Three things: I love Microsoft! Mostly because of the Xbox, but I have now decided I love MSN Search as well. (I'm not listed nearly that high on Google, which makes no sense, considering Google owns Blogspot.)
Also, how about these cats, who say Vince Young will be outperformed by the immortal Brett Basanez?
And third, according to the Denver Post, the Nuggets have agreed to a three-team trade in which they
Give up:
Earl Watson
Bryon Russell
Voshon Lenard
A second-round pick
And collect:
Ruben Patterson
Charles Smith
Reggie Evans
First off, what we gave up. A second-round pick in the NBA, especially in our less-than-able hands, is essentially useless, so what the heck. Bryon Russell doesn't have a turnover all season in his three minutes of play. Voshon wasn't allowed to play, either, for whatever reason, so while we lose two shooters, we don't really lose anything. And Earl Watson is one of the most bizarre signings in recent memory, considering we acquired him, it seems, only to be in on the excitement of quickly trading him. Watson doesn't really do anything better than Andre Miller or Earl Boykins can, so I don't mind losing him, either, assuming we got anything of value in return.
So what did we get in return? ESPN has unkindly and accurately referred to Smith as a "salary-cap throw in", so let us forget about him.
Ruben Patterson. While I don't really want to get into why, let's just say it's safe to call him a "character risk". Oh, yeah, that's why-he was complaining about his playing time. That's it, move along, nothing else to see here.
The 30-year-old Patterson is also known for his defense and has given himself the title of "Kobe Stopper"-he's sort of a Ron Artest without the baggage, except with the baggage. It's rumored that he D'ed up Kobe so aggresively in practice when he was a Laker that he was traded because it was hurting the team, so he's a competitor. He's an occasional scorer, but no one to expect big numbers from consistently.
He's also a small forward, and we sort of have a guy there already. Of course, he and Carmelo can co-exist in stretches. Then again, we already have a defensive-minded swingman in Greg Buckner, though Patterson has a better chance against bigger forwards. So assuming his attitude is OK he's a all right pickup, but that assumption should not be made lightly, and I don't see him as a major difference-maker.
We also picked up a guy I like, Reggie Evans, who rebounds like a madman. By my math, he'd be averaging about 16.8 boards per 48 minutes, though NBA.com doesn't list him for some reason even though he's better than their leader. (I guess it could be because he doesn't play a whole ton, but then that defeats the whole purpose of having per-48-minute rankings, doesn't it?)
Of course, Charles Barkley said recently that per-48-minutes makes for the dumbest stats possible, since there's a reason the guy's not playing more. In Reggie's case, that reason is that he basically can't do anything but rebound. But he does provide froncourt depth, and considering the injuries to our big men, that is very worthwhile.
In the NBA, you basically have to give up something to get something back, and since we didn't trade away anything of value, we didn't get much in return. The Nuggets basically made a trade just to make a trade, I think, but it should work out decently enough, or maybe slightly in our favor.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Quarterback Rankings
One of the most common questions I hear lately-aside from, “Hey, you’re that guy from Hole Punch Sports-can I have your autograph/number?”-is whether the Broncos can ever win a Super Bowl with Jake Plummer.
It's a good question. The quick answer is yes, since Jake is obviously more talented than recent Super Bowl champion passers like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. Sometimes the success of journeymen is attributed to the salary cap for reasons I don’t understand. However, players like Dilfer and Johnson are clearly still the exception when it comes to championship quarterbacks. Other cap-era winners include John Elway, Tom Brady, and Ben Roethlisberger. And besides, Bowl winners before the cap weren’t all destined for the Hall-or have you forgotten Mark Rypien?
Having said that, Dilfer and Johnson weren’t really that bad. Dilfer was a tough and selfless leader, while Johnson’s combination of immobility, accuracy, and mistake-free play made him almost the anti-Plummer.
Regardless, I think the Broncos can win a Super Bowl with Jake Plummer. Two reasons: first, I don’t see how we can realistically upgrade the position and I’m trying to keep my hopes up, and second, he’s one of the top few quarterbacks in the league.
I’m serious. Plummer won a playoff game with the Arizona-Freakin’-Cardinals-and who else would be capable of that? And he’s shown steady improvement over his career, even if he still makes some dumb throws.
To prove it, I’m going to list everyone who is better (as of today). Thus, my Quarterbacks Who Are Better Than Jake Plummer Power Rankings (expect to see these on ESPN.com next year):
1. Tom Brady, Patriots: He won one playoff game this year to cap off a frustrating season for the Patriots. In other words, he managed as many playoff wins in one single down year as the Broncos franchise has in the entire post-Elway era. Still by far the class of the position.
2. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers: I have promoted Roethlisberger since he first caught my eye as a college senior, and I’m not going to let my continued frustration over the Broncos’ loss color my opinion. Big Ben has all the tools-a rocket arm, accuracy, mobility, and guts. Yes, he struggled in the Super Bowl, but he’s allowed one rough game in what’s theoretically the toughest postseason road possible (a No. 6 seed beating the No. 3 and No. 2 from its conference, and both No. 1s).
3. Matt Hasselbeck, Seahawks: These rankings will probably be overly influenced by the playoffs I just watched, but Hasselbeck was outstanding. Occasionally tries too hard, like his former mentor Brett Favre, but can make decisive strikes all over the field. Didn’t have great numbers in the Super Bowl, but his receivers didn’t exactly help him out, either.
4. Jake Delhomme, Panthers: If I wasn’t writing this just after playoff time, he definitely would have fallen through the cracks. Forget the clichés about his selflessness and team-first attitude; Delhomme is very accurate, which for some reason often gets overlooked. He was awful in the NFC title game, but has won too many playoff games to be labeled a choker.
5. Carson Palmer, Bengals: Pending a successful recovery, Palmer should continue his prolific passing feats from this year. I don’t want to put too much stock in one season, regardless of how good it was, but I can’t remember ever being this wrong about a quarterback. Of course, for all we know he may never be the same.
6. Mike Vick, Falcons: I am shocked I have him so high here, but it sort of underscores my point, which is that great quarterbacks aren’t as plentiful as you think. I don’t know how much better he’ll ever get as a passer, but the Falcons are always dangerous when he’s at the helm. Not sure exactly how he gets it all done, but he looks like a winner.
7. Brett Favre, Packers: Favre suffered through a miserable year and may retire. He was awfully generous with the turnovers this year, but that’s been an on-and-off problem his whole career. Off-the-charts toughness of every kind and a clear first-ballot Hall of Famer. Has shown a troubling tendency to fall apart in big games as he gets older, but the supporting cast is far from what it used to be.
8. Daunte Culpepper, Vikings: Very similar to Plummer in lack of consistency, but his highs are higher. (Of course, Daunte has spent much of his career throwing to Randy Moss.) Culpepper possesses touch on even the deepest tosses and good mobility. He was miserable at the start of 2005, but his 2004 campaign was breathtaking enough that maybe he should be higher.
9. Donovan McNabb, Eagles: Not a personal favorite, but McNabb has been successful with the all-important wins and losses. His passing skills are still questionable-how will he fare without T.O.? I worry about the locker room atmosphere next year, but by August perhaps his comments will be forgotten. Besides, no quarterback has ever had more support from team management.
Okay, so Plummer’s in the top ten.
Honorable (?) mention: The two closest names to surpassing Plummer were Drew Brees, who still has to look over his shoulder for Philip Rivers, and Byron Leftwich. Leftwich is just a young guy, right? Sort of-he’s a few months older than Michael Vick and isn’t progressing as quickly as I would have thought. Peyton Manning is the most obvious absence from this list, but he’s a train wreck in big games and I’d honestly rather have Plummer (even though Manning has owned Plummer in the postseason). Trent Green has the numbers every year, but never wins anything. Ditto Marc Bulger. Steve McNair is one of my all-time favorites, but the punishment he’s taken over the years is taking a serious toll. I want to see how David Carr plays under new coach Gary Kubiak; he has the talent to jump onto this list. Young NFC playoff guns Eli Manning and Chris Simms will, in my opinion, never surpass Plummer’s best play. None of the new rookies-to-be impress me a bunch except for Vince Young, who is obviously still a question mark at this point.
It's a good question. The quick answer is yes, since Jake is obviously more talented than recent Super Bowl champion passers like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. Sometimes the success of journeymen is attributed to the salary cap for reasons I don’t understand. However, players like Dilfer and Johnson are clearly still the exception when it comes to championship quarterbacks. Other cap-era winners include John Elway, Tom Brady, and Ben Roethlisberger. And besides, Bowl winners before the cap weren’t all destined for the Hall-or have you forgotten Mark Rypien?
Having said that, Dilfer and Johnson weren’t really that bad. Dilfer was a tough and selfless leader, while Johnson’s combination of immobility, accuracy, and mistake-free play made him almost the anti-Plummer.
Regardless, I think the Broncos can win a Super Bowl with Jake Plummer. Two reasons: first, I don’t see how we can realistically upgrade the position and I’m trying to keep my hopes up, and second, he’s one of the top few quarterbacks in the league.
I’m serious. Plummer won a playoff game with the Arizona-Freakin’-Cardinals-and who else would be capable of that? And he’s shown steady improvement over his career, even if he still makes some dumb throws.
To prove it, I’m going to list everyone who is better (as of today). Thus, my Quarterbacks Who Are Better Than Jake Plummer Power Rankings (expect to see these on ESPN.com next year):
1. Tom Brady, Patriots: He won one playoff game this year to cap off a frustrating season for the Patriots. In other words, he managed as many playoff wins in one single down year as the Broncos franchise has in the entire post-Elway era. Still by far the class of the position.
2. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers: I have promoted Roethlisberger since he first caught my eye as a college senior, and I’m not going to let my continued frustration over the Broncos’ loss color my opinion. Big Ben has all the tools-a rocket arm, accuracy, mobility, and guts. Yes, he struggled in the Super Bowl, but he’s allowed one rough game in what’s theoretically the toughest postseason road possible (a No. 6 seed beating the No. 3 and No. 2 from its conference, and both No. 1s).
3. Matt Hasselbeck, Seahawks: These rankings will probably be overly influenced by the playoffs I just watched, but Hasselbeck was outstanding. Occasionally tries too hard, like his former mentor Brett Favre, but can make decisive strikes all over the field. Didn’t have great numbers in the Super Bowl, but his receivers didn’t exactly help him out, either.
4. Jake Delhomme, Panthers: If I wasn’t writing this just after playoff time, he definitely would have fallen through the cracks. Forget the clichés about his selflessness and team-first attitude; Delhomme is very accurate, which for some reason often gets overlooked. He was awful in the NFC title game, but has won too many playoff games to be labeled a choker.
5. Carson Palmer, Bengals: Pending a successful recovery, Palmer should continue his prolific passing feats from this year. I don’t want to put too much stock in one season, regardless of how good it was, but I can’t remember ever being this wrong about a quarterback. Of course, for all we know he may never be the same.
6. Mike Vick, Falcons: I am shocked I have him so high here, but it sort of underscores my point, which is that great quarterbacks aren’t as plentiful as you think. I don’t know how much better he’ll ever get as a passer, but the Falcons are always dangerous when he’s at the helm. Not sure exactly how he gets it all done, but he looks like a winner.
7. Brett Favre, Packers: Favre suffered through a miserable year and may retire. He was awfully generous with the turnovers this year, but that’s been an on-and-off problem his whole career. Off-the-charts toughness of every kind and a clear first-ballot Hall of Famer. Has shown a troubling tendency to fall apart in big games as he gets older, but the supporting cast is far from what it used to be.
8. Daunte Culpepper, Vikings: Very similar to Plummer in lack of consistency, but his highs are higher. (Of course, Daunte has spent much of his career throwing to Randy Moss.) Culpepper possesses touch on even the deepest tosses and good mobility. He was miserable at the start of 2005, but his 2004 campaign was breathtaking enough that maybe he should be higher.
9. Donovan McNabb, Eagles: Not a personal favorite, but McNabb has been successful with the all-important wins and losses. His passing skills are still questionable-how will he fare without T.O.? I worry about the locker room atmosphere next year, but by August perhaps his comments will be forgotten. Besides, no quarterback has ever had more support from team management.
Okay, so Plummer’s in the top ten.
Honorable (?) mention: The two closest names to surpassing Plummer were Drew Brees, who still has to look over his shoulder for Philip Rivers, and Byron Leftwich. Leftwich is just a young guy, right? Sort of-he’s a few months older than Michael Vick and isn’t progressing as quickly as I would have thought. Peyton Manning is the most obvious absence from this list, but he’s a train wreck in big games and I’d honestly rather have Plummer (even though Manning has owned Plummer in the postseason). Trent Green has the numbers every year, but never wins anything. Ditto Marc Bulger. Steve McNair is one of my all-time favorites, but the punishment he’s taken over the years is taking a serious toll. I want to see how David Carr plays under new coach Gary Kubiak; he has the talent to jump onto this list. Young NFC playoff guns Eli Manning and Chris Simms will, in my opinion, never surpass Plummer’s best play. None of the new rookies-to-be impress me a bunch except for Vince Young, who is obviously still a question mark at this point.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Competition
Last summer, I was telling one of my friends how competitive my family can be. We’re not one of those lame families that holds grudges for years, but if you’re keeping score or there’s going to be a winner, at least one participant will, at all times, obsess over winning.
My friend agreed, saying her family was the same way. Their family had to stop playing board games because her brothers would get upset after a loss and send the pieces flying.
This is ludicrous to me. We were supposedly talking about the same thing, but our definitions were worlds apart. To me, throwing a fit when you lose has nothing to do with being competitive. All it proves is your immaturity and inability to handle setbacks-not that I, of course, have never been guilty of the same type of behavior.
Meanwhile to me, the concept of competition is almost a sacred one. You’re always taught to give your best, and while that’s probably impossible, the desire to do so shows a respect for yourself, your teammates and everyone else on the field/court/diamond/rink/whatever. It’s the essence of good sportsmanship. When I played basketball at the church as a teenager, we were sometimes joined by a man in his mid-to-late twenties who, if I recall the rumors correctly, had played at BYU and who was light-years ahead of all of us. The thing is, if his team built a lead near the end of a game, he’d intentionally start throwing the inbounds passes directly to the other team, surrendering lay-up after lay-up to even the odds. I can’t describe in words how much that pissed me off. Maybe he was just trying to make it fun for everyone, or he was just trying to challenge himself, but to me, it was one of the most patronizing and arrogant things I’ve ever been subjected to on the court.
Likewise, as a teenager I’d occasionally play 21 with one of my brothers. Despite his half-a-foot height advantage, it always seemed like he’d let me win if I tried my hardest. This, too, was very upsetting, because he always had the talent to destroy me, yet if I won, it always felt cheap. My best counter for this was to call him on it or talk enough trash to rile him up, but let’s face it, older brothers are pretty unflappable.
Anyway, competitiveness is a clear job requirement for any professional athlete.
Take Kobe Bryant, prolific scoring machine and swingman for the Los Angeles Lakers. The conventional wisdom is that Kobe is one of the most competitive players in the league, if not the most. This notion strikes me as absurd.
What makes a person competitive, then? Not to turn into Bill Walton here, but the ability to perform best under the most adverse circumstances jumps immediately to mind. Obviously, it’s someone who likes to compete-in team sports, that means a player who is concerned first and foremost with winning. That includes taking credit for one’s own role in any loss, because a truly great player is always looking to improve. And implied in all of this is the idea of physical toughness. If you can’t remember all of that, just picture the exact opposite of Peyton Manning.
How does that relate to Kobe? Under that definition, you can’t call anyone who runs Shaquille O’Neal out of town, basically wrecking his own chances at a title for years, competitive. Kobe is obviously a very fiery individual who is willing to do anything to be remembered as the NBA’s greatest player. Yet it seems, to this outsider, that his motivation springs more from selfishness than a love of competition. If anything, it almost seems like he hates competition while he embraces it angrily, if that makes any sense. If he loved to win, wouldn’t he make it work with Shaq?
Ron Artest. The guy has probably had a pretty rough life, which hardly makes him unique among NBA players. Even before the brawl at the Palace, Artest showcased an intensity that could easily be confused for a hunger to win. I remember once seeing highlights when he basically tackled an opponent -I think it was then-Sixers point guard Eric Snow, who gives up about fifty pounds to Artest. But more to the point, tackling a basketball player doesn’t prove you hate to lose or that you’re bad-it just proves you’re a jerk, doesn’t it?
Last but certainly not least we have every baseball player who has taken steroids. The professional excuse-makers sometimes say that players basically had to take them to keep up, since everyone else was on the juice. It seem to me that if you’re taking illegal drugs or cheating in other ways, you’re basically admitting to yourself that you’re fundamentally incapable of being good enough on your own-in other words, you’re terrified of competing.
I think competitiveness is most evident in clutch performance and is, in many ways, the athletic attribute I care about the most.
Which athletes do I see as the most competitive? Growing up, I looked of course to John Elway and Michael Jordan, both of whom made enough legendary game-winning plays to, in my mind, cement their status as the all-time best in their sports (football for Elway and baseball for Jordan).
From today’s crop, Tom Brady is an obvious pick. Ditto Tim Duncan. Allen Iverson shares Bryant’s tendencies towards volume shooting , but I think he wants to win more than anything. Especially in his rookie year (and college), Carmelo showed flashes, and I think that’s back this season. Brett Favre should be here, but he seems to shrug off his shortcomings too readily these days. I always admired Steve McNair, who is aging and on a terrible team. How about Chauncey Billups? And who could forget Vince Young in the Rose Bowl?
The one thing that gives me hope for Jake Plummer is that he’s always seemed to be resilient and defiant enough. His attitude seems commendable even when his performance is inconsistent. (More on Plummer later this week.)
The dishonor roll adds another Manning, Eli, and other wimps, notably Vince Carter. (Do you remember when he was hailed as having the model attitude for every athlete?) Donovan McNabb may or may not be a good team leader, but he falls short in the clutch performance category. I’ve always felt like Jason Kidd was a bit of a con man. Sometimes I fear Kenyon Martin gets too carried away with the tough-guy routine. And for past players, Karl Malone is Exhibit A for the category of the heartless.
Before the most recent season, Terrell Owens would have been a no-brainer as one of the most winning-oriented athletes, as I’ve always felt that “he wants the focus on himself, not the team” garbage was a bit overblown. But he went so far out of his way to criticize McNabb so often this year that I am beginning to worry.
Which star athletes have the heart you admire the most? And which ones only disappoint?
My friend agreed, saying her family was the same way. Their family had to stop playing board games because her brothers would get upset after a loss and send the pieces flying.
This is ludicrous to me. We were supposedly talking about the same thing, but our definitions were worlds apart. To me, throwing a fit when you lose has nothing to do with being competitive. All it proves is your immaturity and inability to handle setbacks-not that I, of course, have never been guilty of the same type of behavior.
Meanwhile to me, the concept of competition is almost a sacred one. You’re always taught to give your best, and while that’s probably impossible, the desire to do so shows a respect for yourself, your teammates and everyone else on the field/court/diamond/rink/whatever. It’s the essence of good sportsmanship. When I played basketball at the church as a teenager, we were sometimes joined by a man in his mid-to-late twenties who, if I recall the rumors correctly, had played at BYU and who was light-years ahead of all of us. The thing is, if his team built a lead near the end of a game, he’d intentionally start throwing the inbounds passes directly to the other team, surrendering lay-up after lay-up to even the odds. I can’t describe in words how much that pissed me off. Maybe he was just trying to make it fun for everyone, or he was just trying to challenge himself, but to me, it was one of the most patronizing and arrogant things I’ve ever been subjected to on the court.
Likewise, as a teenager I’d occasionally play 21 with one of my brothers. Despite his half-a-foot height advantage, it always seemed like he’d let me win if I tried my hardest. This, too, was very upsetting, because he always had the talent to destroy me, yet if I won, it always felt cheap. My best counter for this was to call him on it or talk enough trash to rile him up, but let’s face it, older brothers are pretty unflappable.
Anyway, competitiveness is a clear job requirement for any professional athlete.
Take Kobe Bryant, prolific scoring machine and swingman for the Los Angeles Lakers. The conventional wisdom is that Kobe is one of the most competitive players in the league, if not the most. This notion strikes me as absurd.
What makes a person competitive, then? Not to turn into Bill Walton here, but the ability to perform best under the most adverse circumstances jumps immediately to mind. Obviously, it’s someone who likes to compete-in team sports, that means a player who is concerned first and foremost with winning. That includes taking credit for one’s own role in any loss, because a truly great player is always looking to improve. And implied in all of this is the idea of physical toughness. If you can’t remember all of that, just picture the exact opposite of Peyton Manning.
How does that relate to Kobe? Under that definition, you can’t call anyone who runs Shaquille O’Neal out of town, basically wrecking his own chances at a title for years, competitive. Kobe is obviously a very fiery individual who is willing to do anything to be remembered as the NBA’s greatest player. Yet it seems, to this outsider, that his motivation springs more from selfishness than a love of competition. If anything, it almost seems like he hates competition while he embraces it angrily, if that makes any sense. If he loved to win, wouldn’t he make it work with Shaq?
Ron Artest. The guy has probably had a pretty rough life, which hardly makes him unique among NBA players. Even before the brawl at the Palace, Artest showcased an intensity that could easily be confused for a hunger to win. I remember once seeing highlights when he basically tackled an opponent -I think it was then-Sixers point guard Eric Snow, who gives up about fifty pounds to Artest. But more to the point, tackling a basketball player doesn’t prove you hate to lose or that you’re bad-it just proves you’re a jerk, doesn’t it?
Last but certainly not least we have every baseball player who has taken steroids. The professional excuse-makers sometimes say that players basically had to take them to keep up, since everyone else was on the juice. It seem to me that if you’re taking illegal drugs or cheating in other ways, you’re basically admitting to yourself that you’re fundamentally incapable of being good enough on your own-in other words, you’re terrified of competing.
I think competitiveness is most evident in clutch performance and is, in many ways, the athletic attribute I care about the most.
Which athletes do I see as the most competitive? Growing up, I looked of course to John Elway and Michael Jordan, both of whom made enough legendary game-winning plays to, in my mind, cement their status as the all-time best in their sports (football for Elway and baseball for Jordan).
From today’s crop, Tom Brady is an obvious pick. Ditto Tim Duncan. Allen Iverson shares Bryant’s tendencies towards volume shooting , but I think he wants to win more than anything. Especially in his rookie year (and college), Carmelo showed flashes, and I think that’s back this season. Brett Favre should be here, but he seems to shrug off his shortcomings too readily these days. I always admired Steve McNair, who is aging and on a terrible team. How about Chauncey Billups? And who could forget Vince Young in the Rose Bowl?
The one thing that gives me hope for Jake Plummer is that he’s always seemed to be resilient and defiant enough. His attitude seems commendable even when his performance is inconsistent. (More on Plummer later this week.)
The dishonor roll adds another Manning, Eli, and other wimps, notably Vince Carter. (Do you remember when he was hailed as having the model attitude for every athlete?) Donovan McNabb may or may not be a good team leader, but he falls short in the clutch performance category. I’ve always felt like Jason Kidd was a bit of a con man. Sometimes I fear Kenyon Martin gets too carried away with the tough-guy routine. And for past players, Karl Malone is Exhibit A for the category of the heartless.
Before the most recent season, Terrell Owens would have been a no-brainer as one of the most winning-oriented athletes, as I’ve always felt that “he wants the focus on himself, not the team” garbage was a bit overblown. But he went so far out of his way to criticize McNabb so often this year that I am beginning to worry.
Which star athletes have the heart you admire the most? And which ones only disappoint?
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Elway's anti-T.O.
If you didn't see this, then click here.
As Elway told the Post, "I think there are a lot of things about T.O. that none of us really knows, but obviously he can ruin a football team. If it were up to me I would say no. I think the Broncos are close enough anyway, and they don't need a guy who's too much of a risk."
First off, I agree completely that T.O. can ruin a team. That is obvious, and I have no reason to think he won't eventually turn on everyone here (though he might not, just to mess with everyone's head).
Are the Broncos really that close to a title? Well, yes, they're closer than they've been since Elway retired. Of course, Elway never played on a team that didn't have Elway's leadership, and I don't know if we're really that close, or that's just his hyper-competitiveness speaking.
John Elway obviously knows a lot more about football than I do. Having said that...I still kind of think it's worth the risk, depending of course on what we'd have to give up. (Yes, T.O. will probably end up being released, but we may end up making cuts to fit under the cap, plus we probably wouldn't be able to grab defensive help.)
As Elway told the Post, "I think there are a lot of things about T.O. that none of us really knows, but obviously he can ruin a football team. If it were up to me I would say no. I think the Broncos are close enough anyway, and they don't need a guy who's too much of a risk."
First off, I agree completely that T.O. can ruin a team. That is obvious, and I have no reason to think he won't eventually turn on everyone here (though he might not, just to mess with everyone's head).
Are the Broncos really that close to a title? Well, yes, they're closer than they've been since Elway retired. Of course, Elway never played on a team that didn't have Elway's leadership, and I don't know if we're really that close, or that's just his hyper-competitiveness speaking.
John Elway obviously knows a lot more about football than I do. Having said that...I still kind of think it's worth the risk, depending of course on what we'd have to give up. (Yes, T.O. will probably end up being released, but we may end up making cuts to fit under the cap, plus we probably wouldn't be able to grab defensive help.)
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
From the mailbag...
I was so underwhelmed by the Super Bowl that I didn't craft a timely response. Too bad, huh?
The Captain wrote in today to ask, "Man, that game was freaking ugly. Did either team actually deserve to win?"
And this was the response I wrote him before I decided to kill two birds and post it here:
Absolutely not! Neither team looked ready for the game Sunday in what was easily the most disappointing 'Bowl I've seen in some time. I don't think I've ever seen both teams look so unprepared; I'm afraid of how many times I will hear that credited to parity, which I don't really believe in, over the coming months.
First, the officiating was awful, not unlike the Rose Bowl. I couldn't believe it. I don't want to say it caused Seattle to lose, because it didn't, but some of those calls were incredibly bogus-especially the phantom holding followed by Matt Hasselbeck's "illegal" tackle on the interception return. Definitely a momentum-changer. While I was obviously rooting for Seattle (and with surprising passion, considering it was only because I hate the Steelers), it's really more just that we all got robbed of what could have been an awesome Super Bowl. I thought the Darrell Jackson offensive pass interference call and Ben Roethlisberger "touchdown" call were understandable, though I don't like having to make excuses for the refs. Jackson shouldn't have pushed off right in front of an official and probably didn't need to. The Roethlisberger touchdown, to me, almost certainly didn't go in. If he's holding the ball behind his forearm and the back of his forearm doesn't break the plane, then by the law of physics that no two objects can occupy the same space he didn't get the ball in. But the "indisputable visual evidence" standard makes that a tough one-obviously, it was one of those calls where the first call, whatever it was, was going to stand. I hate those. Again, though, unless the refs had a sniper in the crowd and told Jerramy Stevens he'd be killed if he caught a pass, they didn't decide the game.
Roethlisberger's numbers were a lot worse than the game he seemed to be having, but I kind of felt the same way about Hasselbeck, who got screwed by his pass-catchers. Kelly Herndon sure would have been useful in the AFC title game this year, wouldn't you say? Willie Parker is good. The Seahawks should draft a running back and give Shaun Alexander's money to a receiver who will catch the ball, or at least go to Joe Jurevicius more (I always thought he was overrated, but he played tough Sunday, like a mini-McCaffrey). I don't care what the usual guidelines are, Peter Warrick needs to field that punt. Hines Ward has officially reached the level of overrated and insufferable and I think he has no business meriting Hall of Fame discussion. (Seriously, very good blocker who isn't quite a topflight receiver but plays on a consistently good team-in other words, we're looking at Rod Smith, but with fewer yards-per-catch and half as many thousand-yard seasons.) Or, for that matter, Super Bowl MVP, considering he dropped that open-as-they-come touchdown pass. And finally, who needs the money the worst-Tim Allen, Harrison Ford, or late entry Joe Montana?
Keep those questions coming, people!
The Captain wrote in today to ask, "Man, that game was freaking ugly. Did either team actually deserve to win?"
And this was the response I wrote him before I decided to kill two birds and post it here:
Absolutely not! Neither team looked ready for the game Sunday in what was easily the most disappointing 'Bowl I've seen in some time. I don't think I've ever seen both teams look so unprepared; I'm afraid of how many times I will hear that credited to parity, which I don't really believe in, over the coming months.
First, the officiating was awful, not unlike the Rose Bowl. I couldn't believe it. I don't want to say it caused Seattle to lose, because it didn't, but some of those calls were incredibly bogus-especially the phantom holding followed by Matt Hasselbeck's "illegal" tackle on the interception return. Definitely a momentum-changer. While I was obviously rooting for Seattle (and with surprising passion, considering it was only because I hate the Steelers), it's really more just that we all got robbed of what could have been an awesome Super Bowl. I thought the Darrell Jackson offensive pass interference call and Ben Roethlisberger "touchdown" call were understandable, though I don't like having to make excuses for the refs. Jackson shouldn't have pushed off right in front of an official and probably didn't need to. The Roethlisberger touchdown, to me, almost certainly didn't go in. If he's holding the ball behind his forearm and the back of his forearm doesn't break the plane, then by the law of physics that no two objects can occupy the same space he didn't get the ball in. But the "indisputable visual evidence" standard makes that a tough one-obviously, it was one of those calls where the first call, whatever it was, was going to stand. I hate those. Again, though, unless the refs had a sniper in the crowd and told Jerramy Stevens he'd be killed if he caught a pass, they didn't decide the game.
Roethlisberger's numbers were a lot worse than the game he seemed to be having, but I kind of felt the same way about Hasselbeck, who got screwed by his pass-catchers. Kelly Herndon sure would have been useful in the AFC title game this year, wouldn't you say? Willie Parker is good. The Seahawks should draft a running back and give Shaun Alexander's money to a receiver who will catch the ball, or at least go to Joe Jurevicius more (I always thought he was overrated, but he played tough Sunday, like a mini-McCaffrey). I don't care what the usual guidelines are, Peter Warrick needs to field that punt. Hines Ward has officially reached the level of overrated and insufferable and I think he has no business meriting Hall of Fame discussion. (Seriously, very good blocker who isn't quite a topflight receiver but plays on a consistently good team-in other words, we're looking at Rod Smith, but with fewer yards-per-catch and half as many thousand-yard seasons.) Or, for that matter, Super Bowl MVP, considering he dropped that open-as-they-come touchdown pass. And finally, who needs the money the worst-Tim Allen, Harrison Ford, or late entry Joe Montana?
Keep those questions coming, people!
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Super Bowl Preview
A confession: despite earlier proclamations, I am far from uninterested in the outcome of Sunday’s game. In fact, I’ll say it: I am still so bitter that the Steelers knocked out my Broncos that there is no way I will pick a Steelers win on my website. And it goes without saying (but since I’m self-indulgent, I’ll say it anyway) that I will be pulling for the Seahawks all day long.
Yet I honestly believe the Seahawks can and will defeat Pittsburgh in Sunday’s battle for the Lamar Hunt trophy-make that Lombardi trophy (4 p.m. Mountain, ABC). The reasons?
1) The Seahawks are very good on offense. Like I’ve noted, the Seahawks were the league’s highest-scoring team this year. Pittsburgh ranked a bit lower thanks to this man, but even if we count only the games Ben Roethlisberger played in, they still couldn’t keep pace with Seattle on the scoreboard.
Add to Matt Hasslebeck’s emergence the idea that Shaun Alexander may have finally overcome his struggles in big games, and it’s tough to see how Pittsburgh can contain the Seattle attack.
2) The Seahawks are solid defensively. The stats say Seattle is a little better than average defensively in yardage but pretty stingy with the points. Most importantly, they’re still improving and peaking at exactly the right time.
Seattle was 25th in the league in pass defense this year, but put the clamps down on Jake Delhomme in the NFC title game, intercepting one of the league’s most clutch quarterbacks three times. Sure, Seattle could focus on the pass with the injuries to the Panthers’ top three runners, but the dismantling of Delhomme was too complete to be brushed off so lightly.
Besides, Pittsburgh is the least-balanced offensive team ever to appear balanced, if that makes sense. They throw like crazy at the start of a game, then pound the ball to death in the second half. So if Seattle needs one-dimensional defensive focus to be successful, they can get away with it.
3) The week off favors Seattle. In terms of emotional momentum, Seattle is in much better shape. They’ve done just what they were expected to. Yet if either team is really being disrespected this week, it's the Seahawks. They've had a fantastic year and two easy wins in playoff games, yet now they're supposed to lose to a sixth seed just because it has a hot hand?
The Steelers, meanwhile, have been on a wild rollercoaster ride throughout the playoffs (and for the several weeks before them). Then they just sat for a week. That doesn’t sound like a big deal, but remember that it almost kept Joey Porter from having any interest in the game whatsoever.
In all seriousness, the Steelers have avoided feeling pressure by being the underdogs. Now they’re inviting the planet's attention and getting it. Will self-doubt start to surface, or can they keep the persecution complexes up? I'm not a doctor, but I am sick of the us-against-the-world angle, and I really do think it can backfire.
Call it bias, call it analysis, call it hate, but I call it Seahawks 27, Steelers 17.
Yet I honestly believe the Seahawks can and will defeat Pittsburgh in Sunday’s battle for the Lamar Hunt trophy-make that Lombardi trophy (4 p.m. Mountain, ABC). The reasons?
1) The Seahawks are very good on offense. Like I’ve noted, the Seahawks were the league’s highest-scoring team this year. Pittsburgh ranked a bit lower thanks to this man, but even if we count only the games Ben Roethlisberger played in, they still couldn’t keep pace with Seattle on the scoreboard.
Add to Matt Hasslebeck’s emergence the idea that Shaun Alexander may have finally overcome his struggles in big games, and it’s tough to see how Pittsburgh can contain the Seattle attack.
2) The Seahawks are solid defensively. The stats say Seattle is a little better than average defensively in yardage but pretty stingy with the points. Most importantly, they’re still improving and peaking at exactly the right time.
Seattle was 25th in the league in pass defense this year, but put the clamps down on Jake Delhomme in the NFC title game, intercepting one of the league’s most clutch quarterbacks three times. Sure, Seattle could focus on the pass with the injuries to the Panthers’ top three runners, but the dismantling of Delhomme was too complete to be brushed off so lightly.
Besides, Pittsburgh is the least-balanced offensive team ever to appear balanced, if that makes sense. They throw like crazy at the start of a game, then pound the ball to death in the second half. So if Seattle needs one-dimensional defensive focus to be successful, they can get away with it.
3) The week off favors Seattle. In terms of emotional momentum, Seattle is in much better shape. They’ve done just what they were expected to. Yet if either team is really being disrespected this week, it's the Seahawks. They've had a fantastic year and two easy wins in playoff games, yet now they're supposed to lose to a sixth seed just because it has a hot hand?
The Steelers, meanwhile, have been on a wild rollercoaster ride throughout the playoffs (and for the several weeks before them). Then they just sat for a week. That doesn’t sound like a big deal, but remember that it almost kept Joey Porter from having any interest in the game whatsoever.
In all seriousness, the Steelers have avoided feeling pressure by being the underdogs. Now they’re inviting the planet's attention and getting it. Will self-doubt start to surface, or can they keep the persecution complexes up? I'm not a doctor, but I am sick of the us-against-the-world angle, and I really do think it can backfire.
Call it bias, call it analysis, call it hate, but I call it Seahawks 27, Steelers 17.
A matchup we're all excited about
I must not be a patriot. Not because I barely glanced at the State of the Union, but because I’ve had a hard time getting excited about the Super Bowl.
See, it doesn’t quite feel like the NFL championship game. Maybe it’s the week off. Maybe it’s the matchup between two AFC teams. Maybe it’s because they’re playing it in February.
Whatever the cause, I’m not alone. The guys playing in the game basically didn’t care about it either.
Don’t believe me? Check these quotes from Steelers linebacker Joey Porter:
“I've been asleep all week but now I got woke up...Until now, it was 'Watch what I say,' 'I can't say this,' 'I can't say that,' 'Don't do anything silly,' but I'm ready now.”
First off-is he serious? We've got a grown man who prefers to be called “Joey”? Also, he's been sleeping all week-as in, not interested in the Super Bowl?
Porter’s comments came after Seahawks tight end Jerramy Stevens, who counters “Joey” by spelling both his first and last names incorrectly, said he thought the Seahawks would rain on Jerome Bettis’ homecoming parade.
“It's a heartwarming story and all that, but it will be a sad day when he leaves without that trophy,” were Stephens’-I’m sorry, Stevens’-fateful words.
Wow, big talk. I’d be livid if I was about to compete in the Super Bowl against a team with the audacity to believe it might win. But I love the rest of Porter’s response.
Porter said, “I'm going to make sure he owns up to those words." Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Stevens thinks the Seahawks will win, and Porter wants his words to ring true, isn’t Porter saying he’ll do anything to make sure the Seahawks walk off with a victory?
In that case, I’ll be rooting for Joey all day Sunday.
See, it doesn’t quite feel like the NFL championship game. Maybe it’s the week off. Maybe it’s the matchup between two AFC teams. Maybe it’s because they’re playing it in February.
Whatever the cause, I’m not alone. The guys playing in the game basically didn’t care about it either.
Don’t believe me? Check these quotes from Steelers linebacker Joey Porter:
“I've been asleep all week but now I got woke up...Until now, it was 'Watch what I say,' 'I can't say this,' 'I can't say that,' 'Don't do anything silly,' but I'm ready now.”
First off-is he serious? We've got a grown man who prefers to be called “Joey”? Also, he's been sleeping all week-as in, not interested in the Super Bowl?
Porter’s comments came after Seahawks tight end Jerramy Stevens, who counters “Joey” by spelling both his first and last names incorrectly, said he thought the Seahawks would rain on Jerome Bettis’ homecoming parade.
“It's a heartwarming story and all that, but it will be a sad day when he leaves without that trophy,” were Stephens’-I’m sorry, Stevens’-fateful words.
Wow, big talk. I’d be livid if I was about to compete in the Super Bowl against a team with the audacity to believe it might win. But I love the rest of Porter’s response.
Porter said, “I'm going to make sure he owns up to those words." Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Stevens thinks the Seahawks will win, and Porter wants his words to ring true, isn’t Porter saying he’ll do anything to make sure the Seahawks walk off with a victory?
In that case, I’ll be rooting for Joey all day Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)