ESPN’s John Clayton categorizes the Titans as one of the NFL Draft’s “first-round losers.” I’m inclined to agree.
Like everyone else in Nashville, I sure hope first-rounder Chris Johnson (#24 overall) turns out to be a winner. The guy’s lightning fast. His footage is impressive as hell. (Go plug his name into YouTube.) What’s weird is that he wasn’t showing up on any common lists of elite running backs prior to the draft.
Surely the Titans weren’t surprised when RB Felix Jones of Arkansas was taken by the Cowboys at #22. So they had to be interested in the still-available Rashard Mendenhall of Illinois. Only the Steelers at #23 stood between the Titans and Mendenhall, and why would Pittsburgh take a running back when they’ve got Willie Parker? Surprise! The Steelers did.
I’m not sure if Titans fans saw the import of this moment, mainly because most of ’em probably figured the team would grab one of the many wide receivers available, to procure some weaponry for Vince Young. Devin Thomas, DeSean Jackson, Limas Sweed, Malcolm Kelly—all four of these highly regarded WRs were still on the board. Matter of fact, not a single wide receiver was drafted in the first round, so the Titans had the pick of the litter. It wasn’t to be.
Now the Titans will head into rounds 3-7 knowing that all four of the highest-profile WRs are gone, snapped up quickly by others in Round 2.
So here’s the message the Titans sent to VY on Draft Day: “We’re so skittish about your abilities as a quarterback, that we’re not going to waste an early draft choice on an elite receiver, and have to spend another year watching you figure out how that works. Instead, we’re going to get a running back with what we hope is major upside—unlike last year’s pig-in-a-poke Chris Henry—and pair him with LenDale White and do the thunder-and-lightning thing on the ground and hope you can hit newcomer Johnson out of the backfield with short passes and let his 4.24 speed do the rest. If we happen to pick up a decent wide receiver somewhere along the line in the later rounds, then that’s gravy. Otherwise, you can stay familiar with Justin Gage and Roydell Williams, and get newly familiar with free-agent tight end Alge Crumpler, and, if we’re lucky, we’ll actually have an offense of some kind.”
So then, with their second-round pick (#54 overall), the Titans go weirdo again, selecting Eastern Michigan defensive end Jason Jones. Now, the Titans certainly need help on the D-line, especially after waving bye-bye to Antwan Odom, Randy Starks and Travis LaBoy in free agency, and gutting some essential working parts that helped make All-Pros Kyle VanDen Bosch and Albert Haynesworth so effective.
Yet who is Jason Jones? You won’t find a single highlight reel or workout film of him on YouTube. Jones was a productive performer—in the MAC—though his 3.5 sacks this past season don’t exactly appear exceptional. Of course, there’s always the chance he’ll be better than Jevon Kearse, acquired by the Titans as a free-agent this off-season, and surely a high-risk venture if ever there were one. Kearse, after ACL surgery, has yet to regain his All-Pro form, which seems long ago indeed. His most recent four seasons with Philadelphia never measured up to his first five with Tennessee. On September 3, Kearse turns 32. He’s trying to make a comeback on a reconstructed knee. How many serious observers realistically think that Kearse will excel in ’08? And if he doesn’t, is Jason Jones the man?
Day 2 of the draft may yet bring some needed help. And maybe Johnson, from East Carolina, will indeed be the second coming of Tony Dorsett. Alas, as impressive as his highlights are, his performances came against Conference USA competition, and that’s why a lot of observers are saying the Titans reached for this pick—because you just never know, and guys from bigger and better conferences seem more battle-tested for the pro game.
So let’s tote up the past few months in Titans general manager Mike Reinfeldt’s reign:
1. Losing DLs Odom, Starks and Laboy, up-and-coming guard Jacob Bell, and tight end Ben Troupe to free-agency.
2. Signing Crumpler from Atlanta. He’s 30 and hasn’t been at peak health the past two years.
3. Signing Kearse on a wing and a prayer.
4. Drafting an unknown running back after the big ones got away, and following up with a DE draft choice who wasn’t even a world-beater in his mid-major college conference. (And they’ll have to pay the guy second-round money.)
These should all be interesting experiments... but that doesn’t mean the results will be good.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Moyer Proves Resilient, Keeps Winning with Junk
I’m not that big a fan of Tim McCarver as a baseball announcer. He’s pretty obvious and cliche-ridden. He’s more like an ombudsman for baseball, rather than an original voice. His rap is also riddled with a lot of what I call “manly jock crap.”
However, I am a big fan of McCarver’s syndicated Sunday night interview program (broadcast locally on Nashville’s ABC affiliate, Channel 2). McCarver trots out old-timers and discusses their careers, and his subjects are not always the most obvious guys, which inevitably ends up being totally cool.
The other night he had on Jamie Moyer, who is an old-timer only by virtue of his chronological age. On November 18, 2008, Moyer will turn 46 years old, yet he is still pitching for the Philadelphia Phillies. The Moyer career story is both baffling and triumphant and bears rehashing.
I was living in Chicago in 1986, when 23-year-old Moyer came up from the minors to pitch for the Cubs. He was a promising new face, and even though he tended to give up well over a hit per inning, and his ERA that year was less than stellar (5.05), the guy was 7-4 and threw a shutout in 16 games. Moyer went 12-15 in ’87, again with a high ERA (5.10), but he made 33 starts and pitched 201 innings. Then he went 9-15 in ’88, and while he continued to give up too many hits, he pitched 212 innings and his ERA dipped to 3.48.
Then came an offseason trade. Moyer was shipped with a young Rafael Palmeiro to the Texas Rangers in exchange for Mitch (“Wild Thing”) Williams, a reliever who helped the Cubs to the playoffs in 1989.
Then Moyer hit the skids. From 1989 to 1991, with Texas and then the St. Louis Cardinals, the lefthander compiled a record of 6-20, including a 1991 ERA of 5.74. He was getting hit way too much and his control was only so-so. Things were so bad that Moyer got released by the Cards, then was re-signed by the Cubs, only to be cut prior to the 1992 season. He signed again with Detroit in May of that year, but never put in an appearance in a major league uniform that season. At the age of 29, Moyer looked washed up.
Then the Baltiore Orioles took a chance on Moyer prior to the 1993 season. He rewarded them with a 12-9 season, with a 3.43 ERA. Moyer slogged through the next few seasons with more general mediocrity, but he was allowing slightly fewer hits, and his control improved. In a 1996 season split between the Orioles and the Seattle Mariners, Moyer was 13-3, with an ERA just under 4.00.
Finally, at age 34, Moyer’s career took off. From 1997 to 2005, he was 133-73 for the Mariners. He kept his ERA mostly in the mid to lower 3.00s during those seasons, and his control was decent, and even though he kept giving up a lot of hits, Moyer somehow proved himself a tough, gritty competitor, but most of all, a winner.
What makes the Moyer story even more improbable is that he has managed to pitch into his mid-forties without the benefit of a trick pitch, like the knuckleball. He throws unadulterated junk. His fastball barely breaks 80 MPH. He throws change-ups and curves in the 70 MPH range. With limited physical skills, and a modest 6-foot, 170-lb. frame, Moyer has re-defined the notion of “crafty lefthander,” and he has now managed to tote up a career mark of 231-178, with a lifetime ERA of 4.22.
Yet in a 22-year career, covering 607 games, Moyer has completed only 31 games and thrown but nine shutouts. He’s the quintessential “Give me five or six good innings” kind of guy, and it’s astounding how he’s managed to parlay moxie and an apparent canny understanding of the hitters into such a long major league stint. It’s paid off big-time, too. Moyer has earned nearly $70 million in salary through the years. Not a bad haul.
Moyer’s got a bunch of kids, seven in all, including an adopted child from Guatemala. And he’s still married to Karen Phelps, daughter of former Notre Dame basketball coach and now ESPN analyst Digger Phelps.
Now that Julio Franco appears to be gone for good from baseball, Moyer is the oldest current player in the major leagues.
The message is: Never give up.
Democratic Political Follies: "Just Folks" Hillary and Obama's Holy Man
Sometimes it’s hard to resist getting into the political fray.
I had to laugh heartily the other day when I learned of Hillary Rodham Clinton telling stories about her youthful visits to her family’s summer home in Scranton, Pa. Hillary wants to win Pennsylvania (in the worst way), and she proves this by trying to link her past to Scranton, a Middle American town with blue-collar leanings. I also heard that Hillary said that she used to shoot guns with her father. This is hilarious stuff. Anything to win the hearts and minds and votes of a political bloc—the hard-workin’, gun totin’ crowd in the Keystone State.
A few facts. Hillary Clinton was born in Chicago. When her father started to make his upwardly mobile way in the world, he moved his family to Park Ridge, Illinois, a bedroom community on the city’s northwest edge, very near O’Hare airport.
Here’s where Hillary and myself intersect. Somewhere around 1993-94, I was playing piano for Chicago’s Second City comedy theater. Our troupe embarked on a fairly lengthy tour of New England, and one of our gigs was at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The Clintons were in the White House, and because of that everyone knew that Hillary attended Wellesley as an undergrad. It’s an elite private school with a lovely campus, and being there was certainly an occasion to get reminded that we were gigging at the First Lady’s alma mater.
A couple of years later, I was out of work as a musician and needed a job. After two weeks on unemployment—and having gotten really depressed just walking that one time into the unemployment office—I looked around for something/anything to pay the bills. I ended up very shortly thereafter taking a job driving a cab—in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Park Ridge Taxi Co. was one crazy gig. My four years in that job are worthy of a book in and of itself. But here I was, driving the good upper-crust folks of Park Ridge around the suburbs and also taking a good many of them to and from their many business and vacation flights at O’Hare. Somewhere about the middle of town, on North Prospect St., was the former home of the Rodhams, a characteristically lovely and large suburban house amid where the wealthiest folks lived.
So here’s the 4-1-1 on Park Ridge and its ilk. After driving these folks around for four years, I can tell you that it is, by and large, one of the most financially conservative enclaves you’ll ever see. Nobody is poor in Park Ridge, and a lot of people are filthy, stinking rich. The residents come across as the most obviously Republican-type folks you’ll ever see.
To know Park Ridge is to make it very easy to scoff at the notion that Hillary Clinton is a friend of the working class. Her background is decidedly NOT working class. It is closer to silver spoon. She grew up in comfortable upper-middle-class splendor in an idyllic conservative suburb and later went on to Wellesley. Later, Hillary attended Yale Law School, further cementing her link to upward cultural and financial mobility and classic Eastern establishment elitism.
In other words, Hillary hasn’t worked a day in her life. At least not how most of us define “working.” She is a well-connected conservative elitist parading around Pennsylvania in liberal blue-collar sheep’s clothing. She is doing this because she will do anything to procure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
I wonder if the folks in Scranton were scratching their heads. “Summer home? What’s that?”
On the Obama front, his reverend, Chicago’s Jeremiah Wright, keeps opening his big mouth. He was at it again on Saturday, when he spoke at a memorial service for the late former Chicago appellate judge R. Eugene Pincham, like Obama a member of Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ.
[Sidebar: I hadn’t heard Pincham’s name for years. When I lived in Chicago, he was an obnoxious, impolitic fellow who presided controversially over court cases, and also had a penchant for saying ugly and/or inadvisable racial things that judges shouldn’t say.]
So, on this solemn occasion, among other things—and on the heels of his prior awful public remarks that have embarrassed Obama—Wright took after the Founding Fathers, claiming they “planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic.” He also took after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, described Thomas Jefferson as having engaged in “pedophilia,” and attacked FOX newsmen Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
Not too cool for Obama, who has yet to distance himself from this guy.
Will someone please take Rev. Wright out to see the musical 1776? Beside being excellent theater, the show also provides a wonderfully clear history lesson on the Founding Fathers’ struggles to get our nation started. Yes, it’s true that the issue of slavery was not dealt with by the original framers. That is, they were unable to deal with it the way they would have wanted.
In fact, Adams, Jefferson et al. wanted to speed up the abolition of slavery through the wording in the Declaration of Independence. Alas, there were delegates from the South on hand who feared such verbiage and would not ratify the vote for independence as long as the original wording—”freedom for ALL men”—was in place. The reality of the situation caused Adams tremendous consternation. He wanted to assure the end of slavery, but his more immediate problem—declaring independence from England—had to be solved first.
And so Adams, like any good politician, did a bit of horse-trading (or what we more nobly refer to as compromise). The language in the document regarding slavery was struck out in exchange for the Southern votes to separate the colonies from the king. This is surely an unfortunate asterisk in the early history of the U.S., but the exigencies of the moment forced Adams to act practically. It wasn’t what he and others wanted, but first things came first.
It took 86 more years until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. As a white guy, all I can say is that, yes, Americans might’ve acted more swiftly on the issues of slavery and racial equality. Slavery is a stain on our past. The good news is all the progress that has been made since the Civil War, admittedly never occurring as fast as we’d all have liked. But there are better days ahead, and, well, there’s even a half-African American running for president, and he just might make it.
So don’t be a hater, Jeremiah. Better yet, be a reverend. Talk about God and faith instead. Isn't that what reverends are supposed to do?
I had to laugh heartily the other day when I learned of Hillary Rodham Clinton telling stories about her youthful visits to her family’s summer home in Scranton, Pa. Hillary wants to win Pennsylvania (in the worst way), and she proves this by trying to link her past to Scranton, a Middle American town with blue-collar leanings. I also heard that Hillary said that she used to shoot guns with her father. This is hilarious stuff. Anything to win the hearts and minds and votes of a political bloc—the hard-workin’, gun totin’ crowd in the Keystone State.
A few facts. Hillary Clinton was born in Chicago. When her father started to make his upwardly mobile way in the world, he moved his family to Park Ridge, Illinois, a bedroom community on the city’s northwest edge, very near O’Hare airport.
Here’s where Hillary and myself intersect. Somewhere around 1993-94, I was playing piano for Chicago’s Second City comedy theater. Our troupe embarked on a fairly lengthy tour of New England, and one of our gigs was at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The Clintons were in the White House, and because of that everyone knew that Hillary attended Wellesley as an undergrad. It’s an elite private school with a lovely campus, and being there was certainly an occasion to get reminded that we were gigging at the First Lady’s alma mater.
A couple of years later, I was out of work as a musician and needed a job. After two weeks on unemployment—and having gotten really depressed just walking that one time into the unemployment office—I looked around for something/anything to pay the bills. I ended up very shortly thereafter taking a job driving a cab—in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Park Ridge Taxi Co. was one crazy gig. My four years in that job are worthy of a book in and of itself. But here I was, driving the good upper-crust folks of Park Ridge around the suburbs and also taking a good many of them to and from their many business and vacation flights at O’Hare. Somewhere about the middle of town, on North Prospect St., was the former home of the Rodhams, a characteristically lovely and large suburban house amid where the wealthiest folks lived.
So here’s the 4-1-1 on Park Ridge and its ilk. After driving these folks around for four years, I can tell you that it is, by and large, one of the most financially conservative enclaves you’ll ever see. Nobody is poor in Park Ridge, and a lot of people are filthy, stinking rich. The residents come across as the most obviously Republican-type folks you’ll ever see.
To know Park Ridge is to make it very easy to scoff at the notion that Hillary Clinton is a friend of the working class. Her background is decidedly NOT working class. It is closer to silver spoon. She grew up in comfortable upper-middle-class splendor in an idyllic conservative suburb and later went on to Wellesley. Later, Hillary attended Yale Law School, further cementing her link to upward cultural and financial mobility and classic Eastern establishment elitism.
In other words, Hillary hasn’t worked a day in her life. At least not how most of us define “working.” She is a well-connected conservative elitist parading around Pennsylvania in liberal blue-collar sheep’s clothing. She is doing this because she will do anything to procure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
I wonder if the folks in Scranton were scratching their heads. “Summer home? What’s that?”
On the Obama front, his reverend, Chicago’s Jeremiah Wright, keeps opening his big mouth. He was at it again on Saturday, when he spoke at a memorial service for the late former Chicago appellate judge R. Eugene Pincham, like Obama a member of Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ.
[Sidebar: I hadn’t heard Pincham’s name for years. When I lived in Chicago, he was an obnoxious, impolitic fellow who presided controversially over court cases, and also had a penchant for saying ugly and/or inadvisable racial things that judges shouldn’t say.]
So, on this solemn occasion, among other things—and on the heels of his prior awful public remarks that have embarrassed Obama—Wright took after the Founding Fathers, claiming they “planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic.” He also took after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, described Thomas Jefferson as having engaged in “pedophilia,” and attacked FOX newsmen Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
Not too cool for Obama, who has yet to distance himself from this guy.
Will someone please take Rev. Wright out to see the musical 1776? Beside being excellent theater, the show also provides a wonderfully clear history lesson on the Founding Fathers’ struggles to get our nation started. Yes, it’s true that the issue of slavery was not dealt with by the original framers. That is, they were unable to deal with it the way they would have wanted.
In fact, Adams, Jefferson et al. wanted to speed up the abolition of slavery through the wording in the Declaration of Independence. Alas, there were delegates from the South on hand who feared such verbiage and would not ratify the vote for independence as long as the original wording—”freedom for ALL men”—was in place. The reality of the situation caused Adams tremendous consternation. He wanted to assure the end of slavery, but his more immediate problem—declaring independence from England—had to be solved first.
And so Adams, like any good politician, did a bit of horse-trading (or what we more nobly refer to as compromise). The language in the document regarding slavery was struck out in exchange for the Southern votes to separate the colonies from the king. This is surely an unfortunate asterisk in the early history of the U.S., but the exigencies of the moment forced Adams to act practically. It wasn’t what he and others wanted, but first things came first.
It took 86 more years until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. As a white guy, all I can say is that, yes, Americans might’ve acted more swiftly on the issues of slavery and racial equality. Slavery is a stain on our past. The good news is all the progress that has been made since the Civil War, admittedly never occurring as fast as we’d all have liked. But there are better days ahead, and, well, there’s even a half-African American running for president, and he just might make it.
So don’t be a hater, Jeremiah. Better yet, be a reverend. Talk about God and faith instead. Isn't that what reverends are supposed to do?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
NCAA Showdown: Memphis Blows It; Kansas Claims Victory "Lite"
Well, Memphis blew it. They were the better team, they had a legit lead, they could’ve iced it easily with free throws, then didn’t, then should’ve fouled the Kansas guy who brought in the inbounds pass before he dumped it off to Chalmers, the kid who hit the trey to send it into overtime.
Yeah, Kansas is a very good team, and I won’t say they didn’t deserve to win, but it looked like CBS-TV’s Jim Nantz and Billy Packer were having a hard time finding an “insta-story” on the court while surrounded by the Jayhawks, who looked as shellshocked as triumphant. They won, all right, but they were not superior. If Chalmers’ shot clanks off the rim, only Memphis gets remembered this night. As it is, Memphis will probably be longer remembered: as the supertalented team that choked. Too bad.
As for Nantz and Packer, their replacement on this telecast is long overdue.
Nantz, who dreams of golf at night, just does not have the necessary edge to broadcast an NCAA championship game. He’s soft. And he’s always trying to find warm and fuzzy stories about the kids. (Gack!) At times he’s overly, and incorrectly, dramatic, and while he has one of those “announcer" voices, it’s just too prissy. It’s fine for whispering on the 18th green as Tiger’s about to drop a critical birdie putt, but for basketball? No thanks.
Packer, who has been skewered in these pages before, remains a hot-air balloon full of spurious observation. The man’s incapable of developing a broad theme coherently. He nitpicks at every play, trying to find rationales for every action and reaction. If a kid hits a shot, he’ll say, “See, that’s a good shot for him to take.” If a kid misses a shot, he’ll say, “That’s not a shot he should be taking.” It’s obnoxiously lame stuff, and he’s been getting away with it for decades.
And here’s something I never thought I’d say: Dick Vitale knows what he’s talking about.
I have found Vitale’s style totally goofy and rather queer for years. All that “Diaper Dandy” stuff always sounded a little, uh, well, offputtingly “intimate.” (Don’t be talking about young, virile athletes and diapers in the same sentence, Dick. Not cool.) But anyway, despite his clearly obnoxious persona, I started listening to the guy more closely during the NCAAs. What can I say? His analysis was almost always spot-on, and his projections were rooted in sound assessments of the teams. The guy actually could put the on-court stuff into context, thus clarifying what we’d seen or were about to see. So hats off to Dickie V, who was recently announced as a new member of the Naismith Memorial National Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts. (Memo to Packer: There is no room for you there. Don’t even think about it.)
More b-ball media fodder: I don’t think Digger Phelps liked having Bobby Knight on the ESPN set during this Big Dance. They bumped Digger over to the right and stuck Knight right smack dab in the middle, and allowed him the run of the roost. Knight was okay. It was fun to hear what he had to say. Sometimes he was repetitive, but he was always happy to defer to his partners, and he seemed reasonably comfortable on the dais. Which may be why Phelps looked slightly less than comfortable. As the resident college b-ball guru (with ESPN since 1994), his thunder got stolen a lot, not only by Knight but also by Vitale. Plus, Digger couldn’t trot out championship stories. His best effort in 20 years as head coach at Notre Dame (1971-1991) was a Final Four appearance in 1978. Not to put down Digger. He had an excellent coaching career, and he took Notre Dame to places in basketball that they had not seen before, nor have seen since. Including his one-year stint as head coach at Fordham, Digger’s career record is 419-200. Nothing to sneeze at.
Digger’s given name is Richard. I don’t think I ever knew that before. Did you?
Yeah, Kansas is a very good team, and I won’t say they didn’t deserve to win, but it looked like CBS-TV’s Jim Nantz and Billy Packer were having a hard time finding an “insta-story” on the court while surrounded by the Jayhawks, who looked as shellshocked as triumphant. They won, all right, but they were not superior. If Chalmers’ shot clanks off the rim, only Memphis gets remembered this night. As it is, Memphis will probably be longer remembered: as the supertalented team that choked. Too bad.
As for Nantz and Packer, their replacement on this telecast is long overdue.
Nantz, who dreams of golf at night, just does not have the necessary edge to broadcast an NCAA championship game. He’s soft. And he’s always trying to find warm and fuzzy stories about the kids. (Gack!) At times he’s overly, and incorrectly, dramatic, and while he has one of those “announcer" voices, it’s just too prissy. It’s fine for whispering on the 18th green as Tiger’s about to drop a critical birdie putt, but for basketball? No thanks.
Packer, who has been skewered in these pages before, remains a hot-air balloon full of spurious observation. The man’s incapable of developing a broad theme coherently. He nitpicks at every play, trying to find rationales for every action and reaction. If a kid hits a shot, he’ll say, “See, that’s a good shot for him to take.” If a kid misses a shot, he’ll say, “That’s not a shot he should be taking.” It’s obnoxiously lame stuff, and he’s been getting away with it for decades.
And here’s something I never thought I’d say: Dick Vitale knows what he’s talking about.
I have found Vitale’s style totally goofy and rather queer for years. All that “Diaper Dandy” stuff always sounded a little, uh, well, offputtingly “intimate.” (Don’t be talking about young, virile athletes and diapers in the same sentence, Dick. Not cool.) But anyway, despite his clearly obnoxious persona, I started listening to the guy more closely during the NCAAs. What can I say? His analysis was almost always spot-on, and his projections were rooted in sound assessments of the teams. The guy actually could put the on-court stuff into context, thus clarifying what we’d seen or were about to see. So hats off to Dickie V, who was recently announced as a new member of the Naismith Memorial National Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts. (Memo to Packer: There is no room for you there. Don’t even think about it.)
More b-ball media fodder: I don’t think Digger Phelps liked having Bobby Knight on the ESPN set during this Big Dance. They bumped Digger over to the right and stuck Knight right smack dab in the middle, and allowed him the run of the roost. Knight was okay. It was fun to hear what he had to say. Sometimes he was repetitive, but he was always happy to defer to his partners, and he seemed reasonably comfortable on the dais. Which may be why Phelps looked slightly less than comfortable. As the resident college b-ball guru (with ESPN since 1994), his thunder got stolen a lot, not only by Knight but also by Vitale. Plus, Digger couldn’t trot out championship stories. His best effort in 20 years as head coach at Notre Dame (1971-1991) was a Final Four appearance in 1978. Not to put down Digger. He had an excellent coaching career, and he took Notre Dame to places in basketball that they had not seen before, nor have seen since. Including his one-year stint as head coach at Fordham, Digger’s career record is 419-200. Nothing to sneeze at.
Digger’s given name is Richard. I don’t think I ever knew that before. Did you?
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Metro Nashville's Board of Zoning Appeals: Esteemed Citizenry as Sport
I love watching sports on TV. Football, baseball, basketball usually. But there are sports of another kind on Nashville’s local Metro 3 cable channel, which broadcasts the various official board meetings of municipal government.
Sometimes these meetings are as contentious as any sporting event—and hence sometimes just as dramatic, entertaining and fraught with intrigue. But unlike a sporting event, there really isn’t an objective determination of winners and losers. Board members may vote yea or nay, but their decisions are too often subjectively formed, apparently even when there are objective rules to be followed.
Take the Metro Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). These folks—usually a contingent of five or six “esteemed citizens” (as it was explained to me at a Christmas party by a local lawyer; whatever esteemed means)—convene generally every two weeks and preside over a docket filled with Nashvillians who are seeking variances to Metro building codes in order to upgrade, or create new construction on, their property, whether it be residential or commercial or nonprofit. Appellants might also be seeking special exceptions to in-place zoning requirements.
It’s supposed to be a process that applies fairness to each and every case, but clearly if you know someone on the board, or they know you, or they’re predisposed to whoever you might be, you could get a break in the decisionmaking that otherwise wouldn’t come your way. At the same time, if board members take a dislike to you personally, or you present your case in what they might determine to be an untoward manner, you’re more than likely to have your appeal turned down. What is supposed to be a rules-guided process is very often amazingly arbitrary.
In these hearings, there’s a great deal of jabber about property setbacks and height allowances and signage and proximity to adjoining buildings and exits and egresses and collector streets and neighborhood impact, etc., etc. Aesthetics seems to also play a role here, though, again, what is more subjective than aesthetics?
In theory, it is the board’s job to factor in the city building codes to each case on appeal, and then determine whether the appellant has made a legitimate case for positive action, DESPITE THE CODE. Probably the most important factor in the board’s determinations is the fact of hardship—whether the case can be made that due to hardships in the physical particulars, the appellant, even possibly in the face of opposition from neighbors, should be granted the right to proceed with the new construction.
Let’s take a case from the meeting of April 3, 2008. Believe it or not, former U. S. senator and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sent a couple of his minions to the board to request permission to build fancy partial sections of wall outside his fenced-in Bowling Ave. home. Apparently Mr. Frist, since he hosted President Bush once upon a time, wants to go against code in order to construct some walls near the driveway entrance to his home. His appellants at the BZA hearing cited a need for security, and hence asked for heights in excess of code. Three local neighbors were present in opposition to this plan, citing the impact the new construction would have on safety for pedestrians on Bowling—well traveled on foot by locals—and the lack of aesthetic consistency in the neighborhood. Furthermore, Frist’s representatives, upon direct questioning, stated clearly that there was no hardship at issue here. The former senator just wanted to do this thing on the street-side of his house to provide additional security and parking for his numerous guests.
By rule—such as BZA follows rules—the request should have been denied. THERE WAS NO HARDSHIP. Mr. Frist, if he had been just another citizen, would have had to find another way around the code.
Suddenly, board member David Ewing took up the Frist cause. He cited a case from the March 20, 2008, BZA meeting where the board granted an exception to a West Nashville couple (1113 Nichol Lane) who wanted to build a new attached garage at their residence, even though, yet again, the appellants could not cite an actual technical hardship, and in fact would have simply have had to build their garage another way to be in compliance.
It is notable that Ewing fought hard for Frist. But why exactly did he? Especially since BZA “queen bee” Elizabeth Surface, who usually plays the role of the heavy and chief defender of the board’s rules—and, most of all, its mission—re-stated in no uncertain terms that the Frist case had no hardships attached to it. Another board member, Rebecca Lyford, who often gums up these meetings with dizzy questions and extraneous considerations, seemed clearly to side with Surface. With five board members present, the necessary majority needed to approve the request was in danger.
Presiding board member Dale Randels, Jr.—subbing for absent chair Jane Cleveland, who, with her brown ponytail bobbing, is usually very reliably aware of procedure and strict about the rules—hemmed and hawed and seemed to be trying to help Ewing find the necessary rationale to convince the others to approve Frist’s request.
Then Lyford, in a moment of rare prescience, asked brand-new board member, Fabian Bedne, present at his first-ever hearing, what he thought about matters. Bedne, with refreshing candor, explained that, as he understood his job—as instructed by zoning examination chief Joey Hargis—the lack of a hardship made the case moot. Not approvable.
More hemming and hawing ensued, with Ewing adamantly insisting that the board did make exceptions and that this one was reasonable. It was not clear why he took such special interest in the Frist case, but one can make unfortunate projections about that. It was especially odd for Ewing to fight for the case in the face of Surface’s obvious dim view of the merits.
Lyford hemmed and hawed. Board members stared at each other uncomfortably for a while. Ewing made a motion to approve. No one spoke up. More discussion took place. Randels, almostly tacitly, then gave his approval. Lyford finally buckled. Clearly there were now three votes for approval, but four were needed.
In a moment great with disappointment, the normally hard-ass Surface buckled as well. When Randels re-called the motion, Frist had his four votes. Bedne—trying to hold on to his integrity in what was obviously new territory for him—abstained.
This is “objective” city government at work. Don’t be fooled.
* * *
One of the BZA’s early 2008 cases involved a gentleman named Chris Mule, who had purchased an old one-story duplex at 1403 Tremont St., near Music Row, for the purposes of rehabbing and re-selling. Mule wanted to build a second floor on the duplex and re-sell the two units as modern townhomes. The structure was pretty run-down, and his somewhat alternative construction plans, though a tad edgy and differing from the typical neighbor homes, were nonetheless fairly consistent with other newer construction in Edgehill, which clearly seems to be battling between older black residents versus predominantly white Yuppie types who want to invest in existing property.
Mule averred that what he was doing would improve the look of the neigborhood, and also would infuse the property with new cash and new buyers with a vested interest in living there. These were indisuptable points. The issue at stake: His house on the east was too close to his neighbor, who showed up at the BZA meeting protesting. Point in fact, Mule’s architect had accounted for water run-off on the new proposed roof, and, in fact, the new second floor wouldn’t change the existing distance between homes though it would cast a longer shadow on the neighbor’s west windows. Mule’s soon-to-be new neighbor claimed that the proposed construction would prohibit him from putting a ladder to his house to effect repairs, but, as Mule correctly pointed out, the neighbor has had a scaffolding attached to that side of his house for apparently years, and that it was “an eyesore.” (I visited this site. Indeed, the scaffolding IS an eyesore, and there has apparently been no use for it for a good long time.)
Ewing, who happens to be African American, instead of balancing the technical merits of the case, seemed to take special exception to the fact that Mr. Mule did not consult his neighbors on either side when launching his design plan. Ewing took it upon himself to lecture Mule about common sense and good neighborliness. Even after Mr. Mule contritely apologized for the supposed lack of grace—while still asserting his rights and what seemed like a reasonable and fairly costly design and rehabilitation plan—his appeal was ultimately rejected by the board. Their reasons were a combination of technical gray area and something in the way of a slap on the wrist for Mr. Mule’s poor conduct as a human being. Very weird stuff. And not objective.
By and by, Mule also received a lecture on aesthetics from then-board member Lelia Gilchrist, telling him to re-think the design of his front porch. (I guess to conform to her notion of “good ol’ fashioned Southern hospitality.”)
Mr. Ewing fights for an exception for the Frists’ upscale home, but he gets self-righteous when a new owner wants to upgrade and improve the property in a sketchy area. Clearly, “hardships” are a matter of interpretation with the BZA.
* * *
Another recent BZA case involved one Richard Demonbreun, a lawyer and owner of a historic home in the Woodland-in-Waverly section of town. Demonbreun’s case apparently goes back several years, and the circumstances surrounding it are somewhat of a soap opera, including his temporary inability to practice law, his bankruptcy proceedings, his divorce, and neighbor complaints about how he runs his property/bed-and-breakfast as an events venue for parties, business meetings, weddings, etc.
A couple of neighbors showed up to this hearing to put the kibosh on Demonbreun’s plan to continue his business with BZA approval. The fly in that ointment is that Demonbreun has appealed the board’s rulings in the past to a higher authority, thus holding his business status in legal abeyance and allowing him to conduct business as usual until final determination of his case.
Demonbreun was very articulate—and possibly sincere—about his intentions to run a respectful business without annoyance to neighbors, but he also is burdened by the fact that his previous experience with the board has not been fruitful or pleasant, and he’s gone over their heads and into court to fight their determinations.
This case was noteworthy for the appearance of Henry Walker, local lawyer and journalist, who testified to the current state of the Demonbreun situation, though Walker was not present officially either to support or decry the appellant’s case, but only to state that there had not been recent neighbor complaints against Demonbreun and that Walker also wanted to know if he could go ahead with his plans to hold a scheduled event at Demonbreun’s establishment. Walker, being a lawyer, and an articulate and witty guy, naturally impressed the likes of Lyford and Surface, who seem to enjoy “lawyer talk” and like to make joshing jokes with and about lawyers. (For whatever their cozy little reasons.)
Demonbreun’s track record with BZA is not good, and that made it virtually impossible for him to make convincing arguments about the good-faith running of his business. Plus the soap-opera aspects of the case were extraneous verbiage that he apparently was using to evoke sympathy.
The upshot? The case was deferred for 30 days, because there was no clear majority yea or nay.
Clearly, objectivity, or even the appearance of it, never had a chance here.
* * *
The BZA exists, apparently, to respond logically and responsibly and consistently to people and their needs as citizens, residents and business owners. The irony of it all is that they are themselves in the business of making determinations that support exceptions to the city codes. There is, however, no consistency in their rationale. Hence, all you can see are the exceptions to the exceptions and the arbitrariness of their work.
The Frist case was an obvious example of their response to power: To turn down the Frist request would have been socially risky, and so they weenied out. Meanwhile, poor Mr. Mule is stuck with his Tremont building, forced to find a less progressive way to salvage his investment. In 30 days, Mr. Demonbreun learns his fate.
It’s almost as involving as March Madness.
Sometimes these meetings are as contentious as any sporting event—and hence sometimes just as dramatic, entertaining and fraught with intrigue. But unlike a sporting event, there really isn’t an objective determination of winners and losers. Board members may vote yea or nay, but their decisions are too often subjectively formed, apparently even when there are objective rules to be followed.
Take the Metro Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). These folks—usually a contingent of five or six “esteemed citizens” (as it was explained to me at a Christmas party by a local lawyer; whatever esteemed means)—convene generally every two weeks and preside over a docket filled with Nashvillians who are seeking variances to Metro building codes in order to upgrade, or create new construction on, their property, whether it be residential or commercial or nonprofit. Appellants might also be seeking special exceptions to in-place zoning requirements.
It’s supposed to be a process that applies fairness to each and every case, but clearly if you know someone on the board, or they know you, or they’re predisposed to whoever you might be, you could get a break in the decisionmaking that otherwise wouldn’t come your way. At the same time, if board members take a dislike to you personally, or you present your case in what they might determine to be an untoward manner, you’re more than likely to have your appeal turned down. What is supposed to be a rules-guided process is very often amazingly arbitrary.
In these hearings, there’s a great deal of jabber about property setbacks and height allowances and signage and proximity to adjoining buildings and exits and egresses and collector streets and neighborhood impact, etc., etc. Aesthetics seems to also play a role here, though, again, what is more subjective than aesthetics?
In theory, it is the board’s job to factor in the city building codes to each case on appeal, and then determine whether the appellant has made a legitimate case for positive action, DESPITE THE CODE. Probably the most important factor in the board’s determinations is the fact of hardship—whether the case can be made that due to hardships in the physical particulars, the appellant, even possibly in the face of opposition from neighbors, should be granted the right to proceed with the new construction.
Let’s take a case from the meeting of April 3, 2008. Believe it or not, former U. S. senator and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sent a couple of his minions to the board to request permission to build fancy partial sections of wall outside his fenced-in Bowling Ave. home. Apparently Mr. Frist, since he hosted President Bush once upon a time, wants to go against code in order to construct some walls near the driveway entrance to his home. His appellants at the BZA hearing cited a need for security, and hence asked for heights in excess of code. Three local neighbors were present in opposition to this plan, citing the impact the new construction would have on safety for pedestrians on Bowling—well traveled on foot by locals—and the lack of aesthetic consistency in the neighborhood. Furthermore, Frist’s representatives, upon direct questioning, stated clearly that there was no hardship at issue here. The former senator just wanted to do this thing on the street-side of his house to provide additional security and parking for his numerous guests.
By rule—such as BZA follows rules—the request should have been denied. THERE WAS NO HARDSHIP. Mr. Frist, if he had been just another citizen, would have had to find another way around the code.
Suddenly, board member David Ewing took up the Frist cause. He cited a case from the March 20, 2008, BZA meeting where the board granted an exception to a West Nashville couple (1113 Nichol Lane) who wanted to build a new attached garage at their residence, even though, yet again, the appellants could not cite an actual technical hardship, and in fact would have simply have had to build their garage another way to be in compliance.
It is notable that Ewing fought hard for Frist. But why exactly did he? Especially since BZA “queen bee” Elizabeth Surface, who usually plays the role of the heavy and chief defender of the board’s rules—and, most of all, its mission—re-stated in no uncertain terms that the Frist case had no hardships attached to it. Another board member, Rebecca Lyford, who often gums up these meetings with dizzy questions and extraneous considerations, seemed clearly to side with Surface. With five board members present, the necessary majority needed to approve the request was in danger.
Presiding board member Dale Randels, Jr.—subbing for absent chair Jane Cleveland, who, with her brown ponytail bobbing, is usually very reliably aware of procedure and strict about the rules—hemmed and hawed and seemed to be trying to help Ewing find the necessary rationale to convince the others to approve Frist’s request.
Then Lyford, in a moment of rare prescience, asked brand-new board member, Fabian Bedne, present at his first-ever hearing, what he thought about matters. Bedne, with refreshing candor, explained that, as he understood his job—as instructed by zoning examination chief Joey Hargis—the lack of a hardship made the case moot. Not approvable.
More hemming and hawing ensued, with Ewing adamantly insisting that the board did make exceptions and that this one was reasonable. It was not clear why he took such special interest in the Frist case, but one can make unfortunate projections about that. It was especially odd for Ewing to fight for the case in the face of Surface’s obvious dim view of the merits.
Lyford hemmed and hawed. Board members stared at each other uncomfortably for a while. Ewing made a motion to approve. No one spoke up. More discussion took place. Randels, almostly tacitly, then gave his approval. Lyford finally buckled. Clearly there were now three votes for approval, but four were needed.
In a moment great with disappointment, the normally hard-ass Surface buckled as well. When Randels re-called the motion, Frist had his four votes. Bedne—trying to hold on to his integrity in what was obviously new territory for him—abstained.
This is “objective” city government at work. Don’t be fooled.
* * *
One of the BZA’s early 2008 cases involved a gentleman named Chris Mule, who had purchased an old one-story duplex at 1403 Tremont St., near Music Row, for the purposes of rehabbing and re-selling. Mule wanted to build a second floor on the duplex and re-sell the two units as modern townhomes. The structure was pretty run-down, and his somewhat alternative construction plans, though a tad edgy and differing from the typical neighbor homes, were nonetheless fairly consistent with other newer construction in Edgehill, which clearly seems to be battling between older black residents versus predominantly white Yuppie types who want to invest in existing property.
Mule averred that what he was doing would improve the look of the neigborhood, and also would infuse the property with new cash and new buyers with a vested interest in living there. These were indisuptable points. The issue at stake: His house on the east was too close to his neighbor, who showed up at the BZA meeting protesting. Point in fact, Mule’s architect had accounted for water run-off on the new proposed roof, and, in fact, the new second floor wouldn’t change the existing distance between homes though it would cast a longer shadow on the neighbor’s west windows. Mule’s soon-to-be new neighbor claimed that the proposed construction would prohibit him from putting a ladder to his house to effect repairs, but, as Mule correctly pointed out, the neighbor has had a scaffolding attached to that side of his house for apparently years, and that it was “an eyesore.” (I visited this site. Indeed, the scaffolding IS an eyesore, and there has apparently been no use for it for a good long time.)
Ewing, who happens to be African American, instead of balancing the technical merits of the case, seemed to take special exception to the fact that Mr. Mule did not consult his neighbors on either side when launching his design plan. Ewing took it upon himself to lecture Mule about common sense and good neighborliness. Even after Mr. Mule contritely apologized for the supposed lack of grace—while still asserting his rights and what seemed like a reasonable and fairly costly design and rehabilitation plan—his appeal was ultimately rejected by the board. Their reasons were a combination of technical gray area and something in the way of a slap on the wrist for Mr. Mule’s poor conduct as a human being. Very weird stuff. And not objective.
By and by, Mule also received a lecture on aesthetics from then-board member Lelia Gilchrist, telling him to re-think the design of his front porch. (I guess to conform to her notion of “good ol’ fashioned Southern hospitality.”)
Mr. Ewing fights for an exception for the Frists’ upscale home, but he gets self-righteous when a new owner wants to upgrade and improve the property in a sketchy area. Clearly, “hardships” are a matter of interpretation with the BZA.
* * *
Another recent BZA case involved one Richard Demonbreun, a lawyer and owner of a historic home in the Woodland-in-Waverly section of town. Demonbreun’s case apparently goes back several years, and the circumstances surrounding it are somewhat of a soap opera, including his temporary inability to practice law, his bankruptcy proceedings, his divorce, and neighbor complaints about how he runs his property/bed-and-breakfast as an events venue for parties, business meetings, weddings, etc.
A couple of neighbors showed up to this hearing to put the kibosh on Demonbreun’s plan to continue his business with BZA approval. The fly in that ointment is that Demonbreun has appealed the board’s rulings in the past to a higher authority, thus holding his business status in legal abeyance and allowing him to conduct business as usual until final determination of his case.
Demonbreun was very articulate—and possibly sincere—about his intentions to run a respectful business without annoyance to neighbors, but he also is burdened by the fact that his previous experience with the board has not been fruitful or pleasant, and he’s gone over their heads and into court to fight their determinations.
This case was noteworthy for the appearance of Henry Walker, local lawyer and journalist, who testified to the current state of the Demonbreun situation, though Walker was not present officially either to support or decry the appellant’s case, but only to state that there had not been recent neighbor complaints against Demonbreun and that Walker also wanted to know if he could go ahead with his plans to hold a scheduled event at Demonbreun’s establishment. Walker, being a lawyer, and an articulate and witty guy, naturally impressed the likes of Lyford and Surface, who seem to enjoy “lawyer talk” and like to make joshing jokes with and about lawyers. (For whatever their cozy little reasons.)
Demonbreun’s track record with BZA is not good, and that made it virtually impossible for him to make convincing arguments about the good-faith running of his business. Plus the soap-opera aspects of the case were extraneous verbiage that he apparently was using to evoke sympathy.
The upshot? The case was deferred for 30 days, because there was no clear majority yea or nay.
Clearly, objectivity, or even the appearance of it, never had a chance here.
* * *
The BZA exists, apparently, to respond logically and responsibly and consistently to people and their needs as citizens, residents and business owners. The irony of it all is that they are themselves in the business of making determinations that support exceptions to the city codes. There is, however, no consistency in their rationale. Hence, all you can see are the exceptions to the exceptions and the arbitrariness of their work.
The Frist case was an obvious example of their response to power: To turn down the Frist request would have been socially risky, and so they weenied out. Meanwhile, poor Mr. Mule is stuck with his Tremont building, forced to find a less progressive way to salvage his investment. In 30 days, Mr. Demonbreun learns his fate.
It’s almost as involving as March Madness.
Early Season Baseball Notes
Capitol Start—The Washington Nationals have a beautiful new baseball stadium, and are off to a 3-0 start. Gifted third baseman Ryan Zimmerman has hit two home runs, and both have been game-winners. Questions remain about the pitching here, especially with closer Chad Cordero still injured, plus the starters—Odalis Perez? Matt Chico? Tim Redding?—have to prove they’re for real. There’s hope in D.C. for now, anyway. Bad Start—Three strong postseason contenders—Tigers, Cubs and Phillies—are 0-2. It’s early, but all three have lost at home, and if you check the history books, fast starts usually mean something at season’s end.
Geezer Yankees—Take a cursory look at the Yankees’ active roster. This team is old. Check out these ages, by mid-season: Mike Mussina (39), Mariano Rivera (38), Jason Giambi (37), Jorge Posada (37), LaTroy Hawkins (35), Johnny Damon (34), Bobby Abreu (34), Hideki Matsui (34), Derek Jeter (34), Alex Rodriguez (33), Morgan Ensberg (33), Kyle Farsnworth (32). Plus the starting pitching is a complete mystery at this juncture, with only Chien-Ming Wang a proven (but still young enough at 28) commodity.
Whither Juan?—Juan Pierre has a career batting average of .301. He’s had four 200-hit seasons since entering the league in 2000, and in 7 of his first 8 seasons he’s never accumulated fewer than 170 hits. He’s batted over .300 four times. He’s scored 100 runs or more three times. He’s also stolen 389 career bases. So what is up in Los Angeles, where new Dodgers manager Joe Torre has only started Pierre once in the first three games, and then pinch-hit for him later in that one game? Pierre earned a world championship ring with the 2003 Marlins. The guy’s on his way to greatness—only 30, and already with 1,440 career hits—and Torre’s playing youngsters Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp, presumably looking for long-ball pop. (Pierre has only 12 career dingers.) Maybe trade the guy if you’re not gonna play him, since he won’t give you power off the bench. So far, Torre has Rafael Furcal leading off and catcher Russell Martin batting second. Seems like Furcal and Pierre at the top of the order would set the table nicely for Jeff Kent and Andruw Jones and the younger power bats. Pierre should be playing regularly somewhere. 
Remarkable Rudy—The Phillies yesterday added 39-year-old Rudy Seanez to their roster. This guy’s a baseball phenomenon, or oddity, depending on how you look at it. Seanez has pitched in 16 major league seasons. He has never won more than 7 games in a season, never lost more than 4 (36-26 overall). He has appeared in 502 games, and not once has he ever been a starter. So you’d think he’d have some saves under his belt, right? He has exactly 12 saves in his entire career. He’s never pitched more than 60 innings in any one season. His career ERA is 4.15. But Remarkable Rudy also has struck out more than one batter per inning (523 IP, 544 K). He’s the quintessential one-batter reliever, and if he hadn’t missed the 1992, ’96 and ’97 seasons with injuries, he’d’ve logged 19 major league seasons. According to best estimates, Seanez has earned upwards of $10 million in his career. His high was 2006, when the Red Sox paid him $1.9 million. He’ll earn $500K this season, after earning $700K in ’07 with the Dodgers. Not bad for mediocrity. 
Asian Influence—The latest Asian player to make his presence known is Chicago Cubs outfielder Kosuke Fukudome, who blasted a three-run homer in the Cubs’ opener (a 4-3 loss to the Brewers). This guy looks for real. He’s built like Hideki Matsui and has a similarly sweet swing. Fukudome will turn 31 later this month, and like most Asians playing in the States, he’s already had a serious star career in Japan. He should be good for at least five years of MLB productivity.Brewer Brawn—Milwaukee’s Ryan Braun has been moved from third base to left field this year. The 2007 NL Rookie of the Year was deemed a liability at the Hot Corner (26 errors in 112 games), so the Brewers brass figured he could cause less harm in the outfield and concentrate even more on his remarkable hitting. What’s weird is that veteran Bill Hall has now taken over at third, after spending all of 2007 in the outfield. Prior to last year, though, Hall spent most of his career shifting around from second to shortstop to third. If he’s successful in the field, the Brewers solve a problem and keep his solid bat in the lineup. And look out for Braun. He’s already one of the best natural hitters in the game, and last year’s power numbers (34 HR, 97 RBI) should improve.
Dusty Roads—In case you missed it, Dusty Baker is managing the Cincinnati Reds. It’s his first managing job since his ignominious departure from the Cubs after their 66-96 record in 2006. Old managers never die. They just end up in Cincinnati.
Be-Deviled—The Tampa Bay Devil Rays have only won as many as 70 games once, in 2004, under Lou Piniella. They actually did better in their second season (1999) than they did last year. Hope springs eternal.
Padre P. U.—After tanking critical games late in the 2007 season for the Padres, stopper Trevor Hoffman was at it again last night, blowing a 6-5 lead in the ninth, allowing four runs and watching the Astros claim a 9-6 victory. Hoffman will be 41 in October. He might be done. He has 525 career saves.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Rookie: Still Inspiring Belief in Baseball, Even When We Know the Awful Truth
I saw The Rookie last night for the second time. I liked it a ton the first time, and it still holds up. It still moves the viewer. John Lee Hancock directed this 2002 biopic starring Dennis Quaid as Jimmy Morris, who made his major league baseball debut at the age of 35.Drafted out of high school in 1983 by the Milwaukee Brewers, Morris bounced around the minors for six years, then chucked it all in 1989. He then became a high school teacher and coach in Texas. In June 1999, he gained an unlikely pro tryout, impressed scouts with his live fastball, and, before the season was over, was called up to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (a team with woeful pitching), with whom he finished the season.
Morris made the Rays roster in spring of 2000, though he only lasted about five weeks into that season, returning to oblivion, but not before he struck a blow for dreamers everywhere. In two very partial seasons, Morris compiled modest numbers: no wins or losses, 15 IP, 4.80 ERA, 13 Ks.
Morris’ story is inspiring, even without all the 
Hollywood melodrama, of which there is a fair amount in Hancock’s film. Yet despite the hokum—which, on balance, is probably handled as well as any director could—Hancock also does wonderful things with the camera, which bring to life the dusty Texas setting and exhibit particular strength in the critical relationship scenes between Quaid and Rachel Griffiths, who, as Morris’ wife, exudes an earthy sexuality and a subtle appeal. Hers is a fine performance, but so is Quaid’s, and watching him one wonders why he isn’t (or wasn’t) a bigger star. He handles all the baseball stuff like a champ, with convincing athleticism and a sense of determination that reads as credible without once getting mawkish. He also manages understatement in the scenes in which he coaches the high school baseball team to a surprise successful season. Scenes played with Brian Cox, as his dark-spirited father, are also very affecting. If only director Hancock hadn’t indulged a tendency to over-focus his lens on kid actor Angus T. Jones, known now as the obnoxious tween-child on the TV series Two and a Half Men. Jones plays Quaid’s son, and this bit of thematic schmaltz (fathers and sons) becomes tiresome, even though it does have some logic in context. It doesn’t help that Jones isn’t charming. Luckily, it doesn’t kill the film.
The movie’s musical score, with the exception of some overly sentimental recorder motifs, is terrific, a fun blend of rockabilly and Americana and country that keeps us mindful of the rural surroundings.
But maybe what The Rookie achieves beyond excellent filmmaking is the evocation of a sincere regard for baseball at any level. I watched the flick remembering how much I loved the sport as a kid, even though my own achievements never extended beyond grammar school leagues or softball fields. Hancock’s careful direction successfully reminds us what a great game baseball is.
The irony is thick, then, when Quaid as Morris, finally inside a major league locker room, strolls past the hanging jersey of Jose Canseco, who, in actual fact, was then having the last quality year of his steroid-checkered career (.279, 34 HRs, 95 RBIs). At that point, the movie just as easily reminds us what an awful business the pro game has become at its highest rung. Dopers and liars among players, weak-sister executives, perversely bloated salaries, ticket prices affordable only to the well-to-do, an overextended season that becomes mind-numbing and loses its meaning, plus a playoff season that drags nearly into November, when, at some games, teams dress in winter underwear and fans freeze their nuts off. Meanwhile, television (and, by extension, the New York Yankees) calls all the shots.
The Rookie has the power to re-instill devotion to baseball. It’s well-crafted sports story-telling that never overstates its case and often induces chills in those who still have a fondness for baseball’s mythical properties. Too bad money and greed have ruined it all.
Nevertheless, baseball is right around the corner. Joe Torre is managing the Dodgers, the fabulous Ryan Howard of the Phillies gets a fresh start on the season, and the Washington Nationals open a brand-new ballpark, Nationals Park, on March 30, against the Atlanta Braves.
Somewhere, Jimmy Morris will be watching. The rest of us will have blinders on.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Chalk Talk: When NCAA Brackets Bleed Davidson Red
If you’re anything like me, you have an NCAA bracket stained with blood. Mine, I’m afraid, is probably redder than most. I play a limited chalk (higher-seed) game. In the opening round, I mostly pick favorites, but I leave some leeway for teams that I think will surprise.The bracketeer who went strictly chalk in the first round this year would’ve ended up 25-7 in the first 32 games. I was 23-9, which basically sucks but isn’t that far from the norm. You could say I was “done in” by Connecticut, Gonzaga, Southern Cal, Clemson and Indiana, higher seeds who went down. But I also picked Siena to defeat Vanderbilt, and Western Kentucky to take Drake, two lower seeds that came through in fine fashion.
But it was the other teams I took a flyer on that really hurt me. Faced with a tough Kent State (9)-UNLV (8) matchup, I picked the Golden Flashes, mainly because MAC teams have surprised in the tourney before, and because UNLV’s resume just didn’t tell me enough. Bad guess.
In the Arizona (10)-West Virginia (7) matchup, I went with the Wildcats. I never figured them to get any further, but I thought they were good for one win, based on their PAC-10 pedigree. I definitely underestimated West Virginia, partly because their coach, Bob Huggins, is not really regarded as a strategist. He’s proved himself to be a great recruiter, but in his first season with the Mountaineers, these aren’t really his players. They look very strong, though, just as their resume portended. Another bad guess.
I went with Oregon (9) versus Mississippi State (8) and took a bath there, too. To me, that game was a toss-up on paper, and I was hoping the fickleness of the tourney would play in my favor. Wrong. (Never count on the fickleness of the tourney.)
But where I really got hurt was with St. Joseph’s. With the small but scrappy Philly school playing well at season’s end—with a good-sized front line and good shooting stats—I selected them as the surprise team that would catch fire. I got it into my stupid head that this was the miracle team of the tourney. I penciled the Hawks in for three wins, taking down Oklahoma, Louisville and Tennessee along their way to the Elite 8. Well, if the tourney’s not for fun, then why do we do it? Needless to say, my fantasy jollies are now out of my system.
I had three other teams moving on to the Sweet 16—Gonzaga, Clemson, Connecticut—who, like St. Joe’s, never even made it out of the first round. Add other picks Duke and Marquette, who fell in the second round, and that means I enter the Sweet 16 with 10 viable teams, a .625 percentage. Not the worst, but if I were in an office pool with a lot of other bracketeers, I’d probably be long out of the running.
Here’s the good news where following along the tourney is concerned. I have 10 out of my Sweet 16 still playing. I have 7 out of my Elite 8 still playing. Plus, I have all my Final Four teams still looking strong—North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA and Texas.
You can’t take this bracket stuff too seriously, or you’ll go crazy. It’s nice to have some fun with it. Of course, it’s nice to win a few too.
CONFERENCE REPORT
ACC (4)—Except for North Carolina, they’re done, with Clemson exiting early, and Miami and Duke falling in their second game.
Big East (8)—Louisville, Villanova, and West Virginia remain, but I daresay they’re probably not the three most bracketeers counted on. Notre Dame, Georgetown, Marquette and Pittsburgh are done, but with decent showings. Connecticut took an early powder.
Big 12 (6)—Only Kansas and Texas remain. Oklahoma, Kansas State, Texas A&M each won first-round games, Baylor exited early.
Big 10 (4)—Wisconsin and Michigan State remain, and that’s a better percentage so far than most of the other major conferences. Especially interesting since the Big 10 was considered in a down cycle this year. Purdue won one game; Indiana exited early.
PAC 10 (6)—They have three remaining entries, Washington State, Stanford and UCLA, all of whom have played well to get to the Sweet 16. Southern Cal, Arizona and Oregon all lost first-round games, and didn’t look very good doing so.
SEC (6)—Not a good showing here for the home of the reigning champs, Florida, who didn’t even qualify this season. One team remains in the Sweet 16, Tennessee. They’re looking good, but they face a Louisville team that has completed two laughers against Boise State and Oklahoma. As for the other five SECs: Vanderbilt (as predicted here), Georgia and Kentucky were one and done; Arkansas and Mississippi State each won a first-round game and had respectable showings.
Atlantic 10 (3)—Xavier remains; they’ve looked very good. St. Joe’s and Temple exited early.
The remainder of the Sweet 16 comprises single schools from so-called mid-major conferences: Memphis (Conference USA), Davidson (Southern Conference) and Western Kentucky (Sun Belt Conference). While Memphis is still a favorite to advance (albeit with a tough game versus Michigan State), Davidson has a longer haul against taller, stronger Wisconsin, and Western Kentucky takes on UCLA, an improbable task.
Man of the Moment: Stephen Curry of Davidson has poured in 70 points in his first two NCAA games, and the #10-seeded Wildcats have taken down #7-seeded Gonzaga and #2-seeded Georgetown. Fifty-five of Curry’s points have come in the second half. His team has now won 24 games in a row including the regular season. See you next week.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
March Mudness: Clarifying the Murky NCAA Field for Stalwart Bracketeers
Yes, I’m going to fill out an NCAA bracket. No, I’m not going to share it with the world. It’ll be tough enough to deal with my failed projected upsets in private, much less have the international blogosphere be privy to ‘em.
Instead, I’m going to share my wisdom about this year’s teams. I’ve crunched a lot of data in the past few days, and I think I have some worthy observations that might help everyone else feel a little more informed about the field.
Here goes nuthin’:
EAST REGIONAL
1. North Carolina (32-2)—A tourney favorite. They have depth and talent. And Tyler Hansbrough. Their path to the Final Four looks almost too easy.
2. Tennessee (29-4)—I’ve watched these guys. They’re great. More talent on a college b-ball court you won’t find. They play a pressing D, and their transition game is breathtaking. They can score in bunches, but they give up tons of points, too. They might go far, but someone with a more controlled style might shut ‘em down.
3. Louisville (24-8)—Rick Pitino coaches good basketball teams. This is one of ‘em. They tied for second in the Big East. But their out-of-conference performance, while decent, was not noteworthy.
4. Washington State (24-8)—My initial reaction to these guys was lukewarm. But check out their rcord. Their overall performance was surprisingly consistent, they beat everyone they should logically beat, and they performed well enough in the tough Pac-10. Who they didn’t beat was UCLA. Could surprise.
5. Notre Dame (24-7)—Strong Big East resume and a balanced lineup. They score, hit their treys at a 41% clip, are strong on free throws, and they have a big man, 6’8” Luke Harangody, who averages a double-double and hits 51.7% from the floor. So why aren’t they a higher seed?
6. Oklahoma (22-11)—Big front line, and presumably battle-tested after playing Big 12 teams like Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M, and Kansas State. They are below average both from the foul line and the three-point stripe. A bit of an unknown quantity.
7. Butler (29-3)—Reputed to be under-seeded. They’re ranked 10th in the nation, so why aren’t they seeded higher? They have some good wins on the resume, but nothing earthshaking. And playing in the Horizon League, you almost wonder how they could lose at all to the likes of Wright State and Cleveland State. They had a late-season loss at home to Drake, 71-64. But maybe the tournament committee had the same suspicions I do. They hit their free throws, though.
8. Indiana (25-7)—They’ve underperformed since coach Kelvin Sampson was told to take a hike. They’re talented but appear vulnerable. Best free-throw-shooting team in the tourney.
9. Arkansas (22-11)—They’ve got some size and general ability. They have some decent wins to their credit, including a victory over Tennessee in the SEC tourney (for what that’s worth). They’re mediocre from the foul line and the 3-point line. First-round matchup versus Indiana should be competitive. After that, who knows?
10. South Alabama (26-6)—They don’t really have any top-quality wins, and they lost twice to Middle Tennessee State, a scrappy but generally mediocre outfit. They’re an at-large team from the Sun Belt Conference, with decent shooting numbers but against suspect competition. Their presence here probably makes Arizona State fans grumble. Yet they get a first-round game against Butler in nearby Birmingham, so maybe the gods are smiling on ’em.
11. St. Joseph’s (21-12)—Atlantic 10 at-large choice getting props from the pundits. They’ve got a serious front line (no man under 6’8”), and their shooting numbers in all phases are impressive. Have yet to prove they can beat a great team.
12. George Mason (23-10)—The darlings of the ‘06 tourney. Half of this squad was on that Final Four team. So maybe look out. Statistical numbers are so-so. They’re not very tall, but neither was the ‘06 outfit. Odds of lightning striking twice are pretty slim.
13. Winthrop (22-11)—They’re relatively short, and their stats against generally mediocre competition are unimpressive. Supposedly they play good D. They did beat Miami, however, who beat Duke, Mississippi State and Clemson. Hmmm....
14. Boise State (25-8)—A couple of decent wins (BYU, San Diego), and they shoot treys well. Also strong shooting from the floor. Weak schedule. Survival odds slim to none.
15. American (21-11)—Best three-point shooters in the tourney, statistically speaking. Hit their free throws, too. Hardly any size, though, and they didn’t play anybody of note. They beat Maryland in College Park, which probably says more about the Terps than it does about the Eagles.
16. Coppin State (16-20)/Mt. St. Mary’s (18-14)—Pick your poison. Play-in game combatants have lousy records and played almost nobody that matters. Maybe they should re-think the system.
MIDWEST REGIONAL
1. Kansas (31-3)—Strong in every phase of the offensive game, has size, and definitely a contender to take it all. They couldn’t beat Texas, though. They also have a recent history of underachieving in the NCAAs.
2. Georgetown (27-5)—Big East power does most things well. Proved they could beat the top contenders in their league. Play strong D, and have a serious big man, 7’2” Roy Hibbert. Pundits like ‘em to go far.
3. Wisconsin (29-4)—Well-coached squad that has risen above its penchant for lackluster offense. They beat Texas and Michigan State, which is saying a lot. They’ve got some size, and simply seem to play fundamentally sound b-ball, despite averaging only 68 points a game.
4. Vanderbilt (26-7)—Started the season 16-0, which means they’re 10-7 down the stretch. Not impressive. Only 7-7 on the road, too. On paper, they look great: they have size, hit their treys (fourth best among tourney teams), hit their free throws, and have a wonderful all-around star in 6’6” forward Shan Foster. So why do they look vulnerable?
5. Clemson (24-9)—Solid ACC entry, with wins over Duke, Miami and Mississippi State. They hit their treys at a decent clip, but for some reason aren’t so good from the free-throw line. Average-sized squad. Bit of an unknown quantity in the grand scheme of things.
6. Southern California (21-11)—They beat UCLA, Stanford and Arizona. Pretty good team, with decent size and solid numbers from the floor. Plus they have frosh sensation O. J. Mayo (20.9 ppg). They have an interesting first-round matchup with Kansas State and their frosh sensation, 6’ 10" Michael Beasley (26.5 ppg). Pac-10 resume might bode well.
7. Gonzaga (25-7)—West Coast Conference overachievers whose tough out-of-conference schedule includes victories over Connecticut, Western Kentucky, Georgia and road wins at St. Joseph’s and Virginia Tech. They also lost close games to Washington State, Tennessee and Oklahoma. No other so-called mid-major has better prepared itself to play in this tourney. They get a tough first-round matchup against another pundit favorite, Davidson.
8. UNLV (26-7)—Average height, mediocre shooting numbers and little in the way of quality wins. The Rebels mostly stuck to opponents in the west. When they played Louisville, they got trounced. First-round matchup versus Kent State might be a very good game.
9. Kent State (28-6)—Undisputed champs of the MAC. A couple of decent wins on the schedule, but really good teams (North Carolina, Xavier) beat ‘em soundly. Stats are very average.
10. Davidson (26-6)—On a 22-game win streak. Pundits are raving, “Look out for the Wildcats.” But who did they play? Well, UCLA, North Carolina and Duke. And lost ’em all. The rest of their schedule comprises Southern Conference foes and other non-entities. Spanking Elon, Wofford and Georgia Southern tells us little. They can shoot a little, and they’ve got two 6’8” forwards, neither of whose numbers are startling. Caveat emptor.
11. Kansas State (20-11)—Hotshot freshman Michael Beasley is the story here. They beat Kansas also. Their numbers from the field do not impress, but they manage nearly 80 points per game, with Beasley rebounding and scoring at significant rates. Interesting #11.
12. Villanova (20-12)—Some solid Big East victories on the resume. Not so good from the floor; better from the foul line. Generally strong front line, and well-coached. But they could disappear quickly as easily as they could surprise.
13. Siena (22-10)—Not a bad-shooting team. Average size. Metro Atlantic competition not very good. They tended to lose whenever they played someone from a serious conference. Yet somehow, they beat Stanford. Went 14-4 in the stretch and are on a 6-game winning streak. Mystery team.
14. Cal State-Fullerton (24-8)—Small, good-shooting team that played almost nobody, and when they played someone good (Arizona, for example), they got whipped. They have a marquee player, Josh Akognon. Surprise seems unlikely.
15. Md.-Baltimore County (24-8)—Behold the Retrievers of UMBC, defeaters of American U. They have almost no size, compiled acceptable shooting stats against other nobodies, and have won playing it close to the vest with few turnovers. I suspect Georgetown’s bench could take ‘em handily.
16. Portland State (23-9)—The Big Sky champs actually have a 6’11" center, Scott Morrison, with good numbers, plus a 5’6” guard named Jeremiah Dominguez who can shoot. When they played serious opponents (UCLA, Washington), they got hammered. One late-season win against Cal State-Fullerton is the biggest notch on the belt.
SOUTH REGIONAL
1. Memphis (33-1)—Here’s a stat: Since 1974, no team has come into the NCAAs with only one loss and gone on to win it all. In Vegas terms, that makes the Tigers practically a lock to lose somewhere along the line. They’re talented African gods with good size and athleticism, but they are also one of the worst free-throw-shooting and 3-point-shooting teams in this tourney. If someone can neutralize their up-tempo pace, they can be had.
2. Texas (28-6)—Look out, below! The Longhorns have the strongest resume in the tourney. Check out these victories: Tennessee, UCLA, Kansas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oral Roberts, Oklahoma. They’ve got size, balance, a great guard in D. J. Augustin, and they’ve won 12 of their last 14 games. Their free-throw shooting could be a little better, but they’re also playing strong D these days.
3. Stanford (26-7)—Two 7-footers should help the Cardinal advance for a while here. A 13-5 record in the Pac-10’s gotta count for something, but they could never beat UCLA. They also have a strange loss to Siena blemishing the overall record. Their shooting stats are mediocre, so if they don’t get it done inside, they might be in trouble.
4. Pittsburgh (26-9)—Another darling of the punditry. They proved they can beat Duke and their big Big East competitors. They do it with toughness and physicality. The Panthers aren’t really that tall, and their shooting numbers (especially from the 3-point line, ranked 57th in the tourney) are not noteworthy. In other words, they beat you up and play aggressive defense. It seems to be working.
5. Michigan State (25-8)—Among all the high-profile programs, the Spartans can get lost in the shuffle. They’re always hanging around, though, and with good reason. They have a super coach in Tom Izzo, and they play a solid out-of-conference schedule that gets ‘em battle-tested, even if the Big Ten is in a down cycle. They have some good size, they shoot well from the floor and the free-throw line, and they have veteran guard Drew Neitzel calling the shots. And this is huge: They beat Texas. They face a scrappy Temple team in the first round, but my money’s on Izzo and the Spartans.
6. Marquette (24-9)—Solid Big East resume and an out-of-conference victory on the road over tough Wisconsin. Still, Marquette’s other out-of-conference opponents were fairly unimposing, and their shooting stats are only just okay. They do seem to play serious D, though.
7. Miami (22-10)—For once, it’s the Miami from Florida that’s made the tourney. Seems like it’s been a while for the Hurricanes, and it’s their first NCAA since joining the ACC. They beat Duke, Clemson and Mississippi State, and that’s impressive. They’ve got two big men down low, three scrappy guards, they hit their treys and they can shoot free throws with the best of ‘em. The out-of-conference schedule had some weak sisters, but I wouldn’t bet against these guys in a close game.
8. Mississippi State (22-10)—Rather an unknown SEC quantity. They’ve got some decent players, including Tyler Hansbrough’s little brother Ben, and two guys down low, Charles Rhodes and Jarvis Varnado, who bang it up and rebound. But they didn’t really beat anybody, even in their own conference, and they’re weak from both the foul line and the 3-point stripe. If I was one of those bubble teams, I’d wonder what these Bulldogs are doing here.
9. Oregon (18-13)—Oregon is sorta the Mississippi State of the Pac-10. They have some better wins than the Bulldogs (Arizona, Stanford, Kansas State), but still, their resume looks thin in out-of-conference play. I guess losing to UCLA, USC and Washington State means more than winning against lesser or equal teams. The Ducks shoot from the floor very well (both deuces and treys). At least their first-round matchup (against Mississippi State, of course) looks logical.
10. St. Mary’s (25-6)—Not sure St. Mary’s wins over Drake and Oregon mean so much, but their victory over Gonzaga does. Otherwise, they’re a classic bubble team that may or may not belong here. Their out-of-conference schedule was mediocre, and their competition in the West Coast Conference (except for Gonzaga) just doesn’t impress. Statistically, they are a bit below average. If they advance, it’s a surprise.
11. Kentucky (18-12)—They probably shouldn’t even be here. There were other bubble teams more deserving. They can prove me wrong with a win against Marquette, and maybe that old Wildcat magic and tradition will prevail for awhile. They shoot free throws well, and they can apparently play good defense, and possibly that’ll sustain ’em. The out-of-conference schedule was decent, but they could never beat anybody that mattered. They had home victories versus Tennessee and Vanderbilt, and doubtless the 12-4 SEC record bulwarked the NCAA selection. We shall see.
12. Temple (21-12)—Not sure about these guys. They shoot well, they’ve got some size, and they’re on a 7-game winning streak. They beat Atlantic 10 foes Xavier and St. Joseph’s, though that might simply be a function of intra-league law of averages. The out-of-conference slate was mediocre, and they didn’t beat anyone who counted. They draw Michigan State in the first round, so their little bubble might burst quickly.
13. Oral Roberts (24-8)—They’ve got some size—6’6,” 6’10,” 6’8,” 6’9”—in the starting lineup, but building a resume as Summit League champs might be like being the best golfer in Alaska. They played a few out-of-conference games worth mentioning—Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas—and lost ’em all. First-round opponent is a small Pitt squad that likes to bang bodies. Might be interesting for a while.
14. Cornell (22-5)—One thing about Ivy League teams—they don’t play nearly as many games as the others in the tourney. That said, Ivy League entries have a history of providing stiff early-round competition (think of Princeton or Penn in years past). The Big Red can offer us this: the best 3-point average in the tourney, and the second-best free-throw average in the tourney. So if they play Ivy League smart, hit their treys, and keep it close enough where foul shots matter, who knows? They beat Siena this year. Siena beat Stanford this year. Cornell’s first-round opponent? Stanford. Go figure.
15. Austin Peay (24-10)—Average height, mediocre conference (Ohio Valley), and when they played anybody good out of conference they were routed. They can shoot a little, but first-round opponent Texas should not be afraid.
16. Texas-Arlington (21-11)—The only thing these guys do well statistically is shoot from the floor (deuces only). They’ve got a 6’9” center named Jermaine Griffin who has decent numbers. The resume is thin, including a 99-66 victory over Schreiner (whoever the heck they are). One and done.
WEST REGIONAL
1. UCLA (31-3)—Okay, they’re great. The class of the Pac-10. But freshman center Kevin Love’s back has been sore, and if someone roughs him up, what then? Well, there’re plenty of other talented players, and they should hang in there regardless. The Bruins are not the best 3-point shooters in the world, but that appears to be their only weakness. If healthy, they could go all the way.
2. Duke (27-5)—Strong all over as usual, though not dominating and a little weak in the rebounding department. Someone might outmuscle ’em down the line, but the Blue Devils should be in for the longer haul.
3. Xavier (27-6)—Statistically, one of the best-shooting teams in the nation, in all phases. They play solid D also. A few quality wins out of conference, but a few losses too. They can strike a serious blow for Atlantic 10 respect with a good tourney showing.
4. Connecticut (24-8)—Big East perennial power that does it all well. The front court goes 6’7,” 6’9,” and 7’3,” the latter being one Hasheem Thabeet (sort of the new Emeka Okafor). Thabeet blocks shots and averages 10.5 ppg/8.0 rpg. Could be tough in the later rounds.
5. Drake (28-4)—Another team the pundits like to talk about. But their best wins were in-conference only. They simply didn’t play anybody out of conference, and when they did (St. Mary’s), they got beat. They shoot free throws and play defense (in the Missouri Valley Conference, anyway). But they’re not tall, and they look ripe for the plucking, even being overseeded as they are.
6. Purdue (24-8)—Interesting team. Their stats don’t jump out at you, but they did beat Wisconsin and Michigan State, plus out-of-conference Louisville. They play D, and wear ya down, and sometimes that’s a good strategy in the tourney.
7. West Virginia (24-10)—They’ve got size, even at the guard slot, and the Mountaineers have balance throughout the lineup in scoring and rebounding. Sometimes they look absolutely great. But their shooting stats are not impressive as far as it goes. Their out-of-conference schedule was a mixed-bag of obvious success plus close losses to teams like Tennessee and Oklahoma. They’re a serious Big East team with something to prove, and their first-round matchup versus Arizona should be a dilly.
8. Brigham Young (27-7)—An average-shooting team which is worse from the free-throw line. They’ve got a big center, 6’11’ Trent Plaisted, with solid numbers. They beat Louisville and lost to North Carolina and Michigan State, then mostly trampled on their Mountain West brethren. Their seed is about right, but how good they really are is as yet unknown.
9. Texas A&M (24-10)—They beat Texas, and that seems to be the great qualifier tourney-wide. If you can hang with the Longhorns, you gotta be pretty good. The Aggies have size all over, but their shooting is only so-so. The out-of-conference performance is good but not great. Other victories included Oral Roberts, Baylor and Oklahoma plus the non-tourney Ohio State. Keep an eye on these guys.
10. Arizona (19-14)—So here they are, with 14 losses and a fill-in coach, Kevin O’Neill. Being a Pac-10 team helped the Wildcats get into the Dance, for sure, but also, their shooting numbers are quite good (top 15 in the tourney in all phases). Plus, they’ve got their usual good size and a star guard in Jerryd Bayless. O’Neill stresses defense, and improvement is nigh. Despite their struggles—they’ve lost 8 of their last 12—they’re capable of a very good game.
11. Baylor (21-10)—Another good Big 12 team. They shoot pretty well, rebound less so. Played a decent out-of-conference schedule and defeated Notre Dame and Winthrop. First-round matchup versus Purdue will be a challenge, though.
12. Western Kentucky (27-6)—For a team from a little-regarded conference (Sun Belt), the Hilltoppers have done pretty well historically in the NCAAs (15-20). They didn’t really beat anybody this year, not even the toughest in-conference foe, South Alabama. But they shoot treys well, play defense, and have a star in 6’5” guard Courtney Lee. They line up against Drake in the first round. A tempting 5/12 upset could be in the offing.
13. San Diego (21-13)—They got in because they won the West Coast Conference tourney. But also, they’ve got wins over Gonzaga, St. Mary’s and Kentucky. Their shooting numbers are lackluster, and the Toreros tend to get into really close games, which might not be a good idea when facing off in the first round versus a physical group like Connecticut. Need a miracle to survive.
14. Georgia (17-16)—These guys aren’t even a bubble team. They were never in the running for selection at all, then went ahead and won the SEC tournament. It’s a nice story and all, but it looks like a total fluke to me. Pretty rare air as a #14-seed for an SEC team, though. If I’m first-round opponent Xavier, I wouldn’t give ’em an inch—play ’em tough and vanquish ’em fast.
15. Belmont (25-8)—A Nashville team only blocks from my condo-crib, but sentiment can’t impede the truth: They’re not even one of the top 30 teams in the tourney shooting treys, and that’s their strength! Somehow these slow white boys from the Atlantic Sun Conference have managed 13 in a row to close the season, and are making their third consecutive NCAA appearance. It’s all very nice and I wish ’em luck, but Duke is lying in wait.
16. Mississippi Valley State (17-15)—Statistically, these guys don’t do anything well. They even got outscored by their opponents on a per-game average. They did play some serious out-of-conference competition but got smoked by ’em all, including a 71-26 drubbing at the hands of Washington State. MVSU does better at producing wide receivers, like Jerry Rice. One and way done.
Instead, I’m going to share my wisdom about this year’s teams. I’ve crunched a lot of data in the past few days, and I think I have some worthy observations that might help everyone else feel a little more informed about the field.
Here goes nuthin’:
EAST REGIONAL
1. North Carolina (32-2)—A tourney favorite. They have depth and talent. And Tyler Hansbrough. Their path to the Final Four looks almost too easy.
2. Tennessee (29-4)—I’ve watched these guys. They’re great. More talent on a college b-ball court you won’t find. They play a pressing D, and their transition game is breathtaking. They can score in bunches, but they give up tons of points, too. They might go far, but someone with a more controlled style might shut ‘em down.
3. Louisville (24-8)—Rick Pitino coaches good basketball teams. This is one of ‘em. They tied for second in the Big East. But their out-of-conference performance, while decent, was not noteworthy.
4. Washington State (24-8)—My initial reaction to these guys was lukewarm. But check out their rcord. Their overall performance was surprisingly consistent, they beat everyone they should logically beat, and they performed well enough in the tough Pac-10. Who they didn’t beat was UCLA. Could surprise.
5. Notre Dame (24-7)—Strong Big East resume and a balanced lineup. They score, hit their treys at a 41% clip, are strong on free throws, and they have a big man, 6’8” Luke Harangody, who averages a double-double and hits 51.7% from the floor. So why aren’t they a higher seed?
6. Oklahoma (22-11)—Big front line, and presumably battle-tested after playing Big 12 teams like Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M, and Kansas State. They are below average both from the foul line and the three-point stripe. A bit of an unknown quantity.
7. Butler (29-3)—Reputed to be under-seeded. They’re ranked 10th in the nation, so why aren’t they seeded higher? They have some good wins on the resume, but nothing earthshaking. And playing in the Horizon League, you almost wonder how they could lose at all to the likes of Wright State and Cleveland State. They had a late-season loss at home to Drake, 71-64. But maybe the tournament committee had the same suspicions I do. They hit their free throws, though.
8. Indiana (25-7)—They’ve underperformed since coach Kelvin Sampson was told to take a hike. They’re talented but appear vulnerable. Best free-throw-shooting team in the tourney.
9. Arkansas (22-11)—They’ve got some size and general ability. They have some decent wins to their credit, including a victory over Tennessee in the SEC tourney (for what that’s worth). They’re mediocre from the foul line and the 3-point line. First-round matchup versus Indiana should be competitive. After that, who knows?
10. South Alabama (26-6)—They don’t really have any top-quality wins, and they lost twice to Middle Tennessee State, a scrappy but generally mediocre outfit. They’re an at-large team from the Sun Belt Conference, with decent shooting numbers but against suspect competition. Their presence here probably makes Arizona State fans grumble. Yet they get a first-round game against Butler in nearby Birmingham, so maybe the gods are smiling on ’em.
11. St. Joseph’s (21-12)—Atlantic 10 at-large choice getting props from the pundits. They’ve got a serious front line (no man under 6’8”), and their shooting numbers in all phases are impressive. Have yet to prove they can beat a great team.
12. George Mason (23-10)—The darlings of the ‘06 tourney. Half of this squad was on that Final Four team. So maybe look out. Statistical numbers are so-so. They’re not very tall, but neither was the ‘06 outfit. Odds of lightning striking twice are pretty slim.
13. Winthrop (22-11)—They’re relatively short, and their stats against generally mediocre competition are unimpressive. Supposedly they play good D. They did beat Miami, however, who beat Duke, Mississippi State and Clemson. Hmmm....
14. Boise State (25-8)—A couple of decent wins (BYU, San Diego), and they shoot treys well. Also strong shooting from the floor. Weak schedule. Survival odds slim to none.
15. American (21-11)—Best three-point shooters in the tourney, statistically speaking. Hit their free throws, too. Hardly any size, though, and they didn’t play anybody of note. They beat Maryland in College Park, which probably says more about the Terps than it does about the Eagles.
16. Coppin State (16-20)/Mt. St. Mary’s (18-14)—Pick your poison. Play-in game combatants have lousy records and played almost nobody that matters. Maybe they should re-think the system.
MIDWEST REGIONAL
1. Kansas (31-3)—Strong in every phase of the offensive game, has size, and definitely a contender to take it all. They couldn’t beat Texas, though. They also have a recent history of underachieving in the NCAAs.
2. Georgetown (27-5)—Big East power does most things well. Proved they could beat the top contenders in their league. Play strong D, and have a serious big man, 7’2” Roy Hibbert. Pundits like ‘em to go far.
3. Wisconsin (29-4)—Well-coached squad that has risen above its penchant for lackluster offense. They beat Texas and Michigan State, which is saying a lot. They’ve got some size, and simply seem to play fundamentally sound b-ball, despite averaging only 68 points a game.
4. Vanderbilt (26-7)—Started the season 16-0, which means they’re 10-7 down the stretch. Not impressive. Only 7-7 on the road, too. On paper, they look great: they have size, hit their treys (fourth best among tourney teams), hit their free throws, and have a wonderful all-around star in 6’6” forward Shan Foster. So why do they look vulnerable?
5. Clemson (24-9)—Solid ACC entry, with wins over Duke, Miami and Mississippi State. They hit their treys at a decent clip, but for some reason aren’t so good from the free-throw line. Average-sized squad. Bit of an unknown quantity in the grand scheme of things.
6. Southern California (21-11)—They beat UCLA, Stanford and Arizona. Pretty good team, with decent size and solid numbers from the floor. Plus they have frosh sensation O. J. Mayo (20.9 ppg). They have an interesting first-round matchup with Kansas State and their frosh sensation, 6’ 10" Michael Beasley (26.5 ppg). Pac-10 resume might bode well.
7. Gonzaga (25-7)—West Coast Conference overachievers whose tough out-of-conference schedule includes victories over Connecticut, Western Kentucky, Georgia and road wins at St. Joseph’s and Virginia Tech. They also lost close games to Washington State, Tennessee and Oklahoma. No other so-called mid-major has better prepared itself to play in this tourney. They get a tough first-round matchup against another pundit favorite, Davidson.
8. UNLV (26-7)—Average height, mediocre shooting numbers and little in the way of quality wins. The Rebels mostly stuck to opponents in the west. When they played Louisville, they got trounced. First-round matchup versus Kent State might be a very good game.
9. Kent State (28-6)—Undisputed champs of the MAC. A couple of decent wins on the schedule, but really good teams (North Carolina, Xavier) beat ‘em soundly. Stats are very average.
10. Davidson (26-6)—On a 22-game win streak. Pundits are raving, “Look out for the Wildcats.” But who did they play? Well, UCLA, North Carolina and Duke. And lost ’em all. The rest of their schedule comprises Southern Conference foes and other non-entities. Spanking Elon, Wofford and Georgia Southern tells us little. They can shoot a little, and they’ve got two 6’8” forwards, neither of whose numbers are startling. Caveat emptor.
11. Kansas State (20-11)—Hotshot freshman Michael Beasley is the story here. They beat Kansas also. Their numbers from the field do not impress, but they manage nearly 80 points per game, with Beasley rebounding and scoring at significant rates. Interesting #11.
12. Villanova (20-12)—Some solid Big East victories on the resume. Not so good from the floor; better from the foul line. Generally strong front line, and well-coached. But they could disappear quickly as easily as they could surprise.
13. Siena (22-10)—Not a bad-shooting team. Average size. Metro Atlantic competition not very good. They tended to lose whenever they played someone from a serious conference. Yet somehow, they beat Stanford. Went 14-4 in the stretch and are on a 6-game winning streak. Mystery team.
14. Cal State-Fullerton (24-8)—Small, good-shooting team that played almost nobody, and when they played someone good (Arizona, for example), they got whipped. They have a marquee player, Josh Akognon. Surprise seems unlikely.
15. Md.-Baltimore County (24-8)—Behold the Retrievers of UMBC, defeaters of American U. They have almost no size, compiled acceptable shooting stats against other nobodies, and have won playing it close to the vest with few turnovers. I suspect Georgetown’s bench could take ‘em handily.
16. Portland State (23-9)—The Big Sky champs actually have a 6’11" center, Scott Morrison, with good numbers, plus a 5’6” guard named Jeremiah Dominguez who can shoot. When they played serious opponents (UCLA, Washington), they got hammered. One late-season win against Cal State-Fullerton is the biggest notch on the belt.
SOUTH REGIONAL
1. Memphis (33-1)—Here’s a stat: Since 1974, no team has come into the NCAAs with only one loss and gone on to win it all. In Vegas terms, that makes the Tigers practically a lock to lose somewhere along the line. They’re talented African gods with good size and athleticism, but they are also one of the worst free-throw-shooting and 3-point-shooting teams in this tourney. If someone can neutralize their up-tempo pace, they can be had.
2. Texas (28-6)—Look out, below! The Longhorns have the strongest resume in the tourney. Check out these victories: Tennessee, UCLA, Kansas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oral Roberts, Oklahoma. They’ve got size, balance, a great guard in D. J. Augustin, and they’ve won 12 of their last 14 games. Their free-throw shooting could be a little better, but they’re also playing strong D these days.
3. Stanford (26-7)—Two 7-footers should help the Cardinal advance for a while here. A 13-5 record in the Pac-10’s gotta count for something, but they could never beat UCLA. They also have a strange loss to Siena blemishing the overall record. Their shooting stats are mediocre, so if they don’t get it done inside, they might be in trouble.
4. Pittsburgh (26-9)—Another darling of the punditry. They proved they can beat Duke and their big Big East competitors. They do it with toughness and physicality. The Panthers aren’t really that tall, and their shooting numbers (especially from the 3-point line, ranked 57th in the tourney) are not noteworthy. In other words, they beat you up and play aggressive defense. It seems to be working.
5. Michigan State (25-8)—Among all the high-profile programs, the Spartans can get lost in the shuffle. They’re always hanging around, though, and with good reason. They have a super coach in Tom Izzo, and they play a solid out-of-conference schedule that gets ‘em battle-tested, even if the Big Ten is in a down cycle. They have some good size, they shoot well from the floor and the free-throw line, and they have veteran guard Drew Neitzel calling the shots. And this is huge: They beat Texas. They face a scrappy Temple team in the first round, but my money’s on Izzo and the Spartans.
6. Marquette (24-9)—Solid Big East resume and an out-of-conference victory on the road over tough Wisconsin. Still, Marquette’s other out-of-conference opponents were fairly unimposing, and their shooting stats are only just okay. They do seem to play serious D, though.
7. Miami (22-10)—For once, it’s the Miami from Florida that’s made the tourney. Seems like it’s been a while for the Hurricanes, and it’s their first NCAA since joining the ACC. They beat Duke, Clemson and Mississippi State, and that’s impressive. They’ve got two big men down low, three scrappy guards, they hit their treys and they can shoot free throws with the best of ‘em. The out-of-conference schedule had some weak sisters, but I wouldn’t bet against these guys in a close game.
8. Mississippi State (22-10)—Rather an unknown SEC quantity. They’ve got some decent players, including Tyler Hansbrough’s little brother Ben, and two guys down low, Charles Rhodes and Jarvis Varnado, who bang it up and rebound. But they didn’t really beat anybody, even in their own conference, and they’re weak from both the foul line and the 3-point stripe. If I was one of those bubble teams, I’d wonder what these Bulldogs are doing here.
9. Oregon (18-13)—Oregon is sorta the Mississippi State of the Pac-10. They have some better wins than the Bulldogs (Arizona, Stanford, Kansas State), but still, their resume looks thin in out-of-conference play. I guess losing to UCLA, USC and Washington State means more than winning against lesser or equal teams. The Ducks shoot from the floor very well (both deuces and treys). At least their first-round matchup (against Mississippi State, of course) looks logical.
10. St. Mary’s (25-6)—Not sure St. Mary’s wins over Drake and Oregon mean so much, but their victory over Gonzaga does. Otherwise, they’re a classic bubble team that may or may not belong here. Their out-of-conference schedule was mediocre, and their competition in the West Coast Conference (except for Gonzaga) just doesn’t impress. Statistically, they are a bit below average. If they advance, it’s a surprise.
11. Kentucky (18-12)—They probably shouldn’t even be here. There were other bubble teams more deserving. They can prove me wrong with a win against Marquette, and maybe that old Wildcat magic and tradition will prevail for awhile. They shoot free throws well, and they can apparently play good defense, and possibly that’ll sustain ’em. The out-of-conference schedule was decent, but they could never beat anybody that mattered. They had home victories versus Tennessee and Vanderbilt, and doubtless the 12-4 SEC record bulwarked the NCAA selection. We shall see.
12. Temple (21-12)—Not sure about these guys. They shoot well, they’ve got some size, and they’re on a 7-game winning streak. They beat Atlantic 10 foes Xavier and St. Joseph’s, though that might simply be a function of intra-league law of averages. The out-of-conference slate was mediocre, and they didn’t beat anyone who counted. They draw Michigan State in the first round, so their little bubble might burst quickly.
13. Oral Roberts (24-8)—They’ve got some size—6’6,” 6’10,” 6’8,” 6’9”—in the starting lineup, but building a resume as Summit League champs might be like being the best golfer in Alaska. They played a few out-of-conference games worth mentioning—Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas—and lost ’em all. First-round opponent is a small Pitt squad that likes to bang bodies. Might be interesting for a while.
14. Cornell (22-5)—One thing about Ivy League teams—they don’t play nearly as many games as the others in the tourney. That said, Ivy League entries have a history of providing stiff early-round competition (think of Princeton or Penn in years past). The Big Red can offer us this: the best 3-point average in the tourney, and the second-best free-throw average in the tourney. So if they play Ivy League smart, hit their treys, and keep it close enough where foul shots matter, who knows? They beat Siena this year. Siena beat Stanford this year. Cornell’s first-round opponent? Stanford. Go figure.
15. Austin Peay (24-10)—Average height, mediocre conference (Ohio Valley), and when they played anybody good out of conference they were routed. They can shoot a little, but first-round opponent Texas should not be afraid.
16. Texas-Arlington (21-11)—The only thing these guys do well statistically is shoot from the floor (deuces only). They’ve got a 6’9” center named Jermaine Griffin who has decent numbers. The resume is thin, including a 99-66 victory over Schreiner (whoever the heck they are). One and done.
WEST REGIONAL
1. UCLA (31-3)—Okay, they’re great. The class of the Pac-10. But freshman center Kevin Love’s back has been sore, and if someone roughs him up, what then? Well, there’re plenty of other talented players, and they should hang in there regardless. The Bruins are not the best 3-point shooters in the world, but that appears to be their only weakness. If healthy, they could go all the way.
2. Duke (27-5)—Strong all over as usual, though not dominating and a little weak in the rebounding department. Someone might outmuscle ’em down the line, but the Blue Devils should be in for the longer haul.
3. Xavier (27-6)—Statistically, one of the best-shooting teams in the nation, in all phases. They play solid D also. A few quality wins out of conference, but a few losses too. They can strike a serious blow for Atlantic 10 respect with a good tourney showing.
4. Connecticut (24-8)—Big East perennial power that does it all well. The front court goes 6’7,” 6’9,” and 7’3,” the latter being one Hasheem Thabeet (sort of the new Emeka Okafor). Thabeet blocks shots and averages 10.5 ppg/8.0 rpg. Could be tough in the later rounds.
5. Drake (28-4)—Another team the pundits like to talk about. But their best wins were in-conference only. They simply didn’t play anybody out of conference, and when they did (St. Mary’s), they got beat. They shoot free throws and play defense (in the Missouri Valley Conference, anyway). But they’re not tall, and they look ripe for the plucking, even being overseeded as they are.
6. Purdue (24-8)—Interesting team. Their stats don’t jump out at you, but they did beat Wisconsin and Michigan State, plus out-of-conference Louisville. They play D, and wear ya down, and sometimes that’s a good strategy in the tourney.
7. West Virginia (24-10)—They’ve got size, even at the guard slot, and the Mountaineers have balance throughout the lineup in scoring and rebounding. Sometimes they look absolutely great. But their shooting stats are not impressive as far as it goes. Their out-of-conference schedule was a mixed-bag of obvious success plus close losses to teams like Tennessee and Oklahoma. They’re a serious Big East team with something to prove, and their first-round matchup versus Arizona should be a dilly.
8. Brigham Young (27-7)—An average-shooting team which is worse from the free-throw line. They’ve got a big center, 6’11’ Trent Plaisted, with solid numbers. They beat Louisville and lost to North Carolina and Michigan State, then mostly trampled on their Mountain West brethren. Their seed is about right, but how good they really are is as yet unknown.
9. Texas A&M (24-10)—They beat Texas, and that seems to be the great qualifier tourney-wide. If you can hang with the Longhorns, you gotta be pretty good. The Aggies have size all over, but their shooting is only so-so. The out-of-conference performance is good but not great. Other victories included Oral Roberts, Baylor and Oklahoma plus the non-tourney Ohio State. Keep an eye on these guys.
10. Arizona (19-14)—So here they are, with 14 losses and a fill-in coach, Kevin O’Neill. Being a Pac-10 team helped the Wildcats get into the Dance, for sure, but also, their shooting numbers are quite good (top 15 in the tourney in all phases). Plus, they’ve got their usual good size and a star guard in Jerryd Bayless. O’Neill stresses defense, and improvement is nigh. Despite their struggles—they’ve lost 8 of their last 12—they’re capable of a very good game.
11. Baylor (21-10)—Another good Big 12 team. They shoot pretty well, rebound less so. Played a decent out-of-conference schedule and defeated Notre Dame and Winthrop. First-round matchup versus Purdue will be a challenge, though.
12. Western Kentucky (27-6)—For a team from a little-regarded conference (Sun Belt), the Hilltoppers have done pretty well historically in the NCAAs (15-20). They didn’t really beat anybody this year, not even the toughest in-conference foe, South Alabama. But they shoot treys well, play defense, and have a star in 6’5” guard Courtney Lee. They line up against Drake in the first round. A tempting 5/12 upset could be in the offing.
13. San Diego (21-13)—They got in because they won the West Coast Conference tourney. But also, they’ve got wins over Gonzaga, St. Mary’s and Kentucky. Their shooting numbers are lackluster, and the Toreros tend to get into really close games, which might not be a good idea when facing off in the first round versus a physical group like Connecticut. Need a miracle to survive.
14. Georgia (17-16)—These guys aren’t even a bubble team. They were never in the running for selection at all, then went ahead and won the SEC tournament. It’s a nice story and all, but it looks like a total fluke to me. Pretty rare air as a #14-seed for an SEC team, though. If I’m first-round opponent Xavier, I wouldn’t give ’em an inch—play ’em tough and vanquish ’em fast.
15. Belmont (25-8)—A Nashville team only blocks from my condo-crib, but sentiment can’t impede the truth: They’re not even one of the top 30 teams in the tourney shooting treys, and that’s their strength! Somehow these slow white boys from the Atlantic Sun Conference have managed 13 in a row to close the season, and are making their third consecutive NCAA appearance. It’s all very nice and I wish ’em luck, but Duke is lying in wait.
16. Mississippi Valley State (17-15)—Statistically, these guys don’t do anything well. They even got outscored by their opponents on a per-game average. They did play some serious out-of-conference competition but got smoked by ’em all, including a 71-26 drubbing at the hands of Washington State. MVSU does better at producing wide receivers, like Jerry Rice. One and way done.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Titans Get Crumpler While Key Linemen Leave En Masse
After the opening weekend of NFL free agency, some Tennessee Titans fans are scratching their heads. I’m with ‘em. I don’t know when I’ve ever seen three veteran defensive linemen up and leave a team so quickly, all at the same time. In the blink of an eye, defensive end Antwan Odom, defensive tackle Randy Starks and defensive end Travis Laboy all signed new contracts with other teams. They were four-year men, and as unrestricted free agents they were free to bail. Guess the big question is, Why?
While Titans brass were celebrating the free-agent signing of former Falcons All-Pro tight end Alge Crumpler, Odom, Starks and Laboy got away, as did offensive guard Jacob Bell. Tight ends Ben Troupe and Bo Scaife are also on the free-agent block, and don’t blink or they might be gone too.
Crumpler could be a good addition. He’s been one of the best TEs in the league for years, and a personal favorite of mine. But he’s 30 years old, and his playing time was limited last season due to a knee problem. Let’s hope he’s healthy—and still young enough.
Meanwhile, watching a load of young veterans get away, all solid role players in the Titans’ 10-6 season in ’07, is mystifying. Laboy and Odom were both drafted in Round 2 of the ‘04 draft. Starks was grabbed in the third round the same year. Bell, a virtual unknown, out of Miami (Ohio), was snagged later in the fifth round. (Troupe was also from that draft, during the Floyd Reese era. Pretty smart drafting for a team that had no #1 choice that year.) All of the aforementioned have made steady improvement. The DLs were key supporting players assisting Albert Haynesworth and Kyle Vanden Bosch on the Titans’ much-improved defense last season. Bell became a solid pro on a rebuilding OL unit and was presumed to be a regular starter for the next 5-10 years.
Now they’re all gone. Maybe there’s method to general manager Mike Reinfeldt’s madness. Or maybe the second-year GM is asleep at the switch. He’s not impressive in interviews, and even though head coach Jeff Fisher was grinning today about the Crumpler signing, it’s hard to know the plan.
It takes time to develop good linemen. If Reinfeldt’s getting replacements from the draft, it’s naive to think they’ll be immediately as good as the departed. And if Reinfeldt has scouted the free agent list, then he knows that most every name player at the trench positions is an older guy—and not necessarily a long-term solution. So why not sign the younger vets before they get away? He’s gonna have to sign somebody to fill their slots, isn’t he?
The Troupe/Scaife situation is also a little weird. With Crumpler’s arrival—and with third-stringer Ben Hartsock already departed via free agency to Atlanta—their status is up in the air should they stay. Scaife, a third-year man and hence a restricted free agent—which means the Titans get some compensation if he goes—had become the starting TE and one of Vince Young’s favorite targets in ’07. But Scaife is also a blocker, a valuable big man for a team that wants to run the ball. Troupe, on the other hand, has become invisible. Strange. After posting solid numbers in ’05—55 catches, 530 yards, 4 TDs—Troupe seemed ready to fulfill his promise as a star offensive TE. But he slipped off the radar in ’06 because of a foot injury, and never was in the mix in ’07, with only 5 catches for 47 yards.
It looks at the moment like Scaife will be retained, as the team moves to also keep in the fold other RFAs like kicker Rob Bironas and tackle David Stewart. Troupe might be deemed expendable, and the saga of how his star fell so far so fast remains filled with questions.
For all the hype about Vince Young, fact is the Titans returned to the playoffs in '07 due to the efforts of their defense and their offensive line. Young was an inconsistent, sometimes disappointing performer. Ditto running back LenDale White. Both still have promise, but in the meantime it was the trench guys that got things done. If the Titans were trying to save money on the recently departed, it might yet be seen as a penny-wise-and-pound-foolish mindset at work.
Reinfeldt's moves definitely bear watching. He could be a dummy—yet another ex-jock who looks good in a suit, and talks the talk, but is shortsighted. I miss frumpy old balding Reese. Pretty sharp cat.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
SUPER TUESDAY SPECIAL: The Sheeple Have Spoken
There are primaries yet to come, and it’s a long way out till the party conventions in summer. Still, after yesterday’s Super Tuesday contests, it might fairly be said that the “sheeple” (pictured, left) have spoken. Prospects for the wannabes shifted but didn’t effectively change. Save for Mitt Romney, who surely is dead mutton no matter how hard he says he intends to keep fighting. His big chance to make an inroad into the Tuesday gains of John McCain and Mike Huckabee was California, but he trailed McCain by 17% by the time a third of the vote was counted. Heck, he even came in third in Missouri. You can keep on going, but you can’t keep on losing. Romney finished third in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee too, all states won by his arch-nemesis Huckabee. That had to sting. Too few victories overall, insufficient drawing power in the South, and getting trounced by McCain in New York, New Jersey and Illinois spell the end for the Mittster, and he oughta withdraw before they make an eponym out of him. (“Yeah, I interviewed for that job three times, but I pulled a Romney.”)
Huckabee made an impressive showing, especially for a guy whose campaign is running on fumes. He won five states, including his home state of Arkansas, and clearly certain folks rally to him in ways they don’t rally to Romney. Huckabee doesn’t hide the religion thing, but that’s not all he’s about. He speaks reasonably about every topic, and he’s surely more worldly than your average Bible-thumping Baptist. (McCain, by the way, is also a Baptist, in case you didn’t know.) And Huckabee’s got this Fair Tax idea, and it’s not bad at all. In that regard, he’s probably gained the attention of Libertarian types, who otherwise voted for Ron Paul in modest numbers. Paul didn’t do badly for a third-party candidate masquerading as a main-streamer. A serious third-party could be built around what Paul has pioneered in ’08, so long as his followers really want to excavate for the future.
As for Dem wannabe Barack Obama, well, he had a good night. He rung up more victories than Clinton and proved to be an impressive percentage vote-getter. When he beat her, it was usually by far stronger numbers. The guy has charisma and all, but alas he couldn’t halt the Clinton machine in New York, Massachusetts and Cali. Obama did snake out a crafty little “W” in Connecticut, practically Clinton’s backyard, and that was a good sign. But where he could have sent a real message was in Missouri, where the vote was closer than anticipated but where Clinton emerged with more delegates. Obama kicked Clinton’s (fairly) fat ass in Illinois, which is his home state, but—good to remember—is also her home state, where she was born and raised before embarking on her lifelong indulgence in carpetbaggery. Yet his Cali performance was a huge disappointment. That was where he could prove something big—like, maybe, he could actually win Hispanic votes?—but even Oprah couldn’t save him there. Joining the ticket as veep looks like his destiny (if he's got the stomach for it). Heck, he wouldn't even have to finish out his first term as a U.S. senator.
So while the nominations remain contested, it’s probably wisest to get used to the inevitable: Hillary Clinton (“The Pantsuit Who Would Be King”) vs. John McCain, who will rapidly size up as “the doddering old man who is not Ronald Reagan.”
You might as well also get used to hearing White House reporters hollering “Madame President!” at press conferences. (At least that’ll be something new for crusty old hen correspondent Helen Thomas, who’s been cackling “Mr. President!” for about a century.)
Even at this early juncture, projecting the general election doesn’t look too tough. Billary—yeah, don’t forget, Bubba’s back in town (Gawd! Chelsea, too!)—and McCoot will cancel each other out on many issues, including immigration (’cause he’s a softie on that, and if he gets tough he’ll lose all the Hispanic voters who love Mamacita Clinton).
Unless something extraordinary happens between now and November, watch for the inevitable tide of Democrats to ride in on the heels of eight dour Bush years that even real conservatives are tired of. So tired they may all stay home.
At least we've all been here before: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... It's dynastic deja vu all over again.
So you’ve been warned. Get ready for the new sitcom: "The Harridan of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." (You won't laugh even once.)
The sheeple have spoken.
[Update: Barack Obama eventually won the Missouri Democratic primary, defeating Hillary Clinton 49% to 48%. Each candidate emerged with 36 of the state's delegates to the national convention.]
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Alway$ Follow the Money: Who’$ Giving What to the Politico$, Tenne$$ee Edition
Ever wonder about those vast sums of political money that keep flowing in to campaign coffers? I know I do. Mainly ‘cause I can’t afford to give hardly a penny.
With football season out of the way, and sports in general in the doldrums until March Madness, we’re going to get more political around here, and that means introducing you—if you’re not yet hip—to FundRace2008.
Thanks to the ever-increasing miracles in computer-search capabilities, and the enterprising sponsorship of Huffington Post—love that Arianna, both pretty and smart—any average Joe can use FundRace2008 to track the campaign donations of the high-profile and rich and famous nationwide.
This is a delicious mode of snooping, and you can narrow your search to name, address, city, occupation or employer.
A few basic ground rules of understanding about personal campaign donations:
Individuals are limited to a single primary or single general election contribution, to each candidate, of $2,300. In other words, you can donate a max of $4,600 to any one candidate, but the candidate can only use half of that ($2,300) for the primary run. The remainder (the other $2,300) has to be held in abeyance until it might be used in the general election. However, if you’re the type to hedge your bets, you can do this for however many different candidates you want.
Take pop singer Bette Midler. From a Nashville Music Row address of 1222 16th Ave. South, Midler has made a single $2,300 contribution to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, each of whom has doubtlessly used the money for the primary run. Now, assuming they both remain in the race after Super Tuesday, they can each solicit Midler—if they haven’t already—for another $2,300 for use in the general election campaign, though obviously only one will actually be able to exercise the option of using it.
Here’s another show-biz oddity: Jon Bon Jovi—using his real name, John Bongiovi, and from the same Music Row addy as Midler—has contributed a max of $4,600 to Hillary Clinton. His wife, Dorothea, also from the Nashville address, has also donated $4,600 to Clinton.
Nashville industrialist and noted arts patron Martha Ingram’s search brings up interesting results. From two separate addresses, Ingram contributed $2,300 to ex-candidate Fred Thompson. For whatever reason, Ingram donated $1,000 from one address, and $1,300 from the other. There’s probably a good accounting reason for that. (Or maybe she had to think two separate times about giving to Fred.)
Check out other locals:
Jack Bovender, chairman and CEO of health-care giant HCA, donated $2,300 to Mitt Romney. Ditto Mrs. Bovender.
Mike Curb, chairman of Curb Records, donated $2,300 to Fred Thompson. So did wife Linda.
Ronnie Dunn, of the music duo Brooks & Dunn, also sprung $2,300 for Thompson, who was definitely getting his share of Music City money.
Others on the Thompson bandwagon—when there was one—include former U.S. senator Bill Frist, record exec Joe Galante, singer-songwriter John Rich (Big & Rich), music producer James Stroud, “Redneck Woman” singer Gretchen Wilson, arts patrons Steve and Judy Turner, retired producer Billy Sherrill, and eye surgeon Ming Wang.
Giving it up locally for John Edwards were music producer Paul Worley and ambulance-chasing lawyer Blair Durham.
Other notables:
U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper—Obama ($2,300)
Andrea Conte (Mrs. Phil Bredesen)—Bill Richardson ($2,300)
Hazel O’Leary, president of Fisk University—Clinton ($2,300)
Monroe Carell—Romney ($2,100; couldn’t part with the other $200, apparently)
The point is, because of the magic of online technology, you can hardly do a public act without the public finding out. And in politics, donating money can sometimes mean more than just helping someone pay for a few dinners.
Since money is the one area that we interested political onlookers can’t compete in, the best we can do is keep tabs on the fat cats. Besides, it’s just interesting to see who they like.
Check out the site. It’s fun and informative. And you might get a surprise or two along the way.
With football season out of the way, and sports in general in the doldrums until March Madness, we’re going to get more political around here, and that means introducing you—if you’re not yet hip—to FundRace2008.
Thanks to the ever-increasing miracles in computer-search capabilities, and the enterprising sponsorship of Huffington Post—love that Arianna, both pretty and smart—any average Joe can use FundRace2008 to track the campaign donations of the high-profile and rich and famous nationwide.
This is a delicious mode of snooping, and you can narrow your search to name, address, city, occupation or employer.
A few basic ground rules of understanding about personal campaign donations:
Take pop singer Bette Midler. From a Nashville Music Row address of 1222 16th Ave. South, Midler has made a single $2,300 contribution to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, each of whom has doubtlessly used the money for the primary run. Now, assuming they both remain in the race after Super Tuesday, they can each solicit Midler—if they haven’t already—for another $2,300 for use in the general election campaign, though obviously only one will actually be able to exercise the option of using it.
Here’s another show-biz oddity: Jon Bon Jovi—using his real name, John Bongiovi, and from the same Music Row addy as Midler—has contributed a max of $4,600 to Hillary Clinton. His wife, Dorothea, also from the Nashville address, has also donated $4,600 to Clinton.
Nashville industrialist and noted arts patron Martha Ingram’s search brings up interesting results. From two separate addresses, Ingram contributed $2,300 to ex-candidate Fred Thompson. For whatever reason, Ingram donated $1,000 from one address, and $1,300 from the other. There’s probably a good accounting reason for that. (Or maybe she had to think two separate times about giving to Fred.)
Check out other locals:
Jack Bovender, chairman and CEO of health-care giant HCA, donated $2,300 to Mitt Romney. Ditto Mrs. Bovender.
Mike Curb, chairman of Curb Records, donated $2,300 to Fred Thompson. So did wife Linda.
Ronnie Dunn, of the music duo Brooks & Dunn, also sprung $2,300 for Thompson, who was definitely getting his share of Music City money.
Others on the Thompson bandwagon—when there was one—include former U.S. senator Bill Frist, record exec Joe Galante, singer-songwriter John Rich (Big & Rich), music producer James Stroud, “Redneck Woman” singer Gretchen Wilson, arts patrons Steve and Judy Turner, retired producer Billy Sherrill, and eye surgeon Ming Wang.
Giving it up locally for John Edwards were music producer Paul Worley and ambulance-chasing lawyer Blair Durham.
Other notables:
U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper—Obama ($2,300)
Andrea Conte (Mrs. Phil Bredesen)—Bill Richardson ($2,300)
Hazel O’Leary, president of Fisk University—Clinton ($2,300)
Monroe Carell—Romney ($2,100; couldn’t part with the other $200, apparently)
The point is, because of the magic of online technology, you can hardly do a public act without the public finding out. And in politics, donating money can sometimes mean more than just helping someone pay for a few dinners.
Since money is the one area that we interested political onlookers can’t compete in, the best we can do is keep tabs on the fat cats. Besides, it’s just interesting to see who they like.
Check out the site. It’s fun and informative. And you might get a surprise or two along the way.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Super Bowl Dumb Stuff
Great Super Bowl. Loved every minute of it. I had a very dispassionate but totally sincere interest in the game. If the Giants won, we had a cool upset. If the Pats won, we had history. Once the Pats took a 14-10 lead late in the fourth quarter, I kinda thought it was over, and I was all for history. When the Giants kept battling in their final drive, I thought, “Well, if they can pull it out, more power to ’em.” And after David Tyree made the catch of the century, I was pulling for the Giants all the way. So congrats to the Giants. Awesome game.
Now here’s all the dumb stuff:
Why did they give the MVP trophy to Eli Manning? He ended up playing a very good game statistically, but for three quarters he had put exactly 3 points on the board. His escape of the Patriots’ rush on the Tyree play was remarkable, but Tyree made that play. If he hadn’t, we would’ve said Eli flung the ball wildly and we’d’ve been right. The MVP should have been given to Osi Umenyiora or Michael Strahan, or maybe jointly to the Giants’ defensive line. Because of them, the Patriots only scored 14 points. THAT was the game. The Giants’ offense actually sucked, scoring only 17 points against a much more vulnerable Pats defense. Eli is still a player with some rough edges, and any sharp observer will tell you that. He proved spunky yesterday, he made some plays, and honestly, I’m happy for him. It’s a very good story. But why do they always try to find a way to give the big award to a QB, when the DLs are the guys making it happen? Dumb.
Why does Chris Berman call the Giants the “G-Men”? Is that a term he coined? Why does he say it on TV as if it’s some time-honored nickname? I’ve followed the Giants for years in print and on TV, and I never heard this term until Berman started bellowing it, what, maybe in the mid to late ’90s? It sounds dumb, and dumbly fabricated by someone trying to call attention to himself. Berman’s a blowhard. Enough, already. Someone tell him to stop it.
Deion Sanders is another blowhard. In a postgame interview, he came on to Tom Coughlin with the accusation of the Giants coach being “old-school”—the actual implication was clear: “old”—and then asked him how he was able to “turn it around” and “relate” to his young players. Just a stupid, cliche approach. Totally dumb. Coughlin is a vet coach, who’s been much-maligned, especially by the New York press, and he toughed it out in Gotham, having to listen to unfair, impatient criticisms from reporters and pundits and ex-jock dummies like Sanders and Tiki Barber. (“How do you like me now, Tiki? If you’d stayed one more year, you’d’ve gotten that ring. LOL.”) Coughlin proved a graceful guy, actually appearing quite humbled and not the testy, flustered martinet that he’s been portrayed as for all these years. Nice guy, nice story. Too bad there were dummies on the scene, clueless how to approach him.
Oh yeah, remember Tiki’s criticism of Eli last year? About his leadership qualities? You’re a dumb schmuck, Tiki. And a loser.
Ever notice the dumb look on Joe Buck’s face as he’s forced to look upward at Troy Aikman when they’re in the booth in a “two”-shot? It’s hilarious. Poor Joe. Desperately trying to be taken seriously, with all his pietistic pseudo-dramatic commentary, then he’s immediately dwarfed both by Aikman’s broad shoulders and the ex-QB’s superior skills as a communicator. If Buck told us one more time about 41-year-old Giants punter Jeff Feagles trying to get his first Super Bowl ring you’d have started to think he was being paid off by Feagles’ PR firm. He latched onto this theme early and never let it go. Boring. And dumb too. Buck is a dummy, and one lucky stiff.
Why do they continue to have geezer acts for halftime entertainment? Dumb. Tom Petty? He’s not even a good geezer act. Just plain dumb. I thought his music was boring even when he wasn’t a geezer.
Also dumb: those of us who predicted a Patriots victory. No problem-o. The better story prevailed, and we’re all better for it. What wasn’t dumb was how I managed to completely avoid all the pre-game TV hoopla, watched the first half, then went to the store during halftime—thus gratefully missing Tom Petty—timing my return perfectly for the beginning of the second half, which I then watched with rapt attention and fortified by fresh munchies. The only thing that matters is the game, folks.
Have a great off-season. (We’ll be back for the draft in April.)
Now here’s all the dumb stuff:
Have a great off-season. (We’ll be back for the draft in April.)
Friday, February 01, 2008
A Bill Belichick Fantasy; plus, the SMA Super Bowl Prediction
[University of Phoenix Stadium. Glendale, Arizona. February 3, 2008. The New England Patriots locker room. Minutes prior to Super Bowl XLII.]
Bill Belichick: Well, fellas, here we are. One game away from perfection. 19-0. Where no man has gone before. At this point, after this long season—including some early-season BS that cost me half a million dollars—it seems like there really is nothing more that needs to be said.
Nevertheless, I want you to listen up, and I want you to listen up good.
We’re going out here to play a football game against another professional NFL team. A team that has won 13 games this year. And if there’s one thing every single one of you guys knows, it’s that in football, sh*t happens. No matter how well a team has prepared, no matter how natively talented its individual players are, no matter how remote the chance that a lesser team might beat a better team—sh*t f***in’ happens. Balls take weird bounces. Somebody catches a break. Then that same somebody gets lucky on an interference call in the end zone. Then they get an early score that no one ever figured was possible. Suddenly you’re behind. And just as suddenly, this same lucky team picks off a pass that might’ve been thrown just a little more accurately. Suddenly, they’ve got field position again and maybe they kick a field goal. Then the lucky team’s defense starts to get aggressive, and you suddenly realize that they’ve got some talented physical guys playing on the defensive line—guys who aren’t just lucky, but who are capable of kicking ass. Then they start to kick ass, and suddenly all bets are off, and you’re in the game of your life.
Well, today, I don’t WANT the game of my life. I want to go 19-0, and I don’t want the embarrassment of having to talk to some ESPN lady who’s shoving a microphone in my face as I leave the field, asking me “Coach, what happened out there?” Or, “Coach, what’s going through your mind right now?” I don’t want to go to a postgame press conference where dozens and dozens of reporters are going to want me to dissect every little detail of a game we lost.
Trust me, you guys don’t want that either.
So, what are YOU gonna do about it?
Well, I’ll tell you what you’re gonna do about it. You’re gonna go out there in that first quarter, and you’re gonna play your asses off like you know how. You’re not gonna take these guys for granted. Instead, you’re gonna show ‘em how to play professional football in every phase of the game. You will make precise, crushing blocks to protect your quarterback and open up holes for your running backs. You will run precise routes and you will not drop one pass. You will play defense like it’s the last game you’ll ever get the chance to play on this earth. You will never let up. You’ll sprint to every ball carrier or receiver on every single play. You’ll rush the passer with all the fury you’ve got, because he’s trying to deny you your destiny. You’ll deliver bone-crunching tackles on every play, and you won’t lose your cool and do something stupid like get flagged for a personal foul. If you get flagged on some sh*t questionable pass interference call, you will suck it up and clamp down on their receivers on the very next play without second-guessing yourself. You will give up your bodies on every single special teams play.
Ideally, if we do what we’ve been doing all year, only with the ultimate effort I’m asking of you, this thing will be over at halftime.
If you let these sonofabitch Giants steal your destiny, I will never forgive you. But most of all, you will never be able to forgive yourselves.
Now let’s go play some football.
Super Bowl XLII
New York Giants (13-6) vs. New England Patriots (18-0)
Feb. 3, 6 p.m. EST, FOX-TV
I keep wondering if there is any way the Giants can actually win this game. But no matter how you slice it, it just doesn’t seem possible. Let’s look at some of the key markers.
1. History: Superior teams usually win the Super Bowl. It’s just a fact.
2. Quarterback: Tom Brady vs. Eli Manning. Arguably the greatest quarterback ever against Peyton’s little brother, who’s had a nice little run here in the playoffs avoiding errors and making enough passes to win.
3. Running back: We kept waiting for the Giants’ Brandon Jacobs to take over a game. He plays well, but he doesn’t dominate. Fleet-footed Ahmad Bradshaw is an interesting case. Is he the Timmy Smith of 2008? But for overall dependability, the Pats have Laurence Maroney, who can run inside and out. Plus, they have Kevin Faulk and Heath Evans, who ensure variety in the ground attack.
4. Receivers: Well, you could be deferential to the Giants and call this a wash. Both teams have talented wideouts and tight ends. Except Brady is throwing to the Pats receivers, which probably makes them the better squad.
5. Defense: The Giants have an excellent defensive line, but their secondary is suspect. The Patriots’ bend-but-only-break-a-little-sometimes D has some encroaching age, but it’s doubtful that it’ll affect their performance critically for one more game. They play well as a unit generally, and as long as the Pats’ offense is putting points on the board—the line must protect Brady sufficiently, which they usually do—the final tote should put the Pats in the plus column.
Prediction: Patriots 27, Giants 20
Bill Belichick: Well, fellas, here we are. One game away from perfection. 19-0. Where no man has gone before. At this point, after this long season—including some early-season BS that cost me half a million dollars—it seems like there really is nothing more that needs to be said.
Nevertheless, I want you to listen up, and I want you to listen up good.
We’re going out here to play a football game against another professional NFL team. A team that has won 13 games this year. And if there’s one thing every single one of you guys knows, it’s that in football, sh*t happens. No matter how well a team has prepared, no matter how natively talented its individual players are, no matter how remote the chance that a lesser team might beat a better team—sh*t f***in’ happens. Balls take weird bounces. Somebody catches a break. Then that same somebody gets lucky on an interference call in the end zone. Then they get an early score that no one ever figured was possible. Suddenly you’re behind. And just as suddenly, this same lucky team picks off a pass that might’ve been thrown just a little more accurately. Suddenly, they’ve got field position again and maybe they kick a field goal. Then the lucky team’s defense starts to get aggressive, and you suddenly realize that they’ve got some talented physical guys playing on the defensive line—guys who aren’t just lucky, but who are capable of kicking ass. Then they start to kick ass, and suddenly all bets are off, and you’re in the game of your life.
Well, today, I don’t WANT the game of my life. I want to go 19-0, and I don’t want the embarrassment of having to talk to some ESPN lady who’s shoving a microphone in my face as I leave the field, asking me “Coach, what happened out there?” Or, “Coach, what’s going through your mind right now?” I don’t want to go to a postgame press conference where dozens and dozens of reporters are going to want me to dissect every little detail of a game we lost.
Trust me, you guys don’t want that either.
So, what are YOU gonna do about it?
Well, I’ll tell you what you’re gonna do about it. You’re gonna go out there in that first quarter, and you’re gonna play your asses off like you know how. You’re not gonna take these guys for granted. Instead, you’re gonna show ‘em how to play professional football in every phase of the game. You will make precise, crushing blocks to protect your quarterback and open up holes for your running backs. You will run precise routes and you will not drop one pass. You will play defense like it’s the last game you’ll ever get the chance to play on this earth. You will never let up. You’ll sprint to every ball carrier or receiver on every single play. You’ll rush the passer with all the fury you’ve got, because he’s trying to deny you your destiny. You’ll deliver bone-crunching tackles on every play, and you won’t lose your cool and do something stupid like get flagged for a personal foul. If you get flagged on some sh*t questionable pass interference call, you will suck it up and clamp down on their receivers on the very next play without second-guessing yourself. You will give up your bodies on every single special teams play.
Ideally, if we do what we’ve been doing all year, only with the ultimate effort I’m asking of you, this thing will be over at halftime.
If you let these sonofabitch Giants steal your destiny, I will never forgive you. But most of all, you will never be able to forgive yourselves.
Now let’s go play some football.
Super Bowl XLII
New York Giants (13-6) vs. New England Patriots (18-0)
Feb. 3, 6 p.m. EST, FOX-TV
I keep wondering if there is any way the Giants can actually win this game. But no matter how you slice it, it just doesn’t seem possible. Let’s look at some of the key markers.
1. History: Superior teams usually win the Super Bowl. It’s just a fact.
2. Quarterback: Tom Brady vs. Eli Manning. Arguably the greatest quarterback ever against Peyton’s little brother, who’s had a nice little run here in the playoffs avoiding errors and making enough passes to win.
3. Running back: We kept waiting for the Giants’ Brandon Jacobs to take over a game. He plays well, but he doesn’t dominate. Fleet-footed Ahmad Bradshaw is an interesting case. Is he the Timmy Smith of 2008? But for overall dependability, the Pats have Laurence Maroney, who can run inside and out. Plus, they have Kevin Faulk and Heath Evans, who ensure variety in the ground attack.
4. Receivers: Well, you could be deferential to the Giants and call this a wash. Both teams have talented wideouts and tight ends. Except Brady is throwing to the Pats receivers, which probably makes them the better squad.
5. Defense: The Giants have an excellent defensive line, but their secondary is suspect. The Patriots’ bend-but-only-break-a-little-sometimes D has some encroaching age, but it’s doubtful that it’ll affect their performance critically for one more game. They play well as a unit generally, and as long as the Pats’ offense is putting points on the board—the line must protect Brady sufficiently, which they usually do—the final tote should put the Pats in the plus column.
Prediction: Patriots 27, Giants 20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)