Last night I saw an Associated Press article about a blog post Portland Trailblazers rookie center Greg Oden made about his decision to support Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
I don't blame him. It's not like he's going to come out now and support Hillary, who's only lost about half the Union in a row at this point.
Of course, I know the real reason this made the news: most athletes don't say anything politically. That's partly because they don't want to spark controversy and potentially lose endorsements but, I suspect, more because they don't want to deal with the headaches of all the publicity that would come along with speaking their minds.
Think about it. When Hollywood people come out in support of some political issue, most people yawn and think they're idiots. Well, the same goes for athletes, except you add on the idea that everyone thinks they cheated their way through their education. Occasionally you'll get a Steve Nash type who wants the world to appreciate how well-rounded he is. (Nash spoke out early against the Iraq War, which he believed was a war solely for oil.) But who really wants to go out and try to guard Shaquille O'Neal in front of thousands all night, then answer probing questions about his political philosophy right afterwards? (Oden, as he jokes in his blog, is currently free of any game responsibilities because of microfracture knee surgery.)
Sports reporters often look back on the good old days and point out that a) no athletes take a controversial stand anymore, and b) no athlete has a cool nickname anymore. I love it when a sportswriter complains about the dearth of good nicknames for modern athletes. Um, hey frigtard, don't you think maybe you're the one who should be doing something about that?
Anyway, I think it's kind of cool that Oden did this. I don't think a blog post represents some idiot abusing his fame, and besides, all Oden really does is in the end of his post is encourage young people to vote. It really makes me wonder if we'll see more of this as the election year goes on. What do you think about athletes speaking out on politicians or political issues?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Adam Foote, too
The same tipster who let me know about Peter Forsberg's return to the Colorado Avalanche just told me the Avs have acquired Adam Foote, too. I am officially excited about hockey again.
Foote was pretty awesome in the glory days, though he never had Forsberg's MVP candidate profile. I do remember he was tough, and that he always seemed to be at least the equal of our flashier pickups on the back line (Rob Blake, Ray Borque). We lost him about the same time as Forsberg, so I guess it's fitting we're getting them back together now. I don't have any good stories about Foote, but I'm pretty sure John does, and if we're lucky he'll share it in the comments...
P.S. The Avalanche schedule can be found on ESPN.com. They have games tonight and tomorrow in Canada, and I don't know yet whether Forsberg and/or Foote will play in either one. Also, thank you, ESPN, for not putting a gigantic, schedule-blocking ad across the screen the way the NHL's website does.
Foote was pretty awesome in the glory days, though he never had Forsberg's MVP candidate profile. I do remember he was tough, and that he always seemed to be at least the equal of our flashier pickups on the back line (Rob Blake, Ray Borque). We lost him about the same time as Forsberg, so I guess it's fitting we're getting them back together now. I don't have any good stories about Foote, but I'm pretty sure John does, and if we're lucky he'll share it in the comments...
P.S. The Avalanche schedule can be found on ESPN.com. They have games tonight and tomorrow in Canada, and I don't know yet whether Forsberg and/or Foote will play in either one. Also, thank you, ESPN, for not putting a gigantic, schedule-blocking ad across the screen the way the NHL's website does.
Forsberg's back
As you've probably heard by now, Peter Forsberg has returned to the Colorado Avalanche. Forsberg signed what's been called a one-year deal, but his contract won't really last that long; it just covers him for the rest of this season.
The Avs have 19 games left in their season, unless the return of Peter the Great propels them into the playoffs. Currently, according to that ESPN.com article, they're four "points" out of the last playoff spot. (Teams get two points for a win, and one for an overtime loss.)
Can they do it? I have no idea; I don't really watch hockey. The biggest casualty of the NHL's labor stoppage a few years back, from my standpoint, was the Avs losing their rightful place as the NHL's New York Yankees, or perhaps I should say as its Boston Red Sox. Instead of picking up superstars like Rob Blake right before the playoffs every year, suddenly the Avs had to start competing on more fair grounds. And, pathetically, the NHL lost a lot of its appeal for me.
Can Forsberg change that? He probably won't, unless the Avs make the playoffs, but let it be known that he was the man back in the day, and easily one of my favorite athletes in the city. I first heard of Forsberg during the 1996 Stanley Cup Finals, when he picked up a hat trick in the first period of Game 2, which was pretty cool once I found out what a hat trick was.
Later I started watching the Avs, at least a little, and I came to learn what a great player Forsberg was. And he was phenomenal, combining speed, strength and skill in a package few other NHL players could match. No player with his puck-handling skills could absorb or dish out a hit like he could. In a way, he was the perfect offensive hockey player. One of the few moments I remember from his playing days was a spectacular final-minute breakaway goal to win a game, which I'm pretty sure was against the Red Wings. It was a moment few could have pulled off, but with Forsberg's coordination and control, the goal almost felt like destiny.
(As a side note, there's almost nothing cooler as a fan than having a ready-made championship contender move into your city, especially when you don't quite realize what they've got. Over time, you learn things like, oh, this goalie was MVP of the playoffs twice, or your team'ssecond-line center, who everyone likes more than the first guy anyway, is an Olympic hero in his homeland. On the other hand, it spoils you to an absurd degree and you end up quitting on them.)
The second-saddest part of Forsberg's career in Denver, for me, was when his ruptured spleen caused him to miss the last several games of the 2001 playoffs, when the Avs again won the Stanley Cup. Personally I don't think injuries made him any less of a key contributor to the title: clearly the Avs wouldn't have been in that spot to begin with without Forsberg. I just wished he could have been on the ice for the Finals again, now that we'd finally gotten past the Stars. And then the saddest day was the one when the Avs let him go, which officially brought their days of dominance to an end. There's no question Forsberg's no longer the player he once was, but it sure is exciting to have him back.
The Avs have 19 games left in their season, unless the return of Peter the Great propels them into the playoffs. Currently, according to that ESPN.com article, they're four "points" out of the last playoff spot. (Teams get two points for a win, and one for an overtime loss.)
Can they do it? I have no idea; I don't really watch hockey. The biggest casualty of the NHL's labor stoppage a few years back, from my standpoint, was the Avs losing their rightful place as the NHL's New York Yankees, or perhaps I should say as its Boston Red Sox. Instead of picking up superstars like Rob Blake right before the playoffs every year, suddenly the Avs had to start competing on more fair grounds. And, pathetically, the NHL lost a lot of its appeal for me.
Can Forsberg change that? He probably won't, unless the Avs make the playoffs, but let it be known that he was the man back in the day, and easily one of my favorite athletes in the city. I first heard of Forsberg during the 1996 Stanley Cup Finals, when he picked up a hat trick in the first period of Game 2, which was pretty cool once I found out what a hat trick was.
Later I started watching the Avs, at least a little, and I came to learn what a great player Forsberg was. And he was phenomenal, combining speed, strength and skill in a package few other NHL players could match. No player with his puck-handling skills could absorb or dish out a hit like he could. In a way, he was the perfect offensive hockey player. One of the few moments I remember from his playing days was a spectacular final-minute breakaway goal to win a game, which I'm pretty sure was against the Red Wings. It was a moment few could have pulled off, but with Forsberg's coordination and control, the goal almost felt like destiny.
(As a side note, there's almost nothing cooler as a fan than having a ready-made championship contender move into your city, especially when you don't quite realize what they've got. Over time, you learn things like, oh, this goalie was MVP of the playoffs twice, or your team'ssecond-line center, who everyone likes more than the first guy anyway, is an Olympic hero in his homeland. On the other hand, it spoils you to an absurd degree and you end up quitting on them.)
The second-saddest part of Forsberg's career in Denver, for me, was when his ruptured spleen caused him to miss the last several games of the 2001 playoffs, when the Avs again won the Stanley Cup. Personally I don't think injuries made him any less of a key contributor to the title: clearly the Avs wouldn't have been in that spot to begin with without Forsberg. I just wished he could have been on the ice for the Finals again, now that we'd finally gotten past the Stars. And then the saddest day was the one when the Avs let him go, which officially brought their days of dominance to an end. There's no question Forsberg's no longer the player he once was, but it sure is exciting to have him back.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Shaq & Kidd trades: Do they change the balance of power in the West?
Short version: It's not 1995. And the long, since both players lost in their debuts last night:
Shaq to Phoenix: The Lakers, the team Shaq lead to four NBA Finals and three NBA championships, defeated the Suns last night behind Kobe Bryant's 41 points. O'Neal had 15 points and nine rebounds in 29 minutes of action. This is about as glad as I'm ever going to be about Kobe having a good game: it adds spice to a rivalry that is now a few seasons old.
Anyway, I find my mind changing a little bit about Phoenix's trade for Shaq, which had them send Shawn Marion and reserve guard Marcus Banks to Miami. To me, the trade really comes down to why you think the Suns haven't emerged as true title contenders the last few years.
Do the Suns lack talent, or are they underachievers? With all due respect to Shaquille O'Neal, who is one of the greatest players ever, a Marion-for-Shaq trade doesn't seem to add much talent to the Suns at this stage in those players' careers. Shaq is huge, and I don't think he's completely finished, but Marion is one of the most versatile and athletic players of the decade.
But if the Suns have failed because of chemistry, suddenly adding Shaq makes a ton of sense. For one, he's a good team guy, but it's probably a bigger deal just that he's a gargantuan Hall of Fame-level center. If you're Steve Nash, wouldn't you expect a sudden decrease in elbows and cheap shots with O'Neal prowling the lane behind you? The flip side with Shaq is that he tends to dominate the media attention, but the only Sun I know would have had a problem with that is Shawn Marion.
About a year ago I read Jack McCallum's book, :07 Seconds or Less, about a year he spent with a Phoenix Suns team of recent vintage (2005-2006). It was pretty enjoyable, especially considering how little I like the Suns. One of the things he talked about was how Marion craved being the star of his own team. (You know, sort of like Penny Hardaway or Kobe.) Personally, I can't stand guys like that, and Marion did seem to handle it more professionally than either of the guards Shaq had butted heads with in the past, but I think trading Marion might have been a bit of addition by subtraction for this team.
Ultimately, though, I think the Suns needed more talent and improved chemistry. Shaq should do wonders for the team part, and even on the court, he's a better fit than people think. The question with Shaq is always if he's motivated (and following a trade, he should be), but on the court he can fit in better with this team than people think. If he's playing defense and rebounding, he'll start plenty of fast breaks, and he gives the team an option in the halfcourt offense, which they'll need even more come playoff time. But look at the talent side. Unfortunately, the Suns still don't have an answer for some of the franchise players out West, like Tim Duncan and Kobe. Also, their "name" players-like Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire-are all limited in some way. Nash, for example, is a gamer, a fantastic passer, and a very good scoring option, but can't rebound and doesn't defend very well. Put it all together and I don't see them making the Finals.
(One more point about the trade: keep in mind that Shaq has always benefited from having some extra motivation...or, less politely, sometimes he plays like he needs a kick in the butt. The fact is he didn't seem too pleased in Miami this year (just check his stats), which made him more valuable to not Miami than to Miami, if that makes sense, and which put the Heat in a poor bargaining position—and they still got a great pick-up in Marion.)
Kidd to Dallas: Now here's a trade that I just don't get. The fact is you don't give up on a solid, developing young point guard like Devin Harris for an older guy like Jason Kidd unless you think he's the missing piece that puts you over the top. And what I don't get is why the Mavericks think they're that close to the title.
Last time Kidd was traded, to New Jersey, he certainly was that important piece. But he's not as valuable as he was then for two reasons. First, he's older. At 34, with the minutes he's played over the years, I wonder how much longer he can be an effective player. One worrying sign is his field-goal percentage, which is currently the lowest of his career, and this is a guy who's never been a great shooter. To me, a sudden dip in field-goal percentage is a warning sign of athletic decline. But on the other hand, while he's only scoring about 11 points per game, he's right around 10 assists and 8 boards. Clearly his game is not all the way gone.
However, there's another reason Kidd is less valuable, and that's his point guard competition in the West. His biggest competition in the East was maybe Baron Davis, whose team wasn't all that great, and later Chauncey Billups, whose team was. In the West, though, the Suns and Spurs both have fantastic point guards in Nash and Tony Parker, who, you may remember, outplayed Kidd back in the 2003 Finals. (There were rumors the Spurs were going to sign-and-trade Parker for Kidd if the Nets had won the series or if Kidd had badly out-played Parker...but no one really mentioned that after the series for some reason.) And don't forget Chris Paul of the Hornets, who put up 31 points, 11 assists, and nine steals last night in their win over Dallas. The fact is Kidd gives the Mavericks not an edge, but a fighting chance with their point guard match-ups in the playoffs. I think the Mavs, too, will fall short of the Finals, and I don't even like their chances as much as Phoenix's.
Shaq to Phoenix: The Lakers, the team Shaq lead to four NBA Finals and three NBA championships, defeated the Suns last night behind Kobe Bryant's 41 points. O'Neal had 15 points and nine rebounds in 29 minutes of action. This is about as glad as I'm ever going to be about Kobe having a good game: it adds spice to a rivalry that is now a few seasons old.
Anyway, I find my mind changing a little bit about Phoenix's trade for Shaq, which had them send Shawn Marion and reserve guard Marcus Banks to Miami. To me, the trade really comes down to why you think the Suns haven't emerged as true title contenders the last few years.
Do the Suns lack talent, or are they underachievers? With all due respect to Shaquille O'Neal, who is one of the greatest players ever, a Marion-for-Shaq trade doesn't seem to add much talent to the Suns at this stage in those players' careers. Shaq is huge, and I don't think he's completely finished, but Marion is one of the most versatile and athletic players of the decade.
But if the Suns have failed because of chemistry, suddenly adding Shaq makes a ton of sense. For one, he's a good team guy, but it's probably a bigger deal just that he's a gargantuan Hall of Fame-level center. If you're Steve Nash, wouldn't you expect a sudden decrease in elbows and cheap shots with O'Neal prowling the lane behind you? The flip side with Shaq is that he tends to dominate the media attention, but the only Sun I know would have had a problem with that is Shawn Marion.
About a year ago I read Jack McCallum's book, :07 Seconds or Less, about a year he spent with a Phoenix Suns team of recent vintage (2005-2006). It was pretty enjoyable, especially considering how little I like the Suns. One of the things he talked about was how Marion craved being the star of his own team. (You know, sort of like Penny Hardaway or Kobe.) Personally, I can't stand guys like that, and Marion did seem to handle it more professionally than either of the guards Shaq had butted heads with in the past, but I think trading Marion might have been a bit of addition by subtraction for this team.
Ultimately, though, I think the Suns needed more talent and improved chemistry. Shaq should do wonders for the team part, and even on the court, he's a better fit than people think. The question with Shaq is always if he's motivated (and following a trade, he should be), but on the court he can fit in better with this team than people think. If he's playing defense and rebounding, he'll start plenty of fast breaks, and he gives the team an option in the halfcourt offense, which they'll need even more come playoff time. But look at the talent side. Unfortunately, the Suns still don't have an answer for some of the franchise players out West, like Tim Duncan and Kobe. Also, their "name" players-like Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire-are all limited in some way. Nash, for example, is a gamer, a fantastic passer, and a very good scoring option, but can't rebound and doesn't defend very well. Put it all together and I don't see them making the Finals.
(One more point about the trade: keep in mind that Shaq has always benefited from having some extra motivation...or, less politely, sometimes he plays like he needs a kick in the butt. The fact is he didn't seem too pleased in Miami this year (just check his stats), which made him more valuable to not Miami than to Miami, if that makes sense, and which put the Heat in a poor bargaining position—and they still got a great pick-up in Marion.)
Kidd to Dallas: Now here's a trade that I just don't get. The fact is you don't give up on a solid, developing young point guard like Devin Harris for an older guy like Jason Kidd unless you think he's the missing piece that puts you over the top. And what I don't get is why the Mavericks think they're that close to the title.
Last time Kidd was traded, to New Jersey, he certainly was that important piece. But he's not as valuable as he was then for two reasons. First, he's older. At 34, with the minutes he's played over the years, I wonder how much longer he can be an effective player. One worrying sign is his field-goal percentage, which is currently the lowest of his career, and this is a guy who's never been a great shooter. To me, a sudden dip in field-goal percentage is a warning sign of athletic decline. But on the other hand, while he's only scoring about 11 points per game, he's right around 10 assists and 8 boards. Clearly his game is not all the way gone.
However, there's another reason Kidd is less valuable, and that's his point guard competition in the West. His biggest competition in the East was maybe Baron Davis, whose team wasn't all that great, and later Chauncey Billups, whose team was. In the West, though, the Suns and Spurs both have fantastic point guards in Nash and Tony Parker, who, you may remember, outplayed Kidd back in the 2003 Finals. (There were rumors the Spurs were going to sign-and-trade Parker for Kidd if the Nets had won the series or if Kidd had badly out-played Parker...but no one really mentioned that after the series for some reason.) And don't forget Chris Paul of the Hornets, who put up 31 points, 11 assists, and nine steals last night in their win over Dallas. The fact is Kidd gives the Mavericks not an edge, but a fighting chance with their point guard match-ups in the playoffs. I think the Mavs, too, will fall short of the Finals, and I don't even like their chances as much as Phoenix's.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
2008 NFL Hall of Fame class
My sincerest apologies for not blogging this sooner.
Anyway, Saturday the newest members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame were announced. And it's an awesome class.
Two Redskins, Art Monk and Darrell Green, seem to be the headliners. It's a little odd that Monk's election took so long. After all, he'd retired as the NFL's all-time leader in receptions. Now I don't much remember Monk, other than for being on a Redskins team that beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl, so I don't really mind that he had to wait. But while the quality and type of his catches certainly deserve consideration, I just don't see how you can be the all-time record holder in a category like that and not be a shoo-in.
Green, who played in the league from 1983 to 2002, I remember a little better. (I was going to put like 1960 down for his first year, but I figured '83-'02 looks like it's a joke already.) Super-fast, played forever on a signature franchise, won some Super Bowls, and made an All-Decade Team...it's no surprise he got in.
Fred Dean and Emmitt Thomas? Your guess is as good as mine.
Andre Tippett played for the Patriots, and I liked him as a kid, probably because I had his football card. (Never mind that I had just about everyone's in those days.)
My favorite selection, though, was former Vikings and Broncos left tackle Gary Zimmerman.
I don't remember the Broncos acquiring Zimmerman, but I do remember how excited I was the first time I saw his name on our roster. Here's a guy who'd already made the 1980s All-Decade Team, and though I'd probably never really watched him play, I certainly knew his reputation, which is saying a lot for an offensive lineman.
Zimmerman, of course, went on to be a critical member of Denver's line during their first Super Bowl-winning season. Of course, that whole line was ridiculous. From left to right: Zimmerman, Mark Schlereth, Tom Nalen, Brian Habib, Tony Jones. I can't seem to find confirmation of this anywhere, but I'm pretty sure I remember that line being named AFC Offensive Player of the Week after Denver's 42-17 drubbing of Jacksonville in the playoffs. And they deserved it: the line cleared the way for two hundred-yard rushers that day.
I don't honestly know how Zimmerman measures up against other great tackles of his era, such as the Bengals' Anthony Muñoz, except that Dr. Z once scoffed at the notion (I believe when it came up in Hall of Fame voting) that Zim was Muñoz's equal. But I do remember how much we missed him when he retired. Jones took his place on the left side (Jones' versatility at both tackle spots makes him the unsung hero of those teams), and Harry Swayne took over for Jones on the right. I don't mean to knock Swayne at all, but Zimmerman was a quarterback's best friend, and he ended up making the All-Decade Team for the 1990s, too.
Congratulations to Zimmerman on his selection.
Time to retire?
Shaquille O'Neal, once the most dominant force in the league, once again finds himself the subject of trade rumors.
The latest rumor, which has an awful lot of weight behind it, has him potentially going to Phoenix in exchange for Marcus Banks and Shawn Marion or, in other words, for Shawn Marion.
Shaq, I hope you retire after this season. You've been a force of nature in two different decades and even better, you seem like a terrific guy. But now that you're older, people just up and assume you're soft enough to fit in on the Suns? I just hate to see you treated that way.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
A...Giant...victory? Eh? Eh?
Get it? Because the Giants won...
Sorry if I'm a little slap-happy, but there's nothing worse than three-and-a-half hours of bad Super Bowl followed by a sudden, upsetting, and annoying conclusion.
What have we learned?
1. Your biggest, best receiver will always be open near the goal line late in the game.
Why did Joe Montana even bother looking at John Taylor back in the day? I guess because he didn't get to go up against tonight's defenses.
Randy Moss and Plaxico Burress—in other words, each team's freakish deep threat—both beat awful single coverage for wide-open touchdowns in the last three minutes. That's just awful. I sat through that crappy 7-3 game for that?
2. I hate the Giants.
Late in the game, my brother Dave mentioned how badly he wanted to see the Giants lose, considering how they'd beaten the Broncos half-of-Super-Bowl-history ago. And you know what, that is crap. I hate those guys.
The Giants have now won three Super Bowls in my lifetime, the same total as the Patriots, Cowboys and Redskins, and one shy of the 49ers. Five teams have won 16 of the Super Bowls since I've been around, and the Niners actually got the last one before I was born, too. That's why it's so dumb to say the NFL has parity.
3. The Mannings are super! (Sorry, they're Super!)
I don't know if other people hate the Mannings as much as I do—I doubt it—but do these guys really have to win the Super Bowl every year now?
Actually, for once I thought the Peyton angle was underplayed—he's one of the few crowd members whose reactions have ever meant something to me. First off, you have the face of the NFL watching his little brother on the league's biggest stage. And second, his brother's playing against his own biggest rival. I mean, that's incredible. Can you imagine facing your brother's biggest rival under circumstances anything at all like the Super Bowl? I mean in anything in life? The family story was the most interesting one to me, but it didn't get that much play...then again, I didn't follow the pregame hype ramp-up very much, so maybe the rest of you guys were already sick of it.
4. I suck.
One of the biggest reasons I ever started this blog was because I believed in myself. I saw so many dumb predictions flying around—the Colts'll win the Super Bowl, or Eli Manning should be the No. 1 pick—that I just had to set the record straight. How's that going for me?
Well, I've been blogging for three Super Bowls now, and for those games I've picked the Seahawks, the Bears, and the Patriots. Time to retire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)