Saturday Should Be A National Holiday

Saturday's one of the best days of the year-actually, two of them put together-and I can't wait to miss all the exciting action, thanks to a bigger oxymoron than "jumbo shrimp".

That's right.

Colorado History Day.

The nice thing about working at a school is that you don't have to pick up too many weekend hours; this is only the second time I've had to come in on a Saturday. (Except the time I came in to uh, borrow a projector for the Super Bowl, but I hardly think that counts.) The bad news is when people need a lot of tech support in celebration of a completely bogus event. I mean, what are they gonna talk about?

Especially since this is a big week to miss. The biggie, of course, is the NFL draft, not just because I want to see who the Broncos'll pick up, but so I can laugh at teams who pass on guaranteed sure-things like Braylon Edwards and Derrick Johnson for predictable flops like Aaron Rodgers. I don't understand why half these teams even have scouts.

(And yes, when I saw we traded our No. 1 pick to the Redskins (I can't believe it's 2005 and we've got a football team named the Redskins), my first reaction was, "Sweet, we got Clinton Portis back." Instead we're stockpiling for next year; always a good plan.)

In fact, one reason I started this whole blog was so I could call out which draftees would play well in advance and prove it to people, after a recent argument with one of my co-workers who called me a liar for saying I knew Ben Roethlisberger would be better than Eli Manning.

I didn't think the difference would be this pronounced this early, but I'm also not that impressed that I called it. On the highlights it was obvious Roethlisberger was big, had a strong arm and a fantastic touch, and he's even more mobile than I thought. Whereas Manning was pretty widely viewed as not quite great until his senior year, when everyone suddenly remembered his last name.

Pretty much the only knock on Big Ben could have been playing against some lesser competition, and while I have no idea what that has to do with arm strength or accuracy, I also think it's getting pretty irrelevant as smaller conferences are coming closer to the level of the BCS teams.

I also thought Philip Rivers was obviously better than Manning, too. The main knock on him was competition level, and also that he throws sidearm. Well I don't think NFL players are particularly taller than college players, so if he's not getting all his passes tipped in college, he'll probably be OK. (Though yeah, I'd hoped Kosar was the last sidearmer I'd ever have to watch.)

But then, all the knocks on great players seem to be pretty irrelevant as teams concern themselves with the dumbest things.

I just re-read the book Moneyball, about the Oakland A's, and my favorite chapter has to be about the draft. All the scouts want to pick guys with tools who haven't produced, whereas the GM, Billy Beane, rightfully wants college players who have been productive. One fun argument was about a catcher, whom the scouts didn't want because he was overweight, to which Beane responds with, "We're not trying to sell jeans here."

The NFL's the same way. Every year some guy shoots up the charts because of something that doesn't matter that much (40 time being the best example) even if they lack things that do matter (ability to play).

Just look at the Broncos' recent picks. Ashley Lelie runs fast (which is nice) but, especially his first two years, couldn't really catch (which is unpardonable). I mean, if you're building a receiver from scratch (I know that makes no sense), the No. 1 thing they would absolutely have to be able to do is catch the football, right? But that's not what most teams look at.

The same year we took Clinton Portis, who was fast, shifty, and productive at Miami, which played against the best of the best teams and beat them. But he was small. Which is kind of relevant, but not nearly as important as vision, toughness, and proven clutch ability.

This year, I like guys like Johnson, the Texas linebacker who racked up a ton of tackles and forced eight fumbles last year. I think that's skill, not luck, and it's a very valuable skill. What's the knock on him? Well, some mumbo-jumbo about how he doesn't take on blockers. Now this comment is clearly going to show that I never played organized football, but isn't the point of the game to run into the guy who has the ball, not the people who are trying to block for him? Ray Lewis doesn't really take on blockers, doesn't hurt his overstuff rep.

While I think Johnson's a sensible pick at the top of the draft, it'll never happen because he's a linebacker and viewed, probably rightly, as not worthy of No. 1 pick money. But at least he has a good shot at being great, as opposed to pretty much whomever the Niners end up taking.

On the flip side, guys like Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith owe pretty much all their hype to their position.

Smith is pretty clearly the top quarterback prospect this year, at least to me, but he's not on the level of a Roethlisberger or Leftwich in years past. His mobility and smarts remind me of Jeff Garcia, who was quite good in his prime. He's a first rounder, but middle of the round at least. Aaron Rodgers, I don't know where that guy came from. For one I'm not convinced a statuesque QB can get it done any more, but he wasn't that good in college anyway. I think for a quarterback to go No. 1, he ought to be pretty dominant.

Everyone I respect is pretty high on Braylon Edwards, who definitely has a history of productivity, though I didn't see much of him. I like Mike Williams, too. Defensively, I'm a big fan of Antrel Rolle, who came from Miami (almost all those guys work out), and has size and speed, even if it's not quite world-record speed. (What kind of knock is that, anyway? If only a couple guys a year run in the 4.2-4.3 range, then there can't be many NFL players who run that fast, right?)

I'm just glad Matt Leinart stayed in college. Everyone seems to think he'd be worthy of the top pick, but I doubt it. I don't see the accuracy and he's not that mobile. Again, if you were building a quarterback from scratch, the first thing he'd absolutely have to be able to do is throw the ball where he wants to, right? And if he's not that accurate in college, I don't see how he's going to start hitting spots in the pros.

Basically, what's the difference between Leinart and Ken Dorsey? Dorsey had a similar sparkling collegiate record, but he was surrounded by similar otherworldly talent and had the same question marks around his athleticism and arm strength. And he went in the 7th round. I think Leinart's better than that (I thought Dorsey was, too), but not top of the first good.

There aren't as many players I really hate this year, but I think any team that takes a running back in the top ten picks is pretty much insane. Running backs get hurt way too often. Obviously, some running backs in past years have been worth that kind of investment-Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Eddie George-but I don't think any of these guys are quite that special.

Saturday's also the first day of the NBA playoffs. (Seriously-I mean, we're the Centennial State! What can you say about a state known for the year it was founded?) I was going to bust out a whole preview of the first round, but these matchups pretty much suck, so we'll keep it short. I'll keep it short, whatever. I'm probably the only person on the planet who'd say this, but I prefer the NBA playoffs to March Madness, partly because I know the players so much better. But forget the players-the first day of The Tourney, I don't even know who half the teams are.

The East:

Miami (1) vs. New Jersey (8): No NBA player has ever betrayed my faith in him more than Vince Carter, who's softer than Elmo. Plus I don't think he can handle Dwyane Wade. The bigger issue, though, is whether a team with a European center (Nenad Kristic) can slow down Shaq. What do you think? Miami should sweep on their way out of the East.

Detroit (2) vs. Philadelphia (7): Iverson's carried the Sixers this year and always seems to step it up in the playoffs, but that won't be enough against the defending champions. I see Detroit taking it in five.

Boston (3) vs. Indiana (6): I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and pick Indy here. They've really had an impressive year, especially Reggie Miller. I thought that guy was toast. Plus I don't exactly think Doc Rivers is going to outcoach Rick Carlisle. Indy in six.

Chicago (4) vs. Washington (5): Washington won the season series 2-1, but the home team won each game, and the Bulls have homecourt this time around. Which is a neat stat if I could bring myself to care about this series. I do really enjoy hearing that the Bulls are finally out of Michael Jordan's shadow. That was it. It was the crushing weight of expectation, not lack of talent, that's been holding this team down for years. And, conversely, a playoff berth will make Bulls fans forget all those titles.

The West:

Phoenix (1) vs. Memphis (8): I think Phoenix will sweep this series. It's said that they play no defense, but the Suns are second in field-goal percentage and 14th in field-goal defense. Which isn't great, but middle-of-the-pack is better than they're given credit for. Having said that, I'm not certain they'll take Dallas in the second round. Cool, I didn't even say anything about the other team. How's this-I'm glad Mike Fratello is back in coaching and therefore out of broadcasting, how's that?

San Antonio (2) vs. Denver (7): Denver was absolutely blazing-hot down the stretch this year but still
finished with ten fewer wins than the Spurs' 59. Plus, we don't match up well with the Spurs at all-Duncan'll destroy our frontcourt, even if it is pretty capable defensively, Bowen can still slow down Carmelo (though he's made such huge strides the second half of the year it'll be interesting to see what he can do), and Andre Miller can't run with the overrated Frenchman. The only real X-factor is Denver's healthy home-court advantage, though the Spurs should take the series in five. If Denver bows out so fast, what happens in the off-season?

Seattle (3) vs. Sacramento (6): This is about as compelling as that Wizards-Bulls dream series, and Sac-town has to be the most under-the-radar 50-win team of my lifetime. The series should be entertaining, which is a euphemism for "high scoring because neither team plays defense". I just like the Kings for the most pointless trade I've ever seen, giving up their only perimeter defender, the whipped Doug Christie, for the offensive-minded Cat Mobley. Seattle has Ray Allen and Rashad Lewis, who makes Vince Carter look like...well, a wimp, but he's no Charles Oakley himself. I'll say Seattle in seven.

Dallas (4) vs. Houston (5): Dallas is by far the most underrated team in the league this year. Can you believe the Mavericks are 8th in the league in field-goal defense? The Mavs won half a dozen more games than the Sonics, but are seeded lower than Seattle because of the stupid division winners get the top seeds rule. Actually, I don't think it's that stupid, I really don't care, it's just that you can't be a sportswriter without being incredulous about something that doesn't matter.

Houston was supposed to rock this year with T-Mac and Yao Ming, but the Rockets don't play like much of a team. Dallas does; Dallas in five.

So who's going to win it all? It's tough to say this year. I'm tempted to go with the Spurs, but they let me down last year and I'm bitter and vindictive (they'll be so mad if I don't pick them). Miami has a huge advantage coming from the substantially weaker Eastern Conference. Memphis, the No. 8 seed in the West with 45 wins, won as many games as the East's No. 3 team. Hey, it worked for Detroit last year.

I do think it'll be a Spurs-Heat Finals, though, and it should be a great series. As much as I like Dwyane Wade (who's the best second option in the playoffs by a lot), I think the Spurs' all-around depth will make them champions.