FRONT PAGE

ABOUT ORNERY

WORLD WATCH

SPORTS BLOG

GUEST ESSAYS

FORUMS

CONTACT US

	E-mail this page

Saturday, 11 November 2006 11:32 pm

Pick 'em ('cause I've just about given up)

I keep hearing people talk about some Dallas/Washington game last week, and I don't know what they're talking about. The Cowboys had a bye week last week. So did the Redskins. Um... On to the picks: 2006 season: 80-48 (6-8 last week) - ATLANTA over Cleveland So I wasn't far off about Vick's follow-up performance last week - against the Lions, no less. Let's just hold off the Jesus comparisons just yet. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Merril.) And I wouldn't be surprised if the Browns gave him trouble as well. In fact, I'm counting on it. But the pick is still the Falcons. Sure, they're overrated, but I just don't see them losing to Detroit and Cleveland in consecutive weeks. - CINCINNATI over San Diego Maybe I'm just frightened by the prospect of change, so I keep on expecting teams like the Bengals, Steelers and Panthers to snap out of it and beat a good team (or any team, for that matter). So I'm doing it again. I know the team that scared the crap out of playoff teams last January is still in there somewhere. And maybe LaDainian will have one of his 19-carries-for-41-yards days. And don't laugh - this has nothing on my Steelers-over-Saints pick. No, go on, scroll down, see for yourself. See how I picked the Steelers. Really, I beg you. It's gonna be a great day. - DETROIT over San Francisco I feel like picking the Niners after their win over the Vikes and with Alex Smith continuing to come around, but does this look like a 4-5 team? No, it doesn't. And let's not forget the, um, raucous Lions crowd. (Hey, after the World Series, they need SOMETHING to cheer for.) - BALTIMORE over Tennessee Screw the Ravens. They're losing in the first round. By the way, do you think the Titans will allow Steve McNair into the stadium, or will they lock him out again? It's worth asking. - INDIANAPOLIS over Buffalo OK, Peyton, you beat the Pats at their home. You're really, really good. But you don't have to rub it in by throwing eight touchdowns against the Bills. That's just showing off. - KANSAS CITY over Miami Insert Damon Huard joke here. Oh, who am I kidding? They've all been used already. Hope Dolphins fans enjoy the show, because he's here for one night only. - MINNESOTA over Green Bay Are you kidding? Favre sucked in domed stadiums even when he was good. Yeah I know, WAY back. - NEW ENGLAND over NY Jets Last week, Peyton Manning beat the Pats' secondary deep on a few nice passes - not really a shocker considering how vulnerable the N.E. secondary has become over the past two seasons. That weakness would potentially be a problem with the Jets, too - if, of course, Chad Pennington could throw the ball farther than 25 yards. - PHILADELPHIA over Washington Is a tie too much to ask for? - DALLAS over Arizona I don't want to talk about it. - PITTSBURGH over New Orleans Like everyone else, I've been pimping the guy for months. I was devastated when I didn't land him in either of my fantasy-football leagues. But seriously, someone has got to take Reggie Bush aside and explain to him that, when he sees an open hole right in front of him, RUN. STRAIGHT. FORWARD. His rushing instincts thus far know no logic - I don't understand it. Run straight forward, Reggie. One foot in front of the other. You're kiling us. And you're making Charlie Casserly look like a genius. I actually just typed that. Do you think if Bush had an entire open field in front of him, no defenders in sight, he would try to juke and stutter-step his way down the length of the field? Does he think he's shooting a commercial or something? - SEATTLE over St. Louis Still can't trust a team that almost lost to San Francisco, Green Bay and Arizona, DID lose to San Francisco, and has now dropped three straight despite facing teams that have been without Shaun Alexander and Trent Green. But that's just me. Put your chips on the Rams if you like. - NY GIANTS over Chicago I don't want it to happen, but I can't trust Grossman and the Bears, in a tough road environment, after some of their performances in recent weeks. Although the absences of both Strahan AND Umenyiora certainly helps matters. - CAROLINA over Tampa Bay Don't ask me why, but I've watched a lot of Panthers-Buccaneers games over the years, and they're always miserable to watch. They're always decided by stupid things like missed extra points, muffed punts or, I don't know, game-clock malfunctions. Blackouts. Weird stuff like that. This was definitely an excellent choice for Monday Night Football.

Saturday, 11 November 2006 6:11 pm

Mmmm...this crow tastes delicious

At this time of year, the only thing I really care about is football. Everything else is just too early. The Atlanta Hawks are leading the Eastern Conference. Eric Lindros hasn't even had his first concussion yet. (By the way, that's hockey.) About half of what I see from the NBA is through the Utah Jazz, who I've been covering for a few years and following for even longer. And at this point, having seen home games against the Rockets, Pistons and Warriors and road games against the Suns, Celtics and Nets, I still can't make any real value judgments. Once again, the Atlanta Hawks are on top of the conference. Some people are already making "if the season ended today, [insert player here] would be the MVP"-type columns. Tongue in cheek or not, it's a waste of time - theirs, mine and yours. So I won't go there. (Allen Iverson.) So it's all about football for me - even moreso this year because of the miserably depressing end to the baseball season. I got an e-mail the other day asking why I hadn't mentioned the World Series since I "glibly" picked the Tigers to win it all. (I don't know exactly what is "glib" about picking the 95-win team with the best pitching in baseball that everybody thought was going to win over the 83-win team that wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs in the American League, but that's just me.) Well, the reason I haven't brought it up is because...well, did you WATCH that series? That was one of the most boring sporting events I've ever seen - there's just nothing to say. It was ugly baseball. Nothing against the Cardinals or their fans - they beat the Tigers fair and square, they outplayed them, they deserve it. It's just depressing, is all. All non-Cards fans nationwide know what I'm talking about. But that's not what we're here to talk about - no, I have some answering to do regarding the whole Brady/Manning thing. There's really no denying it - Manning completely outplayed Brady, he played a great game, he won a big regular-season game in front of a tough crowd against his biggest nemesis. Brady played his worst game since that Monday nighter against the Dolphins a couple of years back. He threw into coverage when he didn't need to, he (and the Pats coaching staff) forced the passing game, and Manning lit up the New England defense. No way around it. It still doesn't change my overall opinion in any way. I'd still put money against the Colts come January. Nothing really changes. I was just impressed. And wrong. (In fact, I got everything wrong last week. I hate football.) Anyway, a few scattered thoughts: - During the Pats-Vikings game a couple of weeks ago, my buddy Adam (a Boston native and die-hard Pats fan) called me to tell me about this interview with Brady regarding why he sn't the celebrity Manning is, why he doesn't do all the commercials, PR., etc. To which Brady supposedly replied something along the lines of "Every minute spent shooting a commercial is a minute you're NOT on the practice field." Adam gave me the typical rah-rah "that's why Brady is better than Manning" speech, followed by several seconds of silence, followed by this gem from Adam: "If they asked Drew Bledsoe that question, he'd just fall over." - Regarding my Sox' possible acquisition of Daisuke Matsuzaka...I'm just going to approach it with cautious optimism. My first impulse is to leap with joy, but I'm not going to get my hopes too high just yet. I already suffered through Year One of Josh Beckett's five-year contract. I'm not ready to be disappointed again. Adam, of course, is a little more pessimistic. He called me today and said, "Ironically, Daisuke Matsuzaka's name translated into English is Matt Clement." Adam gets depressed sometimes. - I don't understand sporting events anymore. Just today, I was sitting at the Utah/Colorado State football game at Rice-Eccles Stadium, where on a weekly basis there's this crazy lady who gets up in front of the marching band and dances spasmodically (and poorly) for three or four minutes. And people watch this. And they put her on the video screen. And people cheer. I honestly don't understand. She does nothing but dance like an idiot for a couple of minutes, and all of a sudden she's a small-time local celeb. Some might say she's just adding a little fun; I say she needs to get a life. I'm against this in general - people who are famous for doing, effectively, nothing. Anyway, it's not just that. We had two streakers run onto the field during the game, and I use the term 'streaker' loosely because they were fully clothed, bundled up in layerse, nice and warm, puffy coats and everything. Is this what "streaking" has been reduced to? What happened to all the genitals? It was a mockery, I tell you. A mockery. - Please don't tell me we're actually taking our celebration cues from Miller Lite commercials. Especially ones starring Eddie Griffin. Please tell me sports fans can be more creative than that. Please.

Sunday, 5 November 2006 3:57 am

Brady-Manning VIII

It's been an exhausting week - I'm just about Brady-and-Manning'd out. We've been having the arguments all week, it's been all over talk radio and ESPN's daytime slate, and you know you've been no exception. Most of us are in one camp or the other, so it's only natural that the arguments start up again when the Patriots and Colts are set to play each other again, with Brady and Manning going head-to-head for the eighth time. Those who know me know which camp I'm in, so instead of going into all my reasons again, I'm instead going to post excerpts of the argument my buddy Piper and I had at the beginning of the season. Yes, only excerpts - the entire argument would be way too long, and tangential, at that. (Sprinkled in amid our Brady-Manning battle are arguments about whether or not Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward of all-time, among others.) And yes, these excerpts have been cleaned up, as this is a family site. The argument took place on the message board of our fantasy-football league - it started because of an innocent comment Piper made about Carson Palmer being on the verge of "supplanting Peyton Manning as the best quarterback in the NFL." To which I took exception. And yes, I understand that it's lame to have this argument over the Internet instead of face-to-face like real men, perhaps even culminating in fisticuffs, but....well, interpersonal communication can be a problem because I hate people. Anyway.... (and no, this isn't completely self-indulgent...not at all) BELLAMY (Sept. 2, 3:26 a.m.): I didn't have a single problem with anything you said...until that Peyton Manning/Carson Palmer comment. Best QB in the NFL? Anyone who has watched the NFL over the last four or five years and still thinks that Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady really isn't paying attention. Out of respect for Piper, I'll refrain from handing out one of those "anyone who doesn't think 'X' is an idiot" comments, but believe me, I was tempted. If you're talking solely about "best" in terms of fantasy stats, then my apologies - Manning just might be the best fantasy QB...but not in real life. PIPER (Sept. 2, 4:40 a.m.) Guess what Tom Brady said? "Stop calling me, Chris Bellamy." Seriously though, like the Pats wouldn't have won four in a row with Manning. Quarterbacks are judged so unfairly. Everyone thinks Joe Montana's the greatest ever, but Marino would have won 5 Super Bowl titles with the Giants, Bills, Bears, Cowboys, or 49ers. Imagine if Detroit had spent 25$ mill to lure Marino instead of Mitchell? On the flip side, if Brady had been with the Colts he'd have been out of the league after a 2-14 season, and he'd probably be fetching Lloyd Carr's coffee for $50 a day. Brady's a legend, but Manning's better. BELLAMY (Sept. 2, 1:41 p.m.) That's such BS, Piper. Montana won his first two Super Bowls without Jerry Rice and without a running back. Tom Brady won his first two without any receivers who were anything more than adequate, and with you and me platooning at RB. You may be right that QBs are judged unfairly at times - but only at times. The fact is that the quarterback is probably the most important position on any team sport. The reason Peyton Manning hasn't won a Super Bowl is because of Peyton Manning - he has continually broken down in the playoffs, he has continually not been able to raise his game as Brady has (especially the 2nd and 3rd titles). It's the same reason that Elway was better than Marino [edit: not to mention Montana, the best quarterback in history]. Marino would NOT have won 5 Super Bowls with all those teams. He was in the playoffs just about every year, and he couldn't even have one of those miracle three- or four-game runs where he's just unstoppable and leads his team to a title? Not even once? There's a reason for that - it was Marino. Every now and then, a team gets lucky and the QB is less important and just rides the team's coattails. But those are special circumstances - like the 2000 Ravens because of that legendary defense (not to mention that the whole league sucked that season). But back to Elway - for years, his season statistics were TERRIBLE (only until the last few years of his career). If you just look at his stats, you'd think he was a mediocre quarterback. You'd think Ken O'Brien was better. But he also led the Broncos to five Super Bowls - and no, it wasn't Dan Reeves who led them, it was his quarterback. Quarterback is as important as it gets - when Peyton Manning even GETS to a Super Bowl, maybe all those stats will actually mean something. Maybe. Until then, he's simply not at Brady's level. You know how he puts up those numbers? By throwing eight touchdowns a game against crappy teams like Houston, Tennessee, Jacksonville (until last year) and plenty of others. He's a great quarterback, but he's got to do more than that. PIPER (Sept. 4, 9:31 a.m.) Peyton Manning never had as good a team as Brady post-Rams Super Bowl (whatever year that was, I was drunk at the time). Like Marino, Manning's teams wouldn't have ever even made the playoffs without his leadership, and then when they fail it's blamed on him. It's really pretty ridiculous. You don't see Brady passing for 350 yards in playoff games, either. PLUS - consider that the Colts traditionally allow 76 points by halftime in playoff games, and that Manning is forced to pass when they know it's coming. If Manning wins this year, please spare us a "I'll concede, Manning has finally come around" column. He had a 120-something QB rating last year, he doesn't need your approval. BELLAMY (Sept. 4, 3:01 p.m.) Are you kidding me? Talent-wise, Manning has had a better offensive team than Brady BY FAR for the last five years. Does ANY Pats running back compare to Edgerrin James in his prime? No. Does any Pats wide receiver compare to either Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne? No. And the Colts' offensive line is way better than New England's. They only allowed 20 sacks last year (best in the league). They allowed FOURTEEN sacks the year before that (best in the league). The year before that, it was 19 (third). The year before that, 23 (fourth). Not to mention the fact that the Colts play on turf. So don't even try to sell that argument - you know it's BS. Peyton Manning has WAY more help than Brady and he always has. Even the subpar defense doesn't help your argument - how many times over the last few years did the Colts have a particular game decided by halftime, and Manning still comes out firing in the second half and gratuitously inflating his numbers? It happens a lot. The Colts have had every opportunity to be an elite team, just like the Dolphins did. Manning has repeatedly broken down in the playoffs and you know it. Just look at those two (or was it three?) playoff games against the Pats. Look at last year's second-round game against the Steelers. And Marino's Dolphins had some really excellent teams during his run, so don't try that, either. Don Shula was a great coach and, from year to year (just like the Colts this decade), tons of people ALWAYS picked the Dolphins to go to, or win, the Super Bowl, and it never happened. And it hasn't happened for Manning, either. But, you know, he DID throw 49 touchdown passes in a season, so he'll always have that. And that's something. PIPER (Sept. 5, 12:02 a.m.) you really think edge is that great? we'll see this year in arizona. as for harrison, wayne, stokely, the offensive line, and not getting sacked - i think (honestly) at least 50% of the credit for all of that goes to manning. dominic rhodes was just as good as edge, and whoever plays receiver gets 12321129 yards a game. is it tony dungy's offensive brilliance? is it the revolving door of an offensive line? i wonder what the x factor is there in indy?...hmmmm... tom brady can't take credit for "making" any receivers or running backs, and he plays a far less vital role in play calling and decision making. he doesn't throw as accurately, he's only just figuring out how to toss a good deep ball (according to reports), and he should have had a couple of bad playoff collapses that would have put him right there with manning. and to say there's not much difference between the defenses they've had is ludicrous. oh, and for the record, i hate manning and root against him every chance i get. and i like brady. and i also like to go out on a limb. but even considering all that, i'm not stupid enough to think any quarterback in the league is better than peyton. PIPER again (Sept. 5, 12:05...three minutes later) i mean that brady should have had playoff collapses if it wasn't for the fact that he's the luckiest qb to have ever lived. period. that's what i meant. just wanted to clear things up. p.s. you point to dilfer's ravens as a fluke which disproves the qb rule, forgetting that brady's role with the 2001 winners wasn't much different. (let's skip a few...) BELLAMY (Sept. 5, 8:25 p.m.) First of all, there are a LOT of people who would pick Brady over Manning if they were picking a team right now. I think there was some poll given to NFL coaches last year, and I don't remember the results...but if I remember correctly, Brady edged out Manning. I'm trying to find it online...maybe you could help me...Anyway... I seriously don't understand how people still buy into Manning's hype when he repeatedly, like clockwork, falls apart when it matters. And no, he hasn't lost in the playoffs because his defense wasn't good enough. He has lost because he hasn't performed well. He's 3-6 in the playoffs. In those six losses, the Colts offense has scored an average of 11.3 points per game. ELEVEN! No defense, good or bad, is going to help him there. The Colts are HIS team - they live and die by what he does. Everyone knows this. And they have consistently died in the playoffs. I know winning football games and being successful in the playoffs doesn't actually matter to some people, but it matters to most of us, and it matters to football teams and their fans, and it certainly matters to Manning. [note: the following argument was made simply because we are in Utah, where Karl Malone is worshipped by many, so I thought the Malone/Manning comparison, while flawed, might actually get through to people] Peyton Manning is the Karl Malone of the NFL. Malone's career stats from year to year are pretty incredible, and about as consistent as you could possibly get. He was an absolutely dominant power forward in his time, on both sides of the ball, and his numbers only justify that. His numbers are significantly better than those of Tim Duncan - so is he better than Duncan? No. Duncan raises his game come playoff time, and that's why he has three championships and Karl has none. Malone simply didn't get it done in the playoffs, year after year after year. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great player - he was. One of the best forwards ever. But Duncan will rightly go down as the better player. Manning is the same way - and he's the quarterback. He has less of an excuse even than Malone because he's actually in control of the game. There's a reason quarterbacks win all the MVPs and get the biggest salaries. Manning is probably in more control than any other quarterback in the league - and he still can't do anything come January. How much more proof do you need? He has phenomenal regular seasons every year. From season to season, he's the most statistically consistent player in the league. But he has done absolutely nothing in the playoffs - and you know he's had plenty of opportunity. He couldn't beat Brady and the Pats. He couldn't even beat Roethlisberger and the Steelers. And no, I'm not going to say that Big Ben is a better QB than Peyton because he won a Super Bowl - of course not. He's not in Manning's league yet and may never be. Manning is definitely one of the greats. But Brady has proven again and again and again, with MUCH less help than Manning, that he gets it done no matter what. He's beaten Manning down time and again, and he's won three Super Bowls. He has the best postseason numbers of any quarterback in NFL history - look it up. People like Elway, Jordan, Montana, Russell, Bird, Magic, etc - they didn't get to be known as all-time greats because of what they did in the regular season. It was what they did when it actually mattered that counted. Jordan could have scored all the points he wanted, but if he had lost in the second round of the playoffs every year, he wouldn't be remembered as he is today. And Elway - even before he won TWO Super Bowls - led the Broncos to countless wins they had no business winning, in games when they were totally outmatched. The Broncos were often the less talented team in the playoffs, or were outplayed for three quarters before Elway lifted them. You know this. He was 14-8 in the playoffs and went to FIVE Super Bowls. Marino was 8-10, went to one Super Bowl and got destroyed. Destroyed by a guy named Montana with, as I said, mediocre receivers and no running back. But Montana actually took his game to the next level - he was a special quarterback. Marino was great no matter what, but Montana was greater. This is the difference we're talking about - glamour vs. actual success. It's not like Brady is just riding coattails - after the first Super Bowl, sure. He definitely wasn't in Manning's league yet. The fact that he raised his game in the playoffs meant something - a big something - but he wasn't at that level yet. But at this point, he has surpassed Manning. Of course, maybe you think that Karl Malone is the greatest forward of all-time...ahead of Duncan. Maybe you think Marino is better than Montana. But I'd rather have someone who steps up under pressure than someone who falls apart under pressure - and Manning does that. It's a fact. He consistently falters under playoff pressure. Period. PIPER (Sept. 6, 2:18 p.m.) the only argument you've made is that Brady is better in the playoffs. Elway's stats didn't "suck," and Denver's teams were MUCH, MUCH better than the Dolphins over the course of their careers. And nobody EVER made the Marino v. Elway argument in the primes of their careers because everybody considered Elway a loser who killed his team in the playoffs, too (the whole "getting killed in three Super Bowls" thing). It's so coincidental whether a QB gets a Super Bowl title sometimes, and yet people like you analyze them as though "rings" is the only thing on the stat sheet (Oh, and by the way, Manning has seven years to win a Super Bowl before Elway). Yes, Brady has a lesser role and is less responsible for his offense. That DOES make Manning more responsible for the Colts' failures. It also makes him more responsible for their successes. The point is moot. MOST IMPORTANTLY: passing offenses always falter in the playoffs. If a team has to rely on the pass like Indianapolis because their defense can't play the field position game (a la the Pats), the quarterback is going to look bad when they lose. Brady has never shouldered that type of responsibility. In a way I feel bad for Manning, because of all the people like you who (in this case, at least) lack the depth of analysis to consider something other than a limited selection of results - like a lab rat who thinks he's found a paradise where cheese falls from the sky forever every time he hits a button, only to grow a third ear when the radiation sets in. When Manning does win a Super Bowl (does anybody doubt he will?), you're going to look awfully shortsighted when you concede that he's come around. There's more to things than pure results. BELLAMY (Sept. 8, 12:59 a.m.) Here's your argument in a nutshell: Peyton Manning is totally responsible for everything positive about the Colts - he deserves complete credit for the careers of Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, he deserves complete credit for their record-setting offense and for all their victories, basically he deserves all of the credit for every ounce of success that the Colts have...but whenever the Colts lose, self-destruct or when things go wrong for that team, suddenly it's not his fault. Suddenly it's not on his shoulders, it's everybody else's fault, he's not to blame. And that just doesn't make any sense. It's pure crap. You can't give someone all of the credit and none of the blame - that doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways; it doesn't work that way. So Manning is so great and magical that he takes a mediocre, average supporting cast, makes them all look great for 16 games, picks up 12, 13, 14 wins every year completely on his shoulders, but when they play like crap and lose in the playoffs, it's somebody else's fault. Right. And that "that passing offense doesn't work in the playoffs" argument doesn't hold any water, either. There have been tons of pass-first teams, and pass-first quarterbacks, who have won titles - plenty of quarterbacks who had to pass their way into the Super Bowl. PIPER (Sept. 8, 5:20 a.m.) Oh, and for Peyton Manning to win your acceptance now he's got to start passing for huge numbers without concentrating too much on any receiver, lest he spawn another star (Edge, Rhodes, Stokely, Wayne, Pollard, Clark to name just a few raised out of obscurity by Manning) and deflect praiseworthiness away from himself. You're a tough guy to impress. (A QB is 1/22nd of his team. Less if you count special teams. I truly believe, as I told Chris, there's no way you can hold a QB any more responsible than your average point guard, who has a similar influence on a basketball game. But point guards aren't blamed for everything that goes wrong, and then accused of being no-talent opportunists every time they complete a pass to a teammate for the score.) I CAN have it both ways, because pass offenses DO traditionally do horrible in the playoffs and virtually EVERY pass first defense that has been successful had a dominant defense or running game that was able to support them in field position. The Colts did get better last year, but for most of Manning's career this was the typical storyline: Colts score quick. Other team gets ball and (for the first time all season) slowly pounds away against the Colt defense on the ground instead of taking what they can get (a much quicker TD). After an 8 minute drive they either score or give the Colts the ball back on the 2. This happens a couple of times until the Colts finally screw up one drive, and the other team either sits on the ball and forces Manning to pass on every down to catch up or just seizes the advantage and crushes the Colt D with a big strike. Manning could carry the Colts on his back in the regular season because offenses aren't as smart - they try to outgun the Colts. In the playoffs the onus is on the COLTS not to screw up because they can't stop the run. And I know their running game was Ok, but for that to have a big enough impact to offset this effect they'd have to have Smith, Thomas, Sanders, Payton, etc. BELLAMY (Sept. 8, 9:42 a.m.) Where are you even getting your information? First of all, Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark were all first-round picks. They had great college careers and were highly-talented, highly-regarded prospects before they ever went to the Colts. As for your "pass offenses never win in the playoffs" claim: -The 2000 Rams, with Kurt Warner: A pass-happy offense that passed its way into the Super Bowl. The defense was mediocre at best. And, as you pointed out a few weeks ago when we were looking at Marshall Faulk's stats, their running game wasn't dominant in a grind-it-out, control-the-clock sort of way - Faulk wasn't that kind of runner. He was dominant because of his overall skills - particularly his effectiveness in the passing game. -Brett Favre and the Packers typically didn't have a running game during their best years. Edgar Bennett? Who the crap is Edgar Bennett? -Until his third Super Bowl trophy (when Dillon was around), even Tom Brady didn't have a running back. Antowain Smith? Mr. 3.5-yards-per-carry? -Joe Montana never had a great, control-the-clock running game. He had Roger Craig - a pass-catching back. Montana was in a pass-first offense and passed considerably more in the postseason than he did in the regular season. He passed his way to four championships. -Steve Young didn't have a dominant running game, either. Ricky Watters wasn't that good - and his best years didn't come until he went to Philadelphia. Young and the 49ers won the '94 Super Bowl purely through passing. The Colts have failed in the playoffs not because their defense has been suspect, but because their offense has completely broken down in big games against good teams. The person at the head of those breakdowns is Peyton Manning. Yeah, I'm sure the reason the Colts lost the 2003 AFC title game is all because of their defense - and not the fact that Manning threw FOUR interceptions and played the whole game with a deer-in-the-headlights look. I'm sure the reason they lost to the Pats in the second round the following year was all because of a bad defense (and I'll admit, it was bad that year), but had nothing to do with the fact that Manning couldn't lead a single TD-scoring drive all day against a secondary without a single decent cornerback (remember, that was the year Ty Law was out and Troy Brown, a wide receiver, had to start at CB). Or I'm sure that in 2002, when the Colts got blown out 41-0 by a 9-7 Jets team, it was just bad luck again for Manning - it wasn't at all because Manning was 14-for-31 and hardly got the ball past midfield all day long. When they lost to Pittsburgh last year - at home, in their comfy domed stadium, after a 14-2 regular season - I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Manning and the Colts' O went 3-13 on third down and couldn't pass once they got in Pittsburgh territory - it was just bad defense. No, no, wait - that wasn't it. It was Tony Dungy's dead son - that's why they lost. It wasn't Peyton Manning's fault at all. It certainly had nothing to do with the fact that he couldn't handle a pass rush (which every quarterback is forced to do from time to time). Have you ever seen him try to handle pressure from a defense? It's a bloody tragedy. Your arguments once again conflict each other - you argue that Manning is in complete control of his offense (which is true), and that his style of offense can't work in the playoffs. Well then, if he's in control of that offense, he has the power to change the approach of said offense depending on the circumstances and the opponent. He runs the no-huddle constantly - he CHOOSES to run the offense that way. He could slow it down if he wanted to, but he doesn't. If he can't control the clock, it's his own fault for failing to recognize the need for an adjustment, right? He has had one of the best receiving running backs in the leagu,e his receivers are excellent at running short routes - he could try to control the clock better, thus helping out his defense, with that type of personnel. So why doesn't he? Of course, if he did that too much, his stats wouldn't look nearly as good, and that would be too much to bear. (a few minutes later...) What everyone seems to forget is that this type of thing has always been a problem for Peyton Manning - right back to his career at Tennessee. I'm not going to blame him for not winning a title - it's college, and one loss can sink you because of the BS polling process that decides things. But remember (and this was a big deal back then, but college careers of NFL players are always forgotten), Manning was 0-3 against Florida, the Vols' biggest rival, and played terribly against them. In one of those losses, he threw four interceptions IN THE FIRST HALF. Somehow, he was always undefeated against all the other average, mid-level teams in the SEC, but when it was a high-pressure situation against Florida, all of a sudden he was ordinary, or worse. In his senior season, with his best Tennessee team, in a year when a lot of people were picking the Vols to win it all, not only did they lose to Florida again, but they went to the Orange Bowl and got destroyed by Nebraska, 42-17. But don't worry, Piper - I'm sure Tennessee's defense just had a really bad game...or, I don't know, a magical fairy gave the Cornhuskers the ability to fly or something. Manning certainly couldn't do anything about that. So, if anyone's wondering, this is not just some recent trend that has come up over the past few years as Manning hasn't won a Super Bowl. This has been the knock on Manning for a long time. Now, Piper would have us believe that this is all just a coincidence. He can actually look, not at 8 years of Manning's NFL career, but at ELEVEN YEARS' worth of evidence, and with a straight face say none of it is Manning's fault. That the fact that his college and NFL careers have been practically carbon copies of one another - the big numbers, beating all the teams he's supposed to beat, choking in all the important games - is just coincidental. Not his fault. But it's not coincidence - it's 11 years of evidence that Manning has faltered under pressure, broken down, choked, in every big, important, pressure game of his career, without exception. You're an apologist, Piper. You remind me of Sean Hannity, giving all the credit to Bush when things are going well, and giving him none of the blame when things are bad. PIPER (Sept. 8, 7:27 p.m.) my arguments are all generalities that apply in most cases. Your arguments are all isolated cases (point guard thing, the Rams, Tennessee - in which case you forget that Brady was a liability at the helm for Michigan). So I'll accept the Hannity comparison in a liberal/conservative way. YOU were the one who says Peyton Manning is responsible for everything that happens on offense, not me. I'm not apologizing for any circumstance - things are how they are. Brady's a title winner and Manning's not. If that's your only real point, you win. I'll end this argument with this: I'll bet you $50 Manning wins a Super Bowl before Brady (an impossibility, according to your previous statements). BELLAMY (Sept. 9, 4:36 p.m.) Isolated cases? Do you ever listen at all? I didn't just use the Rams as an example - I used the Rams, Montana's 49ers, Young's 49ers, Favre's Packers, and even, to a lesser extent, Brady's Patriots. Tennessee is an isolated example? What does that even mean? What about Manning's Tennessee career is "isolated"? He didn't win a truly big, meaningful game his entire career at Tennessee. That's not an isolated example - it's called a "pattern." -pat*tern (noun): "a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement" And no one here is arguing that Brady had a better college career than Manning. But to say Brady was a liability with the Wolverines means you probably don't watch much Michigan football. During his two years as starter, he was 20-5; that's like a one-game difference from Manning's junior and senior seasons. He won one conference title and won the Orange Bowl. I'm not going to make any excuses or arguments about Brady's career - he was a good quarterback and nothing more. Just good. What I'm saying is that all you've done is make excuse after excuse after excuse for Manning, and I'm pointing out that you can somehow actually look at a career, in which the player in question has broken down in EVERY TRULY MEANINGFUL, IMPORTANT GAME OF HIS CAREER - and you still can't see that it's a pattern or a tendency or a problem in anyway, but instead make excuses for him and say it's not all his fault. It's like taking a starting pitcher who's 4-17 with a 6.87 ERA in his playoff career, and saying that he only loses because of poor run support. Well, poor run support doesn't really matter when you pitch like that, does it? And by the way, you DID say that Peyton Manning was responsible for practically everything, and you HAVE apologized for circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I made the argument about the importance of the quarterback, and I stand by it, but: I pointed out that he had Edgerrin James, Harrison/Wayne and a great offensive line, and you said that was all because of Manning, that he deserved the credit for making them all look good. I said that the Colts were always really good or great in the regular season, but somehow couldn't win in the playoffs - and you argued that that was all because he had a bad team, not because he played bad. So please, Piper - you should at least try to remember your own arguments. PIPER (Sept. 10, 4:19 a.m.) Tennessee is an isolated example because Manning only lost one truly big game with a great team (Lewis, Price, etc.) - the championship. How you figure he's 4-17 with a 6.87 ERA in big games is beyond me. Like Tony pointed out, he's really never done that poorly in those games since his first trip to the playoffs. It's not like he makes dopey throws or misses open guys. All of the teams you mentioned (Rams, Walsh 49ers, Packers, Pats) had more dynamic teams than the Colts for the last few years, and what's more, all of them had superior coaching and a great deal of luck on the way to their titles. It's a 1/22 thing, and Manning's only had one decent, serious chance (last year). He could be so good that he almost singlehandedly wins a Super Bowl 50% of the time, consistently, and you haven't even given the coin another flip to see if that's the case. My argument about the rest of the Colts sucking doesn't mean that Manning ONLY gets credit for positive results (the players you mentioned) and not negative - but since you have already pointed out the negatives at such great length I merely countered with positives. I am not hypocritical for suggesting that Manning is both A. responsible for much of his team's success, and B. unjustly criticized, at least to some degree, for their collapses. A world can exist where both of those statements are true. Oh, and not only do I know something about Michigan football, I was a huge fan when Brady was there, and watched every game he started. He wasn't an outright liability, no. But compared to Brian Griese he was. My dad used to joke that he couldn't throw it past the first down marker. Meanwhile NFL GMS were "stupid enough" to take the loser Manning with the first pick, wisdom the Colts no doubt regret heeding now that they're stuck with a QB who cannot possibly win the Super Bowl. I'm glad you took my bet - Vegas wouldn't have. So now then... I gave him the last word and that was that. I couldn't respond any more. I didn't have it in me. But we're still friends...if we were of the female persuasion, we would have spread dirty rumors about each others' sexual habits and given each other the silent treatment for three months until we were suddenly BFFs again...I love sports arguments. They don't really matter in the slightest, but they sure seem to. Anyway, I'm a Brady guy. My opinion has never been more stringent than it is now. Hope you got through all that. Then again, many of you have probably had similar arguments. And by the way, in case you don't know, I'm not a Patriots fan. You may think I am because I'm a Red Sox fan - to the extent that I've spent a few recent nights not dating, but re-watching every game of the 2004 ALCS in their entireties - but I'm not a Pats fan. I like them well enough, and I like Brady, but I've been a die-hard Cowboys fan since I was a little kid. (I know, it doesn't make sense...my teams are from all over the map...needless to say, I didn't grow up in a "sports town.") Aspects of this season have only continued to prove my point about the respective supporting casts of Brady and Manning. Harrison, Wayne and that offensive line (only 7 sacks allowed) continue to stand out, while Brady is stuck with a glut of no-name receivers, all of whom are average AT BEST. (I like Chad Jackson, but he's a rookie who definitely looks like a rookie.) Needless to say, I'm looking forward to Sunday night's game. Boy, am I ever looking forward to it. But on to the rest of the picks, starting with the most obvious one. - NEW ENGLAND over Indianapolis Need I repeat myself? I know - Manning finally beat the Pats last year. Good for him. The New England secondary was awful and he took full advantage of it. He played great. That makes one win against Brady. Five more and he'll be all tied up! But it's not going to happen this year. The Colts are going to lose sometime, the Pats (and Brady) are peaking at just the right time, and it's at Gillette (The Best A Man Can Get!!!) Stadium. Peytie-Weytie's had some bad experiences at New England...this will be another. - GREEN BAY over Buffalo I have to admit, I'm disappointed with the Bills. Not that I thought they were going to be any good - I never though much of J.P. Losman, so that was always a handicap. I just thought they'd be one of those teams that slows down the pace of play with a tough defense that keeps the team in contention and is able to grind out a few wins against teams it shouldn't beat...like the Redskins last year, only not as good. After all, the Bills almost beat the Pats in week one (though now it's clear the Pats just hadn't hit their stride yet). But then they went and lost to Detroit. I'm never picking them again. I expected more, guys. I expected scrappiness. - CHICAGO over Miami Although it WOULD be funny if all those insecure losers from the 1972 Dolphins team still showed up and tried to break up the Bears' perfect season (just like they did in '85) and somehow pulled it off again. OK, maybe more "pathetic" than funny, at least on the part of the ex-players themselves, who, if the point was not already made, need to get a life. But...well...the point is, I'm not watching this game. - ATLANTA over Detroit Cool your jets, man. The Falcons aren't going to the Super Bowl. Although I will admit, as one of Michael Vick's biggest critics, that he has impressed me over the last two weeks. This feels like one of those games, just as everyone's starting to hype Vick again, when he craps the bed and throws a "9-for-23, 77 yards, 2 INTs" line on the stat sheet. But either way, they're not losing to the Lions. Question: Why hasn't Matt Millen been fired yet. Also, is Mike Williams still alive? Anyway, back to Vick: He did the same thing last year, if you remember. He put together back-to-back-to-back (though two were losses) games where his passing numbers were through the roof, followed by that press conference where he blasted the media for their criticism and even demanded that no one ever bring up his passing abilities ever again. Two games later, he was 17-of-35 / 171 / 0-2, and two weeks after that: 13-of-32 / 122 / 0-2. I'm just warning you in advance. Don't jump on just yet. Don't be like Merril Hoge, who said this week that, as long as Vick keeps this up, he will be the most dangerous weapon in the history of the National Football League. Not NFL, but NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE (this adds dramatic emphasis). No, I'm not kidding. Yes, Hoge should find another line of work. And, as Piper mentioned a few weeks ago, he should also realize his age and quit it with the spiked blond hair. You're not a surfer, Merril. - ST. LOUIS over Kansas City Because I'm not sold on the Rams (too many close calls over crappy teams) and with the way the Chiefs have been playing, I'm tempted to go with KC, even in the dome. Somehow, I can't. Something is holding me back. There's a strong chance this "something" is, in fact, cowardice. - NY GIANTS over Houston I'm sure there's some strategy behind the Texans benching their young quarterback - who has been playing well all season despite no running game (don't give me that Wali Lundy crap, his one great game came last week, and I'm calling it a fluke) - in favor of Sage Rosenfels. Yes, I know Carr had turned the ball over. Yes, I know Rosenfels played well. But you pick one quarterback and go with him. You don't bench him for having one bad half, then re-insert him into the starting lineup a week later - because then you've set a precedent. If you want Rosenfels, then name him your starter. If not, leave him on the bench. Let Carr pick himself up off the ground. I mean, has this kind of coaching ever worked? Ever? Ray Rhodes used to do this all the time - must have driven fans crazy. It's one thing to make a quarterback change - it worked for Belichick with Brady/Bledsoe, it WILL work in Dallas with Romo/Bledsoe, and there are other examples. The difference being that those coaches are sticking with their decisions. The minute Bledsoe sat against the Giants, an official switch had been made. Just pick a QB, Gary Kubiak (if that's your REAL name). - NEW ORLEANS over Tampa Bay It's a really good thing I didn't start Baltimore's defense last week. That wouldn't have helped me at all. On the plus side, at least I started Drew Brees. And I'm starting him this week, too - once again, against a good team - with the hope that last week was an aberration and that he really is a legit MVP candidate (I vote yes). And yes, I just broke into self-indulgent fantasy-football analysis without warning. Hope you're quick on your feet. - DALLAS over Washington See? I KNEW my faith in Tony Romo was justified. Not only is he an infinitely better choice at quarterback than Bledsoe, but he makes excellent baby-back ribs as well. That's what Don King would call double-shot power. I'm in love. The difference between Romo and Bledsoe was almost too much to believe - I actually saw a quarterback get pressured, and actually AVOID it. What I mean is he moved out of the way. Sometimes he even ran. Did you know this could happen? I thought it was just in the movies. I spent too much time with Bledsoe (yes, 22 games is too much). - JACKSONVILLE over Tennessee I give up on Jacksonville. I just have no idea. - CINCINNATI over Baltimore It doesn't seem logical. In fact, a girl made fun of me for making this pick earlier in the week. But I'm not even a little bit sold on the Ravens - even after making the Saints look like...well, like the Saints used to look...last week. I just don't buy it. McNair and Jamal Lewis are running on fumes. Am I wrong, or can you really not win without either of those two elements? I seem to be missing something. But I do like the Bengals - I think they're better than their record, or they should be, at least. And I keep waiting for the week that they finally break out and show everybody why they were one of the most feared teams in last year's playoffs. Maybe it won't be this week - but I trust the Bengals' D enough to pull it off. No, I don't really trust the Bengals' D...see above comments on McNair and Lewis. Or, better yet, watch them play. It's not pretty. - SAN FRANCISCO over Minnesota Tails it is. (A girl, the same one actually, laughed at me for this pick, too.) - PITTSBURGH over Denver Not a misprint. It's like the Bengals situation. I don't trust the Denver offense and Pittsburgh really isn't that bad. That was a fluke game - an embarrassing fluke game, to be sure, but definitely a fluke. Or maybe I'm just an AFC North apologist (whatever that means). The Steelers are due. (What? I couldn't think of anything else. Saying a team or player is "due" is always the correct recourse in this situation.) - SAN DIEGO over Cleveland Romeo Crennel is fat. - NEW ENGLAND over Indianapolis Did I say that already? Now I'm going to be wrong and look stupid. Crap. - SEATTLE over Oakland Is it just me or do you REALLY miss Randy Moss? Because I do. The NFL was better when he was a walking highlight. Oakland must be the most depressing place in the world. I want Moss back, and I want him back now. I think the Patriots should go after him. Or SOMEBODY who could get him the ball and a reasonable chance at winning. Isn't it crazy to realize that Moss is still only 29 years old? That's right - twenty-nine. Get this guy on a good team - he'd be the best receiver in the league.

Wednesday, 1 November 2006 1:54 am

The NBA and the Skip Bayless Syndrome

I know, it's the opening night of the NBA season and that's what we should all be talking about. But what is there to talk about yet? The Heat got smashed, Kobe's not playing in the night's marquee matchup, and the Suns still can't play defense. That's all that can really be said at this point. Of course, that naturally won't stop everyone from completely freaking out about the Chicago Bulls tomorrow... Talking Head A: "The Bulls beat the defending champions by 42 points last night...clearly they've dethroned Miami as the team to beat in the Eastern Conference." Talking Head B: "You're absolutely right, Stan. I just don't see how anyone can beat them. The Eastern Conference goes through Chicago!" Talking Head A: "I just submitted my vote for Scott Skiles for coach of the year." Talking Head B: "Me, too! It really is amazing the way they're taking the league by storm. I don't see how anyone can stop them!" Think I'm exaggerating? Turn on the radio tomorrow. Just do it. (No doubt there will also be plenty of people who all of a sudden have the very strong opinion that the Lakers are "better off" without Kobe Bryant. Ignore these people.) The same thing happened earlier this NFL season - first, the Jaguars beat Drew Bledsoe's Cowboys in week one, then shut out the Steelers 9-0 in week two. In the third quarter of the Pittsburgh game, the announcers literally started talking about how the Jaguars would "certainly" be the favorite to come out of the AFC (prefaced by the obligatory "if they keep up at their current pace"). This was two games - or one-eighth - into the season, and professional announcers were all but awarding the Jags a Super Bowl berth. Since then, they have, of course, turned back into the team we all thought they were: the Jacksonville Jaguars. This, it seems to me, is a derivative of the Skip Bayless Syndrome. You know exactly what I'm talking about - I shouldn't even have to explain it, but I will, for the ill-informed. The Skip Bayless Syndrome is the affliction that causes human beings to completely make up opinions - which are not required to make any sense whatsoever -not because of any degree of personal conviction, but because said human being(s) feel the need to simply HAVE an opinion, no matter what it is. If they don't have one, they make one up. Logic is frowned upon. I can think of literally dozens of people who fit this profile - chief among them the aforementioned Bayless, who thinks up such doozies as "Curt Schilling painted his sock red to intimidate the Yankees" and "Kyle Orton should still be the Bears' starting quarterback." And those aren't even the good ones. But it seems more and more people are falling victim to the Syndrome. Maybe it just seems like that because there are now so MANY people who we have to hear spouting off about this topic and that (the only negative side effect of the great "Pardon the Interruption" is all its lame knockoffs) because we're bombarded with so much sports media these days. To be clear, I'm not excluding myself from this conversation. But maybe the reason I've had trouble adapting to the blog format has been the simple fact that I can't just make up opinions on the spot, whereas so many people are content just to have an opinion no matter what. This isn't just bloggers or aggravating, over-facelifted "Cold Pizza" cast members or Dick Vitale/Stephen A. Smith clones - it's infected even those who are supposed to be smart and knowledgable, the ones who are supposed to be better and more well-reasoned than the casual fan. Too often, this is not the case. Take, for instance, the aftermath of last week's Steelers-Raiders game. Admittedly, Ben Roethlisberger played a bad game (though two of his four interceptions were tipped in the air, lucky breaks for the Oakland D). He's been disappointing, and so have the Steelers, and there are a variety of reasons for that. So what did the usually-intelligent Sterling Sharpe have to say about the situation? Trying to look genuinely flummoxed, he wondered aloud when Charlie Batch was going to get a chance to "right the ship" in Pittsburgh. Read that again. This is a man paid to offer intelligent insight to a national football-watching audience on a weekly basis, and this is what he has to offer? Has Sterling ever SEEN Charlie Batch try to right a ship? Has he seen the man's career trajectory? Has he watched what happens when Charlie Batch is the starting quarterback for a professional football team for an extended period of time? Does he seriously think the Steelers are better off - in either the short or long run - with Batch at the helm? Why is anyone even discussing this? Yes, Batch can be a nice backup. But that's where it ends. Let's think about what benching Roethlisberger would do: Let's see...force the entire offense, which has come to trust Roethlisberger implicitly over the last two years, adapt to a new quarterback...derail the progress of a QB who is still only 24 years old, without even giving the guy who won a freaking Super Bowl nine months ago the chance to work out his problems......alienate the Steelers' fan base......change the structure of a team that is built, and is still equipped, to be a title contender on a yearly basis....other than that, though, it's a smashing idea. Nicely done. By this logic, in 1993, Sharpe's own Green Bay Packers should have benched a struggling Brett Favre (then in his third season) and given Ty Detmer the call. That's basically what Sharpe is saying. Would that have been a good idea, Sterling? Really? And remind me, how much are you getting paid to appear on TV?

Sunday, 29 October 2006 2:39 am

Week Eight: Tony Romo, Charlie Batch, Damon Huard, Seneca Wallace, David Garrard, Joey Harrington, oh my!

This was (yes, WAS) quickly turning into nothing more than a weekly thing, and seemingly all it has to do with is NFL picks...kind of a cop-out, I know. But no more of that - from now on, it actually will be a regular thing. No, seriously. Please come back. Anyway... We're less than halfway into the season and already a slew of NFL teams have had to go to their backup quarterbacks - and a lot of that came as a result of last week, which has to be one of the strangest sports days I can remember. Consider: - the 62-yard field goal from a guy who was 2-for-5 on the season (missing three much shorter attempts, no less) - the Kenny Rogers situation...speaking of which, Todd Jones' "We had mashed potatoes and gravy for dinner, it could have been gravy on his hands" is officially my favorite cheating excuse ever. It blows Lance Armstrong's "it was my hemorrhoid cream" out of the water." - Michael Vick looking like a competent passer - In fact, the Falcons-Steelers game in general - the three (or was it four?) field goal attempts by Atlanta, the illegal procedure penalty on Pittsburgh's game-winning try, the Roethlisberger concussion...more on all that later. - Um....there were lots of other strange things, too...perhaps if I would have written this last Sunday night like I'm supposed to, memory wouldn't be such a problem. Seriously, Bellamy, this is getting ridiculous - get yourself together. A few assorted comments: - Funny thing happened in the last minute or so of the Falcons-Steelers game: So it's tied, right? And the Falcons are driving and they can take the lead. And so they bring out Vlade Divac to try to kick a go-ahead field goal. I know that it was Vlade Divac - surely it must have been, or else Shane Battier - because after he MISSED said attempt and Troy Polamalu innocently rolled on the ground and tapped the Atlanta kicker - at which point said kicker leapt on the ground and started writhing in pain, as if Kathy Bates had just had just boarded up his legs and shattered his left foot with a club. - I don't understand the NFL's policy into running into and/or roughing kickers. According to the current rules, Polamula deserves a penalty - despite the fact that no semblance of any harm came to the kicker - only because he did not actually touch the ball. If, however, he HAD touched the ball, even with the tip of his little finger, Polamalu could have torn the kicker's leg off with his bare hands and started clubbing him in the face with it, start chewing on it and eventually just break it in half like Bo Jackson used to do to baseball bats - and all of this would be perfectly legal. I do not understand this. The minute the penalty was called against Polamalu, of course, Vlade immediately hopped up, just as spry as ever, and bounded off to the sidelines, happy as a lark. What is this, the World Cup? There's a reason no one respects kickers. I've officially changed my stance: Kickers cannot be considered athletes until that rule is adjusted, re-worded, or something. - Staying with the same game, even with Vick's best-ever passing performance (please, Falcons fans, don't start fooling yourself into thinking it's anything other than an occasional aberration), we can all agree that the were lucky to even be in that game (the muffed punt return, a timely penalty, the Willie Parker fumble, and finally the Ben Roethlisberger injury that brought Charlie Batch into the game to the agony of Steelers fans everywhere) even before the bogus running-into-the-kicker call. If Big Ben stays in, the Steelers win that game. Probably by two touchdowns. My favorite part of the Roethlisberger situation, though? A day later, the headline on ESPN.com read: "Sources: Roethlisberger suffered concussion." We needed sources for that? So, the fact that he slammed head-to-head-to-head by two players at the same time, then laid on the ground completely out of sorts for a few minutes, then got taken out of the game and carted off looking like he had no idea where he was, perhaps even wondering if he had gotten in another motorcycle crash...you're telling me that was a concussion? Really? Oh, okay. Now I know. It's a good thing you had your "sources" tell us, Merril Hoge (if that is, indeed, your real name). Because I definitely couldn't have told you the same exact thing from my couch, watching a 27-inch television. No sir-ree, Bob. You need real experts to figure out a thing like that. What would we do without these crackerjack journalists? - By the way, just so you know, the singer Pink is definitely not singing the pre-game song for Sunday Night Football. I don't know how that rumor got started or why, but it's just not true. Pink is definitely not involved, let me assure you. Hope that calms your spirits. She's not there. This isn't happening. But what I really want to talk about is quarterbacks. That's right, quarterbacks. And there is, let there be no doubt, a severe shortage. Be it injuries or sucktitude, more than a third of the teams in the league have already been forced to go to the bench: Dallas, Tampa Bay, Seattle, Arizona, Miami, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Kansas City and Oakland. And a few more are a game or two away (Denver, Washington, Detroit) from making a switch. Most quarterbacks - starters or otherwise - flat-out stink, and even the good ones haven't played all that well this year. Then again, some of the bad ones have...to explain: I'm going to show you two pair of stats, and I want you to guess who they belong to (no cheating): QB 1: 97.9 QB rating, 1217 yards 9 tds, 4 ints, 70.3 completion percentage QB 2: 96.7 QB rating, 1163 yards, 7 tds, 1 int, 63.8 completion percentage. Who'd you guess? Carson Palmer? McNabb? Brady? Rivers? No. The first quarterback is the Texans' David Carr. The second is Kansas City's Damon Huard. I don't really know what to say. I just thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. But speaking of quarterbacks, I can't tell you what a joy it was, as a Cowboy fan, to see Tony Romo take the field last Monday night. Forget the three interceptions - every one of us was thrilled to finally see a quarterback who thinks it's a good idea to, you know, get out of the way when someone is trying to tackle you. Drew Bledsoe was finished a long time ago. Somehow, people, including myself, kept on getting fooled by his arm and his experience, but it's been over for a long time. To put this in perspective, the other week I was watching a Titans game, and Vince Young was getting pretty rattled, making a lot of mental errors...he kept on either holding the ball way too long, being completely oblivious to an oncoming rush, forcing passes into triple-coverage or throwing lobs to the sideline when his receiver is COMPLETELY COVERED and has no chance of getting in front of it, so the cornerback has an easy play (this is The Bledsoe Special). And every time Young made one of these mistakes, the announcers just said "that's one of those rookie mistakes...he'll get over that" or something to that effect. That's right, Drew - these are rookie mistakes...and yet these are the same mistakes you've been making over and over again for the last decade and a half. Is that you, Charlie Babbitt? I know, Drew, I know - you're an excellent driver, you're an excellent driver. But here's what you will be remembed as: the guy with feet of stone who nonetheless never got the message that such a handicap meant you had to throw the ball away quicker. The guy who stood frozen in the pocket far past the point of reason, then when the pass-rush came, pump-faked 11 times for no reason whatseover (basically, you're the Greg Ostertag of football). The guy with all the physical talent in the world who somehow never learned from anything. Ever. For a few years, he was a very good quarterback...but in the end, he might just be remembered as a waste of talent. And yes, I'm extremely excited about the Tony Romo era. But now, on to the picks: Last week: 6-7 2006 overall: 66-34 - CHICAGO over San Francisco - CINCINNATI over Atlanta - GREEN BAY over Arizona - HOUSTON over Tennessee - KANSAS CITY over Seattle - NEW ORLEANS over Baltimore - NY GIANTS over Tampa Bay - PHILADELPHIA over Jacksonville - SAN DIEGO over St. Louis - NY JETS over Cleveland - INDIANAPOLIS over Denver (calling Jay Cutler...) - PITTSBURGH over Oakland - DALLAS over Carolina Do I have confidence in this pick? Of course not. But trust me - finally sending Drew Bledsoe to the bench is like...well, you remember that "South Park" episode with Conjoined Fetus Lady? Yeah, imagine how that lady would feel if the fetus were finally removed from the side of her face. It's kinda like that. - NEW ENGLAND over Minnesota Oh come on, Vikes fans - they didn't have Alexander OR Hasselbeck. That's like half a win.

Sunday, 22 October 2006 1:56 am

Week Seven: That's Why We Took the Damn Field!

First of all, to explain: I'm still getting used to this whole blog thing. I hesitated even at the start because blogs are trendy and cool, and I am neither. But I'm excited about it now...I just have to get used to the regular schedule. I promise, I will be banging out 50,000 words per week by the end of the month. Which doesn't give me much time...so let's begin. First, a few thoughts on last week, and other things: - The NHL season started two weeks ago. That's hockey...it's played on ice...popular in Canada...Just thought you might like to know. And in case you're wondering, a 4-3 final is the same thing as 28-21, so don't give me any of that "there's not enough scoring to keep me interested" crap. You just don't like to try new things - admit it! (Go Stars!) - So the best running back in the NFL might retire after this season and none of you care? Really? Every person I mentioned this to just kind of shrugged. How long will it take folks to realize how much better Barber is than LaDainian Tomlinson? (OK, it's not THAT much of a discrepancy, but still...) - We'll call last night's game one a mulligan for the Tigers. They were rusty or something. Don't panic. The Cards were only three games better than the Texas Rangers this year. I'll put that another way: they were only seven games better than the Colorado Rockies. Tigers in five. Still. - Paraphrasing my buddy Piper after Denny Green's postgame meltdown last week: "It didn't even sound like he was angry...he just yelled, and he liked the sound of him being angry so he just kept doing it." By the way, Piper, a Cubs fans, also had some pointed words for Lou Piniella, but none of them can be printed in this space. - There's a discount rate to board the bandwagons of the Ravens, Falcons, Vikings and/or Rams, but the train's leaving tomorrow morning, so if you want on, now's your last chance. Of those four teams, there's one decent quarterback. And he plays for St. Louis. And they're still not winning the division if they can't take care of a gift win like last week's. (By the way, can't the Seahawks just hire some guy - exclusively for Sunday afternoons - whose sole responsibility is to manage the game clock? Can we please take this out of Mike Holmgren's hands for good?) - My buddy Abram sent me this text message last Sunday: "You know what the Saints are doing for the city of New Orleans is just magical...it's an example of how man can overcome tragedy at all costs.." I think he hates heartwarming stories more than I do - to the extent that he's rooting against the Tigers just because he's sick of people overcoming the odds. "Remember the Titans" is probably his least-favorite movie of all-time. And if the New Orleans Saints win the Super Bowl, he will be convinced that it was rigged by the NFL and you will NOT be able to convince him otherwise. As for me, if it is rigged, I'd say it all leads back to Bob Costas - he's got the money and the resources, and waxing absurdly melodramatic is what he does best. If the Saints took it all, it would be like Costas' wetdream. He's probably already written his Super Bowl championship speech. On to the picks: Last week: 9-4 2006 overall: 60-27 - PITTSBURGH over Atlanta It's going to be an exciting day in Atlanta, as citizens and season ticket-holders alike are going to get to see a demonstration of an accurate forward pass. What, you say? Is Matt Schaub starting? No, of course not, that would make too much sense. But Ben Roethlisberger is coming to town - sure, he doesn't play for Atlanta, but Falcons fans can dream, can't they, that one day they, too, will be able to see a world-class passer in their very own stadium? Are they charging extra for Sunday's tickets? Is Bobby Hebert still around? - NEW ENGLAND over Buffalo The Bills lost to the Lions last week. I'm never picking them again. More on the Lions later... - CINCINNATI over Carolina I could probably toss around a bunch of stats to support this prediction, but I won't. That never gets me anywhere. John Hollinger is a wanker. There's nothing to say except that these are two very good teams who still haven't quite gotten it together yet - but no one should be surprised if this still winds up being a Super Bowl primer. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm not predicting it, because my prediction is much different - I'm just saying don't be surprised. And didn't I tell you about Steve Smith last week? I told you. That's why fantasy-football advice-givers (heck of a career choice, that one) are useless. They give weekly advice on stuff that is absolutely impossible to predict. How did these people convince anyone to give them jobs when anyone else who watches football on a semi-regular basis can give just as good (or, more often, bad) advice as any of these guys. By the way, I stole that argument from Piper because he hates these guys more than I do. Moving on... - KANSAS CITY over San Diego LETDOWN GAME ALERT! LETDOWN GAME ALERT! Larry Johnson is due, the Chargers are getting cocky...even if the Chargers are great (which they seem to be), great teams lose games like this all the time. Even if Damon Huard is quarterbacking. Yeah, I know...it's a shot in the dark...let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the Chiefs (and their fans) will be extra motivated to beat the coach that teased them for years and never took them anywhere. That'll get them going. - GREEN BAY over Miami Never thought I'd say this, but thank goodness Favre and Co. are playing on the road - they just can't win at Lambeau. Hey look, there's Joey Heisman warming up! Hey, Joey! - NY JETS over Detroit OK, here's that story about the Lions. My buddy Steve, a Lions fan, joined us to watch football last week and, upon arrival, immediately looked at the scoreboard of the Lions-Bills game, which was 17-10. He never even shrugged, just excitedly said, "Hey, the Lions are only losing by seven!" Thing is, the score clearly said Lions 17, Bills 10, but Steve merely assumed the Lions were losing and never bothered to check which team was attached to which score. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've finally gotten inside the head of a Lions fan, and that is what it's like. Oh yeah...um, Jets win. - PHILADELPHIA over Tampa Bay Zzzzzzzzzzz........ - JACKSONVILLE over Houston Maybe it wasn't Dom Capers' fault after all. I'll just come out and say it: Maybe, just maybe, the Texans have horrible football players. It's just a theory, I'm not attached to it, I'm just throwing it out there... - CLEVELAND over Denver The very definition of a wake-up call. The Broncos have looked like garbage (at least on the offensive side), they've squeaked by with four wins in five games and they're feeling good about themselves, even though they only beat the worst team in football by 10 points and Mike Shanahan is stil clearly terrified to hand the offense over to Jake Plummer. The Broncos have two HUGE games coming up after this one (Indy and Pittsburgh). This isn't anything new, this happens all the time - they're overconfident, they're looking ahead to the next two weeks, and they're on the road. AND Jake Plummer is still part of the equation. Smells like an upset to me. - INDIANAPOLIS over Washington I'm thoroughly pleased with the demise of the Redskins' Super Bowl hype that somehow made the rounds (that is, until they laid a goose-egg in the preseason). Let's get Jason Campbell some snaps, shall we? - ARIZONA over Oakland To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing another Dennis Green press conference after an embarrassing loss, but there's no way...is there? To the Raiders? And did anyone else find the pre-game festivities of last week's Broncos-Raiders game ridiculous? They were actually trying to make it sound like the rivalry actually meant anything at this point. Please. - SEATTLE over Minnesota If only the Vikings can put just enough field goals on the board, shut down the running game (which should be easy) and keep it close in the fourth quarter, they could get lucky as long as they force Holmgren to put his dazzling time-management skills to work. That should be the gameplan for Minnesota. In fact, I'm convinced that's what it is. - DALLAS over NY Giants Quite honestly, I'm too afraid to say anything. I've seen this matchup too many times.

Saturday, 14 October 2006 9:01 pm

Week Six: The Lonesome Death of Drew Bledsoe

I don't think I could be more depressed about the way things have turned out for my beloved Cowboys for the past few months. And frankly, I don't really want to talk about it. You're only getting a few comments about it from me, and you're lucky to get that. Let's just start with the picks. Last week: 11-3 2006 season: 51-23 - DALLAS over Houston Let's just get this out of the way. You know how last week I said I couldn't possibly be more excited about the Dallas-Philly game? Well, this week I couldn't be LESS excited about a Cowboys game. It's not possible. I haven't been this nonplussed about any single Dallas game since probably sometime in the Dave Campo era. Last week took it out of me, and the Texans don't offer anything in the way of motivation for me. I fully expect us to win by three touchdowns and it doesn't even matter, because this is a gimme. We're good enough to beat these teams, destroy these teams. But it took until last week for me to finally realize - FINALLY, as all Patriots and Bills fans were probably laughing at all us Cowboys fans - that we're simply not going anywhere with Drew Bledose running the show, T.O. or no T.O. And yes, I just LOVE the fact that the media still managed to make T.O.'s sideline "antics" and "complaining" the story rather than the fact that Bledsoe threw three interceptions, including the game-losing one that Ray Charles wouldn't have thrown. I want Tony Romo and I want him now. - NY GIANTS over Atlanta The Giants have been more erratic than I expected thus far (the Philadelphia comeback, the bipolar Seahawks game, etc.) but I still say they're a playoff team. And that Eli is the real deal. And that Michael VIck is not. If the Giants can stop one or two of the Falcons' top three runners (Dunn, Vick, Norwood), they should be able to come out on top, even if it takes another Eli comeback to do it. The Falcons' passing game just won't have enough to make up for it. - BUFFALO over Detroit The Lions are definitely going to be a sleeper this year. Definitely. Never heard that one before. - SEATTLE over St. Louis Whether or not the Rams are for real, they always give the Seahawks trouble - and that's WITH Shaun Alexander. If you look at the Rams' record and their stats, I'd have to believe they're as good as some people think. But then how could they lose to the 49ers, and then NEARLY lose to the Cardinals, Lions and Packers in consecutive weeks. Those are awful, awful football teams - surely the Seahawks are better than all three of those teams, even sans Alexander. - PHILADELPHIA over New Orleans I have to say I agree with Bill Simmons about the Eagles: they're going to the Super Bowl, and they're going to beat Chicago to do it. Somehow, this is happening. That's just an excellent football team - they remind me of the Pats during their run. - CINCINNATI over Tampa Bay Certainly Jon Gruden and Brian Griese are BOTH regretting their offseason decisions, right? Bruce Gradkowski? Seriously? - WASHINGTON over Tennessee Yawn. - CAROLINA over Baltimore The Ravens' first loss exposed their offense for what it is, and the Panthers are riding a three-game winning streak. And Steve Smith hasn't even exploded yet. I don't care how good the Baltimore secondary is - Smith is breaking out this week. - NY JETS over Miami Joey Harrington is the Dolphins' starting quarterback. - PITTSBURGH over Kansas CIty There was an article on ESPN this week asking whether or not the Steelers were "done." I say no. Emphatically. Roethlisberger is still getting football-ready. He's clearly not there yet, but this is not going to last. There's too much talent and too much cohesion already on this roster and Cowher is too good of a coach - they're just not quite there yet. But they will be. - SAN DIEGO over San Francisco Maybe I was wrong about Philip Rivers. I know I definitely WASN'T wrong about Alex Smith (he's going to be fantastic). This smells like a trap game, but I just don't have enough confidence in an upset possibility. - DENVER over Oakland Should Brady Quinn just start getting fitted for his Oakland jersey now? Or would that be bad form? - CHICAGO over Arizona Yes, lots of people are going to regret passing on Matt Leinart. Then again, I'm sure he's already secretely regretting passing up millions and millions of dollars when he opted to "finish" at USC - where he had exactly one class remaining - and subsequently missed out on the chance to go No. 1 overall, rake in the $49.5M that eventually went to Alex Smith and go to an organization that at least has a history of, you know, winning football games. Instead, he wound up in purgatory - and for a lot less money. Smart moves all around.

Saturday, 14 October 2006 8:20 pm

The Joe Girardi Situation and more...

I, of course, do not know what it was like to be in the Florida Marlins clubhouse this season, nor do I know what it is like to deal with Joe Girardi on a regular basis. I've heard he's tough to deal with - certainly that's the vibe we got from Jeffrey Loria, who fired Girardi, the guy who took a club that had no business doing anything but coming in last place, and turned them into a playoff contender until the last few weeks of the season. Even with Dontrelle Willis having a subpar season. Even with the lowest payroll in baseball. But he's gone now, much to the excitement of every Cubs fan I know, who thought he'd surely be the first choice to take over for Dusty Baker. Only...wait...Lou Piniella is apparently the top choice? I'm confused - when did Lou Piniella all of a sudden become the best manager in the world? The Yankees want him, the Cubs want him..I'm confused. Is Jim Hendry just trying to find the absolute antithesis of Baker? After all, Piniella won't let a pitcher throw 200 pitches before taking him out - he might not let him go 70. And at least Piniella has never been known for the dreaded "player's manager" tag. So maybe it's a good choice. But I just can't shake the feeling that whoever picks up Girardi is going to win a World Series in the next two years. Think Mike Scioscia Redux. Except better. Then again, I'm the same guy who picked the Indians to win the Series this year. Piniella will give the Cubs credibility from the old-school set, but the choice should be Girardi. But hey, if going to Chicago gets Piniella off the FOX airwaves, I'm all for it. Speaking of FOX, they apparently fired Steve Lyons today. Now, I'm not exactly against this decision, per se - I didn't like him as a player and I like hime even less as an announcer. But he was reportedly fired for "racially insensitive comments" which amounted to, according to this article: HERE 1) saying that Lou Piiella was "habla-ing Espanol" 2) making a comment about Piniella taking his wallet, which was only in response to something that Piniella said about finding a lost wallet, and which could only be construed as categorically racist if the person or persons in question - in this case, the powers that be at FOX Sports - are in fact projecting their own racist stereotypes. It's ridiculous. Is this how politically correct we've become? Comments like Lyons' are grounds for firing now? Please - every person in this country has said worse things than that, and we don't all deserve to be fired. So Lyons' comments are inappropriate, but Terry Bradshaw sexually harassing Jillian Barberie on the air every week isn't? Or, for that matter, the fact that Barberie even has a job with FOX Sports, which, as far as I can gather, is basically to dress like a hooker and say stupid things, dragging down the already-low intelligence level of FOX NFL Sunday with every second of air time. Of course, this is the same network that has turned Joe Buck, the patron saint of sickening political correctness, into a national celebrity despite the fact that he's the most safe, bland, generic, robotic announcer in the business. Forget Piniella and Lyons - I'll take a whole staff full of Steve Lyons clones if we could just get rid of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. I mean, McCarver speaks exclusively in non-sequiturs. Now THAT should be a firable offense. Every time I hear him on the air, I'm fully convinced he's drunk. (Also, Tim, stop dying your hair that ridiculous auburn color. You're not fooling anyone. Is anyone else waiting for the inevitable Pat O'Brien-level downfall from McCarver?)

Sunday, 8 October 2006 3:14 am

Week Five in 156 million colors

Seeing as how I just got through Week Five on Madden 2007, this seemed to be a good time to accomplish two things. First, to offer my opinion on aforementioned rip-off of a video game. And second, my soon-to-be weekly NFL picks - the kind that you can all glance at and argue over while inevitably mocking my brazen foolishness - "The Jets?! He really thinks the Jets are gonna beat the Colts, what a [expletive deleted] idiot!" - and then start second-guessing yourself when such a result begins to look like something of a possibility before a late Colts comeback reassures you that you were right, and I was silly, all along. That's what it would have been like last week had I taken the time. Anyway... As for Madden (let me qualify this by saying that I'm using the GameCube version, as I'm not enough of a gamer to buy any system more expensive): A question: Did the Madden creative team just take the last year off? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know. I've been playing for the last two weeks, and I can't find a single discernable difference between '07 and '06 - except for the updated rosters, which to be perfectly honest I could have just as easeily uploaded off the Internet onto Madden 06. Of course, there is that swanky new Lead Blocker feature, because as we all know, every kid across the country really wants to be Mack Strong and Obafemi Ayanbadejo. But everything else is the same - even "The Tony Bruno Show" on Franchise mode is the same. They couldn't even take the time to record even a shred of new soundbites? Seriously? Can I sue EA Sports for false advertising? This isn't a new game - this is like when Pepto Bismol puts that "new and improved" label on the same old product. It's not new, and it's not improved - it's the same old nasty pink stuff that may or may not settle your stomach. EA Sports sucks. Now, on to week five. Let the insecure mockey ensue. Just to catch everyone up, I'm 40-20 so far this season. However, I'm not picking against the spread, so such a record is not an impressive accomplishment. My mom is like one game behind me - the same mom who thinks "the Bears are cute." Speaking of which... - CHICAGO over Buffalo I'll admit it: I wasn't sold on the Bears before the season started. They just looked too similar to that 2001 team that followed up its "amazing" season (read: 13-3, weak schedule, unceremonious departure in first playoff game) with yet another 4-12 campaign. Just before the season started, I even uttered the words: "The Packers can win this division just as easily as anyone else." Say what you will. I didn't think the Packers were any good - my point was only that I thought every team in the division stunk. My reasoning for this was that I wasn't sold on Rex Grossman. How could I be? He never looked particularly good in three years prior, he could never stay healthy, and he looked like just another Danny Wuerrfel. He wasn't even that consistent at Florida. But he's looked great, and so have the Bears, and the Packers..um...haven't. Speaking of which... - GREEN BAY over St. Louis Of course I don't think the Rams defense is that could. Of COURSE I they will still intercept Brett Favre three times. And I also think he'll throw four touchdowns and finally push some people off the St. Louis bandwagon. Did you see them against the Lions last week? They made Jon Kitna look like a poor man's Peyton Manning. Speaking of which... - INDIANAPOLIS over Tennessee Oooooh, I can almost taste that first-round bye followed by a crushing second-round playoff choke job in my mouth already! After they beat the Worst Team Not Called the Raiders tomorrow, the Colts will be undefeated once again, and everyone will be talking Super Bowl again, and I will laugh. Giddy-like. I hope they go 16-0 in the regular season. I really do. - MINNESOTA over Detroit I don't care what anyone says about Brad Johnson or those "gritty" Vikings. Put Randy Moss back on this team and replace Johnson with a decent QB who can get the ball down the field and the Vikes could challenge the Bears. Now Moss is being wasted in that idiotic Oakland system and Vikings fans are actually trying to fool themselves into thinking they can "grit" their way to some sort of postseason significance. But...no. - NEW ENGLAND over Miami Kudos once again to the Dolphins brass for worrying so much about Drew Brees' shoulder, ignoring the fact that he would fit BEAUTIFULLY in this offense, while Culpepper (read my 2003 critique of him HERE is proving to be one of the legendary free-agent disasters. I know it's too early to make such a declaration, but let's just put it this way: the question "Should we start Joey Harrington?" is a question no NFL coach should ever have to ask himself. - NEW ORLEANS over Tampa Bay So Reggie Bush, while showing flashes, hasn't quite taken off yet. It'll happen, I promise. His quiet start isn't indicative of his future - it just refutes a point that many were making a few months ago. Many, including my buddy Piper, argued that without having ever taken a snap in the NFL, Bush was already better than almost every running back in the league. I thought that was ridiculous - there's always a learning curve, especially for his type of player. Still, I can't wait for his breakout week. And I can feel it coming. I want it. I even played the Saints-Bucs game on Madden this week, and I couldn't make it happen. I'm a failure. - NY GIANTS over Washington I don't think the Redskins are "starting to come around," and I don't think the Giants are as mediocre as they've played so far. They're not starting out 1-3. It's just not happening. - CAROLINA over Cleveland You're killing me, Steve Smith's Hamstring. You're killing me! Oh, you're healthy again? Good - cause you've ruined my fantasy season thus far. Let's make up. - KANSAS CITY over Arizona So? - SAN FRANCISCO over Oakland No one cares, but the Raiders are an embarrassment and the 49ers have shown legitimate signs of improvement (until last week that is). Plus, I went to college with Alex Smith for a couple of years, got to know him a bit when I covered the Ute football team, and I like the guy - therefore, he must succeed. And it's happening quickly, too - he's looked poised and in control. And in that offense, too. - JACKSONVILLE over NY Jets Roar! - DALLAS over Philadelphia Yes, I'm an unapologetic Cowboys fan. No, I will become a part of the ridiculous T.O. media circus that has made a mockery of "journalism." But from a football standpoint, I'm about as excited about this game as I could possibly be. I'm expecting anything. I will not be sleeping much tonight. - PITTSBURGH over San Diego Remember last week, how everyone said the Bengals were going to whoop the Patriots and it went exactly the other way, even in Cincinnati? This game is kinda like that. The Steelers have taken awhile to get in-sync, what with their starting quarterback being out of commission all summer and all. But there's no reason to believe they can't challenge for yet another Super Bowl this year. Plus, I just don't trust Philip Rivers yet. - DENVER over Baltimore Nor do I trust Baltimore. It's just not going to last with Steve McNair at quarterback. The San Diego win was nice, but the Ravens still looked like crap on offense. And wins over Cleveland, Tampa and Oakland don't do anything for me. Is there any doubt this team will fade down the stretch?

Saturday, 23 September 2006 11:34 pm

No-no.....nooooo!

SAN DIEGO—So now I know what it feels like...kind of. A little. I was 92.6% of the way there. And then Joe Randa—or as the Petco Park scoreboard refers to him, Joe Randy—had to go and screw it all up. Two outs from seeing my first no-hitter and then...well, it was great while it lasted, at least. With the recent dearth of no-hitters, and good pitching in general for that matter, it felt special to even be present for an almost no-hitter, especially one that would have been the first in the illustrious history of the San Diego Padres. Many people who entered Petco Friday night may not have ever heard of Chris Young, but we were his biggest fans for nine innings, 104 pitches and two-and-a-half hours. It’s true what they say – the stadium does start to feel different, sound different, when people start to realize what’s happening. There’s a collective murmur...people aren’t quite sure how they’re supposed to react, how loudly they’re supposed to cheer, and most importantly, when or if they are supposed to call or text their friends (the jinx factor). I made two phone calls between the sixth and eighth innings, followed by two text messages, and afterward found myself feeling like George Costanza after Mr. Litman found out he slept with the cleaning lady on his desk: “Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?” We sat there – “we” meaning me and a couple of friends/co-workers – in the nosebleeds behind home plates (great seats, by the way, because anything behind home plate is great regardless of elevation) as the tension across the park started to elevate with every pitch. This started around the fifth inning, when no doubt many people casually glanced at the scoreboard and realized, “hey, the Pirates haven’t gotten any hits yet..wait...holy crap!” I’ll be honest – I started thinking no-hitter around the second inning. I always start thinking no-hitter around the second inning when I go to baseball games...and then I proceed to stress myself out until the dream is dead. It’s part of my irrational nature. I set the bar high. Naturally, I inevitably leave disappointed in that regard, but the mere chance to say “I was there” when buddies talk about last night’s big game is good enough for me. And last night, I almost was. (On that note, if a perfect game or no-hitter is out of the question, I’ll also settle for a 20-inning thriller, a walk-off home run, or a dugouts-empty brawl, preferably one that achieves the comedic heights of the Nolan Ryan/Robin Ventura classic, or the Pedro Martinez/Don Zimmer bout. Any day I can see a wrinkly old hemorrhoid-cream spokesman wearing a Yankee cap take a nosedive into the ground is a good day.) Anyway, it intensified after every pitch. In the sixth, when Rajai Davis threatened to break up the then-perfect game with a bunt, the boos started pouring down – and immediately turned to raucous cheers on the next play when he was tagged out sliding off second base after a successful steal. Now that’s karma. From then on, every weak pop-up or slow grounder – actually, every strike – brought the crowd to its feet. I’ve never seen so many standing ovations in a one-hour span in my life. Even the State of the Union address is tame by comparison. So when Joe Randa ripped out my heart – OK, fine, ripped out Chris Young’s heart – it felt like the Padres had lost. We were all deflated. Even the Pirates fans were disappointed. OK, that last part was a lie. There were no Pirates fans. So it may not be quite an “I was there moment,” but I’ll say it anyway: I was there. And I was on my feet. And I was shaking. And it was spectacular. For a guy who still hasn’t seen a 26-inning nailbiter go till two in the morning, or Don Zimmer eat a faceful of grass, that’s about as good as it gets. After all, there’s always next time.

Monday, 21 August 2006 2:15 pm

Allow me to re-introduce myself…

So I’m back, making my humble return to Ornery after more than a year of neglect. But I’m back in blog format, because, you know, blogs are “cool” these days, and everyone who knows me knows that I’m really, really cool. Just a few words before we begin with the dastardly business at hand (yes, the first post will be a pessimistic one). I will be posting blog entries a few times a week, covering any number of sports and subjects within sports. However, from time to time, I will complain about one of “my” teams. Those who similarly immerse themselves in obsessive, unhealthy fandom will feel my pain. And so let’s begin… Watching the events at Fenway Park unfold this weekend hammered down a thing or two. No, not that my Red Sox are finished, because as far as I’m concerned, the Sox and Yanks never even played this weekend. Never happened. If I ignore the scores running across the bottom of the screen, they will go away. No, it was these: 1) That I am really starting to hate the burgeoning trend of undeserved hype, which most of the time is the fault of groupthink; and 2) that I am really starting to hate most professional sports announcers. (Apparently I’m full of hate at the moment. My apologies. I guess that’s what happens when your team turns into a band of gangrenous corpses over a single disastrous weekend.) In this case, the two are not mutually exclusive. The hype I’m talking about is aimed at two Sox pitchers—Jonathan Papelbon, yes, but more importantly, Josh Beckett. And it’s the national baseball announcers—who, curiously, don’t seem to actually watch baseball—who perpetuate said hype. With Beckett, it’s getting ridiculous. I’m still shocked every time I see him pitch on national TV, because every time, the announcers start gushing as if they’re programmed to do so—I can’t decide if they just don’t have a clue, or if they’d just rather kiss players’ butts than actually, oh I don’t know, do their jobs and analyze baseball. Anyway, they immediately get started on Beckett, and with the way they talk, you’d think the guy was actually a good pitcher or something. “What a deal the Red Sox got, bringing in a guy like Beckett!” they say. “Look at this kid—what a competitor!” or “This guy’s a horse—Boston fans just love this guy!” (not true) or “What a stud Josh Beckett has been for the Boston Red Sox!” At one point in a game earlier this season, Jon Miller actually rushed down from the booth, ran onto the field and started washing Beckett’s feet, right there on the mound. Then, Erin Andrews rushed away from her very useful job and dried Beckett’s feet with her hair. It was quite the lovely sight. Beckett must have felt refreshed, because if memory serves, he gave up about 20 homers that night. What these announcers are either too oblivious or too stubborn to realize is that Beckett has been an absolute disaster in Boston thus far. He’s been flat-out bad. He was unhittable in his first two starts, but since then he’s been about as hittable as they come. They call him a “horse,” a guy who can man the top of the rotation and eat up innings. And yet he’s only gone eight innings twice all year, and hasn’t gone more than six in more than a month (July 19). In three starts against the Yankees: 14 innings pitched, 19 earned runs (12.21 ERA) with 12 strikeouts and 11 walks. Yikes. But it’s not just the Yankees. He’s been lousy all season, with a few good, solid starts peppered in with all the bad ones. He’s been the absolute antithesis of an ace. Am I still hopeful he’ll turn into one? Of course. He’s got great stuff and he’s only 26. But look at the numbers, fellas: 13-8 (with phenomenal run support) and a 5.35 ERA and major league-leading 32 home runs yielded. Get a clue. But way to go on that ESPN the Magazine cover, Josh. At least we know your PR department’s working hard. On the plus side, at least we signed him to that $30 million extension. And the party’s over for Papelbon, too. I swear—I’m not just being a pessimistic Sox fan. But sometimes people just don’t get it. Every time the guy takes the hill, it’s the same old speech: how “sensational” he’s been, how much of a “stopper” he is. And every time he blows another save, the announcers are so shocked—“Boy, you don’t see that very often!” they proclaim, and then they chuckle. Except, actually, you do see that pretty often. You really do. And no one seems to have noticed. The kid was dominant for two-and-a-half months, but as of late, he’s every bit as responsible for Boston’s struggles as anyone else on that pitching staff. Since opening the season with 20-straight converted saves, he’s been mediocre. At best. Since then, he’s been just 12 of 18—this month alone, he has three blown saves in six chances. People point to his impressive ERA and low batting-average-against, but when you’re a closer, all that matters is whether or not you close games. And lately, he hasn’t been doing that. I don’t trust him in a one-run game. I do not. 12-of-18 just doesn’t cut it. Even in an article posted on ESPN.com yesterday—after, mind you, he blew yet another game in the ninth inning, which I assume the writer of this article saw—the story discussed the young Sox pitchers, declaring that “all but Papelbon have struggled.” Is no one paying attention? Hasn’t anyone noticed his ongoing Brad Lidge impersonation? I still can’t wait to see what the future holds for Papelbon—but it’s probably going to be from the starting rotation. We’ll see. Sure, he’s still our best option at the end of games. But let’s just say he’s no Mariano Rivera. He’s not even a Joe Nathan. He’s Troy Percival. Maybe. And another thing: I watched Saturday’s ballgame on FOX, and…well, you know how you see a commercial for a TV show and you immediately say to yourself, “Well, that’s getting cancelled.” Like you just know right away? Well, that’s how I felt, and I’m sure I’m not alone, when I saw the ad for “Vanished.” Supposedly it premieres tonight. Whatever. Although it is nice to see that Noxzema chick is finding work.

Copyright © 2006 by Chris Bellamy

Contact the Sports Writer