I believe Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest individual athlete in the history of American team sports--and it's not even close.
Let's look at some of his most amusing numbers. These are taken from various sources, such as the back of a '96 Topps Stars card, NBA at 50 edited by Mark Vancil, http://www.basketball-reference.com, Who's Better Who's Best in Basketball? by Elliot Kalb, and whatever is sitting around in my memory from who knows where.
1. In his entire career, he never once fouled out of a game.
Think about that. Think about the body control such a feat requires, particularly for a center.
2. In one season, he averaged 48.5 minutes per game.
You have to look at that number and think about it for a second. Seriously. A legitimate argument could be made that Wilt has more stamina than any athlete on record. He also has the NBA record for career minutes per game (45.8). You could make the argument that Wilt's rebounding and scoring numbers are inflated because he played in a run-and-gun era that had way more team shots attempted per game. But that also means that Wilt averaged more than a complete game during the run-and-gun era, and he set the record for minutes-per-game in a run-and-gun era. And according to NBA at 50, Wilt also had 47 consecutive COMPLETE GAMES.
3. He's the only NBA player to have led the league in points/game, rebounds/game, and assists/game.
Is this an argument for Wilt as the most versatile basketball player ever?
4. He has the record for points in a game (100) and points per game in a season (50.4).
5. He has the record for rebounds in a game (55), rebounds per game in a season (27.2), and career rebounds per game (22.9).
That 55 came against Russell. He also has the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th highest rebounding average seasons (though I actually believe Dennis Rodman is the greatest rebounder ever).
6. He has the highest points per game in a season (50.4), and the second (44.8), and the third (38.4).
The next highest is Elgin Baylor, who averaged 38.3 in 48 games. That means the next best scorer to Wilt (who also played in the same run-and-gun era) has a career high scoring average that is 76% of Wilt's career high, but that Wilt actually has two other seasons better than that. Michael Jordan's highest scoring average in a season was 37.1, which Wilt beat in his rookie year (37.6). Wilt also has more 50 point games than anybody (122 to Jordan's 37, and Wilt once had 45 in one season), 60 pt. games (32-4), and 70 pt. games (6-1).
When I look at these numbers, I cannot help but think he is the greatest basketball player ever. Certainly arguments can be made for Bill Russell (you can't argue with winning, but 11 championships is a team achievement), Jordan (I think the greatest non-center), Magic, Bird (unquestionably the greatest forward), and Kareem (a ridiculous career when you take a hard look at it: 6 MVPs, 6 championships, more points than anybody ever). Maybe you could make an argument for Oscar Robertson, to (he would compete with Magic as the greatest all-around guard).
But Wilt's records in his sport are so far superior to any #2 in his sport, and his ridiculous feats of athleticism and stamina make him the greatest in any sport.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
It's Fantasy Football Draft Season!!!
Very few things get the three exclamation points from me. At most, I usually give a sarcastic single exclamation point for things that aren't really exciting. But let me tell you--fantasy football draft season deserves three exclamation points!!!
I like to compile my own rankings with statistics from various internet sources. So far I've had trouble actually doing the kicker and defense rankings. I figure it's in kickers and defense that FFB mags make their money. Most of us can figure out which skill position players to draft, even the obscure late-rounders. But good fantasy kickers and defenses are often not those that you'd think. But I am ready to tackle my rankings.
I'm also ready to make outrageous claims about who I'll be drafting (my poor finish last season netted me the #2 pick this season--so far, I've claimed I'll be drafting a Viking QB with that pick. I've got a little over two months to space out the rest of my ridiculous claims).
Once my rankings are done, all that's left is to try to glean information from the other acquaintances in the fantasy league (they're actually my friends, but you don't want to be too close during this subterfuge period) beforehand, and try to fake people out with crazy claims that sound half-way reasonable so that people might actually think they're true ("I'm really high on David Givens. I like the potential of what he could do in Norm Chow's offense"). I also try to mix in some real claims with the ridiculous ones so that people will think that the real claims are mixed in with the ridiculous ("I like Aaron Brooks, Peyton Manning, and Charlie Frye at QB this year"), then you have to confuse people further, wondering if you were trying to give truths as lies mixed in lies ("At least one Jets' WR has to step up." "I can't wait to find out who is starting at RB for the Colts, because he'll put up the same numbers as Edge." "What do you think of Byron Leftwich as a starting QB option?")
I'm glad the months preceding the Fantasy Football Draft include little else to focus on--it's a sports season in and of itself that requires full dedication and concentration. That's what my mind is on now. It's the best time of the year.
(By the way, I figure this is the year that T.J. Duckett really steps up into a dominant goal-line back. I'm also excited about what Donte Stallworth can do with Drew Brees throwing to him. I'm not sure Larry Johnson can live up to expectations--there's a new offensive system, Richardson is gone, and that line is getting old.)
In the past, I've been suckered into drafting Viking players too high (or paying too much when we do the auction). During Randy Moss's golden years, that didn't hurt me. Last year, it crashed bigtime. I leave it to the rubes to wonder whether I'll stick with the Vikes in FFB or avoid them until the later rounds.
(Though it will be hard to avoid Travis Taylor--I think he's the WR who will benefit from Childress's offense the most).
I like to compile my own rankings with statistics from various internet sources. So far I've had trouble actually doing the kicker and defense rankings. I figure it's in kickers and defense that FFB mags make their money. Most of us can figure out which skill position players to draft, even the obscure late-rounders. But good fantasy kickers and defenses are often not those that you'd think. But I am ready to tackle my rankings.
I'm also ready to make outrageous claims about who I'll be drafting (my poor finish last season netted me the #2 pick this season--so far, I've claimed I'll be drafting a Viking QB with that pick. I've got a little over two months to space out the rest of my ridiculous claims).
Once my rankings are done, all that's left is to try to glean information from the other acquaintances in the fantasy league (they're actually my friends, but you don't want to be too close during this subterfuge period) beforehand, and try to fake people out with crazy claims that sound half-way reasonable so that people might actually think they're true ("I'm really high on David Givens. I like the potential of what he could do in Norm Chow's offense"). I also try to mix in some real claims with the ridiculous ones so that people will think that the real claims are mixed in with the ridiculous ("I like Aaron Brooks, Peyton Manning, and Charlie Frye at QB this year"), then you have to confuse people further, wondering if you were trying to give truths as lies mixed in lies ("At least one Jets' WR has to step up." "I can't wait to find out who is starting at RB for the Colts, because he'll put up the same numbers as Edge." "What do you think of Byron Leftwich as a starting QB option?")
I'm glad the months preceding the Fantasy Football Draft include little else to focus on--it's a sports season in and of itself that requires full dedication and concentration. That's what my mind is on now. It's the best time of the year.
(By the way, I figure this is the year that T.J. Duckett really steps up into a dominant goal-line back. I'm also excited about what Donte Stallworth can do with Drew Brees throwing to him. I'm not sure Larry Johnson can live up to expectations--there's a new offensive system, Richardson is gone, and that line is getting old.)
In the past, I've been suckered into drafting Viking players too high (or paying too much when we do the auction). During Randy Moss's golden years, that didn't hurt me. Last year, it crashed bigtime. I leave it to the rubes to wonder whether I'll stick with the Vikes in FFB or avoid them until the later rounds.
(Though it will be hard to avoid Travis Taylor--I think he's the WR who will benefit from Childress's offense the most).
How do I love Maury? Let me count the ways.
Allow me to diverge from my usual remarks on sports to take on a different subject. As readers here know, my summer is technology depraved. I can check the internet once a week, only the upstairs of the house is air-conditioned, and the antenna picks up 9 channels (with various degrees of clarity). Recently I actually instinctively pressed "22" on the remote expecting to see ESPN only to get the white noise.
This means I have more time for activities like reading and working around the house. But it also means another thing:
Maury.
There's nothing to distract me from the beauty that is Maury.
Where would I be without him? How many ways can I express my appreciation for his stance of moral superiority as he exploits promiscuous women trying to find the biological source of their children, or the promiscuous teenage girls and their clearly traumatized mothers? Why, I wonder as I sit transfixed in front of the TV with Maury's show, am I watching? And why, dear God, am I laughing?
Yesterday Maury brought some women on for paternity testing who had been on the show multiple times. The most hilarious part was when they began with a montage of the previous episodes--over and over again, men jump up with joy while the women react in exactly the same way. One women went straight to the ground 4-5 times in a row in the exact same limp position. Every other woman stormed "backstage." All the while, Maury somehow fascilitated this madness with stern judgment, yet kindly understanding.
The other day a bunch of teenage girls came out and acted like they were doing a parody of Cartman's "Whatever! I do what I want!" Maury brings them out dressed like hookers to berate them in front of their crying mothers while the girls talk about how badly they want to have babies and they do what they want. The strange thing is, when they bring the next girl out, the other girls are just sitting there next to their mothers watching dumbly. At the end, instead of boot camp, an ex-prostitute came to lecture them. Apparently, if they keep having sex, they'll be living in boxes.
Would I take any time to watch Maury if I had internet? No. Would I take more than a few minutes to watch Maury if I had cable? No. Should I even be taking any time to watch it now? No. Actually, I'm embarrassed to watch the show with the windows open, lest my new neighbors or the mailman here it and judge me. Yet the richness and color of Maury continues to draw me back.
I don't have classes to teach, I don't have football to watch, so I barely even feel guilty for setting myself down for the glory and wonder that is Maury.
This means I have more time for activities like reading and working around the house. But it also means another thing:
Maury.
There's nothing to distract me from the beauty that is Maury.
Where would I be without him? How many ways can I express my appreciation for his stance of moral superiority as he exploits promiscuous women trying to find the biological source of their children, or the promiscuous teenage girls and their clearly traumatized mothers? Why, I wonder as I sit transfixed in front of the TV with Maury's show, am I watching? And why, dear God, am I laughing?
Yesterday Maury brought some women on for paternity testing who had been on the show multiple times. The most hilarious part was when they began with a montage of the previous episodes--over and over again, men jump up with joy while the women react in exactly the same way. One women went straight to the ground 4-5 times in a row in the exact same limp position. Every other woman stormed "backstage." All the while, Maury somehow fascilitated this madness with stern judgment, yet kindly understanding.
The other day a bunch of teenage girls came out and acted like they were doing a parody of Cartman's "Whatever! I do what I want!" Maury brings them out dressed like hookers to berate them in front of their crying mothers while the girls talk about how badly they want to have babies and they do what they want. The strange thing is, when they bring the next girl out, the other girls are just sitting there next to their mothers watching dumbly. At the end, instead of boot camp, an ex-prostitute came to lecture them. Apparently, if they keep having sex, they'll be living in boxes.
Would I take any time to watch Maury if I had internet? No. Would I take more than a few minutes to watch Maury if I had cable? No. Should I even be taking any time to watch it now? No. Actually, I'm embarrassed to watch the show with the windows open, lest my new neighbors or the mailman here it and judge me. Yet the richness and color of Maury continues to draw me back.
I don't have classes to teach, I don't have football to watch, so I barely even feel guilty for setting myself down for the glory and wonder that is Maury.
Steve Van Buren (and rants about NFL history)
When people discuss the all-time great RBs, usually there's Jim Brown, then a bunch of players from the 1970s and later. I'd like to add a player to the conversation: Steve Van Buren.
Just look at his numbers. In a much different era, he won rushing titles, cracked 1,000 twice, had a career 4.4 average (including a season of 5.8). He was the best offensive player on an Eagles team that won two championships. In one of those championship games, he rushed for 90+ yards and a TD. In the other, he rushed for 196 yards.
By the way, check out the Eagles' playoff record in 1947, 1948, and 1949. They played 4 playoff games and pitched 3 shutouts. The 1949 Eagles could make an argument for being one of the all-time great teams.
However, in discussions of all-time greatness, a lot of commentators refuse to go back that far. There are different checkpoints for different people: some go back to the first Super Bowl, or to Lombardi's Packers, some go back to the 1958 NFL Championship game, some go back to Otto Graham and the Browns. But you don't hear of too many players from the '20s, '30s, and '40s talked about in all-time great discussions. They get some credit, but it's talked about as if it wasn't even the same sport or league. However, the '30s and '40s featured two of the true all-time great QBs (Sammy Baugh and Sid Luckman) and a legitimate contender for all-time greatest WR (Don Hutson). It's hard to talk about people who we certainly didn't see play, and who clearly played in a league with different style and rules than the game we know and love today. But when we have discussions of the all-time great players at different positions, let's not pretend that pro football started with Johnny U and Jim Brown.
Just look at his numbers. In a much different era, he won rushing titles, cracked 1,000 twice, had a career 4.4 average (including a season of 5.8). He was the best offensive player on an Eagles team that won two championships. In one of those championship games, he rushed for 90+ yards and a TD. In the other, he rushed for 196 yards.
By the way, check out the Eagles' playoff record in 1947, 1948, and 1949. They played 4 playoff games and pitched 3 shutouts. The 1949 Eagles could make an argument for being one of the all-time great teams.
However, in discussions of all-time greatness, a lot of commentators refuse to go back that far. There are different checkpoints for different people: some go back to the first Super Bowl, or to Lombardi's Packers, some go back to the 1958 NFL Championship game, some go back to Otto Graham and the Browns. But you don't hear of too many players from the '20s, '30s, and '40s talked about in all-time great discussions. They get some credit, but it's talked about as if it wasn't even the same sport or league. However, the '30s and '40s featured two of the true all-time great QBs (Sammy Baugh and Sid Luckman) and a legitimate contender for all-time greatest WR (Don Hutson). It's hard to talk about people who we certainly didn't see play, and who clearly played in a league with different style and rules than the game we know and love today. But when we have discussions of the all-time great players at different positions, let's not pretend that pro football started with Johnny U and Jim Brown.
My favorite NBA reactions to "bad" calls
The wide-eyed shock
The player looks about with gigantic eyes, in utter shock, as if in total disbelief that anybody could make such an outrageous call. Sometimes the player adds a little smirk. Worst culprit: Tim Duncan
The clown
The player just laughs or smiles or smirks, as if to say that a given call is so ridiculous that is is funny. The call brings humor, but is so stupid one cannot even attempt to dispute it. Worst culprit: Rasheed Wallace
The wave away
Different players and coaches use halfway variations of this. My favorite is when the coach raises both hands above his head, bends the elbows, and thrusts his forearms out quickly while waving his hands. It is as if to say, "take that garbage back! I don't want anything to do with that ridiculousness!" Worse culprit: coaches
The player looks about with gigantic eyes, in utter shock, as if in total disbelief that anybody could make such an outrageous call. Sometimes the player adds a little smirk. Worst culprit: Tim Duncan
The clown
The player just laughs or smiles or smirks, as if to say that a given call is so ridiculous that is is funny. The call brings humor, but is so stupid one cannot even attempt to dispute it. Worst culprit: Rasheed Wallace
The wave away
Different players and coaches use halfway variations of this. My favorite is when the coach raises both hands above his head, bends the elbows, and thrusts his forearms out quickly while waving his hands. It is as if to say, "take that garbage back! I don't want anything to do with that ridiculousness!" Worse culprit: coaches
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The further adventures of a technology-deprived sports fan
No internet, no cable, no idea about anything.
This is happening at the right time of the year. The NBA Finals will be on ABC, so I can watch all those games. Since I don't watch baseball, I don't really NEED to see anything in the summer. And then autumn comes, where even with the 9 channels I get, I should be able to watch 3-4 NFL games a week (and in autumn it's back to school and back to office internet access too).
I have not been able to see a single NBA highlight since I quit watching the Pistons-Cavs in the 4th quarter on Sunday. I keep hearing what happened the night before on the next day's radio shows, and have been able to piece events together based on commentary. I get whatever Viking news I can from local news, though local news is pretty focused on stadiums right now (no stadium for the most popular team in the state. Yay for democracy). Evidently we traded an undrafted free agent for somebody by the name of Billy McMullen or something. Now we've got 3 former Eagle offensive players: Mike McMahon, Artis Hicks, and Billy McMullen. Maybe McMullen returns kicks. Let's just say McMahon to McMullen doesn't fill me with Super Bowl fantasies (though I won the Super Bowl with the Vikes on Madden last night. Whenever that happens, I always watch the post-game celebration of purple-wearing players hugging each other around a giant trophy).
I'm hoping for a Dallas-Miami NBA Finals, because those teams are pretty fun to watch, and I wouldn't mind if either of them won the title.
Is the NBA missing something by giving so many playoff games to TNT and ESPN? The NFL is the most popular sports league and by far the most popular TV sport in America. They've built up popularity by putting the overwhelming majority of their games, including all playoff games, on broadcast channels. I realize those of us trying to save money by skipping cable aren't exactly the big spenders a sports league is trying to appeal to, but that wide appeal means something for long-term success. Ce la vie.
This is happening at the right time of the year. The NBA Finals will be on ABC, so I can watch all those games. Since I don't watch baseball, I don't really NEED to see anything in the summer. And then autumn comes, where even with the 9 channels I get, I should be able to watch 3-4 NFL games a week (and in autumn it's back to school and back to office internet access too).
I have not been able to see a single NBA highlight since I quit watching the Pistons-Cavs in the 4th quarter on Sunday. I keep hearing what happened the night before on the next day's radio shows, and have been able to piece events together based on commentary. I get whatever Viking news I can from local news, though local news is pretty focused on stadiums right now (no stadium for the most popular team in the state. Yay for democracy). Evidently we traded an undrafted free agent for somebody by the name of Billy McMullen or something. Now we've got 3 former Eagle offensive players: Mike McMahon, Artis Hicks, and Billy McMullen. Maybe McMullen returns kicks. Let's just say McMahon to McMullen doesn't fill me with Super Bowl fantasies (though I won the Super Bowl with the Vikes on Madden last night. Whenever that happens, I always watch the post-game celebration of purple-wearing players hugging each other around a giant trophy).
I'm hoping for a Dallas-Miami NBA Finals, because those teams are pretty fun to watch, and I wouldn't mind if either of them won the title.
Is the NBA missing something by giving so many playoff games to TNT and ESPN? The NFL is the most popular sports league and by far the most popular TV sport in America. They've built up popularity by putting the overwhelming majority of their games, including all playoff games, on broadcast channels. I realize those of us trying to save money by skipping cable aren't exactly the big spenders a sports league is trying to appeal to, but that wide appeal means something for long-term success. Ce la vie.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
The Ill-informed
I'm making a transition to a poorly informed sports fan. I'm going to go without cable for a while and see how that treats me (for NBA playoffs, that treats me pretty lousy), and my internet access is at this library less than a mile from my house, where I'm limited to 60 minutes at a time (until September, anyway). I can follow local sports alright this way, but all I really know right now is that Cleveland is up on the Pistons 3-2 and that Dallas was up 3-1 over the Spurs and I don't know if that series is over yet (I guess I'll be checking that next).
Following sports is a different world when you decide to skip expensive technology. If I weren't in a library with 27 minutes left, I would think out and write a brilliant Marxist essay about sports fans who are without cable for economic reasons and thus don't get to watch the NBA playoffs on TNT and will miss Monday Night Football when it moves to ESPN and how most people pretend that such people don't exist (even though I'm going without cable, and two dedicated sports fan friends of mine, Rob and Justin, also go without cable) and what it means to pretend that such people don't exist or are making their own choices yada yada yada, and it would be developed and I would attempt to refute objections and all that, but I'm having trouble formulating it all right now in this library, plus my brain is fried from moving, thus this run-on sentence continues.
Anyway, did you ever notice the halftime show on Tecmo Super Bowl? It's all scantily clad ladies, and then this one brunette cheerleader jumps in the air and her skirt flips up. So you see, the games we played when we were kids were just as bad as Grand Theft Auto.
Following sports is a different world when you decide to skip expensive technology. If I weren't in a library with 27 minutes left, I would think out and write a brilliant Marxist essay about sports fans who are without cable for economic reasons and thus don't get to watch the NBA playoffs on TNT and will miss Monday Night Football when it moves to ESPN and how most people pretend that such people don't exist (even though I'm going without cable, and two dedicated sports fan friends of mine, Rob and Justin, also go without cable) and what it means to pretend that such people don't exist or are making their own choices yada yada yada, and it would be developed and I would attempt to refute objections and all that, but I'm having trouble formulating it all right now in this library, plus my brain is fried from moving, thus this run-on sentence continues.
Anyway, did you ever notice the halftime show on Tecmo Super Bowl? It's all scantily clad ladies, and then this one brunette cheerleader jumps in the air and her skirt flips up. So you see, the games we played when we were kids were just as bad as Grand Theft Auto.
Friday, May 12, 2006
To everything there is a season
Is modern, urban man disconnected from the patterns of nature? Rural people had (and have) a close connection to the cyclical nature of the earth. Modern urban man in an industrialized society does not have need for these patterns and cycles (symbolized in the digital clock--instead of a meaningful, whole circle, time is fragmented and segmented) Certainly in Minnesota, where the weather experiences harsh changes and over 100 degrees of difference, we're not completely disconnected from nature's cycle.
But as a football fan, my life maintains a regular pattern that alters every aspect of my life. There's alteration from year to year, but my overall life experience seems to be settling into a predictable overall pattern. Oh, yes, mixed in there is an interest in UCLA basketball and the NBA playoffs (and the contemporary basketball elite's relationship to the basketball elite of history). And mixed into all of this is work (after 8 years of university scheduling, life takes on entirely different patterns, and academic life has its own all-consuming elements). But football is the motor that makes the pattern run.
September-December: Madness. Sheer madness. There is no other way to describe the all-consuming nature of the NFL regular season. My wife won a portable DVD player in a radio station "football widows" promotion. I don't think I'm exaggerating.
January: Weening. Playoff football is exciting, but with less teams and games, it does not take over the totality of my life.
February-May: Enjoying the world. Following sports and thinking of football, of course, but not with an all-consuming passion. This is a time for walks, for reading, for culture, for quality time to lead an authentic life.
June-July: Still enjoying the world; no school means I have time to read more of what I want. But anticipation of Fantasy Football starts to suck up more and more of existence. A separate madness of football card collecting takes hold, too.
August: Last chances for a quality life, with intense anticipation of what is to come. Football cards are at peak time. The berserk begins to re-emerge.
September-December: the Berserk madness returns.
I can't exaggerate how different my life, mind, emotions, and entire attitude changes in the cyclical pattern over this time.
Luckily, my academic/work patterns are matching my football patterns, as the next few months I will have less access to the internet (most of these blog entries are made in my office between classes) and less football content to write about, anyway. So in the summer, you'll hear less from me at this sports blog, but the content you'll miss out on would have been lousy, anyway.
But as a football fan, my life maintains a regular pattern that alters every aspect of my life. There's alteration from year to year, but my overall life experience seems to be settling into a predictable overall pattern. Oh, yes, mixed in there is an interest in UCLA basketball and the NBA playoffs (and the contemporary basketball elite's relationship to the basketball elite of history). And mixed into all of this is work (after 8 years of university scheduling, life takes on entirely different patterns, and academic life has its own all-consuming elements). But football is the motor that makes the pattern run.
September-December: Madness. Sheer madness. There is no other way to describe the all-consuming nature of the NFL regular season. My wife won a portable DVD player in a radio station "football widows" promotion. I don't think I'm exaggerating.
January: Weening. Playoff football is exciting, but with less teams and games, it does not take over the totality of my life.
February-May: Enjoying the world. Following sports and thinking of football, of course, but not with an all-consuming passion. This is a time for walks, for reading, for culture, for quality time to lead an authentic life.
June-July: Still enjoying the world; no school means I have time to read more of what I want. But anticipation of Fantasy Football starts to suck up more and more of existence. A separate madness of football card collecting takes hold, too.
August: Last chances for a quality life, with intense anticipation of what is to come. Football cards are at peak time. The berserk begins to re-emerge.
September-December: the Berserk madness returns.
I can't exaggerate how different my life, mind, emotions, and entire attitude changes in the cyclical pattern over this time.
Luckily, my academic/work patterns are matching my football patterns, as the next few months I will have less access to the internet (most of these blog entries are made in my office between classes) and less football content to write about, anyway. So in the summer, you'll hear less from me at this sports blog, but the content you'll miss out on would have been lousy, anyway.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
"Everything's coming up Milhouse!"
Beards seem to be in fashion. Around campus I seem to notice them more. There's been some commentary about bearded basketballers in the NBA playoffs. Jake Plummer transcended the concept of a sports beard, and now superstars like LeBron James are even sporting old-school facial hair.
Since I've let laziness at shaving evolve into a full-fledged beard, I am very happy with this development. I expect to be mistaken for a professional athlete any time now. I'm a little bit afraid to go to the grocery store, for fear of being mobbed by screaming hordes demanding my autograph. I might have to get a shirt that says "I had a beard before having a beard was cool."
Since I've let laziness at shaving evolve into a full-fledged beard, I am very happy with this development. I expect to be mistaken for a professional athlete any time now. I'm a little bit afraid to go to the grocery store, for fear of being mobbed by screaming hordes demanding my autograph. I might have to get a shirt that says "I had a beard before having a beard was cool."
Monday, May 08, 2006
Why Favre sucks
Favre sucks because Favre refuses to adapt his game for any reason. That's it. According to Bob McGinn (via PFT):
Telling his story for the first time since deciding April 25 to play another year, Favre was even more defiant than usual Saturday when the subject of his 29 interceptions was brought up in a non-accusatory fashion.
"I don't regret the way I play or the way I approach it," Favre said during a 30-minute session with reporters at the Packers' minicamp. "I don't feel like I should change. For me to change now, it would be time for me to leave."
According to Favre, his career-low passer rating of 70.9 (58.0 in the last 10 games), which ranked 31st in the National Football League, was more a reflection of circumstances and the personnel around him than slippage in his own level of performance.
"Throwing 20 touchdowns and 29 interceptions, all the experts out there have their opinions and theories," Favre said. "To be honest with you, I don't think I played any differently than any other year. When you're down, I'm not going to sit there and throw 3-yard check-downs and let the clock run out. I'm going to take chances.
"There will be people that agree with that and people who don't agree with that. I really don't care."
That's the problem. Great QBs are able to adjust their games for different circumstances. Maybe those circumstances are diminished arm strenght. Maybe those circumstances are an unwillingness to take a hit in later age. And maybe the circumstances are less talent around the QB. Either way, it is a total refusal to adjust and adapt that leads to a 29 interception season.
In the past, because of his immense talent, the immense talent of players around him, and good coaching, Favre was mostly successful playing his way. Now, he's not. In my opinion, that's a combination of his own diminished talent, the diminished talent around him, and poor coaches that are unwilling to do anything about Favre's erratic decision making.
When you play absolutely terrible in every way, then come out and defiantly claim that you will not be changing the way you play at all, well, then you deserve to go down as the guy who breaks the all-time interception record.
And if you watched the Packers last season, you know that it was a lot of terrible decision making that cost the Packers games and Favre interceptions. It's not the talent around a QB that makes him throw into double coverage in the end zone. It's not the talent around him that forces him to repeatedly hurl the ball deep to the end zone no matter what with time left for a sustained drive (ala Philly last season).
Personally, I'm glad we can expect more of the same from Shitdick next season.
Telling his story for the first time since deciding April 25 to play another year, Favre was even more defiant than usual Saturday when the subject of his 29 interceptions was brought up in a non-accusatory fashion.
"I don't regret the way I play or the way I approach it," Favre said during a 30-minute session with reporters at the Packers' minicamp. "I don't feel like I should change. For me to change now, it would be time for me to leave."
According to Favre, his career-low passer rating of 70.9 (58.0 in the last 10 games), which ranked 31st in the National Football League, was more a reflection of circumstances and the personnel around him than slippage in his own level of performance.
"Throwing 20 touchdowns and 29 interceptions, all the experts out there have their opinions and theories," Favre said. "To be honest with you, I don't think I played any differently than any other year. When you're down, I'm not going to sit there and throw 3-yard check-downs and let the clock run out. I'm going to take chances.
"There will be people that agree with that and people who don't agree with that. I really don't care."
That's the problem. Great QBs are able to adjust their games for different circumstances. Maybe those circumstances are diminished arm strenght. Maybe those circumstances are an unwillingness to take a hit in later age. And maybe the circumstances are less talent around the QB. Either way, it is a total refusal to adjust and adapt that leads to a 29 interception season.
In the past, because of his immense talent, the immense talent of players around him, and good coaching, Favre was mostly successful playing his way. Now, he's not. In my opinion, that's a combination of his own diminished talent, the diminished talent around him, and poor coaches that are unwilling to do anything about Favre's erratic decision making.
When you play absolutely terrible in every way, then come out and defiantly claim that you will not be changing the way you play at all, well, then you deserve to go down as the guy who breaks the all-time interception record.
And if you watched the Packers last season, you know that it was a lot of terrible decision making that cost the Packers games and Favre interceptions. It's not the talent around a QB that makes him throw into double coverage in the end zone. It's not the talent around him that forces him to repeatedly hurl the ball deep to the end zone no matter what with time left for a sustained drive (ala Philly last season).
Personally, I'm glad we can expect more of the same from Shitdick next season.
Is Tim Duncan a forward, or a center?
Tim Duncan is listed as a power forward (Basketball-reference lists him as a F-C, but most people talk about him as a forward). He is, by any standard, one of the best basketball players of all-time, but his position often gives him the status of greatest ever at his position.
But I don't think Duncan is a forward. I think he's a center.
When Duncan came into the league, there were about 5 teams on which he would have been assigned to play forward; on any other, he'd be a center. Well, he got drafted by one of those 5 teams, so he "became" a forward.
But on Sunday against the Mavs, Duncan was often on the court with four other guards or swingmen. Some of the time the second tallest player on the floor was Michael Finley. He was the only player posting up. He was the only player with his back to the basket. He was the only Spur getting any production near the basket, with rebounds and with strong to-the-basket postup moves.
Much of the time, there is no way to call any other Spur on the court a center.
It could be that in the current evolutionary state of basketball, there is no real "center." That's fine--then call Duncan a forward. But when comparing him to all-time forwards, keep that in mind. If we called Duncan a center, we would consider him a top-10 player at his position. At the highest, I'd rank him 6th (behind Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, and Hakeem). There's also Mikan, Reed, and Cowens to consider. Moses Malone, too, though I've always thought of him as a forward, not a center (I'm probably completely wrong on that. Basketball-reference lists him as C-F).
Duncan's game, though, is a center's game.
But I don't think Duncan is a forward. I think he's a center.
When Duncan came into the league, there were about 5 teams on which he would have been assigned to play forward; on any other, he'd be a center. Well, he got drafted by one of those 5 teams, so he "became" a forward.
But on Sunday against the Mavs, Duncan was often on the court with four other guards or swingmen. Some of the time the second tallest player on the floor was Michael Finley. He was the only player posting up. He was the only player with his back to the basket. He was the only Spur getting any production near the basket, with rebounds and with strong to-the-basket postup moves.
Much of the time, there is no way to call any other Spur on the court a center.
It could be that in the current evolutionary state of basketball, there is no real "center." That's fine--then call Duncan a forward. But when comparing him to all-time forwards, keep that in mind. If we called Duncan a center, we would consider him a top-10 player at his position. At the highest, I'd rank him 6th (behind Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, and Hakeem). There's also Mikan, Reed, and Cowens to consider. Moses Malone, too, though I've always thought of him as a forward, not a center (I'm probably completely wrong on that. Basketball-reference lists him as C-F).
Duncan's game, though, is a center's game.
Friday, May 05, 2006
A pox on ALL your houses
You know when somebody goes through something really bad, and he/she says something like "I wouldn't wish this on anybody," or even "I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy"?
Well, I've been through the Viking "Love Boat" fiasco. And I wish this on fans of every single other one of the NFL's 31 teams. I also wish it on fans of every other sports team. Then, THEN, you'll know what it is to suffer. Then you'll know terminal agony. Then you'll know what it is to have a chip on your shoulder about everything, and to flare up in hatred at anybody.
Because the love boat isn't going away. Deadspin uses just about any excuse to bring it up. The only sportswriters who don't bring up something related to a boat every time they mention the Vikings for any reason are those who have already done so repeatedly and have worn out anything they can say.
For years, fans of the Vikings will be tormented by lousy puns, stupid jokes, and vapid sarcasm. Seriously, at what point will Viking boat jokes seem no longer appropriate? Does everbody who was on the 2005 roster have to be gone? Will we ever shake this?
So, as you other fans occasionally feel miserable, imagine never being able to read anything about your favorite team without a terrible punchline being involved.
Well, I've been through the Viking "Love Boat" fiasco. And I wish this on fans of every single other one of the NFL's 31 teams. I also wish it on fans of every other sports team. Then, THEN, you'll know what it is to suffer. Then you'll know terminal agony. Then you'll know what it is to have a chip on your shoulder about everything, and to flare up in hatred at anybody.
Because the love boat isn't going away. Deadspin uses just about any excuse to bring it up. The only sportswriters who don't bring up something related to a boat every time they mention the Vikings for any reason are those who have already done so repeatedly and have worn out anything they can say.
For years, fans of the Vikings will be tormented by lousy puns, stupid jokes, and vapid sarcasm. Seriously, at what point will Viking boat jokes seem no longer appropriate? Does everbody who was on the 2005 roster have to be gone? Will we ever shake this?
So, as you other fans occasionally feel miserable, imagine never being able to read anything about your favorite team without a terrible punchline being involved.
NBA: My favorite non-MVP seasons
1996-97: Glen Rice
I always thought Glen Rice was a fun player to watch, and in 96-97, he burst out with an incredible season. Take away '97, and his career high ppg was 22.3, which he achieved 3 times. In '97, he averaged 26.8 ppg for the Charlotte Hornets. He was an outside shooter and dynamic scorer that, for one season, seemed unstoppable. He was willing the Hornets to victory that season--he was unguardable in the regular season. I personally got to see him destroy the Wolves that year. He just single-handedly dominated.
1993-94: Scottie Pippen
After Jordan retired the first time, I don't think there were a lot of high hopes for the Bulls. Pippen led the Bulls to 55 wins, and only fell in 7 games against the Knicks in the playoffs. Pippen is without a doubt one of the most versatile basketball players to ever step on the hardwood, and he did it all that year: 22 ppg, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals. The Triangle Offense was perfect for his skills--Pippen more than anybody I've seen was a Point Forward for that team.
I always thought Glen Rice was a fun player to watch, and in 96-97, he burst out with an incredible season. Take away '97, and his career high ppg was 22.3, which he achieved 3 times. In '97, he averaged 26.8 ppg for the Charlotte Hornets. He was an outside shooter and dynamic scorer that, for one season, seemed unstoppable. He was willing the Hornets to victory that season--he was unguardable in the regular season. I personally got to see him destroy the Wolves that year. He just single-handedly dominated.
1993-94: Scottie Pippen
After Jordan retired the first time, I don't think there were a lot of high hopes for the Bulls. Pippen led the Bulls to 55 wins, and only fell in 7 games against the Knicks in the playoffs. Pippen is without a doubt one of the most versatile basketball players to ever step on the hardwood, and he did it all that year: 22 ppg, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals. The Triangle Offense was perfect for his skills--Pippen more than anybody I've seen was a Point Forward for that team.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Fran Foley is out
I haven't really paid much attention to the Fran Foley resume debacle. All I really care about is that the Vikings win a Super Bowl in my lifetime. Lying on your resume is bad, but I didn't figure that the the Vice President of Player Personnel doing so would be anything that would hold the Vikes back from otherwise winning a championship.
Still, it's good that he's out. What sports organization has been made fun of more over the previous 4 years? Is any other franchise even close? So there's no reason to keep a guy around who can bring further embarrassment to the franchise.
Still, it's good that he's out. What sports organization has been made fun of more over the previous 4 years? Is any other franchise even close? So there's no reason to keep a guy around who can bring further embarrassment to the franchise.
Texan fans: it's not worth it to coax you off the ledge. You're probably making the right decision.
Just about everything that can be said about the Texans drafting Mario Williams has been said. But a moment ago a memory, a revelation, sparked by this.
Remember in November and December when fans of teams like the Texans were opening rooting for their team to lose games so that they could get the #1 pick? Have you ever rooted against your team for reasons of draft, coach firings, or anything else? I have. It kind of sucks. But it REALLY sucks to just be watching a terrible team and feeling only despair. So you cling to any sort of hope.
So in December, Texan fans must have been despairing but living on the fumes of "We could get Reggie Bush." And then, of course, the Rose Bowl, and fantasies of Vince Young running around in a Texan uniform gave these miserable fans something to smile about.
Can you imagine the utter horror these fans would have felt at the time, miserable watching their 2-14 team, actually rooting for their team to lose more games, if they had known that it would all lead not to Bush, or Young, or even Leinart? Had they known no obvious savior would rise up from the rubble to lead them to future glory?
When things happen in our lives, they usually take on a sense of reality--not always easily, but they do. But when we try imagine terrible things happening in the future, it all seems surreal and dreamy. Texan fans today may be unhappy--but get Doc Brown and Marty to loan you the DeLorean go back to December and tell Houston fans they'd get the #1 pick and use it on a DE from NC State, and watch the despair sink in. In Thomas Harris's novels, Hannibal Lecter collects stories of church roofs collapsing, because he enjoyed the loss of faith. Wouldn't it take a Lecter-like sadism to have to share this with a Texan fan at the time?
By the way, I've begun searching for Houston Texan fan blogs. I just HAVE TO read these throughout 2006. So if you know of any blogs specific to the Texans, pass them my way.
Remember in November and December when fans of teams like the Texans were opening rooting for their team to lose games so that they could get the #1 pick? Have you ever rooted against your team for reasons of draft, coach firings, or anything else? I have. It kind of sucks. But it REALLY sucks to just be watching a terrible team and feeling only despair. So you cling to any sort of hope.
So in December, Texan fans must have been despairing but living on the fumes of "We could get Reggie Bush." And then, of course, the Rose Bowl, and fantasies of Vince Young running around in a Texan uniform gave these miserable fans something to smile about.
Can you imagine the utter horror these fans would have felt at the time, miserable watching their 2-14 team, actually rooting for their team to lose more games, if they had known that it would all lead not to Bush, or Young, or even Leinart? Had they known no obvious savior would rise up from the rubble to lead them to future glory?
When things happen in our lives, they usually take on a sense of reality--not always easily, but they do. But when we try imagine terrible things happening in the future, it all seems surreal and dreamy. Texan fans today may be unhappy--but get Doc Brown and Marty to loan you the DeLorean go back to December and tell Houston fans they'd get the #1 pick and use it on a DE from NC State, and watch the despair sink in. In Thomas Harris's novels, Hannibal Lecter collects stories of church roofs collapsing, because he enjoyed the loss of faith. Wouldn't it take a Lecter-like sadism to have to share this with a Texan fan at the time?
By the way, I've begun searching for Houston Texan fan blogs. I just HAVE TO read these throughout 2006. So if you know of any blogs specific to the Texans, pass them my way.
A quibble with my hero, Dr. Z (and the problem of draft grading)
In Dr. Z's draft report card, he writes:
Do you know what's the most unfair tactic used by we journalistas? Ripping some team's draft choice about five years after the fact by going down the roster of Pro Bowlers who were drafted later and saying, "Look who they could have had." A trick like that takes no brains and no work. All you need is a roster. Everybody does it. And I'm here to put a stop to it, do you hear?
No, folks. You rate the draft at the time and then you keep your trap shut. None of that hindsight stuff.
Now I'm a teacher; I grade students. As a teacher, I attempt to be as objective as possible, and I attempt to give grades with as much material for evaluation as I can reasonable acquire.
In fact, it is much more reasonable to give draft grades 5 years later. At that point, players have built up material for evaluation. Grading is supposed to be as objective as possible--to give the grades immediately after the draft is a subjective assessment, not an objective assessment.
What if I walked into class on the first day, asked each student to give me some sample writing assignments from high school, then gave each student a grade for the semester? That would be UTTERLY INSANE, right? I can't grade students on the first day; I must wait to give a graded assessment until they have built up a reasonable body of work.
So if you're going to call something your draft "grade" or "report card," you should wait 3-5 years. If you want to assess it right now, call it something else. And don't insult those who attempt to make objective evaluations of drafts after there's reasonable data.
Do you know what's the most unfair tactic used by we journalistas? Ripping some team's draft choice about five years after the fact by going down the roster of Pro Bowlers who were drafted later and saying, "Look who they could have had." A trick like that takes no brains and no work. All you need is a roster. Everybody does it. And I'm here to put a stop to it, do you hear?
No, folks. You rate the draft at the time and then you keep your trap shut. None of that hindsight stuff.
Now I'm a teacher; I grade students. As a teacher, I attempt to be as objective as possible, and I attempt to give grades with as much material for evaluation as I can reasonable acquire.
In fact, it is much more reasonable to give draft grades 5 years later. At that point, players have built up material for evaluation. Grading is supposed to be as objective as possible--to give the grades immediately after the draft is a subjective assessment, not an objective assessment.
What if I walked into class on the first day, asked each student to give me some sample writing assignments from high school, then gave each student a grade for the semester? That would be UTTERLY INSANE, right? I can't grade students on the first day; I must wait to give a graded assessment until they have built up a reasonable body of work.
So if you're going to call something your draft "grade" or "report card," you should wait 3-5 years. If you want to assess it right now, call it something else. And don't insult those who attempt to make objective evaluations of drafts after there's reasonable data.
The other sports
Believe it or not, I occasionally think about sports other than football. I love basketball, and approximately 5 times a year I deem it worthwhile to pay attention to baseball.
Basketball
I've developed an odd quirk--I can't watch a basketball game if I can't see it from beginning to end. This means I don't watch too much basketball anymore--I want to, then I keep catching games after the first quarter begins. At that point, I feel I've already missed the necessary development of the game, and I can't quite get into watching it. I feel if I miss the tip, I'll never get into the flow of the game. Sunday I was looking forward to watching the Suns and Lakers--but then ABC's coverage started when the game was already at 6-4, and I couldn't get into it and stopped watching it (thus missing the fantastic ending).
In round two, I'll start looking closer at schedules and prime myself to be sitting in front of the television before tipoff. Because I love basketball, and I really want to watch some games. And for some OCD reason, I won't watch if I miss the beginning.
Baseball
I'm sick of Johnny Damon being called Judas and all that. The only group to whom Damon is a traitor is Red Sox fans. To other baseball fans, he goes from one big market, big payroll team to a bigger market, bigger payroll team. He's no traitor. Johnny Damon the man owes nothing to Boston or the fans. He can go where he wants, even if its for the money. Betrayal? What did he do besides leave? Benedict Arnold tried to help the British defeat the American colonists. Judas turned Jesus over to be killed. Did Damon do anything overt to hurt the Red Sox or Red Sox fans? No. He just went to another team. And unless he grew up in either New England or New York rooting for one or the other team, what is the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry to him? Not much. Nothing at all when millions of dollars are concerned. There's no ideological betrayal involved. He didn't actively bring any harm to his former team.
Basketball
I've developed an odd quirk--I can't watch a basketball game if I can't see it from beginning to end. This means I don't watch too much basketball anymore--I want to, then I keep catching games after the first quarter begins. At that point, I feel I've already missed the necessary development of the game, and I can't quite get into watching it. I feel if I miss the tip, I'll never get into the flow of the game. Sunday I was looking forward to watching the Suns and Lakers--but then ABC's coverage started when the game was already at 6-4, and I couldn't get into it and stopped watching it (thus missing the fantastic ending).
In round two, I'll start looking closer at schedules and prime myself to be sitting in front of the television before tipoff. Because I love basketball, and I really want to watch some games. And for some OCD reason, I won't watch if I miss the beginning.
Baseball
I'm sick of Johnny Damon being called Judas and all that. The only group to whom Damon is a traitor is Red Sox fans. To other baseball fans, he goes from one big market, big payroll team to a bigger market, bigger payroll team. He's no traitor. Johnny Damon the man owes nothing to Boston or the fans. He can go where he wants, even if its for the money. Betrayal? What did he do besides leave? Benedict Arnold tried to help the British defeat the American colonists. Judas turned Jesus over to be killed. Did Damon do anything overt to hurt the Red Sox or Red Sox fans? No. He just went to another team. And unless he grew up in either New England or New York rooting for one or the other team, what is the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry to him? Not much. Nothing at all when millions of dollars are concerned. There's no ideological betrayal involved. He didn't actively bring any harm to his former team.
Monday, May 01, 2006
A man after my own heart.
Chad "Free Love on the Free Love" Greenway to residents of his hometown of Mount Vernon, SD:
"I know we got some Packer fans around here, but you're going to have to switch over. To be honest with you, you're all going to have to get rid of that Packer crap."
"I know we got some Packer fans around here, but you're going to have to switch over. To be honest with you, you're all going to have to get rid of that Packer crap."
Sports Fan Character Traits
Being fans of sports often reveals our unique character traits. For example, before each of the previous 7 NFL seasons, I believed the Vikings were preparing for a Super Bowl run. The Vikes were last in a Super Bowl three years before I was born, but I continue to believe.
There are other Viking fans (especially the older ones, witnesses of four Super Bowl defeats, Drew Pearson, and 45 years without a title) who fail to share my optimism. Even a sports optimist like me has shared their feelings: waiting for failure to come, questioning the validity of every move the team makes, feeling quite certain that they won't win a Super Bowl...ever.
Some fans are insanely optimistic, always filled with hope and excitement, always thinking that redemption lies just over the horizon.
Other fans are filled with bitterness, heartache, anger, and staunch pessimism, believing the bums running the team will never do anything but make us miserable.
And so it goes with the draft. At the draft, we see fans of teams at each pole--excitedly screaming, sometimes with joy and excitement, sometimes with anger and perplexity.
There are other Viking fans (especially the older ones, witnesses of four Super Bowl defeats, Drew Pearson, and 45 years without a title) who fail to share my optimism. Even a sports optimist like me has shared their feelings: waiting for failure to come, questioning the validity of every move the team makes, feeling quite certain that they won't win a Super Bowl...ever.
Some fans are insanely optimistic, always filled with hope and excitement, always thinking that redemption lies just over the horizon.
Other fans are filled with bitterness, heartache, anger, and staunch pessimism, believing the bums running the team will never do anything but make us miserable.
And so it goes with the draft. At the draft, we see fans of teams at each pole--excitedly screaming, sometimes with joy and excitement, sometimes with anger and perplexity.
Pointless May Predictions
Now that most important free agents have been signed and the draft is in the books, I have time to make pointless May predictions about the NFL. In truth, I've got an hour before class and I'm unmotivated to do much else.
My predictions are simple--I will look at each NFL team and guess whether they will be better, worse, or the same as they were in 2005. Of course, it's easier for bad teams to get better and good teams to get worse.
Pittsburgh Steelers (15-5, Super Bowl champs) WORSE
I don't think they'll repeat as champions, so it stands to reason that they will be worse. They will probably still win 10 or more games, but they've lost some offensive sparks and I just don't see a repeat.
Cincinnati Bengals (11-6) WORSE
When will Carson Palmer play at the same level he played at last season? If the answer is week one, I see them winning around 9 games. If the answer is mid-season, significantly less than that.
Cleveland Browns (6-10) BETTER
I believe Romeo Crennel knows what he is doing, and is the kind of coach that can will his team to improvement. That's it. When I think of Charlie Frye starting in 2006, I think SAME.
Baltimore Raves (6-10) BETTER
This team always ends up worse than I think they'll be. But if they do acquire Steve McNair, as looks likely, they suddenly have a playmaking QB. If McNair manages to play 10-12 games, the Raves should improve
Indianapolis Colts (14-3) SAME
I'm not saying they'll win 14 games. But they'll probably tear through the regular season with a dominating offense and then end up losing in the playoffs.
Jacksonville Jaguars (12-5) WORSE
Actually, the 2006 Jags should be better than the 2005 Jags, but will probably not be able to win 12 games again. The exciting thing will be to see how Bruins Marcedes Lewis and Maurice Drew are able to contribute. They should contend for the playoffs.
Tennessee Titans (4-12) BETTER
Though not by much. I really thought they'd be a playoff team last season, and they really stunk. How much better are they now, really? I figure Vince Young wills them to some late-season victories after the season is already lost.
Houston Texans (2-14) BETTER
They could have passed on the #1 pick and they'd have won more than 2 games in 2006. It's freaking hard to lose 14 games two years in a row. They have some talent on offense--maybe it comes together and they win 8-9 games, maybe it doesn't and they win 4-5.
New England Patriots (11-7) BETTER
The Pats continue their transition into an offensive juggernaut in the draft. I just can't see Brady, at this point in his career, missing the playoffs. They'll be back in contention for another championship in 2006.
Miami Dolphins (9-7) WORSE
They overachieved with a great finish last year. They don't follow that up in 2006. I don't think Daunte plays until week 8 if at all. Saban is a good coach, but this team doesn't seem ready to go over the hump yet.
Buffalo Bills (5-11) WORSE
Name me a Buffalo Bill that excites you outside of Willis McGahee. This team will be tuurrable.
New York Jets (4-12) BETTER
I expect the Jets to double last seasons' win total. I figure either Pennington or Ramsey is twice as good as Bollinger.
Denver Broncos (14-4) SAME
They should be a playoff team; Shanahan always has them ready to compete, and they've got a lot of good players. I don't know that they'll go to the AFC Championship game again, but they should win their division and have a chance to make a playoff run.
Kansas City Chiefs (10-6) WORSE
Larry Johnson may transcend fantasy football, making it obsolete. However, it's about time for the juggernaut offense to show its age (and loss of offensive coaches).
San Diego Chargers (9-7) SAME
For some reason, I think Rivers should be fine. He's not a rookie. I see the Chargers being competitive again, and missing the playoffs by a game or two again.
Oakland Raiders (4-12) BETTER
Adding Aaron Brooks to the Raiders just screams 6-10 to me.
Carolina Panthers (13-6) SAME
I expect a John Fox coached team to be winning 10-11 games a year for a long time.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (11-6) WORSE
They got a good start last year. In 2006, their best QB will be Chris Simms for the entire year. 8-8.
Atlanta Falcons (8-8) BETTER
I figure either the Falcons win 10-11 games, or they completely lose it and win 4. I bet on the former.
New Orleans Saints (3-13) BETTER
If the Saints made no roster changes but played their entire 2006 season in N.O., they could double this win total. But they added a Pro Bowl QB and drafted a transcendent RB. What's the ceiling for this team?
Chicago Bears (11-6) WORSE
Remember 2001? And remember 2002?
Minnesota Vikings (9-7) BETTER
A real NFL coach, a good defense, some solid offensive players, an improved offensive line. I've got high hopes.
Detroit Lions (5-11) SAME
If Josh McCown gets to play the whole year, the Lions might reach 8 wins. But I don't see that happening. I just can't picture the Lions winning anything. It's been too long.
Green Bay Packers (4-12) SAME
A lot of great QBs have a year where it all falls apart, and everybody recognizes they are finished. For many, that was 2005 for Favre. For everybody else, it will be 2006.
New York Giants (11-6) SAME
I don't know that they'll improve, but I don't see a great deal of decline. They are what they are.
Washington Organization (11-7) WORSE
Everything went right for this team last season, and they managed 10 wins. Brunell is finished. I see a tailspin for this team in 2006.
Dallas Cowboys (9-7) SAME
This team might have 12 wins in them. I see them losing a lot of games they shouldn't lose, for some reason. Oh wait--that reason is Bledsoe.
Philadelphia Eagles (6-10) BETTER
They'll be back on top of their division at the end of the year.
Seattle Seahawks (15-4) SAME
I don't see any sign of decline; they should be competing to go to another Super Bowl. Their division still sucks.
St. Louis Rams (5-11) SAME
5-11, 6-10, it's all the same, this team isn't good. Jackson and Holt could elevate them to some 30+ point games and they might be better.
Arizona Cardinals (5-11) BETTER
Their 2006 ceiling, in my opinion, is 10 wins. I think it will be 8 or 9. Part of me feels a great improvement, part of me remembers they are the Cardinals and they never improve.
San Francisco 49ers (4-12) SAME
Nolan will get them a few 13-10 wins that they shouldn't have. The offense will be dreadful.
There. There's my pointlessness. Now I'll try some work.
My predictions are simple--I will look at each NFL team and guess whether they will be better, worse, or the same as they were in 2005. Of course, it's easier for bad teams to get better and good teams to get worse.
Pittsburgh Steelers (15-5, Super Bowl champs) WORSE
I don't think they'll repeat as champions, so it stands to reason that they will be worse. They will probably still win 10 or more games, but they've lost some offensive sparks and I just don't see a repeat.
Cincinnati Bengals (11-6) WORSE
When will Carson Palmer play at the same level he played at last season? If the answer is week one, I see them winning around 9 games. If the answer is mid-season, significantly less than that.
Cleveland Browns (6-10) BETTER
I believe Romeo Crennel knows what he is doing, and is the kind of coach that can will his team to improvement. That's it. When I think of Charlie Frye starting in 2006, I think SAME.
Baltimore Raves (6-10) BETTER
This team always ends up worse than I think they'll be. But if they do acquire Steve McNair, as looks likely, they suddenly have a playmaking QB. If McNair manages to play 10-12 games, the Raves should improve
Indianapolis Colts (14-3) SAME
I'm not saying they'll win 14 games. But they'll probably tear through the regular season with a dominating offense and then end up losing in the playoffs.
Jacksonville Jaguars (12-5) WORSE
Actually, the 2006 Jags should be better than the 2005 Jags, but will probably not be able to win 12 games again. The exciting thing will be to see how Bruins Marcedes Lewis and Maurice Drew are able to contribute. They should contend for the playoffs.
Tennessee Titans (4-12) BETTER
Though not by much. I really thought they'd be a playoff team last season, and they really stunk. How much better are they now, really? I figure Vince Young wills them to some late-season victories after the season is already lost.
Houston Texans (2-14) BETTER
They could have passed on the #1 pick and they'd have won more than 2 games in 2006. It's freaking hard to lose 14 games two years in a row. They have some talent on offense--maybe it comes together and they win 8-9 games, maybe it doesn't and they win 4-5.
New England Patriots (11-7) BETTER
The Pats continue their transition into an offensive juggernaut in the draft. I just can't see Brady, at this point in his career, missing the playoffs. They'll be back in contention for another championship in 2006.
Miami Dolphins (9-7) WORSE
They overachieved with a great finish last year. They don't follow that up in 2006. I don't think Daunte plays until week 8 if at all. Saban is a good coach, but this team doesn't seem ready to go over the hump yet.
Buffalo Bills (5-11) WORSE
Name me a Buffalo Bill that excites you outside of Willis McGahee. This team will be tuurrable.
New York Jets (4-12) BETTER
I expect the Jets to double last seasons' win total. I figure either Pennington or Ramsey is twice as good as Bollinger.
Denver Broncos (14-4) SAME
They should be a playoff team; Shanahan always has them ready to compete, and they've got a lot of good players. I don't know that they'll go to the AFC Championship game again, but they should win their division and have a chance to make a playoff run.
Kansas City Chiefs (10-6) WORSE
Larry Johnson may transcend fantasy football, making it obsolete. However, it's about time for the juggernaut offense to show its age (and loss of offensive coaches).
San Diego Chargers (9-7) SAME
For some reason, I think Rivers should be fine. He's not a rookie. I see the Chargers being competitive again, and missing the playoffs by a game or two again.
Oakland Raiders (4-12) BETTER
Adding Aaron Brooks to the Raiders just screams 6-10 to me.
Carolina Panthers (13-6) SAME
I expect a John Fox coached team to be winning 10-11 games a year for a long time.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (11-6) WORSE
They got a good start last year. In 2006, their best QB will be Chris Simms for the entire year. 8-8.
Atlanta Falcons (8-8) BETTER
I figure either the Falcons win 10-11 games, or they completely lose it and win 4. I bet on the former.
New Orleans Saints (3-13) BETTER
If the Saints made no roster changes but played their entire 2006 season in N.O., they could double this win total. But they added a Pro Bowl QB and drafted a transcendent RB. What's the ceiling for this team?
Chicago Bears (11-6) WORSE
Remember 2001? And remember 2002?
Minnesota Vikings (9-7) BETTER
A real NFL coach, a good defense, some solid offensive players, an improved offensive line. I've got high hopes.
Detroit Lions (5-11) SAME
If Josh McCown gets to play the whole year, the Lions might reach 8 wins. But I don't see that happening. I just can't picture the Lions winning anything. It's been too long.
Green Bay Packers (4-12) SAME
A lot of great QBs have a year where it all falls apart, and everybody recognizes they are finished. For many, that was 2005 for Favre. For everybody else, it will be 2006.
New York Giants (11-6) SAME
I don't know that they'll improve, but I don't see a great deal of decline. They are what they are.
Washington Organization (11-7) WORSE
Everything went right for this team last season, and they managed 10 wins. Brunell is finished. I see a tailspin for this team in 2006.
Dallas Cowboys (9-7) SAME
This team might have 12 wins in them. I see them losing a lot of games they shouldn't lose, for some reason. Oh wait--that reason is Bledsoe.
Philadelphia Eagles (6-10) BETTER
They'll be back on top of their division at the end of the year.
Seattle Seahawks (15-4) SAME
I don't see any sign of decline; they should be competing to go to another Super Bowl. Their division still sucks.
St. Louis Rams (5-11) SAME
5-11, 6-10, it's all the same, this team isn't good. Jackson and Holt could elevate them to some 30+ point games and they might be better.
Arizona Cardinals (5-11) BETTER
Their 2006 ceiling, in my opinion, is 10 wins. I think it will be 8 or 9. Part of me feels a great improvement, part of me remembers they are the Cardinals and they never improve.
San Francisco 49ers (4-12) SAME
Nolan will get them a few 13-10 wins that they shouldn't have. The offense will be dreadful.
There. There's my pointlessness. Now I'll try some work.
PV's Draft Comments
A Fantasy Football Correlative
When I participate in Fantasy Football Snake Drafts, I now have one rule above all others:
Draft the player, not the value.
That means that if you are really excited about a player, and you don't think he'll be available the next time you pick, you should take him. The converse is true: if a highly projected player falls to you but you aren't excited about him, you shouldn't feel obligated to take him.
Maybe the Vikings reached on Ryan Cook. And maybe they badly wanted him and didn't think he'd be there the next time they picked.
Tarvaris Jackson
A few reports say he has the strongest arm in the draft. A strong arm is like height--there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do to teach it. It becomes very clear now that Brad Johnson will be the 2006 starter. But the Vikes didn't just fall upon Jackson. According to Fran Foley on KFAN this morning, they did a lot of work with him that included a private workout. They traded up to get him. He was the QB they wanted badly, so they made the necessary moves to get him.
Filling needs
The Vikes filled a desperate need with first-round OLB Chad Greenway. They filled another big need of nickel CB with second-round DB Cedric Griffin. In the off-season, the Vikes have now brought in 4 different interior offensive linemen, filling another huge need. I'm having trouble seeing why a team that was 9-7 in 2005 shouldn't be better in 2006. The real problems of last season appear to have been dealt with. Now if the WRs and RBs can fulfill their potential (that means Chester Taylor is as good as the Vikings think, that Koren Robinson becomes the #1 WR and Troy Williamson doubles his production from last season), and Brad Johnson holds up, the Vikings should be able to win the NFC North. Though the Vikes' draft was a bit defense-heavy, wasn't it?
Optimism
On New Years Eve, I was the one running around the party reminding everybody how big the universe is and saying, "It's all bullshit." My friend Abe says I'm the most pessimistic person he knows, yet I get overly optimistic about the Vikings. It's all true.
Houston Texan fans should be barricading the streets.
Count me among those who believe selecting Mario Williams ahead of Reggie Bush will go down as one of the epic mistakes in the draft history of any sport.
But then the Texans wait until the 3rd and 4th round to pick offensive linemen? They basically wasted a pick on David Carr by putting him behind atrocious offensive lines for four seasons. Will their offensive line be any better in 2006 than it has been in their history? I doubt it. Kubiak better be a smart, smart coach.
Jets fans should be cheering in the streets
It's not often you go into a draft knowing your offensive line is utterly terrible, then get two offensive linemen in the first round.
Packers
Good for the Packers; they drafted 12 players this weekend. In 2005, they drafted 11 players. Maybe they'll play them all. I'm extremely hopeful now that Favre can indeed break the all-time INT record while failing to break the all-time TD record.
When I participate in Fantasy Football Snake Drafts, I now have one rule above all others:
Draft the player, not the value.
That means that if you are really excited about a player, and you don't think he'll be available the next time you pick, you should take him. The converse is true: if a highly projected player falls to you but you aren't excited about him, you shouldn't feel obligated to take him.
Maybe the Vikings reached on Ryan Cook. And maybe they badly wanted him and didn't think he'd be there the next time they picked.
Tarvaris Jackson
A few reports say he has the strongest arm in the draft. A strong arm is like height--there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do to teach it. It becomes very clear now that Brad Johnson will be the 2006 starter. But the Vikes didn't just fall upon Jackson. According to Fran Foley on KFAN this morning, they did a lot of work with him that included a private workout. They traded up to get him. He was the QB they wanted badly, so they made the necessary moves to get him.
Filling needs
The Vikes filled a desperate need with first-round OLB Chad Greenway. They filled another big need of nickel CB with second-round DB Cedric Griffin. In the off-season, the Vikes have now brought in 4 different interior offensive linemen, filling another huge need. I'm having trouble seeing why a team that was 9-7 in 2005 shouldn't be better in 2006. The real problems of last season appear to have been dealt with. Now if the WRs and RBs can fulfill their potential (that means Chester Taylor is as good as the Vikings think, that Koren Robinson becomes the #1 WR and Troy Williamson doubles his production from last season), and Brad Johnson holds up, the Vikings should be able to win the NFC North. Though the Vikes' draft was a bit defense-heavy, wasn't it?
Optimism
On New Years Eve, I was the one running around the party reminding everybody how big the universe is and saying, "It's all bullshit." My friend Abe says I'm the most pessimistic person he knows, yet I get overly optimistic about the Vikings. It's all true.
Houston Texan fans should be barricading the streets.
Count me among those who believe selecting Mario Williams ahead of Reggie Bush will go down as one of the epic mistakes in the draft history of any sport.
But then the Texans wait until the 3rd and 4th round to pick offensive linemen? They basically wasted a pick on David Carr by putting him behind atrocious offensive lines for four seasons. Will their offensive line be any better in 2006 than it has been in their history? I doubt it. Kubiak better be a smart, smart coach.
Jets fans should be cheering in the streets
It's not often you go into a draft knowing your offensive line is utterly terrible, then get two offensive linemen in the first round.
Packers
Good for the Packers; they drafted 12 players this weekend. In 2005, they drafted 11 players. Maybe they'll play them all. I'm extremely hopeful now that Favre can indeed break the all-time INT record while failing to break the all-time TD record.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Tarvaris Jackson = Dynasty
Actually, I have no idea what this is all about. Since I know almost as little about Jackson as I do about Croyle (or any other QB here), I'll have to trust Childress and company.
Vikes needed a QB for the future; they got a QB for the future.
Vikes needed a QB for the future; they got a QB for the future.
Ryan Cook = Three straight Super Bowls
Picking up another OL is a decent idea; getting a center when Birk has been dealing with serious injuries for a few years is a decent idea, too.
As my wife just said, "It was really rough when Birk was out."
The Vikes can still get a QB in the 3rd round.
As my wife just said, "It was really rough when Birk was out."
The Vikes can still get a QB in the 3rd round.
Cedric Griffin = Two straight Super Bowls
The Vikings needed a nickel CB, and the second round is a good place to get that.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Vikings, Rubes, and Jerseys
Welcome to the Viking Pep Rally
The Viking Jersey Unveiling was just like a high school pep rally. The cheerleaders were on hand for no apparent reason. The alumni were trotted out for their applause (alumni consisted of Tommy Mason, Jim Marshall, Paul Krause, Joey Browner, and Randall McDaniel). The head coach came out to say a few random but uncharismatic words to the fans. Then the current players came out in the new outfits (players on hand: Mewelde Moore, Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, Matt Birk, Jermaine Wiggins, Jim Kleinsasser, and Troy Williamson). All in all, just what the rubes need to get through the offseason.
Why the rubes come out to play
The NFL season is very short, with only a few real events to attend. So in the offseason, fans will take any excuse whatsoever to attend an event featuring their team. The rubes were out in full force at the MOA last night. I've twice been to River Falls, WI when the Vikes scrimmaged the Chiefs--it was an absolute madhouse covering several practice fields. I've attended preseason games, and there are barely less people in attendance than for a real game. It's been years since I've been to Mankato for training camp, and I've never been to the draft party, but from my understanding it's just as crazy.
We're rubes. We love our team. We'll do just about anything to feel any connection with the team.
My fandom is put to shame
I always feel guilty when I see the fans walking around with facepaint and horned helmets (yes, plenty of fans painted their faces purple and gold to attend a freaking jersey unveiling). I always think, "Could I be doing more as a fan?"
Modernization without abandoning tradition
There's always a fair amount of anxiety when a team changes jersey styles. Too many teams have made terrible changes, even altering the color scheme and overall concept. And there will always be some people resistant to any changes.
But I like the new Viking uniforms. They've maintained the color scheme without change. The helmet is slightly revised (which has happened before too), but the concept of the horn on the side of the helmet remains. The changes really make a huge difference in the overall look of the uniform; however, the uniforms are really the same (with a few swishing stripes on the side and shoulder pads).
I think the changes are positive. The purple pants are slick. On the football field, they will look classy and pretty similar to the way they've always looked.
The Viking Jersey Unveiling was just like a high school pep rally. The cheerleaders were on hand for no apparent reason. The alumni were trotted out for their applause (alumni consisted of Tommy Mason, Jim Marshall, Paul Krause, Joey Browner, and Randall McDaniel). The head coach came out to say a few random but uncharismatic words to the fans. Then the current players came out in the new outfits (players on hand: Mewelde Moore, Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, Matt Birk, Jermaine Wiggins, Jim Kleinsasser, and Troy Williamson). All in all, just what the rubes need to get through the offseason.
Why the rubes come out to play
The NFL season is very short, with only a few real events to attend. So in the offseason, fans will take any excuse whatsoever to attend an event featuring their team. The rubes were out in full force at the MOA last night. I've twice been to River Falls, WI when the Vikes scrimmaged the Chiefs--it was an absolute madhouse covering several practice fields. I've attended preseason games, and there are barely less people in attendance than for a real game. It's been years since I've been to Mankato for training camp, and I've never been to the draft party, but from my understanding it's just as crazy.
We're rubes. We love our team. We'll do just about anything to feel any connection with the team.
My fandom is put to shame
I always feel guilty when I see the fans walking around with facepaint and horned helmets (yes, plenty of fans painted their faces purple and gold to attend a freaking jersey unveiling). I always think, "Could I be doing more as a fan?"
Modernization without abandoning tradition
There's always a fair amount of anxiety when a team changes jersey styles. Too many teams have made terrible changes, even altering the color scheme and overall concept. And there will always be some people resistant to any changes.
But I like the new Viking uniforms. They've maintained the color scheme without change. The helmet is slightly revised (which has happened before too), but the concept of the horn on the side of the helmet remains. The changes really make a huge difference in the overall look of the uniform; however, the uniforms are really the same (with a few swishing stripes on the side and shoulder pads).
I think the changes are positive. The purple pants are slick. On the football field, they will look classy and pretty similar to the way they've always looked.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Football mini-posts
Ricky Manning, Jr. = Bloggers' Sworn Enemy
I once had a student in class who was poking fun at those who would dress up as characters to stand in line for Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, who memorize and know the minute details of the sagas, who talk about them all the time. When I asked him how that is different from people who paint their faces and dress up and tailgate before football games, or memorize statistics, or talk about sports all the time, he muttered, "That's different. It just is."
Of course, it's not. To each his own. Die-hard sports fans are geeks, and should embrace that. And most sports bloggers are the biggest geeks of them all: we know excruciating minutiae about our favorite teams, and we devote hours to talking about sports online. Furthermore, many of us may have been geeks in high school.
And isn't the case of Ricky Manning and his posse beating up a guy in a Denny's for using a laptop computer just a hyper-exaggerated version of jocks picking on nerds?
And so, Ricky Manning, Jr. comes to stand for all we hate. And now he's on the Bears.
Draft Exhaustion
It's NFL Draft Week; I should post about what the Vikings might do. Of course, I've been doing that for weeks. So has everybody else. I can't possibly come up with something new right now. Draft hype might be worse than Super Bowl hype because of the longevity and scope of it. For two weeks, we get way too much Super Bowl hype, and then to watch actual football being played seems like a pure, real experience. But the hype for the draft lasts months, involves every team, involves hundreds of players, AND HAS NO PAYOFF. The experience of watching the draft is a lot like draft hype: all speculation and potential, no real performance.
Viking Fashion Show
Thursday at the Mall of America, some prominent Viking players will be modeling the new uniforms. There's something surreal about such an event: bulked up tough guys marching around a stage to be voyeuristically ogled by ridiculous fans for nothing other than their presence and their attire. I can't wait to see it. One of the benefits of living in the Twin Cities is that I'm close to all these things that happen. It takes me about 20 minutes to get to the MOA; I simply can't justify NOT going to this show.
I once had a student in class who was poking fun at those who would dress up as characters to stand in line for Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, who memorize and know the minute details of the sagas, who talk about them all the time. When I asked him how that is different from people who paint their faces and dress up and tailgate before football games, or memorize statistics, or talk about sports all the time, he muttered, "That's different. It just is."
Of course, it's not. To each his own. Die-hard sports fans are geeks, and should embrace that. And most sports bloggers are the biggest geeks of them all: we know excruciating minutiae about our favorite teams, and we devote hours to talking about sports online. Furthermore, many of us may have been geeks in high school.
And isn't the case of Ricky Manning and his posse beating up a guy in a Denny's for using a laptop computer just a hyper-exaggerated version of jocks picking on nerds?
And so, Ricky Manning, Jr. comes to stand for all we hate. And now he's on the Bears.
Draft Exhaustion
It's NFL Draft Week; I should post about what the Vikings might do. Of course, I've been doing that for weeks. So has everybody else. I can't possibly come up with something new right now. Draft hype might be worse than Super Bowl hype because of the longevity and scope of it. For two weeks, we get way too much Super Bowl hype, and then to watch actual football being played seems like a pure, real experience. But the hype for the draft lasts months, involves every team, involves hundreds of players, AND HAS NO PAYOFF. The experience of watching the draft is a lot like draft hype: all speculation and potential, no real performance.
Viking Fashion Show
Thursday at the Mall of America, some prominent Viking players will be modeling the new uniforms. There's something surreal about such an event: bulked up tough guys marching around a stage to be voyeuristically ogled by ridiculous fans for nothing other than their presence and their attire. I can't wait to see it. One of the benefits of living in the Twin Cities is that I'm close to all these things that happen. It takes me about 20 minutes to get to the MOA; I simply can't justify NOT going to this show.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Friday, April 21, 2006
Writing Quality: Skip Bayless
One of my least favorite expressions: "X and Y don't even belong in the same sentence together."
Why do I dislike this? Because anything can go in the same sentence together. "X is way better than Y." "Y shouldn't even be compared to X." Any two subjects can appear in the same sentence, in part because words like "not" exist. Saying things don't belong in the same sentence together doesn't really illustrate their difference in quality. It does--but not really. Only in the way we recognize what cliches mean even if we don't know their original meaning. That's why developing writers are taught to avoid cliches. They are unoriginal and meaningless. Cliches are generally a sign of poor writing.
But there's a more important reason I don't like this cliche. By saying "X and Y don't belong in the same sentence," you are putting X and Y in the same sentence! It's a paradoxical sentence, sort of like the sentence, "I am lying."
Skip Bayless pulls this poor writing cliche thrice in his column on Vince Young.
He writes,
"Then again, comparing Vince Young with Aaron Rodgers is like putting Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf in the same sentence."
Very good, Skip. Evidently, only a moron would put Manning and Leaf in the same sentence.
Later, he writes a sentence that stands as its own paragraph:
"Mario Williams doesn't belong in the same paragraph with Vince Young."
Skip, not only have you placed them in the same paragraph, but your paragraph is only one sentence! Evidently Williams and Vince do occasionally belong in the same paragraph.
But Skip Bayless likes this cliche, and he keeps expanding it outward:
"Otherwise, Williams doesn't belong in the same zip code with Peppers."
Bayless likes the "X doesn't belong (insert some level of distance) within Y" cliche when saying that X isn't nearly as good as Y. At least he's consistent in using this well-worn cliche and he seems to be developing a pattern of expansion throughout the column.
But it's a poor, stupid, inherently contradictory cliche that only means something at this point because we all know what it means. It's a cliche that is not only counter-intuitive, but illuminates nothing.
Why do I dislike this? Because anything can go in the same sentence together. "X is way better than Y." "Y shouldn't even be compared to X." Any two subjects can appear in the same sentence, in part because words like "not" exist. Saying things don't belong in the same sentence together doesn't really illustrate their difference in quality. It does--but not really. Only in the way we recognize what cliches mean even if we don't know their original meaning. That's why developing writers are taught to avoid cliches. They are unoriginal and meaningless. Cliches are generally a sign of poor writing.
But there's a more important reason I don't like this cliche. By saying "X and Y don't belong in the same sentence," you are putting X and Y in the same sentence! It's a paradoxical sentence, sort of like the sentence, "I am lying."
Skip Bayless pulls this poor writing cliche thrice in his column on Vince Young.
He writes,
"Then again, comparing Vince Young with Aaron Rodgers is like putting Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf in the same sentence."
Very good, Skip. Evidently, only a moron would put Manning and Leaf in the same sentence.
Later, he writes a sentence that stands as its own paragraph:
"Mario Williams doesn't belong in the same paragraph with Vince Young."
Skip, not only have you placed them in the same paragraph, but your paragraph is only one sentence! Evidently Williams and Vince do occasionally belong in the same paragraph.
But Skip Bayless likes this cliche, and he keeps expanding it outward:
"Otherwise, Williams doesn't belong in the same zip code with Peppers."
Bayless likes the "X doesn't belong (insert some level of distance) within Y" cliche when saying that X isn't nearly as good as Y. At least he's consistent in using this well-worn cliche and he seems to be developing a pattern of expansion throughout the column.
But it's a poor, stupid, inherently contradictory cliche that only means something at this point because we all know what it means. It's a cliche that is not only counter-intuitive, but illuminates nothing.
Construction of Identity: Dick Vitale
ESPN Classic is showing old NBA playoff broadcasts. During a showing of a 1984 game, I thought I recognized the commentator's voice. It was a simple, professional broadcast, featuring solid commentary and analysis on the game, and was fairly critical. Where had I heard the voice before?
And suddenly...no way...I realized...IT'S DICK VITALE!
It was a calm, clear, professional broadcast.
There was no screaming, shouting, or yelling. No catchphrases. No exaggerated praise for players, coaches, or programs.
It was just regular commentary and analysis on a basketball game.
So when did Dick Vitale construct the Identity he is known for now?
And suddenly...no way...I realized...IT'S DICK VITALE!
It was a calm, clear, professional broadcast.
There was no screaming, shouting, or yelling. No catchphrases. No exaggerated praise for players, coaches, or programs.
It was just regular commentary and analysis on a basketball game.
So when did Dick Vitale construct the Identity he is known for now?
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
The Vikings and Me
Four Super Bowl appearances. Legendary Hall of Famers such as Fran Tarkenton and Alan Page (the two Vikings to win MVPs). Wonderful stories. Consistent success.
Nearly there so often.
And so often thwarted with heartbreak and misery.
Old Viking fans can talk about Drew Pearson's pushoff in 1975, and the miserable experiences they had watching their team stink in four Super Bowls. Younger Viking fans can tell you where they were when Gary Anderson missed the kick against the Falcons, when they lost 41-0 to the Giants, when Nate Poole made Paul Allen shout "NOOOO! NOOOO!"
Scars? We've got a few.
What we don't have is a championship trophy. The Vikings are by far the most successful NFL franchise to never have won a championship (not a pleasant honor by any means). The Vikes have a rich, successful history featuring playoff wins and gladiators decked in purple breathing misty cold air.
And that one championship trophy could redeem the suffering of an entire fanbase. That one championship could justify the entire beautiful history of the franchise. That one championship could bring meaning and closure to a team that has had brilliant success, but is left with the emptiness.
Emptiness. That's what it is to be a Viking fan. Glory and tradition that is, ultimately, empty. A great deal of suffering and time and all for nothing.
If the Vikings can win a single championship, nothing else would matter. Future failure (even the much feared relocation) could be soothed with the simple memory. Any time the Vikings lose a devestating playoff game, I could say, "At least they won a championship." I could look at pictures, read statistics, put in video tape. I would comfort myself with the memory of past triumph. Now, when the Vikings season ends, I have nothing. Just that empty, pitiful feeling. I feel like A. E. Housman; every year that passes without a Viking championship is one less chance to see the cherry tree in bloom.
Because every day, yes EVERY DAY, I consider the prospect that I will die without seeing the Vikings win a Super Bowl.
Which means every day I consider dying without fulfillment, without purpose, without meaning.
And that's my life as a Viking fan.
More on 1st round QBs
Using pro-football-reference.com, drafthistory.com, and superbowl.com (just to check if Tony Eason started Super Bowl XX), I have been examining the success rate of 1st round QBs.
I have used a very modest measure of success. I have considered it a successful pick if he
a. made at least one Pro Bowl with the team that drafted him, or
b. started at least one Super Bowl with the team that drafted him.
This shows at least some positive outcome from drafting the QB. One could argue persuasively of course that drafting a QB just to have him make one Pro Bowl and never lead your team to the Super Bowl is probably a lousy use of a pick. But I'm just trying to measure some level of success achieved by drafting a QB in the first round.
I have excluded supplemental picks from this percentage. Listed below are the number of first round QBs who achieved either a. or b. out of the total number of QBs selected in the first round. I decided to check from the merger on.
1983 (Elway) and 1986 (Everett) feature QBs who did not achieve a. or b. with the team that drafted each, but was acquired by a team prior to their rookie seasons.
1970: 1/2
1971: 2/3
1972: 0/2
1973: 1/1
1975: 1/1
1976: 0/1
1977: 1/2
1978: 0/1
1979: 1/3
1980: 0/2
1981: 0/1
1982: 1/2
1983: 4/6*
1986: 0/2*
1987: 1/4
1989: 1/1
1990: 0/2
1991: 0/2
1992: 0/2
1993: 1/2
1994: 1/2
1995: 2/2
1997: 0/1
1998: 1/2
1999: 2/5
2000: 0/1
2001: 1/1
2002: 0/3
2003: 1/4
2004: 1/4
2005: 0/3
This measures only a very small level of success. A few other factors that might be better for measuring success:
a. QBs who made multiple Pro Bowls with the teams that drafted them
b. QBs who started and won at least one playoff game with the teams that drafted them.
The numbers show little other than that is is a crapshoot whether or not a 1st round QB will have even a minimal, short-term level of success.
I could compare this to the relative success to other positions taken in the first round. I'm not sure that would be accurate, however, for two reasons:
1. QB busts make a bigger difference than busts at other positions
2. Successful QBs have a greater impact on their team than other positions.
Anyway, this is a bunch of gibberish right now.
I have used a very modest measure of success. I have considered it a successful pick if he
a. made at least one Pro Bowl with the team that drafted him, or
b. started at least one Super Bowl with the team that drafted him.
This shows at least some positive outcome from drafting the QB. One could argue persuasively of course that drafting a QB just to have him make one Pro Bowl and never lead your team to the Super Bowl is probably a lousy use of a pick. But I'm just trying to measure some level of success achieved by drafting a QB in the first round.
I have excluded supplemental picks from this percentage. Listed below are the number of first round QBs who achieved either a. or b. out of the total number of QBs selected in the first round. I decided to check from the merger on.
1983 (Elway) and 1986 (Everett) feature QBs who did not achieve a. or b. with the team that drafted each, but was acquired by a team prior to their rookie seasons.
1970: 1/2
1971: 2/3
1972: 0/2
1973: 1/1
1975: 1/1
1976: 0/1
1977: 1/2
1978: 0/1
1979: 1/3
1980: 0/2
1981: 0/1
1982: 1/2
1983: 4/6*
1986: 0/2*
1987: 1/4
1989: 1/1
1990: 0/2
1991: 0/2
1992: 0/2
1993: 1/2
1994: 1/2
1995: 2/2
1997: 0/1
1998: 1/2
1999: 2/5
2000: 0/1
2001: 1/1
2002: 0/3
2003: 1/4
2004: 1/4
2005: 0/3
This measures only a very small level of success. A few other factors that might be better for measuring success:
a. QBs who made multiple Pro Bowls with the teams that drafted them
b. QBs who started and won at least one playoff game with the teams that drafted them.
The numbers show little other than that is is a crapshoot whether or not a 1st round QB will have even a minimal, short-term level of success.
I could compare this to the relative success to other positions taken in the first round. I'm not sure that would be accurate, however, for two reasons:
1. QB busts make a bigger difference than busts at other positions
2. Successful QBs have a greater impact on their team than other positions.
Anyway, this is a bunch of gibberish right now.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Drafting QBs
Let's go backward through the past 10 Super Bowls to find starting Super Bowl QBs who were 1st round draft picks.
I'm going mostly off the top of my head here (the only guy I looked up was Chris Chandler), and I'm signifying the season, not the year.
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2004: Donovan McNabb
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000: Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins
1999: Steve McNair
1998: John Elway
1997: John Elway
1996: Drew Bledsoe
So, of the 20 opportunities to start a Super Bowl in the past 10 years, only 8 starters have been 1st round draft picks. In the last 5 years, only 2 of 10 Super Bowl starters were 1st round picks.
There are many ways to explain this, and I won't get into them now. But the question certainly presents itself: is it worth it to draft a QB in the first round?
Actually, another issue is also presented. In the past 10 seasons, how many of the Super Bowl starting QBs were drafted by the team they led to the Super Bowl?
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2004: Donovan McNabb, Tom Brady
2003: Tom Brady
2002:
2001: Tom Brady
2000:
1999: Steve McNair
1998: John Elway
1997: John Elway
1996: Drew Bledsoe
Only 9 of the 20 Super Bowl starters were drafted by their Super Bowl team at all (and that includes only 6 different players).
Again, there are numerous ways to interpret this. But again, a question is presented: is it any better to draft a QB than to acquire a QB another way?
(update: just realized Elway wasn't drafted by the Broncos. However, since he was a rookie with the Broncos, it might be OK to count this with an asterisk)
I'm going mostly off the top of my head here (the only guy I looked up was Chris Chandler), and I'm signifying the season, not the year.
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2004: Donovan McNabb
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000: Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins
1999: Steve McNair
1998: John Elway
1997: John Elway
1996: Drew Bledsoe
So, of the 20 opportunities to start a Super Bowl in the past 10 years, only 8 starters have been 1st round draft picks. In the last 5 years, only 2 of 10 Super Bowl starters were 1st round picks.
There are many ways to explain this, and I won't get into them now. But the question certainly presents itself: is it worth it to draft a QB in the first round?
Actually, another issue is also presented. In the past 10 seasons, how many of the Super Bowl starting QBs were drafted by the team they led to the Super Bowl?
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2004: Donovan McNabb, Tom Brady
2003: Tom Brady
2002:
2001: Tom Brady
2000:
1999: Steve McNair
1998: John Elway
1997: John Elway
1996: Drew Bledsoe
Only 9 of the 20 Super Bowl starters were drafted by their Super Bowl team at all (and that includes only 6 different players).
Again, there are numerous ways to interpret this. But again, a question is presented: is it any better to draft a QB than to acquire a QB another way?
(update: just realized Elway wasn't drafted by the Broncos. However, since he was a rookie with the Broncos, it might be OK to count this with an asterisk)
A good Saturday wasted
The NFL draft approaches. I've already created many of the rookies on Madden 06; I just await April 29th to add them to the right team (I've already adjusted most rosters for Free Agency). I'll need to stock up on pop, pizza, booze, and Salt and Vinegar Potato Chips.
The Vikings' choices with the #17 pick actually seem fairly limited to me. I'll be surprised if they don't do one of the following:
A. Trade the pick for Matt Schaub.
B. Trade into the Top Ten and draft a QB.
C. Stay put and draft one of the top RB prospects.
D. Stay put and draft a linebacker.
I just don't see a lot of other options. First, look at the defense.
They won't draft somebody in the secondary. In the last few years they've built a starting secondary entirely through Free Agency (Winfield, Smoot, Sharper, Williams). Anybody they draft would be a nickel back. Any team that didn't make the playoffs the year before must have greater needs than a nickel back.
I don't see them drafting a defensive lineman. Not only do they have 03, 04, and 05 first round picks on the defensive line, they have dominant NT Pat Williams, and guys like Darrion Scott, DeQuincy Scott, and C.J. Moseley providing depth. It's just not a pressing need.
On defense, they could draft outside or inside linebackers.
On offense, the team certainly doesn't need to draft a WR. It's a deep position mixed with youth and veterans. I have trouble seeing them taking an offensive lineman, as the left side is set with very good players, and there are a lot of linemen on roster to fight for the positions on the right side. That leaves RBs, QBs, and TEs. I guess a TE wouldn't shock me, but it doesn't seem a pressing immediate need with Jermaine Wiggins on the team (certainly the Vikes could use another pass catching TE). It's debatable whether the team needs a RB--there are arguments for or against. There is no debate that they need a good young QB to either learn under 38 year old Brad Johnson or fight for his job.
Now, with the two 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders, the Vikings could do anything. In those spots, getting good backups or future starters makes sense. I just don't see any other options for the 1st round pick.
Can you see any reasonable choice for the #17 pick other than those I listed above? Or are any of those I listed above completely unreasonable?
The Vikings' choices with the #17 pick actually seem fairly limited to me. I'll be surprised if they don't do one of the following:
A. Trade the pick for Matt Schaub.
B. Trade into the Top Ten and draft a QB.
C. Stay put and draft one of the top RB prospects.
D. Stay put and draft a linebacker.
I just don't see a lot of other options. First, look at the defense.
They won't draft somebody in the secondary. In the last few years they've built a starting secondary entirely through Free Agency (Winfield, Smoot, Sharper, Williams). Anybody they draft would be a nickel back. Any team that didn't make the playoffs the year before must have greater needs than a nickel back.
I don't see them drafting a defensive lineman. Not only do they have 03, 04, and 05 first round picks on the defensive line, they have dominant NT Pat Williams, and guys like Darrion Scott, DeQuincy Scott, and C.J. Moseley providing depth. It's just not a pressing need.
On defense, they could draft outside or inside linebackers.
On offense, the team certainly doesn't need to draft a WR. It's a deep position mixed with youth and veterans. I have trouble seeing them taking an offensive lineman, as the left side is set with very good players, and there are a lot of linemen on roster to fight for the positions on the right side. That leaves RBs, QBs, and TEs. I guess a TE wouldn't shock me, but it doesn't seem a pressing immediate need with Jermaine Wiggins on the team (certainly the Vikes could use another pass catching TE). It's debatable whether the team needs a RB--there are arguments for or against. There is no debate that they need a good young QB to either learn under 38 year old Brad Johnson or fight for his job.
Now, with the two 2nd rounders and two 3rd rounders, the Vikings could do anything. In those spots, getting good backups or future starters makes sense. I just don't see any other options for the 1st round pick.
Can you see any reasonable choice for the #17 pick other than those I listed above? Or are any of those I listed above completely unreasonable?
Friday, April 14, 2006
Seahawks: shut up.
Are the Seattle Seahawks a franchise of whiners? First they lost the Super Bowl because the refs sided with the Steelers. Now, there's still upset that Steve Hutchinson is a Viking.
This needs to stop.
This article by Art Thiel in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (via PFT, the best source for all things NFL) reveals a few things about why I'm sick of the Seahawks complaining about the Vikings getting Steve Hutchinson.
1. IT WAS THE SEAHAWKS' FAULT!
Mike Holmgren is rightly annoyed at the Seahawk front office for botching the Hutchinson situation. They could have franchised him. They chose to give him a transition designation. THE SEAHAWKS WILLINGLY MADE HIM AVAILABLE TO OTHER TEAMS.
When you screw up, deal with it. Don't bitch about how others were able to take advantage of your screwup.
2. THE VIKINGS DID NOTHING WRONG
Thiel called the Vikings contract "diabolical." Holmgren says that "No one in their wildest dreams... thought that Minnesota would do something that no team had done in 12 years (under the collective bargaining agreement) because it's kind of unfair."
Did the Vikings break a single rule of the Collective Bargaining Agreement? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It could not be found that the Vikes broke any rule. It's not about being "unfair": when groups agree to a Collective Bargaining Agreement, they are putting aside subjective concepts of fairness and CREATING RULES. These rules are negotiated, compromised, and agreed upon. If one side or the other is concerned that something is unfair, there is a chance to negotiate. If it is deemed too unfair, no agreement will be reached. It's not about morality, it's about law: AN AGREEMENT IS MADE REGARDING RULES THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED.
Is it "fair" that players get drafted and don't get a choice about where they play? Probably not. But it's been agreed that those are the rules by which the system will work.
Quit bitching about fairness, Seahawks. You knew the rules. You made a tactical error within the rules. Another team took advantage of your tactical error and played within the rules to its advantage.
There is nothing else to whine about.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
A few football notes
The meaning of the draft
I've been putting off writing an essay-length post on the metaphysical, existential meaning of the Minnesota Vikings. In the meantime, I'm wondering: what is the meaning of the NFL Draft to a football fan?
Back in February at Free Darko, there was a discussion on the nature of "potential" and NBA fandom. I suggested that the in the NFL, the season is devoted to pure actualization with little talk about potential, and the offseason is devoted to pure potential.
Why is the NFL draft so popular? The fact is, on draft day nobody wins a game and nobody loses a game, but the draft provides us with the perception, the potential, of winning games. It's all about hope. The season may disappoint, but we get to dream. It is tremendously meaningful to NFL fans because it is the only day of substance devoted to hope. During the season, what matters is the season. There's no rebuilding during the season: your team is what it is, be it good, bad, or mediocre. Certainly we are free to hope and dream about the future of our favorite teams at any point, but most of our time as spectators of NFL events is devoted to the now. For one day, we get substance of the future.
The Vikes scored big in the Daunte trade
ProFootballTalk.com is suggesting that Daunte Culpepper may miss most or all of 2006.
So let's get this straight. The Vikings had a 29 year old QB who had won 2 playoff games. He is recovering from a serious injury that may prevent him from ever being as good again. He may not be able to contribute at all for a full season.
And the Vikings got something for him?
It is possible that the Dolphins gave up a second-round pick for the right to a 30 year old player available in 2007 who has recovered from a career-changing injury and has never been a proven winner.
Adulthood and Responsibility make Pacifist Viking a Sad Fan
I try to use this blog to write about sports, not myself, but occasionally the intersection of sports and my life gives me reason.
I'm an 2nd year adjunct college professor, which means I have no tenure, no seniority, and I get paid per credit I teach each semester. Because I'm in the process of buying a house (a purchase that will soon limit my cable access, cancel my home internet access, and severely limit my football and basketball card collecting), I need to make money. And the good news is that I got my tentative fall schedule, and I'm tentatively scheduled for four classes.
Why mention it here? Because indeed, I am scheduled to teach a class 5:00-8:00 central time on Mondays. I will miss most of the Vikings' season opener (hello, VCR). I will miss parts of the Vikings' Monday Night game vs. the Patriots (unless I can score me some tickets; you better believe I'd give some happy students the night off for that). I guess that might be all the Monday Night Football I miss because of class, since I probably won't have ESPN at all.
So indeed, adulthood and responsibility will seriously limit my fandom in 2006. Life responsibilities have always in some way limited my fandom; the proof that I am an adult is that I'm more than willing to let them.
The precious record
Dan Marino currently has 420 TD passes. Brett Favre has 396. It seemed like when Marino approached Tarkenton's previous record, it was talked about a great deal. So too when Emmitt Smith approached and broke Walter Payton's rushing record.
Why isn't this mentioned in the articles about Favre deciding whether to retire or not? Is Favre being treated like he is above such statistical concerns? I just don't know why nobody even talks about it as potential motivation for returning. It's one of the most hallowed NFL records. If Favre returns, he has a fair chance to break it (he also has a fair chance to break a different record).
I'm just a little curious why this is being ignored, especially since so many writers and broadcasters love to heap praises on Favre.
I've been putting off writing an essay-length post on the metaphysical, existential meaning of the Minnesota Vikings. In the meantime, I'm wondering: what is the meaning of the NFL Draft to a football fan?
Back in February at Free Darko, there was a discussion on the nature of "potential" and NBA fandom. I suggested that the in the NFL, the season is devoted to pure actualization with little talk about potential, and the offseason is devoted to pure potential.
Why is the NFL draft so popular? The fact is, on draft day nobody wins a game and nobody loses a game, but the draft provides us with the perception, the potential, of winning games. It's all about hope. The season may disappoint, but we get to dream. It is tremendously meaningful to NFL fans because it is the only day of substance devoted to hope. During the season, what matters is the season. There's no rebuilding during the season: your team is what it is, be it good, bad, or mediocre. Certainly we are free to hope and dream about the future of our favorite teams at any point, but most of our time as spectators of NFL events is devoted to the now. For one day, we get substance of the future.
The Vikes scored big in the Daunte trade
ProFootballTalk.com is suggesting that Daunte Culpepper may miss most or all of 2006.
So let's get this straight. The Vikings had a 29 year old QB who had won 2 playoff games. He is recovering from a serious injury that may prevent him from ever being as good again. He may not be able to contribute at all for a full season.
And the Vikings got something for him?
It is possible that the Dolphins gave up a second-round pick for the right to a 30 year old player available in 2007 who has recovered from a career-changing injury and has never been a proven winner.
Adulthood and Responsibility make Pacifist Viking a Sad Fan
I try to use this blog to write about sports, not myself, but occasionally the intersection of sports and my life gives me reason.
I'm an 2nd year adjunct college professor, which means I have no tenure, no seniority, and I get paid per credit I teach each semester. Because I'm in the process of buying a house (a purchase that will soon limit my cable access, cancel my home internet access, and severely limit my football and basketball card collecting), I need to make money. And the good news is that I got my tentative fall schedule, and I'm tentatively scheduled for four classes.
Why mention it here? Because indeed, I am scheduled to teach a class 5:00-8:00 central time on Mondays. I will miss most of the Vikings' season opener (hello, VCR). I will miss parts of the Vikings' Monday Night game vs. the Patriots (unless I can score me some tickets; you better believe I'd give some happy students the night off for that). I guess that might be all the Monday Night Football I miss because of class, since I probably won't have ESPN at all.
So indeed, adulthood and responsibility will seriously limit my fandom in 2006. Life responsibilities have always in some way limited my fandom; the proof that I am an adult is that I'm more than willing to let them.
The precious record
Dan Marino currently has 420 TD passes. Brett Favre has 396. It seemed like when Marino approached Tarkenton's previous record, it was talked about a great deal. So too when Emmitt Smith approached and broke Walter Payton's rushing record.
Why isn't this mentioned in the articles about Favre deciding whether to retire or not? Is Favre being treated like he is above such statistical concerns? I just don't know why nobody even talks about it as potential motivation for returning. It's one of the most hallowed NFL records. If Favre returns, he has a fair chance to break it (he also has a fair chance to break a different record).
I'm just a little curious why this is being ignored, especially since so many writers and broadcasters love to heap praises on Favre.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Do the Vikings need to draft a RB?
There's some debate regarding the Vikings' potential need of a running back which they could address through the draft.
Some people say the Vikings need to draft a star-quality running back, and that after years of messing around with Running Back By Committee, the team needs to get a young workhorse.
Others say that RB is actually one of the Vikings' deeper positions, and that there are more prominent team needs than this position.
Let's take a look at the meaningful RBs currently on the roster (I know that other RBs may be on the roster, but these are really the only ones I expect to be capably of a real contribution from in 2006).
Chester Taylor
As a backup in Baltimore, he played well. He had good yards per carry, and showed the ability to be part of a passing game. The Vikes wouldn't have signed him as a FA if they didn't expect good things from him. I figure at worst, he'll be an average running back. I don't know what his ceiling is.
Tony Richardson
On KFAN yesterday, Richardson talked about considering himself a 6th offensive lineman. I don't think we should expect a lot of carries from him.
Mewelde Moore
Moore has shown flashes of brilliance. But there's a reason he's only shown flashes; he has a tendency to get minor injuries, and to allow these minor injuries to sideline him for extended periods of time (either that, or Mike Tice didn't like him). You should be able to count on him to give a solid contribution at the position, but you cannot count on him to give you 20+ touches with any regularity, and I doubt you should expect 16 games.
Onterrio Smith
At this point, I think you have to consider Onterrio a Zero-Plus. You shouldn't count on him for anything, and anything he gives you will be a plus. Having him back means good depth, but I don't know if he'll ever be an every-down back.
Ciatrick Fason
In my humble opinion, Fason sucks.
So, in my estimation, whether you think the Vikes should draft a RB or not depends entirely on your opinion of Chester Taylor. If you think he can be a good to very good running back if given the opportunity to be a feature back, then the Vikes don't need a RB. If you think that he is merely average, and that the Vikings still need a workhorse feature back, then they should draft a RB.
I have no strong feeling right now. Chester Taylor might end up being a very good back, and Moore provides some definite depth and talent to strengthen the position. But I don' know that Taylor can be a star RB, so if the Vikings brass thinks they could do better, I'd support them doing something about it in the draft.
Some people say the Vikings need to draft a star-quality running back, and that after years of messing around with Running Back By Committee, the team needs to get a young workhorse.
Others say that RB is actually one of the Vikings' deeper positions, and that there are more prominent team needs than this position.
Let's take a look at the meaningful RBs currently on the roster (I know that other RBs may be on the roster, but these are really the only ones I expect to be capably of a real contribution from in 2006).
Chester Taylor
As a backup in Baltimore, he played well. He had good yards per carry, and showed the ability to be part of a passing game. The Vikes wouldn't have signed him as a FA if they didn't expect good things from him. I figure at worst, he'll be an average running back. I don't know what his ceiling is.
Tony Richardson
On KFAN yesterday, Richardson talked about considering himself a 6th offensive lineman. I don't think we should expect a lot of carries from him.
Mewelde Moore
Moore has shown flashes of brilliance. But there's a reason he's only shown flashes; he has a tendency to get minor injuries, and to allow these minor injuries to sideline him for extended periods of time (either that, or Mike Tice didn't like him). You should be able to count on him to give a solid contribution at the position, but you cannot count on him to give you 20+ touches with any regularity, and I doubt you should expect 16 games.
Onterrio Smith
At this point, I think you have to consider Onterrio a Zero-Plus. You shouldn't count on him for anything, and anything he gives you will be a plus. Having him back means good depth, but I don't know if he'll ever be an every-down back.
Ciatrick Fason
In my humble opinion, Fason sucks.
So, in my estimation, whether you think the Vikes should draft a RB or not depends entirely on your opinion of Chester Taylor. If you think he can be a good to very good running back if given the opportunity to be a feature back, then the Vikes don't need a RB. If you think that he is merely average, and that the Vikings still need a workhorse feature back, then they should draft a RB.
I have no strong feeling right now. Chester Taylor might end up being a very good back, and Moore provides some definite depth and talent to strengthen the position. But I don' know that Taylor can be a star RB, so if the Vikings brass thinks they could do better, I'd support them doing something about it in the draft.
Monday, April 10, 2006
A rambling April look at the club
I'm a Viking diehard. I enjoy taking meandering looks at the squad periodically during the offseason. These ramblings lack coherence, direction, and order; it's D- quality writing. But a blog is a good dumping ground for an obsessive-compulsive fan (I don't get the reviews of Hornby's Fever Pitch that talk about how funny it is; I haven't laughed once).
Be warned; this isn't quality writing and you should only read it if you have a deep abiding passion for the Purple.
Despite being converted to a "Defense and Special Teams wins championships" ideology, I still care about the Viking offense. Some ramblings about the Viking offense.
Interesting article here at the Pioneer Press (via PFT) on the Viking WRs.
Koren Robinson is the #1 WR, and Troy Williamson has the best chance to be #2.
I see a lot of of the dreaded word "potential" here. It's not exactly Cris Carter and Randy Moss, but Robinson and Williamson seem suited to play well in a West Coast variant (nobody can really be sure what Childress is going to be running). Robinson has size, speed, and playmaking ability. Williamson has incredible after-the-catch speed (though in 2005 he had real trouble adjusting to deep passes in the air).
There's no proven skill position star on the Vikes...but there are no slouches, either.
It's a little scary that the Vikings could be starting two former Raven skill position players on offense, when the Ravens have had one of the legendarily bad offenses of the past few years.
Brad Johnson won't be spectacular, but that's fine. The Vikes have had plenty of spectacular offense, while BJ has earned the hardware. He wins games, and he's done it with three different franchises. I just hope his 38 year old arm holds up one more season before they turn the squad over to a youngster.
If that youngster is Mike McMahon, perhaps you would like to join me in the purchase of a vomit bucket.
One big question: will Matt Birk be as good at pulling as he was before his injury? And in Childress's offense, will he need to be?
Now, some thoughts on the defense, the stuff that really matters. Don't worry, this is getting somewhere, I think.
Here's what I see when I think about the Viking defense.
On defensive line, I see limitless talent and youth. Pat Williams was the Vikes' best player last season (Dr. Z wrote that he hadn't seen a nose tackle have a year like PW had last season). He is surrounded by three young recent first-round picks: Kevin Williams, Erasmus James, Keneche Udeze. These four (probably the starting lineup) are supported by all sorts of solid role players to add the required depth.
In the secondary, I see Antoine Winfield, the best tackling CB in the league (after watching Winfield for two years, I know that sometimes WRs catch passes against him, but they almost always get tackled immediately where they catch it). On the other side, there's Fred Smoot: not great in 2005, but he's been a very good cover corner, and he's bulked up. The safeties are gems: Darren Sharper is a playmaking veteral who seems to have a knack for intercepting passes, and Tank Williams is a 25 year old 4 year starter.
The defensive line and the secondary make me feel good. The rest of the D? Color me concerned.
Who is a nickel back? Fox and Edwards get mentioned, but they haven't done enough to make me confident. The Vikes could use a CB in the draft (though not in the first round--no reason to pay a nickel CB that much).
And the Vikings simply must draft linebackers. Maybe some of the young LBs come around in 2006. But I was thinking the same thing in 2005, and 2004, and... The Vikes have some young LBs on the roster, but it's anybody's guess what the actual starting lineup will look like in September. We don't even know if any of the current LBs are at all suited to play MLB.
I sat down to write a few things about the Viking wide receivers, and ended up coming back and taking a tour of the Vikings roster. And where'd it get me? It's a half hour later and I've got no greater insights.
Be warned; this isn't quality writing and you should only read it if you have a deep abiding passion for the Purple.
Despite being converted to a "Defense and Special Teams wins championships" ideology, I still care about the Viking offense. Some ramblings about the Viking offense.
Interesting article here at the Pioneer Press (via PFT) on the Viking WRs.
Koren Robinson is the #1 WR, and Troy Williamson has the best chance to be #2.
I see a lot of of the dreaded word "potential" here. It's not exactly Cris Carter and Randy Moss, but Robinson and Williamson seem suited to play well in a West Coast variant (nobody can really be sure what Childress is going to be running). Robinson has size, speed, and playmaking ability. Williamson has incredible after-the-catch speed (though in 2005 he had real trouble adjusting to deep passes in the air).
There's no proven skill position star on the Vikes...but there are no slouches, either.
It's a little scary that the Vikings could be starting two former Raven skill position players on offense, when the Ravens have had one of the legendarily bad offenses of the past few years.
Brad Johnson won't be spectacular, but that's fine. The Vikes have had plenty of spectacular offense, while BJ has earned the hardware. He wins games, and he's done it with three different franchises. I just hope his 38 year old arm holds up one more season before they turn the squad over to a youngster.
If that youngster is Mike McMahon, perhaps you would like to join me in the purchase of a vomit bucket.
One big question: will Matt Birk be as good at pulling as he was before his injury? And in Childress's offense, will he need to be?
Now, some thoughts on the defense, the stuff that really matters. Don't worry, this is getting somewhere, I think.
Here's what I see when I think about the Viking defense.
On defensive line, I see limitless talent and youth. Pat Williams was the Vikes' best player last season (Dr. Z wrote that he hadn't seen a nose tackle have a year like PW had last season). He is surrounded by three young recent first-round picks: Kevin Williams, Erasmus James, Keneche Udeze. These four (probably the starting lineup) are supported by all sorts of solid role players to add the required depth.
In the secondary, I see Antoine Winfield, the best tackling CB in the league (after watching Winfield for two years, I know that sometimes WRs catch passes against him, but they almost always get tackled immediately where they catch it). On the other side, there's Fred Smoot: not great in 2005, but he's been a very good cover corner, and he's bulked up. The safeties are gems: Darren Sharper is a playmaking veteral who seems to have a knack for intercepting passes, and Tank Williams is a 25 year old 4 year starter.
The defensive line and the secondary make me feel good. The rest of the D? Color me concerned.
Who is a nickel back? Fox and Edwards get mentioned, but they haven't done enough to make me confident. The Vikes could use a CB in the draft (though not in the first round--no reason to pay a nickel CB that much).
And the Vikings simply must draft linebackers. Maybe some of the young LBs come around in 2006. But I was thinking the same thing in 2005, and 2004, and... The Vikes have some young LBs on the roster, but it's anybody's guess what the actual starting lineup will look like in September. We don't even know if any of the current LBs are at all suited to play MLB.
I sat down to write a few things about the Viking wide receivers, and ended up coming back and taking a tour of the Vikings roster. And where'd it get me? It's a half hour later and I've got no greater insights.
Sports Hate: the NFC North
The Green Bay Packers
I hate the Packers with a passion that cannot be described. I hate everything about the team. I hate the holier than thou attitude of Packer fans (the obnoxious attitude that they are more special and unique than fans of any other football team).
I watch the Packers just to root for the other team. I want them to go 0-16 every year. I hate every stinking win they get.
Will this hatred last past Brett Favre's retirement? I honestly don't know. But since my passionate dislike of the Packers is based partly on the fanbase and my location, it probably will.
The Chicago Bears
I don't hate the Bears, but I hate the Vikings playing the Bears. One of my most miserable sports days of the year comes when the Vikings visit Soldier Field in order to get their asses handed to them as they struggle to put up double-figures. I don't really root against the Bears when they're playing other teams (unless they are in contention with the Vikes for the division title). I hate them a few weeks a year. I was amused when Steve Walsh was their QB (well, until he came into the Dome and beat the Vikes in the playoffs).
The Detroit Lions
Hating the Lions right now would be like hating a bug that I step on. I pity their fans. Since the Vikes haven't lost to the Lions since '01, I'm never terribly concerned about them. They suck. I have difficulty forseeing a time when they won't suck. That day might come, but in the words of Bill Bellamy in How to be a Player, "That day just ain't today."
I hate the Packers with a passion that cannot be described. I hate everything about the team. I hate the holier than thou attitude of Packer fans (the obnoxious attitude that they are more special and unique than fans of any other football team).
I watch the Packers just to root for the other team. I want them to go 0-16 every year. I hate every stinking win they get.
Will this hatred last past Brett Favre's retirement? I honestly don't know. But since my passionate dislike of the Packers is based partly on the fanbase and my location, it probably will.
The Chicago Bears
I don't hate the Bears, but I hate the Vikings playing the Bears. One of my most miserable sports days of the year comes when the Vikings visit Soldier Field in order to get their asses handed to them as they struggle to put up double-figures. I don't really root against the Bears when they're playing other teams (unless they are in contention with the Vikes for the division title). I hate them a few weeks a year. I was amused when Steve Walsh was their QB (well, until he came into the Dome and beat the Vikes in the playoffs).
The Detroit Lions
Hating the Lions right now would be like hating a bug that I step on. I pity their fans. Since the Vikes haven't lost to the Lions since '01, I'm never terribly concerned about them. They suck. I have difficulty forseeing a time when they won't suck. That day might come, but in the words of Bill Bellamy in How to be a Player, "That day just ain't today."
Request for Moratorium
I would like to issue two requests.
1. Can we stop using all the easy boat jokes in any reference to the Vikings? Sure, talk about the Minnetonka boat scandal all you want. But do we really need paid sportswriters to be slipping these stupid, easy, pointless jokes into columns about the Vikings? Bloggers, I'm judging you too, but since most of us do this for free, my judgment will be muted.
2. Can we stop making jokes about the Vikings getting their draft pick in on time? It's another easy one. Sportwriters like to think they're clever, but making jokes about not getting the pick in on time is really, really easy, and really, really lame.
These are the two joke topics I would like to avoid. By all means, write articles about these topics, but try avoid the dumb jokes in columns that aren't about these topics at all. I know you think you're funny, but you're not. We all know why the chicken crossed the road. Most of us know that the horse has a long face, and that breakfast items and strings don't get served in bars. But we don't keep repeating these jokes every time we talk about chickens, roads, or bars.
1. Can we stop using all the easy boat jokes in any reference to the Vikings? Sure, talk about the Minnetonka boat scandal all you want. But do we really need paid sportswriters to be slipping these stupid, easy, pointless jokes into columns about the Vikings? Bloggers, I'm judging you too, but since most of us do this for free, my judgment will be muted.
2. Can we stop making jokes about the Vikings getting their draft pick in on time? It's another easy one. Sportwriters like to think they're clever, but making jokes about not getting the pick in on time is really, really easy, and really, really lame.
These are the two joke topics I would like to avoid. By all means, write articles about these topics, but try avoid the dumb jokes in columns that aren't about these topics at all. I know you think you're funny, but you're not. We all know why the chicken crossed the road. Most of us know that the horse has a long face, and that breakfast items and strings don't get served in bars. But we don't keep repeating these jokes every time we talk about chickens, roads, or bars.
Two Football Comments
The Phantom Menace
Disturbing news about the Vikings from the Trib's Kevin Seifert (via PFT): the Vikings lost $10 million in 2005. Zygi has stated emphatically he has no intent to move the Vikes regardless of when he gets a stadium, but for a fanbase that was constantly threatened with relocation under Red McCombs, this is disturbing. However, I'm hopeful that the expenses that led to loss are not regular expenses, and that losses in 2005 and probably 2006 stem from necessary, unrepeated expenses to correct problems from the McCombs era. Zygi had to upgrade the Winter Park facilities and upgrade the staff. That's a big expense. In 2005 and now 2006, Zygi has had to pay for big signing bonuses to big free agents. Under McCombs the Vikes were so far under the salary cap this was possible; however, in the future, it is unlikely this much bonus money will be paid out in a two year span. I hope the Vikes get a new stadium, but I also think they can get back to profitability while remaining competitive.
A literary comparison to Favre
A few days ago I compared Brett Favre's indecisiveness to Hamlet's. That's not fair to Hamlet; after all, Hamlet was gripped with the difficult decision whether to murder his uncle or not. A better literary comparison would be Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken," which Frost wrote to make fun of a friend's indecisiveness (the point is, who gives a shit which road you take? The narrator, by saying things like
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
is making way too big a deal out of his decision). Obviously an individual's choice to retire is significant. But I'd rather give Favre's indecisiveness not the tragic grandiosity of Hamlet, but the fickle exaggeration of the Frost poem.
Disturbing news about the Vikings from the Trib's Kevin Seifert (via PFT): the Vikings lost $10 million in 2005. Zygi has stated emphatically he has no intent to move the Vikes regardless of when he gets a stadium, but for a fanbase that was constantly threatened with relocation under Red McCombs, this is disturbing. However, I'm hopeful that the expenses that led to loss are not regular expenses, and that losses in 2005 and probably 2006 stem from necessary, unrepeated expenses to correct problems from the McCombs era. Zygi had to upgrade the Winter Park facilities and upgrade the staff. That's a big expense. In 2005 and now 2006, Zygi has had to pay for big signing bonuses to big free agents. Under McCombs the Vikes were so far under the salary cap this was possible; however, in the future, it is unlikely this much bonus money will be paid out in a two year span. I hope the Vikes get a new stadium, but I also think they can get back to profitability while remaining competitive.
A literary comparison to Favre
A few days ago I compared Brett Favre's indecisiveness to Hamlet's. That's not fair to Hamlet; after all, Hamlet was gripped with the difficult decision whether to murder his uncle or not. A better literary comparison would be Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken," which Frost wrote to make fun of a friend's indecisiveness (the point is, who gives a shit which road you take? The narrator, by saying things like
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
is making way too big a deal out of his decision). Obviously an individual's choice to retire is significant. But I'd rather give Favre's indecisiveness not the tragic grandiosity of Hamlet, but the fickle exaggeration of the Frost poem.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
From an obsessive-compulsive Viking fan
The Vikings just upgraded the quality of their team web page.
I'm still exploring, but the change looks mainly aesthetic. I'm not noticing any great new features, though coverage of the team through the web page has been improving over the years (there's currently a solid article on the team's second-year players and minicamp observations).
But look at the logo in the upper left corner. That Viking horn is slightly different than the current Viking horn on the sides of the helmet. It seems slightly pointier, and has some small black lines included to give it a greater 3d horn effect (from here you should be able to contrast it to the current helmet). It's a subtle change; I think you'd probably have to be a Viking fan to even notice it. But I'm willing to bet the new helmets will feature horns with this slightly revamped look.
For some reason, I'm more worried about the uniform changes than I am about free agent signings.
But bring on the purple pants!
(picture removed)
I'm still exploring, but the change looks mainly aesthetic. I'm not noticing any great new features, though coverage of the team through the web page has been improving over the years (there's currently a solid article on the team's second-year players and minicamp observations).
But look at the logo in the upper left corner. That Viking horn is slightly different than the current Viking horn on the sides of the helmet. It seems slightly pointier, and has some small black lines included to give it a greater 3d horn effect (from here you should be able to contrast it to the current helmet). It's a subtle change; I think you'd probably have to be a Viking fan to even notice it. But I'm willing to bet the new helmets will feature horns with this slightly revamped look.
For some reason, I'm more worried about the uniform changes than I am about free agent signings.
But bring on the purple pants!
(picture removed)
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Why Dr. Z is the best
All over the internet, most bloggers love nothing more than to criticize sportswriters. I don't blame them. Most sportswriters simply recycle received wisdom through inelegant prose. But I think it's worthwhile to take the time to praise those sportswriters we admire and respect.
Which brings us to my man-crush on Dr. Z. The received wisdom means nothing to him. He poses real questions to real football minds, and in his commentary he relies on two things that make him unique among sportswriters.
1. Immense knowledge of football history.
Dr. Z is untouchable here. He loves the history, he knows it, and he tries to learn more. He always brings an historical context to contemporary football discussions. How many sportwriters could give us the following bit of wisdom, from his most recent mailbag?
Red Hickey did NOT invent the shotgun in the 1950s. He just gave it a catchy name, the newspapers picked it up, and lo, an invention. In the same decade that the T became popular, the '40s, teams went into the same formation on long yardage. It was called The Spread and it was no big deal. In the '20s and '30s it was called the Pop Warner Double Wing. Same thing. But Red used it more or less as a regular formation, you say. Well, I once saw one of Weeb Ewbank's 1930 playbooks from Oxford-McGuffey High in Ohio and he had a series called the 30, which sent five receivers downfield, with the tailback throwing from a deep set.
You want to learn about the history of pro football? Dr. Z should be on your regular reading list.
2. Rigorous Technical Analysis
If you read Dr. Z, you know he frequently writes about his tapes and his charts. He doesn't rely on the conventional ideas; he goes to tapes and does thorough analysis of the games and players. He knows the technical details of the correct form for different positions and moves. In short, he knows football. When he writes about a player's performance, he's not guessing or looking strictly at numbers or making assumptions based on reputation. He watched the tapes, play by play, and makes comments on what he sees.
These are the two factors that make Dr. Z required reading for any intelligent NFL enthusiast (yes, I feel like a tool for writing "intelligent NFL enthusiast," but I'm leaving it there). Another of Dr. Z's qualities: respect for his readers. So many sportswriters have a "mailbag" in which they demean and dismiss their readers. Dr. Z really engages readers in his mailbag in a manner which shows he respects our intelligence.
Dr. Z is a model sportswriter, and one of my legitimate heroes.
Which brings us to my man-crush on Dr. Z. The received wisdom means nothing to him. He poses real questions to real football minds, and in his commentary he relies on two things that make him unique among sportswriters.
1. Immense knowledge of football history.
Dr. Z is untouchable here. He loves the history, he knows it, and he tries to learn more. He always brings an historical context to contemporary football discussions. How many sportwriters could give us the following bit of wisdom, from his most recent mailbag?
Red Hickey did NOT invent the shotgun in the 1950s. He just gave it a catchy name, the newspapers picked it up, and lo, an invention. In the same decade that the T became popular, the '40s, teams went into the same formation on long yardage. It was called The Spread and it was no big deal. In the '20s and '30s it was called the Pop Warner Double Wing. Same thing. But Red used it more or less as a regular formation, you say. Well, I once saw one of Weeb Ewbank's 1930 playbooks from Oxford-McGuffey High in Ohio and he had a series called the 30, which sent five receivers downfield, with the tailback throwing from a deep set.
You want to learn about the history of pro football? Dr. Z should be on your regular reading list.
2. Rigorous Technical Analysis
If you read Dr. Z, you know he frequently writes about his tapes and his charts. He doesn't rely on the conventional ideas; he goes to tapes and does thorough analysis of the games and players. He knows the technical details of the correct form for different positions and moves. In short, he knows football. When he writes about a player's performance, he's not guessing or looking strictly at numbers or making assumptions based on reputation. He watched the tapes, play by play, and makes comments on what he sees.
These are the two factors that make Dr. Z required reading for any intelligent NFL enthusiast (yes, I feel like a tool for writing "intelligent NFL enthusiast," but I'm leaving it there). Another of Dr. Z's qualities: respect for his readers. So many sportswriters have a "mailbag" in which they demean and dismiss their readers. Dr. Z really engages readers in his mailbag in a manner which shows he respects our intelligence.
Dr. Z is a model sportswriter, and one of my legitimate heroes.
Attendance and the Fan
In Nick Hornby's memoir Fever Pitch, an eloquent and accurate description of the obsession of fandom, Hornby makes clear the importance of attending Arsenal soccer matches. He documents the sacrifice and suffering that is sometimes required to attend games.
In my entire life, I've been to 7 regular season Viking games. My relationship to the team exists mainly through television.
Am I a lesser fan for being unwilling or unable to purchase season tickets? Is attendance at games a requirement for the die-hard fan? In an argument of devotion to the team, would any season ticket holder have the clear edge over me?
I don't think so. I've known Packer fans who never attended a game, but I don't question the serious emotional attachment they have to their squad. I can be a dedicated, obsessed, emotionally tormented fan without ever purchasing a ticket to a game.
(by the way, I'll never see the American film Fever Pitch, but the British film starring Colin Firth connected to me in ways few films can. In that movie, I saw myself and fandom, and it allowed me to dream of one day watching the Vikings hoist the Lombardi trophy).
In my entire life, I've been to 7 regular season Viking games. My relationship to the team exists mainly through television.
Am I a lesser fan for being unwilling or unable to purchase season tickets? Is attendance at games a requirement for the die-hard fan? In an argument of devotion to the team, would any season ticket holder have the clear edge over me?
I don't think so. I've known Packer fans who never attended a game, but I don't question the serious emotional attachment they have to their squad. I can be a dedicated, obsessed, emotionally tormented fan without ever purchasing a ticket to a game.
(by the way, I'll never see the American film Fever Pitch, but the British film starring Colin Firth connected to me in ways few films can. In that movie, I saw myself and fandom, and it allowed me to dream of one day watching the Vikings hoist the Lombardi trophy).
Friday, April 07, 2006
"It begins..."
Brad Childress had his first day of minicamp. Judd Zulgad and Kevin Seifert at the Star Tribune have some interesting observations. Dontarrious Thomas and Napoleon Harris took shots at MLB. Linebacker is one of the big concerns for the Vikes going into 2006. But linebacker has been one of the big concerns for the Vikes going into ever year for the last 6 years...or 7 years...or as long as I can remember. When was the last time Ed McDaniel was playing solid football?
Yes, we care about minicamps. We care about everything.
Football in April is like non-alcoholic champagne. Obviously it shouldn't affect you...but as Barney Gumble knows, the real addict can be taken in by just about anything.
Oddly enough, though, I can't stand to watch pre-season football. I have watched many NFL practices. I have watched teams run drills (I used to live in River Falls, WI, where the Kansas City Chiefs have training camp. I am basically indifferent to the Chiefs in particular...but I frequented practice just to watch NFL practice). But I can't stand watching preseason games.
Minicamps, though...that's good stuff.
Yes, we care about minicamps. We care about everything.
Football in April is like non-alcoholic champagne. Obviously it shouldn't affect you...but as Barney Gumble knows, the real addict can be taken in by just about anything.
Oddly enough, though, I can't stand to watch pre-season football. I have watched many NFL practices. I have watched teams run drills (I used to live in River Falls, WI, where the Kansas City Chiefs have training camp. I am basically indifferent to the Chiefs in particular...but I frequented practice just to watch NFL practice). But I can't stand watching preseason games.
Minicamps, though...that's good stuff.
Beyond Metrodome
SI ranks the Metrodome as the #10 toughest NFL stadium to play in (not sure if it's good to be ranked #10 when there are only 32 teams, or if it's good to be recognized in the top 10).
It's fun for the Vikes to have home games at the Dome; it is an advantange. The problem, I think, is that the Dome has helped foster the team's pitiful outdoor record in the past few years. This is partly practical: the Vikes have been built for speed and offense to play on turf, and don't get to fully exploit what they were built for when outdoors. Part of it is psychological: the team seems to lack intensity and confidence when made to play in the cold outdoors (the exception, for some reason, is Lambeau).
The Vikes went to 4 Super Bowls playing in the old Met; since moving to the Dome, the Vikes haven't been to a Super Bowl.
I hope Zygi really gets his way and the new stadium allows the Vikings to play outdoors on grass. We know what it's like in Minnesota in December; now lets make other teams know that too.
It's fun for the Vikes to have home games at the Dome; it is an advantange. The problem, I think, is that the Dome has helped foster the team's pitiful outdoor record in the past few years. This is partly practical: the Vikes have been built for speed and offense to play on turf, and don't get to fully exploit what they were built for when outdoors. Part of it is psychological: the team seems to lack intensity and confidence when made to play in the cold outdoors (the exception, for some reason, is Lambeau).
The Vikes went to 4 Super Bowls playing in the old Met; since moving to the Dome, the Vikes haven't been to a Super Bowl.
I hope Zygi really gets his way and the new stadium allows the Vikings to play outdoors on grass. We know what it's like in Minnesota in December; now lets make other teams know that too.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Real sports stories: a nation turns its hungry eyes to you
Big news today! The NFL released its 2006 schedule. Talking heads are atwitter; there's plenty of online discussion. People are excited.
Of course, each team has known the opponents for 14 of its 16 games in 2006 for several years. The other two games were determined immediately after last season. The only thing we learned today is when those games will be played.
Let's face it; we're addicted to football, and will take any chance to discuss football we can. But this isn't news.
Last night on ESPN News, the "Breaking News" box in the corner informed us that Barry Bonds went 0 for 1. That was there "breaking news"; that was apparently the most important thing going on in sports last night. A baseball player went 0 for 1.
And finally, we have rape allegations and all sorts of other sordid things going on with the Duke Lacrosse team. How many people have watched a Lacrosse game or know much about it or care about it at all? How many of you follow college Lacrosse? The only thing I know about Lacrosse is that "you don't score until you score." I'm not even sure I know how to spell Lacrosse. I'm not saying rape allegations aren't serious business, but this story seems tangental to the sporting world. There are ramifications about gender, race, class, and privilege--but would these ramifications be terribly different if a random fraternity was going through the same allegations? I don't know.
But this is the news we get.
Of course, each team has known the opponents for 14 of its 16 games in 2006 for several years. The other two games were determined immediately after last season. The only thing we learned today is when those games will be played.
Let's face it; we're addicted to football, and will take any chance to discuss football we can. But this isn't news.
Last night on ESPN News, the "Breaking News" box in the corner informed us that Barry Bonds went 0 for 1. That was there "breaking news"; that was apparently the most important thing going on in sports last night. A baseball player went 0 for 1.
And finally, we have rape allegations and all sorts of other sordid things going on with the Duke Lacrosse team. How many people have watched a Lacrosse game or know much about it or care about it at all? How many of you follow college Lacrosse? The only thing I know about Lacrosse is that "you don't score until you score." I'm not even sure I know how to spell Lacrosse. I'm not saying rape allegations aren't serious business, but this story seems tangental to the sporting world. There are ramifications about gender, race, class, and privilege--but would these ramifications be terribly different if a random fraternity was going through the same allegations? I don't know.
But this is the news we get.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Taking Favre's name in vain
I hate Brett Favre. It is the irrational hatred shared by most Viking, Lion, and Bear fans (and probably also the Bucs of the old NFC Central. I don't know--do Niner fans hate him too?). I admit that this hatred is irrational, and that if he played in the AFC, I would either like him or be indifferent to him.
What is not irrational, I think, is my hatred of broadcasters who salivate for Favre. I simply despise the TV broadcasters who blame his interceptions on WRs, or who credit his mistakes to his "gunslinger" attitude, or who talk about how much fun he has, who basically elevate him to the status of some sort of football holy man (Theismann once said he wished everybody in America could sit down and have a conversation with Brett Favre, as if contact with this angel of purity would have a lasting impact on us mere mortals).
In the last few seasons (particularly last season, when Favre threw 29 interceptions on a 4-12 team), broadcasters have remained true to their pattern of defending everything Favre does. In the Packers' playoff loss to the Vikings at Lambeau after the '04 season, Favre threw an underhanded pass well past the line of scrimmage that might have cost his team a TD. The announcers laughed. Peter King continues to flirt with Favre through his columns, even when he seems not to be talking about Favre.
But in the last few years, more people have been willing to lay blame on Favre for his interceptions and team record. Not broadcasters, of course, but plenty of writers (especially on the internet) were able to recognize that Favre's interceptions may not show a gunslinger's attitude, but simple recklessness. Writers have been willing to admit that the fault for his picks lies with him, not his WRs, and that his wild passes actually cost the Packers some wins in 2005.
In the past few seasons, some have been willing to criticize Favre the man too, for his handling of Javon Walker's holdout and his Hamlet-like indecision regarding retirement. These things don't concern me much--"The play's the thing," of course--but it's notable that people are willing to share criticism. But through a link via PFT comes this NFL.com article by Vic Carucci. Carucci begins,
The problem with Brett Favre taking his time to divulge whether he will retire or return for one more season with the Green Bay Packers is that it has made him more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration he has been for the better part of 15 years.
Carucci shows his concern that Favre might actually be a target of criticism! Hm, an NFL Qb a target of criticism? That's unconscionable! He's been the "object of affection and admiration" for years--he simply must avoid doing anything that would make him the object of criticism!
Does Carucci think that Favre's overtime interception lob in the '03 playoffs, or his 4 INTs against the Vikings in the '04 playoffs, or his 29 INTs in 2005 are enough to make him a "target of criticism"? I do, but apparently it's only himming and hawing on retirement that can do so for the great Favre.
Carucci ends by giving Favre his advice:
Here's some additional sound advice, Brett. Let's not stretch this out too much longer. You should not be more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration.
Yes, Carucci wants Favre to be an object of affection and admiration. He doesn't want him to be a target of criticism. Note, Carucci is not saying that Favre is doing anything worthy of criticism, but that he will be the "target" of criticism that Carucci implies is unfair:
But the more days and weeks that pass without a decision from Favre, the less fairness there will be in every assessment. Perception has taken charge of this story.
Carucci just wants to preserve Favre's sterling reputation--that's the reason he's written this column.
Frankly, I don't think it's that big a deal what Favre is doing (though it may be hamstringing the Packers' plans, and there's definitely some hypocrisy after the way he criticized Walker for putting self above team). I'd rather see Favre criticized for all the crazy interceptions and erratic playoff performances. But I welcome any criticism of Favre, after years and years of listening to how perfect and wonderful and flawless he is as a man and a player.
What is not irrational, I think, is my hatred of broadcasters who salivate for Favre. I simply despise the TV broadcasters who blame his interceptions on WRs, or who credit his mistakes to his "gunslinger" attitude, or who talk about how much fun he has, who basically elevate him to the status of some sort of football holy man (Theismann once said he wished everybody in America could sit down and have a conversation with Brett Favre, as if contact with this angel of purity would have a lasting impact on us mere mortals).
In the last few seasons (particularly last season, when Favre threw 29 interceptions on a 4-12 team), broadcasters have remained true to their pattern of defending everything Favre does. In the Packers' playoff loss to the Vikings at Lambeau after the '04 season, Favre threw an underhanded pass well past the line of scrimmage that might have cost his team a TD. The announcers laughed. Peter King continues to flirt with Favre through his columns, even when he seems not to be talking about Favre.
But in the last few years, more people have been willing to lay blame on Favre for his interceptions and team record. Not broadcasters, of course, but plenty of writers (especially on the internet) were able to recognize that Favre's interceptions may not show a gunslinger's attitude, but simple recklessness. Writers have been willing to admit that the fault for his picks lies with him, not his WRs, and that his wild passes actually cost the Packers some wins in 2005.
In the past few seasons, some have been willing to criticize Favre the man too, for his handling of Javon Walker's holdout and his Hamlet-like indecision regarding retirement. These things don't concern me much--"The play's the thing," of course--but it's notable that people are willing to share criticism. But through a link via PFT comes this NFL.com article by Vic Carucci. Carucci begins,
The problem with Brett Favre taking his time to divulge whether he will retire or return for one more season with the Green Bay Packers is that it has made him more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration he has been for the better part of 15 years.
Carucci shows his concern that Favre might actually be a target of criticism! Hm, an NFL Qb a target of criticism? That's unconscionable! He's been the "object of affection and admiration" for years--he simply must avoid doing anything that would make him the object of criticism!
Does Carucci think that Favre's overtime interception lob in the '03 playoffs, or his 4 INTs against the Vikings in the '04 playoffs, or his 29 INTs in 2005 are enough to make him a "target of criticism"? I do, but apparently it's only himming and hawing on retirement that can do so for the great Favre.
Carucci ends by giving Favre his advice:
Here's some additional sound advice, Brett. Let's not stretch this out too much longer. You should not be more of a target of criticism than the object of affection and admiration.
Yes, Carucci wants Favre to be an object of affection and admiration. He doesn't want him to be a target of criticism. Note, Carucci is not saying that Favre is doing anything worthy of criticism, but that he will be the "target" of criticism that Carucci implies is unfair:
But the more days and weeks that pass without a decision from Favre, the less fairness there will be in every assessment. Perception has taken charge of this story.
Carucci just wants to preserve Favre's sterling reputation--that's the reason he's written this column.
Frankly, I don't think it's that big a deal what Favre is doing (though it may be hamstringing the Packers' plans, and there's definitely some hypocrisy after the way he criticized Walker for putting self above team). I'd rather see Favre criticized for all the crazy interceptions and erratic playoff performances. But I welcome any criticism of Favre, after years and years of listening to how perfect and wonderful and flawless he is as a man and a player.
Monday, April 03, 2006
PV's Players that Time Forgot: Bob McAdoo and Jamaal Wilkes
(Periodically I will briefly educate the rubes on the great basketball and football players of yore that I feel are too quickly forgotten today).
Bob McAdoo
McAdoo was the only NBA MVP not elected to the NBA 50 Greatest Players list in 1996. He won three straight scoring titles in 1974, 1975, and 1976, averaging over 30 ppg each season. His MVP came in '75, when he averaged 34.5 ppg and led the league in total rebounds with 1155. In short, he was a dominant player in the mid-1970s. In the latter part of his career, he was a very positive contributor for two championship teams with the L.A. Lakers, '82 and '85.
Jamaal Wilkes
After winning two championships at UCLA, Wilkes made an immediate impact in the NBA. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 8.2 rpg for the 1975 NBA Champion Golden State Warriors, winning Rookie of the Year. He moved on to the Lakers, and was a 20 ppg scorer (in regular season and playoffs) for two Laker championship teams, '80 and '82. A proven winner, Wilkes ended up a key player for 2 NCAA champions and 3 NBA champions.
Bob McAdoo
McAdoo was the only NBA MVP not elected to the NBA 50 Greatest Players list in 1996. He won three straight scoring titles in 1974, 1975, and 1976, averaging over 30 ppg each season. His MVP came in '75, when he averaged 34.5 ppg and led the league in total rebounds with 1155. In short, he was a dominant player in the mid-1970s. In the latter part of his career, he was a very positive contributor for two championship teams with the L.A. Lakers, '82 and '85.
Jamaal Wilkes
After winning two championships at UCLA, Wilkes made an immediate impact in the NBA. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 8.2 rpg for the 1975 NBA Champion Golden State Warriors, winning Rookie of the Year. He moved on to the Lakers, and was a 20 ppg scorer (in regular season and playoffs) for two Laker championship teams, '80 and '82. A proven winner, Wilkes ended up a key player for 2 NCAA champions and 3 NBA champions.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Bruins are back where they belong.
UCLA has the consistent ability to make its opponent play like 8th graders. Little comment on the utter domination of LSU tonight. LSU was supposed to be athletic and dominant in the post, but the Bruins were by far the most athletic team on the court. They intercepted passes, contested every shot, got fast breaks, layups, dunks, and open jumpers.
I think UCLA might have an advantage in Final Four games. In today's world of college basketball, just getting to the Final Four is considered a great accomplishment for a lot of these schools and players. But as Jordan Farmar said, they only hang one type of banner in Westwood. UCLA seemed to play with greater intensity and urgency tonight.
I think UCLA might have an advantage in Final Four games. In today's world of college basketball, just getting to the Final Four is considered a great accomplishment for a lot of these schools and players. But as Jordan Farmar said, they only hang one type of banner in Westwood. UCLA seemed to play with greater intensity and urgency tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)