers are deserving of the NL Cy Young Award, right?
Brad Lidge is considered a good candidate to win the award since he was perfect in save opportunities and helped Philadelphia win their first World Series since 1980. But, closers very rarely win the award, so Lidge probably won't get it.
San Francisco's Tim Lincecum will probably take home the hardware, and the numbers he posted this past season certainly are Cy stuff. Lincecum went 18-5 on an awful Giants team with an ERA of 2.62. He also struck out 265 in 227 innings.
It'll be nice for Lincecum to get the award, to make something of an awful season by the Bay. You can't pooh-pooh Lidge's credentials either, considering what he did this past season and where he was a year ago at this time.
But, neither pitcher would be who I would have voted for. And the guy I would have voted for would have been CC Sabathia.
In fact, you could make the case that Sabathia would have been a lock for the Cy had the Brewers been able to get out of the first round of the playoffs. But they didn't, and enough time has passed that voters probably don't remember what Sabathia meant to his organization and his city.
Sabathia was a combined 17-10 with an ERA of 2.70. He also struck out 251 batters. These numbers are worthy of NL Cy consideration, even more so when you look and see that Sabathia was 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA and 128 K's for the Brewers.
The you look and see that Sabathia made his last four starts on just three days rest. Wins over the Pirates and Cubs in the final week of the season propelled the Brewers to their first playoff spot in twenty-six years. Sure, he didn't look great in the start against Philly in the Division Series, but he needs to be given credit for what he did in helping the Brewers get there.
Then there's Lincecum, whose team was out of the race before the season began. The Giants wound up 72-90. They finished in fourth with Lincecum. They would have finished in fourth without Lincecum (yes, the Padres were that bad).
That's the difference between Sabathia and Lincecum. The Brewers don't get to the playoffs without Sabathia. The Giants would've finished exactly where they finished without Lincecum. To me, it's an easy choice.
There will be some that will say Sabathia only spent a half a season with the Brewers, so he shouldn't get the award. Well, Ryan Howard was having a bad season until September, when he hit .352 with 11 HR's and 32 RBI. Howard hit .251 for the season, but his 48 Homers and 146 RBI led all of Major League Baseball. No one will be surprised if (actually when) Howard is named NL MVP for the second time in his career.
If Howard can win an MVP based on a month's work, then surely CC's four months of work for the Brewers are deserving of the NL Cy Young Award, right?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Hawk Key to Surviving Barnett Injury
The news from Green Bay wasn't good earlier this afternoon. Linebacker Nick Barnett, who left yesterday's loss to the Vikings with a knee injury is done for the year with ligament damage. Which ligament is it? Well, we don't know because Mike McCarthy is guarding it like it's a state secret. All we know is that Barnett will have surgery and that he is done for the season.
Desmond Bishop filled in for Barnett once he left yesterday. The former Cal linebacker had his good moments and his bad moments. The Packers say they have confidence in Bishop's ability to man the 'Mike' LB spot. If you ask me, I'll tell you a different story.
Bishop's a nice guy, and a decent player, but he's also a guy who battled Abdul Hodge for the final spot in the linebacking corps this past summer. This is not a guy that I have the most confidence in.
It's time for the Packers to think outside the box just a little bit. Outside the box thinking means it's time to get creative (something Packer coaches seem to have problems with at times). Creative would be to move A.J. Hawk inside, and move Brandon Chillar into the spot that Hawk vacates.
Hawk has not been the playmaker that a lot of people thought he would be when he was drafted in 2006. He hasn't been bad, he just hasn't been what he was at Ohio State. A lot of scouts think he's more of a 'Mike' linebacker anyway, so this would give the Packers a chance to see if he can actually play there.
Moving Chillar into one of the outside spots gives the Packers some much needed speed in the middle of the field. Chillar, the only free agent that the Packers signed this past off-season, is the only player who has shown the ability to drop back into coverage without looking like he had no idea what he was doing.
Moving Hawk inside and Chillar outside might also free Brady Poppinga up to do the one thing he does best. Rush the passer (in other words, blitz, which might be a foreign concept to Packers Defensive Co-ordinator Bob Sanders). Turning Poppinga loose would help what has been a pretty weak pass rush (at least Green Bay would not have to depend on rookies like Jeremy Thompson to get to the opposing quarterback).
Besides, if you look at the remaining schedule, you see teams that can cause the Packers some problems. The Bears can run the ball, and if Kyle Orton plays, well let's just say he's a bit better than Rex (the Wonderdog) Grossman. The Saints can score on anyone. The Panthers have two backs that can gash the Packer defense, and December features matchups against Jacksonville and a rematch with the Bears.
With Barnett out, it makes sense to put your best three remaining linebackers out there as much as possible. To me, that means Hawk, Chillar and Poppinga. It does not mean Desmond Bishop.
Then again, I represent outside the box thinking (change). We'll see if the Packers opt for change or conservative thinking.
Desmond Bishop filled in for Barnett once he left yesterday. The former Cal linebacker had his good moments and his bad moments. The Packers say they have confidence in Bishop's ability to man the 'Mike' LB spot. If you ask me, I'll tell you a different story.
Bishop's a nice guy, and a decent player, but he's also a guy who battled Abdul Hodge for the final spot in the linebacking corps this past summer. This is not a guy that I have the most confidence in.
It's time for the Packers to think outside the box just a little bit. Outside the box thinking means it's time to get creative (something Packer coaches seem to have problems with at times). Creative would be to move A.J. Hawk inside, and move Brandon Chillar into the spot that Hawk vacates.
Hawk has not been the playmaker that a lot of people thought he would be when he was drafted in 2006. He hasn't been bad, he just hasn't been what he was at Ohio State. A lot of scouts think he's more of a 'Mike' linebacker anyway, so this would give the Packers a chance to see if he can actually play there.
Moving Chillar into one of the outside spots gives the Packers some much needed speed in the middle of the field. Chillar, the only free agent that the Packers signed this past off-season, is the only player who has shown the ability to drop back into coverage without looking like he had no idea what he was doing.
Moving Hawk inside and Chillar outside might also free Brady Poppinga up to do the one thing he does best. Rush the passer (in other words, blitz, which might be a foreign concept to Packers Defensive Co-ordinator Bob Sanders). Turning Poppinga loose would help what has been a pretty weak pass rush (at least Green Bay would not have to depend on rookies like Jeremy Thompson to get to the opposing quarterback).
Besides, if you look at the remaining schedule, you see teams that can cause the Packers some problems. The Bears can run the ball, and if Kyle Orton plays, well let's just say he's a bit better than Rex (the Wonderdog) Grossman. The Saints can score on anyone. The Panthers have two backs that can gash the Packer defense, and December features matchups against Jacksonville and a rematch with the Bears.
With Barnett out, it makes sense to put your best three remaining linebackers out there as much as possible. To me, that means Hawk, Chillar and Poppinga. It does not mean Desmond Bishop.
Then again, I represent outside the box thinking (change). We'll see if the Packers opt for change or conservative thinking.
Don't Blame Rodgers, He Had Help!
I knew it would happen. I knew as soon as I turned on the various post game shows after Green Bay lost 28-27 to the Vikings I would hear callers shredding QB Aaron Rodgers. Among the comments I heard were:
* 'Why did the Packers give him all that money? He's done nothing since signing the deal!'
* 'They wouldn't have lost that game if Brett were still the QB!'
* 'He's not a winner!'
You see, there are two kinds of Packer fans. The first kind follows the team and sees things as part of the bigger picture. The other type is the Brett-backer. The guy who thinks Favre can do no wrong. Oh, he still likes the Packers, but part of him likes to see the team lose so he can rip Rodgers and GM Ted Thompson while praising Mr. Favre. Yesterday's loss to the Vikings was the chance for that group of Packer fans to call and gloat.
I will admit that they aren't completely wrong. Rodgers, who went 15-26 for 142 yards with no touchdowns and no interceptions, had his first truly bad game of the season. But he wasn't alone. If you want to find out who really was at fault for the 28-27 loss, consider the following:
1. Adrian Peterson ran for 192 yards and the game winning touchdown. The Packer run defense was absolutely gashed. Just like they were a week ago against Tennessee. Why have they been so bad against the run? Because they have no depth at the defensive tackle spots and because linebackers Nick Barnett (up until his injury) and A.J. Hawk have underperformed this year.
2. Penalties. The Packers are the most penalized team in the NFL. They were flagged ten times yesterday for 80 yards. They have lost nearly 700 yards because of penalties this year. That's more yards than Ryan Grant has rushed for. That's coaching.
3. Speaking of coaching. Mike McCarthy's playcalling left a lot to be desired yesterday. Ryan Grant might have gained 76 yards yesterday but half of those yards came on two carries. McCarthy kept sending Grant into the middle of the line (in other words, into the waiting arms of the Williams boys), as opposed to the way he attacked them a year ago (two fullbacks, running outside the tackle box). We only saw that formation a couple of times yesterday. It still worked. So, why didn't McCarthy use that formation and that strategy more? It would have helped his quarterback a lot.
4. Now to Rodgers. Yes he played badly yesterday. But the Vikings played a big role in that. How many times did he get sacked (four, if you're scoring at home)? He was also knocked down numerous times. Rodgers didn't have time to do anything, and still, his 19 yard completion to Donald Driver on the first play of the final drive was the only reason Mason Crosby was able to try that 52 yard field goal in the first place (the other three plays on the drive went for a total of six yards).
Here's the point. If you want to blame Rodgers, fine. But, he wasn't the only reason this team lost yesterday. It was a team loss.
Now that we have that straight, bring on the Bears!
* 'Why did the Packers give him all that money? He's done nothing since signing the deal!'
* 'They wouldn't have lost that game if Brett were still the QB!'
* 'He's not a winner!'
You see, there are two kinds of Packer fans. The first kind follows the team and sees things as part of the bigger picture. The other type is the Brett-backer. The guy who thinks Favre can do no wrong. Oh, he still likes the Packers, but part of him likes to see the team lose so he can rip Rodgers and GM Ted Thompson while praising Mr. Favre. Yesterday's loss to the Vikings was the chance for that group of Packer fans to call and gloat.
I will admit that they aren't completely wrong. Rodgers, who went 15-26 for 142 yards with no touchdowns and no interceptions, had his first truly bad game of the season. But he wasn't alone. If you want to find out who really was at fault for the 28-27 loss, consider the following:
1. Adrian Peterson ran for 192 yards and the game winning touchdown. The Packer run defense was absolutely gashed. Just like they were a week ago against Tennessee. Why have they been so bad against the run? Because they have no depth at the defensive tackle spots and because linebackers Nick Barnett (up until his injury) and A.J. Hawk have underperformed this year.
2. Penalties. The Packers are the most penalized team in the NFL. They were flagged ten times yesterday for 80 yards. They have lost nearly 700 yards because of penalties this year. That's more yards than Ryan Grant has rushed for. That's coaching.
3. Speaking of coaching. Mike McCarthy's playcalling left a lot to be desired yesterday. Ryan Grant might have gained 76 yards yesterday but half of those yards came on two carries. McCarthy kept sending Grant into the middle of the line (in other words, into the waiting arms of the Williams boys), as opposed to the way he attacked them a year ago (two fullbacks, running outside the tackle box). We only saw that formation a couple of times yesterday. It still worked. So, why didn't McCarthy use that formation and that strategy more? It would have helped his quarterback a lot.
4. Now to Rodgers. Yes he played badly yesterday. But the Vikings played a big role in that. How many times did he get sacked (four, if you're scoring at home)? He was also knocked down numerous times. Rodgers didn't have time to do anything, and still, his 19 yard completion to Donald Driver on the first play of the final drive was the only reason Mason Crosby was able to try that 52 yard field goal in the first place (the other three plays on the drive went for a total of six yards).
Here's the point. If you want to blame Rodgers, fine. But, he wasn't the only reason this team lost yesterday. It was a team loss.
Now that we have that straight, bring on the Bears!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sports No Longer Recession Proof
I remember being at Miller park on March 29th of this year, standing behind home plate, talking with Brewers owner Mark Attanasio. Of course, the subject turned to the economy. I remember Attanasio saying to me that baseball, and all sports, are pretty much recession proof.
Well, as we are smack dab in the middle of a recession, maybe the deepest one in years, I wonder if Attanasio feels the same now as he did on March 29th. If he went to the Bradley Center last night to watch the Bucks and Phoenix Suns, he'd probably change his mind.
The Bucks were 3-3 heading into the game, looking like John Hammond's rebuilding project was going well. The Suns have an upper echelon team, with future Hall of Famers like Shaquille O'Neal and Steve Nash, a beast of a young mkan in Amare Stooudemire, and one of the classiest acts in sports in Grant Hill. This was a game I wanted to see. So, thanks to a buddy of mine, I was able to score a pair of tickets (in the interest of full disclosure, he gave them to me, rather than sell them to me).
Imagine my surprise, my utter shock, when I walked into the BC on a Saturday night and noticed the building was not nearly as full as I expected it to be. I know the Bucks don't draw during the week, but they were always able to draw on weekends, especially Saturday nights, and especially against a marquee attraction like the Suns.
I'm not blaming the Bucks here. They are doing everything they can to try and turn it around on the court. Off the court, they are offering fans the chance to purchase tickets that would normally cost between $25 and $30 for $10 a pop. and still, there were plenty of empty seats. I know the boxscore said that nearly 18,000 showed up but that's well below capacity, and accounts only for tickets sold, not actual bodies in the seats. How did this happen?
I'll tell you how. The economy. While many of us are looking for a new job, wondering how we're going to make ends meet, the price of pro sports keeps going up and up and up. Again, the Bucks are doing their best, but they aren't necessarily getting a lot of help.
For instance, the main garage across the street from the Bradley Center, which three years ago cost just ten bucks to park your car in while you went to the game, now costs twenty dollars. The parking lot across the street from that garage is now twenty-five bucks. The lot which was a couple of blocks away from the BC, which you didn't mind the walk knowing you were saving a few bucks, now costs fifteen bucks. In other words, it's not the bargain it used to be.
Concessions (food and souvenirs) are the other big problems. While the team holds the line on ticket prices as best they can, prices for hats, shirts, etc. continue to go up. The BC keeps on raising the price for food and drinks (I bought a bottle of water for $3.50 because it was cheaper than buying a beer).
Keep in mind that's just for two of us. What if you have a family of four? If you paid for the tickets I had last night, you dropped $244 just to get into the building. Now, add on another $20 to park, and maybe another $50 in food and drink, and that comes to $314! Who has that kind of disposable income these days?
That's why you had so many empty seats last night. That's why teams like the Bucks struggle at the gate.
What's the answer? It seems simple, right? Lower prices, make it more affordable for fans. The Bucks tried to do that, to an extent. It hasn't helped because others still have their hands out saying 'pay up.'
The economy that many in sports said wouldn't affect business, has reared its head. Hang on, this could wind up being a very bumpy ride.
Well, as we are smack dab in the middle of a recession, maybe the deepest one in years, I wonder if Attanasio feels the same now as he did on March 29th. If he went to the Bradley Center last night to watch the Bucks and Phoenix Suns, he'd probably change his mind.
The Bucks were 3-3 heading into the game, looking like John Hammond's rebuilding project was going well. The Suns have an upper echelon team, with future Hall of Famers like Shaquille O'Neal and Steve Nash, a beast of a young mkan in Amare Stooudemire, and one of the classiest acts in sports in Grant Hill. This was a game I wanted to see. So, thanks to a buddy of mine, I was able to score a pair of tickets (in the interest of full disclosure, he gave them to me, rather than sell them to me).
Imagine my surprise, my utter shock, when I walked into the BC on a Saturday night and noticed the building was not nearly as full as I expected it to be. I know the Bucks don't draw during the week, but they were always able to draw on weekends, especially Saturday nights, and especially against a marquee attraction like the Suns.
I'm not blaming the Bucks here. They are doing everything they can to try and turn it around on the court. Off the court, they are offering fans the chance to purchase tickets that would normally cost between $25 and $30 for $10 a pop. and still, there were plenty of empty seats. I know the boxscore said that nearly 18,000 showed up but that's well below capacity, and accounts only for tickets sold, not actual bodies in the seats. How did this happen?
I'll tell you how. The economy. While many of us are looking for a new job, wondering how we're going to make ends meet, the price of pro sports keeps going up and up and up. Again, the Bucks are doing their best, but they aren't necessarily getting a lot of help.
For instance, the main garage across the street from the Bradley Center, which three years ago cost just ten bucks to park your car in while you went to the game, now costs twenty dollars. The parking lot across the street from that garage is now twenty-five bucks. The lot which was a couple of blocks away from the BC, which you didn't mind the walk knowing you were saving a few bucks, now costs fifteen bucks. In other words, it's not the bargain it used to be.
Concessions (food and souvenirs) are the other big problems. While the team holds the line on ticket prices as best they can, prices for hats, shirts, etc. continue to go up. The BC keeps on raising the price for food and drinks (I bought a bottle of water for $3.50 because it was cheaper than buying a beer).
Keep in mind that's just for two of us. What if you have a family of four? If you paid for the tickets I had last night, you dropped $244 just to get into the building. Now, add on another $20 to park, and maybe another $50 in food and drink, and that comes to $314! Who has that kind of disposable income these days?
That's why you had so many empty seats last night. That's why teams like the Bucks struggle at the gate.
What's the answer? It seems simple, right? Lower prices, make it more affordable for fans. The Bucks tried to do that, to an extent. It hasn't helped because others still have their hands out saying 'pay up.'
The economy that many in sports said wouldn't affect business, has reared its head. Hang on, this could wind up being a very bumpy ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
