I have been wanting to write about what I think makes Tim Tebow valuable as a player for awhile now. Unfortunately, I have been much too busy and, in the meantime, Timmy Teebz has become no longer valuable as a player AT ALL. And it's not that Tebow showed me, or anybody else not attending Jets practices, anything that made me change my mind about what he does and can do on the field. Let me explain...
Buzzwords are stupid and Tim Tebow's buzzword is "intangibles." The word refers to things that you can't touch. The accurate use of this term on the subject of NFL quarterbacking would be to refer Tom Brady's sense of calm in the huddle in pressure moments or Peyton Manning's communication skills that help a team play better and push a quarterback with great skills and ability into a legendary quarterback who wins with talent as well as the invisible. The Tim Tebow Era in Denver left us with one option: to assume that Tim had incredible intangibles because the Broncos kept winning with Tebow doing almost nothing tangibly good the whole game. That's what made it all so fun. On the other hand...
If anybody reads this blog, they know that it's basically against my religion to accept calling an occurrence a "miracle" or being satisfied with a buzzword like "intangibles." I need an explanation, even if that explanation is that he got lucky. Football people wanted his success to be attributed to being such a good teammate, Christians wanted to attribute it to God in some way, and many many others wanted to say he just got lucky. I think that everyone is right and wrong at the same time.
This is my explanation...
The things that Tim Tebow is when you take away his persona and religion (similar), is a gifted athlete that is better at making split-second TANGIBLE decisions (like which cuts to make). He's gifted enough to play quarterback poorly in the NFL even though he possesses zero of the skills required to do it. He doesn't have an accurate arm, he doesn't make good decisions on where and when to throw the ball, he doesn't have good "form," and he doesn't even have enough experience playing quarterback the way most NFL quarterbacks play it.
The way he plays the game is, depending on how you look at it, either very jarring to defenses or a very welcome break from people who are actually good. This is the first explanation for his end of the season record...the luck part. Things beyond his control, like the fact that the Bronco's defense improved, his opponents during that time and the fact that it took a bit of time for the league to adjust to whatever it is that he was doing, had a whole lot to do with his success at the end of last season. We've seen recently running quarterbacks have immediate success (Cam Newton, RG III, Vick, even Jake Locker, etc...). But that doesn't account for the success he had given how grossly unskilled he was. These "lucky" circumstances were amplified by something.
What made the world explode at the end of last season was his faith, as goofy as it sounds. God did not interfere...at least I don't think. But Tim Tebow's ceaseless positivity, which could conceivably be attributed to his religious background, combined with his charisma, seemed to push the Broncos to wins they had no business getting. There were games last season where we all would have given up, whether vocally or subconsciously, that Denver ended up winning because Tim Tebow doesn't have the voice inside him that tells him when it's over. That is why I think Tim Tebow was successful last season. A faithful guy without the athletic ability that he has couldn't have done the same thing but also, a Tebow-sized giant couldn't have won all those games without the faith. Whether you think that faith in the Christian God is misguided or not, the mental effect that it had on Tebow ended up mattering in the real world (NFL Football, the REALEST of worlds).
Fast forward to the 1st overall pick in the 2012 NFL Draft: Andrew Luck (QB)
Andrew Luck is physically gifted. He runs well, he makes poor decisions down the field at times, and he's leading his team to an unlikely playoff berth. If you look at his stats, Luck has thrown waaay too many interceptions and his gross statistics aren't the best in the league by any stretch. However, from a team success standpoint and the fact that he's a rookie, he's having an incredible season. How does this guy who was called the most polished quarterback prospect coming out of college EVER have anything to do with Tim Tebow?
Whether it's attributable to religion or anything else, the voices inside the heads of Luck and Tebow telling them the game is over seem to be on vacation together. Eight out of the the Colts' nine wins were by a touchdown or less and off the top of my head, the Packers and Lions wins were pretty remarkable comebacks.
Andrew Luck combines Tim Tebow's enthusiasm, positivity and physical gifts with actual skill. He's not the best quarterback in the league yet, but he makes Tim Tebow obsolete.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The Cleveland Cavs, Generally Speaking...
There are three topics for us to discuss today.
1. Andrew Bynum
In case there was any doubt in your minds, trading for Andrew Bynum is a good idea.
The arguments posed in the linked article seem lazy to me. Not all "knuckleheads" are created equal. It always frustrated me when the media put Chad Johnson, Randy Moss and Terrell Owens in the same category when they are very different people with different skills on the field and different problems off the field. Yes, Andrew Bynum as he currently stands seems to be a low-character guy. He almost killed JJ Barea at the end of an embarrassing sweep, he openly defies his coach and he doesn't seem to try his hardest all the time. He also would be the best player on the Cavs the second he steps on the floor (and secretly was the best player on the Lakers every now and again).
I'm not saying that talent trumps character every time because it doesn't. In fact, I'd like to get rid of that way of speaking about it altogether. Character is part of the overall package, just as talent is. If your character hinders your inborn "talent," that talent now becomes irrelevant and therefore does not exist. But let's look at Andrew Bynum's career for a second.
Bynum was drafted to the highest profile team in the league as a teenager. He was on a failing team with Kobe Bryant and all that Kobe Bryant is. Kobe felt it was OK to speak freely about how much Bynum sucked (who, I believe, was 19 at time) in a parking lot to a guy with a camera. The arrival of Phil Jackson as coach coincided with the team actually becoming good, mostly due to Bynum's emergence as a really good center. When L.A. acquired Pau Gasol, that duo became and still remains the best big man combination in the league by a wide margin and really, the reason the Lakers won two NBA Titles.
So why should this 24 year old who is one of the best Centers in the NBA be so grumpy?
The three years the Lakers were title contenders, Kobe Bryant, the veteran who made fun of a younger clumsier Bynum years earlier, took almost all of the credit while Bynum (who, once again, was the REASON THE TEAM WAS EVEN GOOD) took flack whenever he had a bad game. He was either not giving Kobe enough help or not able to be on the court due to injury. Even if the problem was that they weren't using him enough, he was blamed for not "demanding the ball." Nothing was blamed on the veteran and everything was blamed on the young super talent. And to further problems, this situation was nurtured by Coach Jackson, a man who is extremely well respected for handling his players' emotions well. How ironic.
Now, you might be saying, "Whatever, you're getting paid millions of dollars to play a game! Get over it!" This is the classic fan argument against any and all player complaints. These same fans are sad when players "don't care" or "do it all for the money." Pick one. Have you ever been on a team (even a pick up team) where you are unhappy with your role or your teammates? You're mad. It'd be easy to detach yourself if you were only playing for the money but these guys don't really do that. They still care at least a little bit. And it'd be easier to perhaps adjust to a situation that isn't ideal when you're just a super well-adjusted person. I can't overstate this next point: Just because these athletes are on TV, spoken of with high regard by respectable people and referred to as "professionals" does not make them well adjusted people or really even better than you or I at anything other than basketball. Even if Andrew Bynum is slightly childish or a little bit too emotional or anything like that, his immature reactions to his situation are entirely understandable...at least to me.
One thing I can take away from his reactions to these things is that he at least is perceptive enough to be frustrated by legitimately frustrating things. The man is not oblivious and I like that. If I were the Cavs, I would not hesitate to trade Anderson Varejao (one of my favorite players) and picks for the chance that Bynum signs long-term with Cleveland (which I don't think is incredibly far-fetched).
I remember hearing a rumor awhile ago that Cleveland was on the list of locations that Bynum was willing to be traded and not being very surprised. Andrew Bynum would be appreciated in a way that he might not even recognize in Cleveland which would be in stark contrast to his situation in Los Angeles where he wasn't even the consensus most valuable BIG MAN on his OWN TEAM (not to mention his name is not Shaq O'Neal or Kobe Bryant). Cleveland could also pay him more money for more years if he were traded here.
One extra note: I don't like the perception of Cleveland being a paranoid woe-is-me city and I REALLY wouldn't like it if I owned a basketball team there. Having to get a guarantee that Bynum would sign long-term there when it doesn't make any sense at all for him to do so reeks of desperation which, even if you are, it is never in your favor to act as such. Have some confidence that the tough love of Byron Scott and the unconditional love of Cleveland (and more money) are enough to keep a franchise player where he is.
2. Dion Waiters and the Cavaliers' Draft
In the 2009 NBA draft, the Memphis Grizzlies selected Hasheem Thabeet 2nd overall. Thabeet is now elsewhere and never contributed anything at all to the Grizzlies progression into a playoff team in the relentlessly competitive Western Conference. Thabeet was drafted over James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio, and Stephen Curry (even DeMar DeRozen would be improved their team). The Grizzlies still compete even though they missed so badly with such a high pick in the 2009 which should be encouraging. It's not and here's why.
What if they would have drafted somebody useful? They would either have another valuable guard or the ingredients for a trade for a big man (they need a guard more anyway). If you add Stephen Curry or James Harden to the Memphis Grizzlies they're a potential title contender, but they missed their opportunity with one major fuck-up. The Lakers can overcome this sort of thing. The Grizzlies and more recently, the Cavaliers cannot.
Which brings us to the Cavs' 2012 Draft. They started with picks four, 24, 32 and 33 in a LOADED draft and ended up with picks four and 17 (with needs at every position but point guard). The Cavs filled their needs with precision, getting a shooting guard and a 7-foot center, but I can't escape the feeling that this draft will be either forgotten altogether or remembered for the wrong reasons.
I can't picture Dion Waiters contributing to an NBA Championship. I just can't. In the draft, I'm not looking for a guy who had great numbers in college necessarily, I want a guy who has an identifiable skill. Something that he does well. People rave about Waiters' ability to "get to the basket" and his athleticism and how he's "NBA ready." Let me explain something: I can get the basket. ANYONE can "get to the basket." Tell me how he does it. Does he have any deft moves? Is he an elite athlete? When he does get there, does he finish? Does he have any concept of where anyone else on the court is? If he can't get there, does he have a reliable back up plan? Does he recognize and work well with the way his teammates play? Does he play exceptional defense? Is what he's doing consistent? I would say "no" to every single one of these questions if I'm talking about Waiters.
He seems to me like a playground player whose ceiling is lower than top four player on a championship team. There are three players in the next eight picks (Harrison Barnes, Austin Rivers and Jeremy Lamb) who I'm almost 100% sure will be better than Dion Waiters. Then they traded the rest of their picks for Tyler Zeller, a player who will more than likely be a very quality back up Center.
Though I stand by what I've said, Dion Waiters could still be a productive player in the NBA. Even if he is, I still believe the Cavaliers will regret the day they let a great draft slip by without getting a single major contributor to their dreams of an NBA Title when they had so many picks to work with.
3. The Significance of Ray Allen's Move to Miami
I thought that Ray Allen would take less money to stay in Boston. In this era, it doesn't seem as though players hate each other as much as they used to and they don't mind moving as much because it's so much easier to get around and communicate than it used to be. But the Celtics were different. Their advantage on every other team was the fact that they didn't care about being liked. They always did the extra dirty stuff to win and their dislike for their opponent seemed noticeably more genuine than other teams'.
I think Ray Allen did hate the Miami Heat and I think he loved the Boston Celtics. But taking a look at the NBA landscape...why wouldn't a 37 year old shooter want to play with LeBron James? It's supposed to be harder to convince someone to leave what is known to be good for something new, but Ray dove in for half the money and I can't totally disagree with what he did.
This, to me, puts on display what I consider a misconception about what happened with LeBron James in Cleveland and where blame is to be placed for him leaving.
The narrative today is that Cleveland failed LeBron by not surrounding him with talented enough players. I have always disagreed with this because the team he left in 2007 was the best team in the league but what nobody talks about is the reason the Cavs couldn't acquire better talent.
LeBron never committed to Cleveland. At the time, whether LeBron was in Cleveland or not changed the city from the place you want to be to the place you absolutely do not want to be. This is only speculation of course, but I have always believed that the Cavs missed out on high quality bargain free agents every year because they weren't sure they wanted to sign long-term with a team centered around a guy who their guts told them wasn't going to be around for the entirety of their contracts. Now that it's clear that LeBron is committed to Miami, Ray Allen, a guy who I really feel hated the Heat (and probably LeBron's Cavs for that matter) and loved his former team, signed for LESS money with Miami. It just looks fun to play with LeBron James.
It would have been fun in Cleveland also.
1. Andrew Bynum
In case there was any doubt in your minds, trading for Andrew Bynum is a good idea.
The arguments posed in the linked article seem lazy to me. Not all "knuckleheads" are created equal. It always frustrated me when the media put Chad Johnson, Randy Moss and Terrell Owens in the same category when they are very different people with different skills on the field and different problems off the field. Yes, Andrew Bynum as he currently stands seems to be a low-character guy. He almost killed JJ Barea at the end of an embarrassing sweep, he openly defies his coach and he doesn't seem to try his hardest all the time. He also would be the best player on the Cavs the second he steps on the floor (and secretly was the best player on the Lakers every now and again).
I'm not saying that talent trumps character every time because it doesn't. In fact, I'd like to get rid of that way of speaking about it altogether. Character is part of the overall package, just as talent is. If your character hinders your inborn "talent," that talent now becomes irrelevant and therefore does not exist. But let's look at Andrew Bynum's career for a second.
Bynum was drafted to the highest profile team in the league as a teenager. He was on a failing team with Kobe Bryant and all that Kobe Bryant is. Kobe felt it was OK to speak freely about how much Bynum sucked (who, I believe, was 19 at time) in a parking lot to a guy with a camera. The arrival of Phil Jackson as coach coincided with the team actually becoming good, mostly due to Bynum's emergence as a really good center. When L.A. acquired Pau Gasol, that duo became and still remains the best big man combination in the league by a wide margin and really, the reason the Lakers won two NBA Titles.
So why should this 24 year old who is one of the best Centers in the NBA be so grumpy?
The three years the Lakers were title contenders, Kobe Bryant, the veteran who made fun of a younger clumsier Bynum years earlier, took almost all of the credit while Bynum (who, once again, was the REASON THE TEAM WAS EVEN GOOD) took flack whenever he had a bad game. He was either not giving Kobe enough help or not able to be on the court due to injury. Even if the problem was that they weren't using him enough, he was blamed for not "demanding the ball." Nothing was blamed on the veteran and everything was blamed on the young super talent. And to further problems, this situation was nurtured by Coach Jackson, a man who is extremely well respected for handling his players' emotions well. How ironic.
Now, you might be saying, "Whatever, you're getting paid millions of dollars to play a game! Get over it!" This is the classic fan argument against any and all player complaints. These same fans are sad when players "don't care" or "do it all for the money." Pick one. Have you ever been on a team (even a pick up team) where you are unhappy with your role or your teammates? You're mad. It'd be easy to detach yourself if you were only playing for the money but these guys don't really do that. They still care at least a little bit. And it'd be easier to perhaps adjust to a situation that isn't ideal when you're just a super well-adjusted person. I can't overstate this next point: Just because these athletes are on TV, spoken of with high regard by respectable people and referred to as "professionals" does not make them well adjusted people or really even better than you or I at anything other than basketball. Even if Andrew Bynum is slightly childish or a little bit too emotional or anything like that, his immature reactions to his situation are entirely understandable...at least to me.
One thing I can take away from his reactions to these things is that he at least is perceptive enough to be frustrated by legitimately frustrating things. The man is not oblivious and I like that. If I were the Cavs, I would not hesitate to trade Anderson Varejao (one of my favorite players) and picks for the chance that Bynum signs long-term with Cleveland (which I don't think is incredibly far-fetched).
I remember hearing a rumor awhile ago that Cleveland was on the list of locations that Bynum was willing to be traded and not being very surprised. Andrew Bynum would be appreciated in a way that he might not even recognize in Cleveland which would be in stark contrast to his situation in Los Angeles where he wasn't even the consensus most valuable BIG MAN on his OWN TEAM (not to mention his name is not Shaq O'Neal or Kobe Bryant). Cleveland could also pay him more money for more years if he were traded here.
One extra note: I don't like the perception of Cleveland being a paranoid woe-is-me city and I REALLY wouldn't like it if I owned a basketball team there. Having to get a guarantee that Bynum would sign long-term there when it doesn't make any sense at all for him to do so reeks of desperation which, even if you are, it is never in your favor to act as such. Have some confidence that the tough love of Byron Scott and the unconditional love of Cleveland (and more money) are enough to keep a franchise player where he is.
2. Dion Waiters and the Cavaliers' Draft
In the 2009 NBA draft, the Memphis Grizzlies selected Hasheem Thabeet 2nd overall. Thabeet is now elsewhere and never contributed anything at all to the Grizzlies progression into a playoff team in the relentlessly competitive Western Conference. Thabeet was drafted over James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio, and Stephen Curry (even DeMar DeRozen would be improved their team). The Grizzlies still compete even though they missed so badly with such a high pick in the 2009 which should be encouraging. It's not and here's why.
What if they would have drafted somebody useful? They would either have another valuable guard or the ingredients for a trade for a big man (they need a guard more anyway). If you add Stephen Curry or James Harden to the Memphis Grizzlies they're a potential title contender, but they missed their opportunity with one major fuck-up. The Lakers can overcome this sort of thing. The Grizzlies and more recently, the Cavaliers cannot.
Which brings us to the Cavs' 2012 Draft. They started with picks four, 24, 32 and 33 in a LOADED draft and ended up with picks four and 17 (with needs at every position but point guard). The Cavs filled their needs with precision, getting a shooting guard and a 7-foot center, but I can't escape the feeling that this draft will be either forgotten altogether or remembered for the wrong reasons.
I can't picture Dion Waiters contributing to an NBA Championship. I just can't. In the draft, I'm not looking for a guy who had great numbers in college necessarily, I want a guy who has an identifiable skill. Something that he does well. People rave about Waiters' ability to "get to the basket" and his athleticism and how he's "NBA ready." Let me explain something: I can get the basket. ANYONE can "get to the basket." Tell me how he does it. Does he have any deft moves? Is he an elite athlete? When he does get there, does he finish? Does he have any concept of where anyone else on the court is? If he can't get there, does he have a reliable back up plan? Does he recognize and work well with the way his teammates play? Does he play exceptional defense? Is what he's doing consistent? I would say "no" to every single one of these questions if I'm talking about Waiters.
He seems to me like a playground player whose ceiling is lower than top four player on a championship team. There are three players in the next eight picks (Harrison Barnes, Austin Rivers and Jeremy Lamb) who I'm almost 100% sure will be better than Dion Waiters. Then they traded the rest of their picks for Tyler Zeller, a player who will more than likely be a very quality back up Center.
Though I stand by what I've said, Dion Waiters could still be a productive player in the NBA. Even if he is, I still believe the Cavaliers will regret the day they let a great draft slip by without getting a single major contributor to their dreams of an NBA Title when they had so many picks to work with.
3. The Significance of Ray Allen's Move to Miami
I thought that Ray Allen would take less money to stay in Boston. In this era, it doesn't seem as though players hate each other as much as they used to and they don't mind moving as much because it's so much easier to get around and communicate than it used to be. But the Celtics were different. Their advantage on every other team was the fact that they didn't care about being liked. They always did the extra dirty stuff to win and their dislike for their opponent seemed noticeably more genuine than other teams'.
I think Ray Allen did hate the Miami Heat and I think he loved the Boston Celtics. But taking a look at the NBA landscape...why wouldn't a 37 year old shooter want to play with LeBron James? It's supposed to be harder to convince someone to leave what is known to be good for something new, but Ray dove in for half the money and I can't totally disagree with what he did.
This, to me, puts on display what I consider a misconception about what happened with LeBron James in Cleveland and where blame is to be placed for him leaving.
The narrative today is that Cleveland failed LeBron by not surrounding him with talented enough players. I have always disagreed with this because the team he left in 2007 was the best team in the league but what nobody talks about is the reason the Cavs couldn't acquire better talent.
LeBron never committed to Cleveland. At the time, whether LeBron was in Cleveland or not changed the city from the place you want to be to the place you absolutely do not want to be. This is only speculation of course, but I have always believed that the Cavs missed out on high quality bargain free agents every year because they weren't sure they wanted to sign long-term with a team centered around a guy who their guts told them wasn't going to be around for the entirety of their contracts. Now that it's clear that LeBron is committed to Miami, Ray Allen, a guy who I really feel hated the Heat (and probably LeBron's Cavs for that matter) and loved his former team, signed for LESS money with Miami. It just looks fun to play with LeBron James.
It would have been fun in Cleveland also.
Monday, May 28, 2012
2012 NBA Conference Finals
Ric Bucher needs to stop.
The Byook just wrote a column (sorry if you're not an insider...though you're not missing much) that continues to overuse of the term "alpha-dog" into meaninglessness while also misusing the term altogether. His argument here is that Kevin Durant is not an "alpha-dog (a now meaningless term)" because he allows other players on his team to do things and that his doing this is actually beneficial to his team. If "alpha-dog" had a meaning at this point, it would be exactly what Kevin Durant is. He saves his "pack" when things are going bad and he allows them to flourish otherwise because he is completely lacking in insecurity. At least that should be the idea. This column manages to backhandedly compliment an up-and-coming (potential) future hall of fame player who is coming into his own in a way that lacks fear AND insecurity (an extremely difficult thing to do) as well as sneak in a few unwarranted cap tips to Kobe Bryant and throw in a few general inaccuracies as well. Bravo.
Metta World Peace was closer to the truth than you think. The Lakers were outmatched in speed but not in size or skill. They were dominated in the very first game when the young Thunder came out and hit every shot with their home crowd behind them but otherwise, the series could have gone either way. The difference here was that Kobe Bryant, while always being severely overrated in crunch time, was especially bad against the Thunder. Kobe single-handedly lost two out of the four games with an assist, of course, from the clutch play of Durant (in plainly obvious contrast to Bryant's). All the while he gives no credit to Durant, publicly criticizes his best players, and curses to the media while receiving praise from all angles.
Let's not let Kobe's idiotic comments to the media cloud our vision as basketball fans (for the record, he does play for your fucking approval). Let's recognize how impressive what Kevin Durant and the rest of the young Thunder did in crunch time against a veteran team in important games that were very much in doubt.
So what's left? Four teams with strengths and weaknesses all their own. I will give you one of each.
The Boston Celtics
Strength: Toughness
The Boston Celtics, at this point, are almost nothing but tough. Game 7 against the 76ers was won by Rajon Rondo hitting a couple of outside shots (which he sucks at) simply because he had to. They can't score more than 85 points so they'll make you score 75. It's the only saving grace they have against the Miami Heat this year. If healthy, Boston matches up fairly well with Miami...which brings us to the weakness.
Weakness: Age
It can be argued that being old is what made them tough. However, the other fringe benefits of age (continuity, execution, shooting prowess) elude them while the downfalls of extensive mileage (sloth, poor health, lack of general youthful exuberance) now embody this team. The Boston Celtics really are a poor offensive team and their struggles against the forgettable 76ers were real. Boston couldn't stay in front of Philadelphia's quick guards and couldn't really shake them on offense either. Both of those things are alarming going into a series against a Miami Heat team that includes two of the most impressive physical specimens of this generation.
The Miami Heat
Strength: James/Wade
It's as simple as that. LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are the two most physically dominant players left in the playoffs and have the intelligence and experience to make incredible plays at back-breaking times. While they still don't play especially well together, having two players who can "do it all" as they can is still a load for a defense (and perhaps more notably, an offense) to handle as long that advantage is not willingly squandered by the pair of them. Each of those two players have, in the past, been enough to drag their own teams past others who don't reach a certain hurdle of competence so you'd better leave some extra space between yourself and that bar if you expect to beat both of them.
Weakness: Everyone Else
I've already at least tried to beat the issue of this team's lack of toughness and their distasteful self awareness to death so let's concentrate on the "supporting" cast. Every one of them, including coach Erik Spoelstra, take every cue from LeBron and Wade who are both capable of falling into funks. Both LeBron and Wade have always gotten by on athleticism, good vibes, intelligence and a general "feel" about how sports work. They don't, however, and an incredible depth of skills or "moves," if you will, to fall back on. They hit shots because they're on fire, not because they're good shooters. So, if the tide turns, they can go extremely cold because of the lack of confidence in the simple form of shooting or running a play, because they almost never have had to use either of those things in their lives. This, in turn, makes everyone else terrified to shoot. Troubling news if you're facing someone who thinks they're good enough to win it all.
The Oklahoma City Thunder
Strength: Speed
For their age, they are also a little more poised and a little more skilled than they really should be, but their advantage over EVERY other team (yes, including the Heat) is their speed. They are comfortable playing faster than really anything I've ever seen which makes their ceiling the highest of any team left.
Weakness: Post Scoring
Again, their obvious weakness is their inexperience, but it doesn't seem to affect them as much as it would most teams so that's not what I'm focusing on. The Thunder are very pleased that Serge Ibaka now takes a ten-footer and makes it occasionally which should show you how lacking they are in offensive skill in the post. Their other starting big man is Kendrick Perkins who has zero touch and can't make free throws. This means that, in crunch time or when they are trying to ice a lead, they have to keep running and taking jump shots. This is certainly not the most effective way of operating but goddamn is it fun to watch.
The San Antonio Spurs
Strength and Weakness: One Speed
To shake things up, the Spurs' strength and weakness is the same thing.
The Spurs, to me, because of their fantastic coaching, intelligence and lack of a real dominant physical presence, have always been a "hurdle" team. This means that they set the bar at a nine out of ten. If no team can take it's game to a ten, the Spurs get the trophy. The Spurs play at one speed which means they are steady in the clutch, don't panic when they get down, and it also means that they theoretically couldn't keep up with either the Heat or the Thunder if they decided to put it all together out of the blue. But with the Thunder's best players being younger than yours truly (24) and the Heat being without a healthy Bosh, the Spurs become the favorites.
We'll see in the next month if anyone can clear that hurdle.
The Byook just wrote a column (sorry if you're not an insider...though you're not missing much) that continues to overuse of the term "alpha-dog" into meaninglessness while also misusing the term altogether. His argument here is that Kevin Durant is not an "alpha-dog (a now meaningless term)" because he allows other players on his team to do things and that his doing this is actually beneficial to his team. If "alpha-dog" had a meaning at this point, it would be exactly what Kevin Durant is. He saves his "pack" when things are going bad and he allows them to flourish otherwise because he is completely lacking in insecurity. At least that should be the idea. This column manages to backhandedly compliment an up-and-coming (potential) future hall of fame player who is coming into his own in a way that lacks fear AND insecurity (an extremely difficult thing to do) as well as sneak in a few unwarranted cap tips to Kobe Bryant and throw in a few general inaccuracies as well. Bravo.
Metta World Peace was closer to the truth than you think. The Lakers were outmatched in speed but not in size or skill. They were dominated in the very first game when the young Thunder came out and hit every shot with their home crowd behind them but otherwise, the series could have gone either way. The difference here was that Kobe Bryant, while always being severely overrated in crunch time, was especially bad against the Thunder. Kobe single-handedly lost two out of the four games with an assist, of course, from the clutch play of Durant (in plainly obvious contrast to Bryant's). All the while he gives no credit to Durant, publicly criticizes his best players, and curses to the media while receiving praise from all angles.
Let's not let Kobe's idiotic comments to the media cloud our vision as basketball fans (for the record, he does play for your fucking approval). Let's recognize how impressive what Kevin Durant and the rest of the young Thunder did in crunch time against a veteran team in important games that were very much in doubt.
So what's left? Four teams with strengths and weaknesses all their own. I will give you one of each.
The Boston Celtics
Strength: Toughness
The Boston Celtics, at this point, are almost nothing but tough. Game 7 against the 76ers was won by Rajon Rondo hitting a couple of outside shots (which he sucks at) simply because he had to. They can't score more than 85 points so they'll make you score 75. It's the only saving grace they have against the Miami Heat this year. If healthy, Boston matches up fairly well with Miami...which brings us to the weakness.
Weakness: Age
It can be argued that being old is what made them tough. However, the other fringe benefits of age (continuity, execution, shooting prowess) elude them while the downfalls of extensive mileage (sloth, poor health, lack of general youthful exuberance) now embody this team. The Boston Celtics really are a poor offensive team and their struggles against the forgettable 76ers were real. Boston couldn't stay in front of Philadelphia's quick guards and couldn't really shake them on offense either. Both of those things are alarming going into a series against a Miami Heat team that includes two of the most impressive physical specimens of this generation.
The Miami Heat
Strength: James/Wade
It's as simple as that. LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are the two most physically dominant players left in the playoffs and have the intelligence and experience to make incredible plays at back-breaking times. While they still don't play especially well together, having two players who can "do it all" as they can is still a load for a defense (and perhaps more notably, an offense) to handle as long that advantage is not willingly squandered by the pair of them. Each of those two players have, in the past, been enough to drag their own teams past others who don't reach a certain hurdle of competence so you'd better leave some extra space between yourself and that bar if you expect to beat both of them.
Weakness: Everyone Else
I've already at least tried to beat the issue of this team's lack of toughness and their distasteful self awareness to death so let's concentrate on the "supporting" cast. Every one of them, including coach Erik Spoelstra, take every cue from LeBron and Wade who are both capable of falling into funks. Both LeBron and Wade have always gotten by on athleticism, good vibes, intelligence and a general "feel" about how sports work. They don't, however, and an incredible depth of skills or "moves," if you will, to fall back on. They hit shots because they're on fire, not because they're good shooters. So, if the tide turns, they can go extremely cold because of the lack of confidence in the simple form of shooting or running a play, because they almost never have had to use either of those things in their lives. This, in turn, makes everyone else terrified to shoot. Troubling news if you're facing someone who thinks they're good enough to win it all.
The Oklahoma City Thunder
Strength: Speed
For their age, they are also a little more poised and a little more skilled than they really should be, but their advantage over EVERY other team (yes, including the Heat) is their speed. They are comfortable playing faster than really anything I've ever seen which makes their ceiling the highest of any team left.
Weakness: Post Scoring
Again, their obvious weakness is their inexperience, but it doesn't seem to affect them as much as it would most teams so that's not what I'm focusing on. The Thunder are very pleased that Serge Ibaka now takes a ten-footer and makes it occasionally which should show you how lacking they are in offensive skill in the post. Their other starting big man is Kendrick Perkins who has zero touch and can't make free throws. This means that, in crunch time or when they are trying to ice a lead, they have to keep running and taking jump shots. This is certainly not the most effective way of operating but goddamn is it fun to watch.
The San Antonio Spurs
Strength and Weakness: One Speed
To shake things up, the Spurs' strength and weakness is the same thing.
The Spurs, to me, because of their fantastic coaching, intelligence and lack of a real dominant physical presence, have always been a "hurdle" team. This means that they set the bar at a nine out of ten. If no team can take it's game to a ten, the Spurs get the trophy. The Spurs play at one speed which means they are steady in the clutch, don't panic when they get down, and it also means that they theoretically couldn't keep up with either the Heat or the Thunder if they decided to put it all together out of the blue. But with the Thunder's best players being younger than yours truly (24) and the Heat being without a healthy Bosh, the Spurs become the favorites.
We'll see in the next month if anyone can clear that hurdle.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
NBA Playoffs 2nd Round: Reevaluations
To say that a lot has happened since my first take on the NBA Playoff landscape would be an understatement. In fact, the best player on the team I picked to win it all suffered an injury that will keep him out until probably this time NEXT year and could quite possibly cause me to never pick that team to win it all again...less than 24 hours after I picked them.
Which, by the way, is really sad. I always said that the violence of his cuts and jump stops was astonishing and it has apparently caught up to him. Injuries suck.
Anyway, I think it's high time we have another look.
Eastern Conference
Boston Celtics (5) vs. Philadelphia 76ers (8)
As I was waking up this morning, I heard Doug Collins' post game press conference where he said that the Celtics saw how the Heat played without Chris Bosh and saw an "opportunity," which is why Boston killed Philadelphia on the Sixers' home floor. That comment is interesting for a variety of reasons.
First, Doug Collins, the coach of the 76ers, just made a comment making it seem self-evident that the Celtics were better than the Sixers and could end the series, essentially, whenever they want. Typically, there is a statement of resignation by a coach when he's outmatched. Something like, "Hey, we know they're really good but we're gonna do what we can, etc., etc." This was a very big-picture analysis for a coach. I think it's interesting to be comfortable making a public comment that very strongly implies that the OTHER team is in complete control of the series.
Second, he's right...The Celtics are in complete control of the series AND I think that they do now think that they have a puncher's chance at winning it all. The Celtics are really old (in case you weren't aware)...and not a San Antonio kind of old either. They look tired. It looks like every game, at this point, could actually shorten the life of Pierce and Garnett. In fact, before Chris Bosh got hurt (the first two games of the series), they looked like they took about the first 43 minutes of the game off and assumed they could win it in the end for the sole purpose of conserving energy. And they actually could win the series that way, but I think that they did get a little shot of adrenaline from the Bosh injury. Expect this series to end very soon.
Miami Heat (2) vs. Indiana Pacers (3)
The Heat are in deep trouble and everyone can smell it.
Losing Chris Bosh has most likely ended their season just as losing Derrick Rose ended Chicago's. The only difference is that it's not being talked about in those terms as much which is just another example of why this Heat team is so unlikable and unfamiliar.
LeBron James and Dwyane Wade have to act like they can do it by themselves, even if they know they can't. That was basically the bet they made with the world. By creating the present day Miami Heat, James and Wade forfeited their statuses as fan favorites, as well as risked further humiliation if they never managed to win a Title. Whether or not LeBron and Wade's skills complimented each other AT ALL didn't seem to matter. It was just hard to believe that the league's best player and the league's second best perimeter player surrounded with literally anyone couldn't win it all on accident a few times.
Well, that plan is in serious jeopardy. If Chris Bosh is out for the rest of the playoffs, I don't think the Heat can beat the Celtics or any team in the West and I'm not even sure they will beat the Pacers. Bosh is the only guy of the three who actually is suited and is willing to compliment the game of anybody else on the team. As much as people have called him "soft," he does more of the "dirty work," if you will, than James or Wade. He gets rebounds, he guards pick and roll, he shoots spot up jumpers...all non-glamorous duties. Not to mention he does all of this with zero help from any other big man. He allows the Heat to not have to play Rony Turiaf, Udonis Haslem (playing poorly), Dexter Pittman, Juwan Howard and Eddy Curry. That's an enormous drop off.
Even with Bosh I had my doubts. Make no mistake, this is a sensitive group of guys. They're the biggest and the strongest but they care what you think. They are in a doldrums and public opinion seems almost impossible to salvage and the more they stay in denial about their dire condition, the longer it extends the funk. Where we stand now, I see the Heat losing to the Celtics, who already matched up pretty well with them.
Western Conference
San Antonio Spurs (1) vs. L.A. Clippers (5)
The Clippers have no business being here.
The Memphis Grizzlies have a better team and a better coach but were out-willed by the shortest guy on the floor.
I guess I don't need to gush over Chris Paul. He's probably my favorite player in the league. But in an era where it would be considered normal to give up when you know you have no chance to win a title when you are an elite player, Chris Paul didn't even consider it. He's sacrificing the future of his knees because he's a true competitor. His coach, organization and bench are all bad and he lost his starting shooting guard for whom they had no replacement, but he kept going. He also appears to be rubbing off on Blake Griffin who had some really good games against the Grizzlies last round for a power forward with almost no moves. It's great when your leader instinctively knows what to do at every moment of the game. It makes it a lot easier to grow as a player.
(Side note: Tim Legler of ESPN used his touch screen to rank the most clutch players left in the playoffs. Long story short, Kobe was number 1 and Chris Paul didn't make the top 5. There is a right answer to this question and he wasn't even close.)
An athlete thinking about his legacy or how to micro manage his status in the league while he's still playing, to me, is similar to an artist thinking about what he or she can do to make his/her art "sell." It accomplishes the goal, technically, but it doesn't seem like the way to get the purest form of whatever is being created. This era's stars LOVE doing that...but Chris Paul doesn't. And that, among other things, is why I like him.
In other news, Chris Paul's Clippers have almost no chance of winning this series. They're simply not a complete team and San Antonio most certainly is.
Oklahoma City Thunder (2) vs. L.A. Lakers (3)
Game 2 of this series showed us a lot.
First, the Lakers can't beat the Thunder. If they didn't win that game, they aren't going to win the series. L.A. held the highest scoring team in the league to 77 points and lost. Furthermore, they don't have the coach or the character as a team to come back from that tough of a loss.
Second, Kobe Bryant is now obsolete. There's a newer model called Kevin Durant and he's taller and a better shooter. Oh, and his teammates like him.While Durant shined, Kobe showed, once again, that he is far from infallible in crunch time, especially in the playoffs against a worthy opponent. But hey, who is?
(The answer to that question is either A. The best players ever are close to infallible in the clutch against a worthy opponent or B. Nobody, but the best players never have worthy opponents so it's a trick question).
Third, the Thunder aren't yet trustworthy. As long as they stay loose and keep their foot on the gas, the Lakers can't touch them (you can't touch thunder). But scoring 50 points less the second game of a series when you're at home is pretty darn shaky. And even though Durant has hit a couple game-winners, neither of those shots screamed "calm and efficient execution down the stretch" to me. It screamed, "Holy Shit, nobody else in the league could have even got that shot off let alone made it."
The Thunder probably have the best group of players left but it's down to them and San Antonio to see who has the best team left. I'm interested to find out.
Which, by the way, is really sad. I always said that the violence of his cuts and jump stops was astonishing and it has apparently caught up to him. Injuries suck.
Anyway, I think it's high time we have another look.
Eastern Conference
Boston Celtics (5) vs. Philadelphia 76ers (8)
As I was waking up this morning, I heard Doug Collins' post game press conference where he said that the Celtics saw how the Heat played without Chris Bosh and saw an "opportunity," which is why Boston killed Philadelphia on the Sixers' home floor. That comment is interesting for a variety of reasons.
First, Doug Collins, the coach of the 76ers, just made a comment making it seem self-evident that the Celtics were better than the Sixers and could end the series, essentially, whenever they want. Typically, there is a statement of resignation by a coach when he's outmatched. Something like, "Hey, we know they're really good but we're gonna do what we can, etc., etc." This was a very big-picture analysis for a coach. I think it's interesting to be comfortable making a public comment that very strongly implies that the OTHER team is in complete control of the series.
Second, he's right...The Celtics are in complete control of the series AND I think that they do now think that they have a puncher's chance at winning it all. The Celtics are really old (in case you weren't aware)...and not a San Antonio kind of old either. They look tired. It looks like every game, at this point, could actually shorten the life of Pierce and Garnett. In fact, before Chris Bosh got hurt (the first two games of the series), they looked like they took about the first 43 minutes of the game off and assumed they could win it in the end for the sole purpose of conserving energy. And they actually could win the series that way, but I think that they did get a little shot of adrenaline from the Bosh injury. Expect this series to end very soon.
Miami Heat (2) vs. Indiana Pacers (3)
The Heat are in deep trouble and everyone can smell it.
Losing Chris Bosh has most likely ended their season just as losing Derrick Rose ended Chicago's. The only difference is that it's not being talked about in those terms as much which is just another example of why this Heat team is so unlikable and unfamiliar.
LeBron James and Dwyane Wade have to act like they can do it by themselves, even if they know they can't. That was basically the bet they made with the world. By creating the present day Miami Heat, James and Wade forfeited their statuses as fan favorites, as well as risked further humiliation if they never managed to win a Title. Whether or not LeBron and Wade's skills complimented each other AT ALL didn't seem to matter. It was just hard to believe that the league's best player and the league's second best perimeter player surrounded with literally anyone couldn't win it all on accident a few times.
Well, that plan is in serious jeopardy. If Chris Bosh is out for the rest of the playoffs, I don't think the Heat can beat the Celtics or any team in the West and I'm not even sure they will beat the Pacers. Bosh is the only guy of the three who actually is suited and is willing to compliment the game of anybody else on the team. As much as people have called him "soft," he does more of the "dirty work," if you will, than James or Wade. He gets rebounds, he guards pick and roll, he shoots spot up jumpers...all non-glamorous duties. Not to mention he does all of this with zero help from any other big man. He allows the Heat to not have to play Rony Turiaf, Udonis Haslem (playing poorly), Dexter Pittman, Juwan Howard and Eddy Curry. That's an enormous drop off.
Even with Bosh I had my doubts. Make no mistake, this is a sensitive group of guys. They're the biggest and the strongest but they care what you think. They are in a doldrums and public opinion seems almost impossible to salvage and the more they stay in denial about their dire condition, the longer it extends the funk. Where we stand now, I see the Heat losing to the Celtics, who already matched up pretty well with them.
Western Conference
San Antonio Spurs (1) vs. L.A. Clippers (5)
The Clippers have no business being here.
The Memphis Grizzlies have a better team and a better coach but were out-willed by the shortest guy on the floor.
I guess I don't need to gush over Chris Paul. He's probably my favorite player in the league. But in an era where it would be considered normal to give up when you know you have no chance to win a title when you are an elite player, Chris Paul didn't even consider it. He's sacrificing the future of his knees because he's a true competitor. His coach, organization and bench are all bad and he lost his starting shooting guard for whom they had no replacement, but he kept going. He also appears to be rubbing off on Blake Griffin who had some really good games against the Grizzlies last round for a power forward with almost no moves. It's great when your leader instinctively knows what to do at every moment of the game. It makes it a lot easier to grow as a player.
(Side note: Tim Legler of ESPN used his touch screen to rank the most clutch players left in the playoffs. Long story short, Kobe was number 1 and Chris Paul didn't make the top 5. There is a right answer to this question and he wasn't even close.)
An athlete thinking about his legacy or how to micro manage his status in the league while he's still playing, to me, is similar to an artist thinking about what he or she can do to make his/her art "sell." It accomplishes the goal, technically, but it doesn't seem like the way to get the purest form of whatever is being created. This era's stars LOVE doing that...but Chris Paul doesn't. And that, among other things, is why I like him.
In other news, Chris Paul's Clippers have almost no chance of winning this series. They're simply not a complete team and San Antonio most certainly is.
Oklahoma City Thunder (2) vs. L.A. Lakers (3)
Game 2 of this series showed us a lot.
First, the Lakers can't beat the Thunder. If they didn't win that game, they aren't going to win the series. L.A. held the highest scoring team in the league to 77 points and lost. Furthermore, they don't have the coach or the character as a team to come back from that tough of a loss.
Second, Kobe Bryant is now obsolete. There's a newer model called Kevin Durant and he's taller and a better shooter. Oh, and his teammates like him.While Durant shined, Kobe showed, once again, that he is far from infallible in crunch time, especially in the playoffs against a worthy opponent. But hey, who is?
(The answer to that question is either A. The best players ever are close to infallible in the clutch against a worthy opponent or B. Nobody, but the best players never have worthy opponents so it's a trick question).
Third, the Thunder aren't yet trustworthy. As long as they stay loose and keep their foot on the gas, the Lakers can't touch them (you can't touch thunder). But scoring 50 points less the second game of a series when you're at home is pretty darn shaky. And even though Durant has hit a couple game-winners, neither of those shots screamed "calm and efficient execution down the stretch" to me. It screamed, "Holy Shit, nobody else in the league could have even got that shot off let alone made it."
The Thunder probably have the best group of players left but it's down to them and San Antonio to see who has the best team left. I'm interested to find out.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
2012 NBA Playoffs: Instinct
In recent years, it seems, the NBA Playoffs set out with a very small selection of definite favorites to make it to the championship series. The last three seasons, LeBron always seemed to be on his way to to the Finals. The Garnett Celtics' first regular season set up for championship expectations. And perhaps more than any of them, both eras of Phil Jackson in Los Angeles had a certain air of inevitability.
Things don't always go as planned. LeBron never made it to the Finals in the last two years with the Cavs, both Phil Jackson eras ended weirdly and harshly, and the Celtics' road the the Title in 2008 was in serious jeopardy early on in the playoffs. Even last year, once the Heat made it to the Finals against the surprising Dallas Mavericks, we thought we had an idea of what was going to happen. Of course, it didn't.
The perception of the NBA as a "star-driven league" combined with the seven-game series seems to make the fans feel comfortable in "knowing" that the "best team" is going to win. Though we are often surprised by the results, the playoffs seem to be mapped out, for the most part, in our heads before they start.
This season? Nuh-uh.
Every team has major problems. The best teams are too young or too old or too top-heavy or too star-lacking. There is one thing we DO know. We know that Buddies is gonna stay up late the night after the vomit-inducing draft night drinking game to bring you (mainly Maggie) an NBA Playoff preview. This is essentially a guide for who to watch and what to watch for with four levels of teams: No Point, Wildest Dreams Teams, Fake Contenders and Contenders. I have put these teams in order from least likely to most likely to win the title (in my opinion, obviously).
The "No Point" Teams: I'd Rather Be Tanking.
The Philadelphia 76ers: 8-seed, Eastern Conference
Let's face it, most of these teams are basically in Hell. Their common ground is that they have no star but aren't bad enough to not make the playoffs. It's really a noble thing that these teams are doing, sadly. It's the old "be the best you can be no matter what thing" gone crazy. YOU HAVE TO GET BAD. Kind of like the economy.
Anyway, there's not much to say about the Sixers. That's why they're in this group. They play hard for Doug Collins and they play really good team basketball but they can't win any close games EVER because they don't have a star to go to and get bad foul calls at the end of the game. That's perhaps an oversimplification, but the fact remains. To be in this group, you can't win the Title even in my wildest dreams...and I mean the absolute wildest.
The Utah Jazz: 8-seed, Western Conference
Again, no stars and no reason to watch them. I'm almost 100% sure that they will win at least two games in this series just because of how much I have been talking about how much I'd rather watch any other team in the league than them in round 1. Of course they're not bad, but they're not good either. I didn't even like watching them when they had Deron Williams and they thought they were good. I just fell asleep.
The Orlando Magic: 6-seed, Eastern Conference
They did have a star, but he quit.
The Atlanta Hawks: 5-seed, Eastern Conference
They paid a guy as if he were a star, but he's Joe Johnson.
The Denver Nuggets: 6-seed, Western Conference
I don't feel great about putting them here because of how much I approve of how good they are after trading Carmelo Anthony (better than the Knicks)...but you don't see the Knicks on this first list, do you?
The Nuggets don't really have anyone approaching a star and they also don't really play anything approaching defense, and that's really what got them here. There's a certain team missing from this list that might be conspicuous (no stars), but the defense is the difference. It really is appropriate that the Lakers get to play a team on this first list even though they didn't get a top-2 seed.
Maybe in my Wildest Dreams...
The Indiana Pacers: 3-seed, Eastern Conference
The Indiana Pacers are deep and tough but they really don't belong above the first list. I can't even really put my finger on why they aren't but when I say "wildest," I want to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone.
This team is basically designed to be annoying to play. They have the giant center who can guard your dominant center (if that's your thing). They have the quick little point guard (if you're trying to hide yours defensively). They have big young wings to guard against your running style (if you're into it). But, again...not one Goddamn star!!! This brings me to a point that should probably have been brought up with the Nuggets...
Depth matters less now. With the season being so brutal, the Pacers had the advantage of being young and deep. Now, the top of your rotation matters more than the overall quality of your roster. Also, your youth matters less because there will be more rest in the playoffs and the freshness of legs should be equalized to an extent.
That said, they made it here because of how they can match up and because they are the BEST of the teams in this young/deep/balanced category. If everyone on every other team gets hurt, the Pacers might be a dark horse to win it all!
The New York Knicks: 7-seed, Eastern Conference
Should the Knicks be proud that they are a 7-seed in the not-as-deep Eastern Conference and made it to the second list? Or should they be embarrassed that they the least likely team to win it all (by my estimation) that has a bona fide super star?
Who cares. Fuck the Knicks.
But seriously, the Knicks are incomplete (and kind of annoying). Carmelo Anthony is perhaps the most frightening guy with the ball at the end of the game in the league, but what's behind it might be a double-edged sword.
Carmelo is definitely down for the one-on-one, competitive, "who's-the-most-man" challenge. You know, like that thing that everyone says Kobe is great at? Well Carmelo's actually good at it. 'Melo has a noticeable instinct for whatever this is. It's like he can smell it. If you throw down the one-on-one gauntlet in front of Carmelo Anthony, he will show you how bad you are at scoring.
On the flip side, Carmelo doesn't seem to have any idea what it means to be a leader of, or how to sacrifice for, a team. And it's not that he doesn't seem to want to do it now, but your instincts show up when your pushed to your limits, not what you're just now trying to learn how to do. What I'm talking about here is essentially being consistent. When you're the most talented player on the team, you generally want to be an undisputed leader in one way or another. He just can't do it. He's never done it. It's kind of a shame. 'Melo's not quite in the club of modern stars that dance with their rivals during the All Star Game, but he has his own problems. In fact, he probably wishes he were in that club but he has too much of an edge.
My verdict is that their star is on par, scoring-wise, with anyone in the league but just not nearly consistent enough to make me think his team can win more than one game against the Heat...but they could...I guess.
The Dallas Mavericks: 7-seed, Western Conference
The Mavericks are getting respect for having won the title last season, but did they really seem like some kind of dynasty last year? They've done their job.
The Los Angeles Clippers: 5-seed, Western Conference
Similar to the Knicks, the Clippers are an incomplete team that throws one of the best players in the league out there that gives them a chance on any given night. The difference is that the Clippers are a little bit more top-heavy (Blake Griffin is a much better offensive second banana than Amar'e Stoudemire at this point) and their star (Chris Paul) is very consistent and a fantastic leader.
After Paul, the Clips rely on Mo Williams, Nick Young, Eric Bledsoe and Randy Foye to hold down the fort at the PG/SG positions. They also count Caron Butler as a "weapon." Blechkkk.
But again...on any given night, Chris Paul can win the day. That strategy, however, doesn't typically win four straight seven-game series' against the best teams in the league. They'll be lucky to get out of the first round against...
The Memphis Grizzlies: 4-seed, Western Conference
Who's their star, you ask? Why, Gilbert Arenas, of course!
With Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay and Marc Gasol in your starting lineup, you could argue that all of those guys are stars (although, you'd probably be wrong). Randolph is your "star" here, if you want to pick one, but the rest of these guys really pick each other up with their strengths and weaknesses.
Randolph and Gasol are big and strong and hard to intimidate in the paint (Gasol because he has already gotten over the I-can't-beat-my-big-brother hurdle and Randolph because he's probably insane), they have perimeter scoring (Gay and Mayo), they have the quick point guard (Conley) and they have Tony Allen to scare the shit out of your best guard. They don't seem to have very much wasted space on their roster, which is appealing to watch. The Griz are absolutely the most likely team out of this group to go to ruin everyone in these subsequent lists' summer (and I'm rooting for it).
The Fictional Contenders: Contending for what, exactly?
The Los Angeles Lakers: 3-seed, Western Conference
Mike Brown and Kobe Bryant might be the stupidest couple in the history of things being paired together.
You could think of more combustible duos, like Bill Belichick and Bernie Kosar for example. The difference is that those two guys are aggressive and Belichick just traded Bernie because he wouldn't run his robotic offense so it ended. Kobe is so passive-aggressive and Mike Brown is just passive so it won't end. Mike Brown isn't assertive enough to take control and Kobe isn't masculine enough to just demand a better coach. I just want to get everything straight that this is not some odd couple that might just work. It's a TERRIBLE match. Kobe Bryant, 33, led the league in shot attempts and was leading the leage in minutes played before injuring his shin. How dumb are both of those things?!?! Really dumb.
To be clear, the Lakers are a threat because Bynum and Gasol are a fantastic front line. That is their mismatch. Kobe Bryant is almost as great a player as he is a megalomaniacal douche bag (high praise), but he's not why they're good. This team, however, does not have good chemistry, a good coach, or good Karma (which usually doesn't mater).
This seems like a good time to mention Ron Artest.
He should be suspended, at least, for the entire 2012 Playoffs. Nobody does what he did. His elbow was not something that even seemed to have any ill will towards it, I don't think. This might make it more forgivable (or something), but it makes it clear how dangerous of a thing this guy with "World Peace" on the back of his jersey is. I like Artest as a player, but it's just not OK for a professional league to have a guy where playing hard against him causes your employees legitimate concern for their safety. MWP basically said that it was "bad timing" because he was so excited about a dunk and Harden happened to be in the way...so he almost murdered him.
If it were someone else (which you can't even really say because nobody else would have ever done this) it might be different, but this guy apparently doesn't learn things. A seven game suspension for a rout of the Nuggets is no penalty at all. Also, he's coming back for a very likely second round match up with the Thunder! I bet no altercations will occur...
What he deserves, if not to be kicked out of the league permanently, is to have a full team beat-down for that unbelievable cheap shot the first game he comes back but that would only hurt the Thunder. How unfair. What the hell is the point of the commissioner anyway?
And by the way, two things that would have never happened if Phil Jackson were still in L.A.:
1. Luke Walton traded to the Cavaliers.
2. Derek Fisher traded to the Thunder.
Phil kept those guys around for a reason (that only he knows, I'm sure).
The Boston Celtics: 3-seed, Eastern Conference
The high character reflection in the L.A. Lakers' mirror.
I hate to leave these here but I don't think they can keep up with the Bulls, who they will face in the second round. I've grown to appreciate these guys but I don't really believe in that late-season surge. Too far, too old.
The Contenders
The San Antonio Spurs: 1-seed, Western Conference
Now we're cookin'!
The Spurs know how to win it all. Popovich, Duncan, Parker and Ginobili are one entity and that's an advantage just as valuable as any physical advantage another team might have. Also, they've been accumulating quite the stable of role players with Neal, Bonner, Green (3-pointers), Splitter, Blair (Rebounds), and Leonard (young guy stuff). The Spurs are a real team with a real chance.
The reason they're fourth? Their coach is too good.
What I mean by this, is that I believe that Popovich has managed this weird season perfectly, meaning their win total might be inflated by that management. The last two years, the Spurs underperformed in the playoffs and while I believe this is the best of those three teams and that this is the most wide open of the playoff landscapes, I still don't have them as the favorite. Just one amongst many.
The Oklahoma City Thunder: 2-seed, Western Conference
The Spurs managed the race better than any team by far, but that doesn't mean they had the best car. The Thunder were the best team in the West pretty much all year until they bungled it away at the end. Their strengths include one of the best scoring prodigies in the league's history, a top-tier athlete as their point guard, good defensive big men, a gifted play-maker off the bench, and Derek Fisher!!!
The Thunder are not short on star power, depth, youth, or even experience, really.
Their tangible problem is that their big men don't score. All of their offense starts from the perimeter and even their star forward, Kevin Durant, is known for his range. But I'm more worried about getting back to instincts.
Russell Westbrook's instinct is not to be a point guard. He tries and tries but he can't hide it. He's a natural freak athlete that wants to DUNK and just happens to have the scorer in the league on his team. That matters when the chips are down.
They also share a sort of vibe with this next team on the list so let's just talk about them together...
The Miami Heat: 2-seed, Eastern Conference
LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden. These guys are nice guys. Good guys. So why do they bother me so much?
Because I watch the NBA to see a competitive and physical art form, basically. The true reality TV. I want the best players of a game to be pushed to their physical and emotional limits and to learn what happens and be able to tell people about it and talk about it. I want different characters to relate to and to dislike and situations that are analogous to real life.
These guys know they're good and they know they're nice and they want things given to them because of it. That is why the Spurs and the Celtics can even compete with either of these teams. Boston and San Antonio know that you have to be cold sometimes if you want something. That's what competition is. How much are you willing to put aside to win?
The Heat and the Thunder know these things consciously. But again, we're talking about instinct. Both of these teams, and to be clear these are the two most talented teams in the league, have the instinct to pout when things don't go their way and are very uncomfortable when people root against them. It's not fair. The most talented and the nice guys don't win?
The Heat are the better example of this, of course. The Thunder are young enough to still be fairly humble, but they still seem to separate rather than come together when the pressure is on.
With all that said, the Heat are incredible front runners. Frightening. If they can keep public opinion on their side (yes, that matters), they will most likely win it all. If they don't, it opens the door for...
The Chicago Bulls: 1-seed, Eastern Conference
This is a sucker's pick. When LeBron guards Derrick Rose, the Bulls can't really score. Just as the "rational" fan warns the casual fan to beware falling in love with talent, playing the "right way" is often a refuge for the insecure.
I believe, however, that Rose, Deng, Noah and Gibson are championship players and have no desire to hide. They just don't have that instinct.
Things don't always go as planned. LeBron never made it to the Finals in the last two years with the Cavs, both Phil Jackson eras ended weirdly and harshly, and the Celtics' road the the Title in 2008 was in serious jeopardy early on in the playoffs. Even last year, once the Heat made it to the Finals against the surprising Dallas Mavericks, we thought we had an idea of what was going to happen. Of course, it didn't.
The perception of the NBA as a "star-driven league" combined with the seven-game series seems to make the fans feel comfortable in "knowing" that the "best team" is going to win. Though we are often surprised by the results, the playoffs seem to be mapped out, for the most part, in our heads before they start.
This season? Nuh-uh.
Every team has major problems. The best teams are too young or too old or too top-heavy or too star-lacking. There is one thing we DO know. We know that Buddies is gonna stay up late the night after the vomit-inducing draft night drinking game to bring you (mainly Maggie) an NBA Playoff preview. This is essentially a guide for who to watch and what to watch for with four levels of teams: No Point, Wildest Dreams Teams, Fake Contenders and Contenders. I have put these teams in order from least likely to most likely to win the title (in my opinion, obviously).
The "No Point" Teams: I'd Rather Be Tanking.
The Philadelphia 76ers: 8-seed, Eastern Conference
Let's face it, most of these teams are basically in Hell. Their common ground is that they have no star but aren't bad enough to not make the playoffs. It's really a noble thing that these teams are doing, sadly. It's the old "be the best you can be no matter what thing" gone crazy. YOU HAVE TO GET BAD. Kind of like the economy.
Anyway, there's not much to say about the Sixers. That's why they're in this group. They play hard for Doug Collins and they play really good team basketball but they can't win any close games EVER because they don't have a star to go to and get bad foul calls at the end of the game. That's perhaps an oversimplification, but the fact remains. To be in this group, you can't win the Title even in my wildest dreams...and I mean the absolute wildest.
The Utah Jazz: 8-seed, Western Conference
Again, no stars and no reason to watch them. I'm almost 100% sure that they will win at least two games in this series just because of how much I have been talking about how much I'd rather watch any other team in the league than them in round 1. Of course they're not bad, but they're not good either. I didn't even like watching them when they had Deron Williams and they thought they were good. I just fell asleep.
The Orlando Magic: 6-seed, Eastern Conference
They did have a star, but he quit.
The Atlanta Hawks: 5-seed, Eastern Conference
They paid a guy as if he were a star, but he's Joe Johnson.
The Denver Nuggets: 6-seed, Western Conference
I don't feel great about putting them here because of how much I approve of how good they are after trading Carmelo Anthony (better than the Knicks)...but you don't see the Knicks on this first list, do you?
The Nuggets don't really have anyone approaching a star and they also don't really play anything approaching defense, and that's really what got them here. There's a certain team missing from this list that might be conspicuous (no stars), but the defense is the difference. It really is appropriate that the Lakers get to play a team on this first list even though they didn't get a top-2 seed.
Maybe in my Wildest Dreams...
The Indiana Pacers: 3-seed, Eastern Conference
The Indiana Pacers are deep and tough but they really don't belong above the first list. I can't even really put my finger on why they aren't but when I say "wildest," I want to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone.
This team is basically designed to be annoying to play. They have the giant center who can guard your dominant center (if that's your thing). They have the quick little point guard (if you're trying to hide yours defensively). They have big young wings to guard against your running style (if you're into it). But, again...not one Goddamn star!!! This brings me to a point that should probably have been brought up with the Nuggets...
Depth matters less now. With the season being so brutal, the Pacers had the advantage of being young and deep. Now, the top of your rotation matters more than the overall quality of your roster. Also, your youth matters less because there will be more rest in the playoffs and the freshness of legs should be equalized to an extent.
That said, they made it here because of how they can match up and because they are the BEST of the teams in this young/deep/balanced category. If everyone on every other team gets hurt, the Pacers might be a dark horse to win it all!
The New York Knicks: 7-seed, Eastern Conference
Should the Knicks be proud that they are a 7-seed in the not-as-deep Eastern Conference and made it to the second list? Or should they be embarrassed that they the least likely team to win it all (by my estimation) that has a bona fide super star?
Who cares. Fuck the Knicks.
But seriously, the Knicks are incomplete (and kind of annoying). Carmelo Anthony is perhaps the most frightening guy with the ball at the end of the game in the league, but what's behind it might be a double-edged sword.
Carmelo is definitely down for the one-on-one, competitive, "who's-the-most-man" challenge. You know, like that thing that everyone says Kobe is great at? Well Carmelo's actually good at it. 'Melo has a noticeable instinct for whatever this is. It's like he can smell it. If you throw down the one-on-one gauntlet in front of Carmelo Anthony, he will show you how bad you are at scoring.
On the flip side, Carmelo doesn't seem to have any idea what it means to be a leader of, or how to sacrifice for, a team. And it's not that he doesn't seem to want to do it now, but your instincts show up when your pushed to your limits, not what you're just now trying to learn how to do. What I'm talking about here is essentially being consistent. When you're the most talented player on the team, you generally want to be an undisputed leader in one way or another. He just can't do it. He's never done it. It's kind of a shame. 'Melo's not quite in the club of modern stars that dance with their rivals during the All Star Game, but he has his own problems. In fact, he probably wishes he were in that club but he has too much of an edge.
My verdict is that their star is on par, scoring-wise, with anyone in the league but just not nearly consistent enough to make me think his team can win more than one game against the Heat...but they could...I guess.
The Dallas Mavericks: 7-seed, Western Conference
The Mavericks are getting respect for having won the title last season, but did they really seem like some kind of dynasty last year? They've done their job.
The Los Angeles Clippers: 5-seed, Western Conference
Similar to the Knicks, the Clippers are an incomplete team that throws one of the best players in the league out there that gives them a chance on any given night. The difference is that the Clippers are a little bit more top-heavy (Blake Griffin is a much better offensive second banana than Amar'e Stoudemire at this point) and their star (Chris Paul) is very consistent and a fantastic leader.
After Paul, the Clips rely on Mo Williams, Nick Young, Eric Bledsoe and Randy Foye to hold down the fort at the PG/SG positions. They also count Caron Butler as a "weapon." Blechkkk.
But again...on any given night, Chris Paul can win the day. That strategy, however, doesn't typically win four straight seven-game series' against the best teams in the league. They'll be lucky to get out of the first round against...
The Memphis Grizzlies: 4-seed, Western Conference
Who's their star, you ask? Why, Gilbert Arenas, of course!
With Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay and Marc Gasol in your starting lineup, you could argue that all of those guys are stars (although, you'd probably be wrong). Randolph is your "star" here, if you want to pick one, but the rest of these guys really pick each other up with their strengths and weaknesses.
Randolph and Gasol are big and strong and hard to intimidate in the paint (Gasol because he has already gotten over the I-can't-beat-my-big-brother hurdle and Randolph because he's probably insane), they have perimeter scoring (Gay and Mayo), they have the quick point guard (Conley) and they have Tony Allen to scare the shit out of your best guard. They don't seem to have very much wasted space on their roster, which is appealing to watch. The Griz are absolutely the most likely team out of this group to go to ruin everyone in these subsequent lists' summer (and I'm rooting for it).
The Fictional Contenders: Contending for what, exactly?
The Los Angeles Lakers: 3-seed, Western Conference
Mike Brown and Kobe Bryant might be the stupidest couple in the history of things being paired together.
You could think of more combustible duos, like Bill Belichick and Bernie Kosar for example. The difference is that those two guys are aggressive and Belichick just traded Bernie because he wouldn't run his robotic offense so it ended. Kobe is so passive-aggressive and Mike Brown is just passive so it won't end. Mike Brown isn't assertive enough to take control and Kobe isn't masculine enough to just demand a better coach. I just want to get everything straight that this is not some odd couple that might just work. It's a TERRIBLE match. Kobe Bryant, 33, led the league in shot attempts and was leading the leage in minutes played before injuring his shin. How dumb are both of those things?!?! Really dumb.
To be clear, the Lakers are a threat because Bynum and Gasol are a fantastic front line. That is their mismatch. Kobe Bryant is almost as great a player as he is a megalomaniacal douche bag (high praise), but he's not why they're good. This team, however, does not have good chemistry, a good coach, or good Karma (which usually doesn't mater).
This seems like a good time to mention Ron Artest.
He should be suspended, at least, for the entire 2012 Playoffs. Nobody does what he did. His elbow was not something that even seemed to have any ill will towards it, I don't think. This might make it more forgivable (or something), but it makes it clear how dangerous of a thing this guy with "World Peace" on the back of his jersey is. I like Artest as a player, but it's just not OK for a professional league to have a guy where playing hard against him causes your employees legitimate concern for their safety. MWP basically said that it was "bad timing" because he was so excited about a dunk and Harden happened to be in the way...so he almost murdered him.
If it were someone else (which you can't even really say because nobody else would have ever done this) it might be different, but this guy apparently doesn't learn things. A seven game suspension for a rout of the Nuggets is no penalty at all. Also, he's coming back for a very likely second round match up with the Thunder! I bet no altercations will occur...
What he deserves, if not to be kicked out of the league permanently, is to have a full team beat-down for that unbelievable cheap shot the first game he comes back but that would only hurt the Thunder. How unfair. What the hell is the point of the commissioner anyway?
And by the way, two things that would have never happened if Phil Jackson were still in L.A.:
1. Luke Walton traded to the Cavaliers.
2. Derek Fisher traded to the Thunder.
Phil kept those guys around for a reason (that only he knows, I'm sure).
The Boston Celtics: 3-seed, Eastern Conference
The high character reflection in the L.A. Lakers' mirror.
I hate to leave these here but I don't think they can keep up with the Bulls, who they will face in the second round. I've grown to appreciate these guys but I don't really believe in that late-season surge. Too far, too old.
The Contenders
The San Antonio Spurs: 1-seed, Western Conference
Now we're cookin'!
The Spurs know how to win it all. Popovich, Duncan, Parker and Ginobili are one entity and that's an advantage just as valuable as any physical advantage another team might have. Also, they've been accumulating quite the stable of role players with Neal, Bonner, Green (3-pointers), Splitter, Blair (Rebounds), and Leonard (young guy stuff). The Spurs are a real team with a real chance.
The reason they're fourth? Their coach is too good.
What I mean by this, is that I believe that Popovich has managed this weird season perfectly, meaning their win total might be inflated by that management. The last two years, the Spurs underperformed in the playoffs and while I believe this is the best of those three teams and that this is the most wide open of the playoff landscapes, I still don't have them as the favorite. Just one amongst many.
The Oklahoma City Thunder: 2-seed, Western Conference
The Spurs managed the race better than any team by far, but that doesn't mean they had the best car. The Thunder were the best team in the West pretty much all year until they bungled it away at the end. Their strengths include one of the best scoring prodigies in the league's history, a top-tier athlete as their point guard, good defensive big men, a gifted play-maker off the bench, and Derek Fisher!!!
The Thunder are not short on star power, depth, youth, or even experience, really.
Their tangible problem is that their big men don't score. All of their offense starts from the perimeter and even their star forward, Kevin Durant, is known for his range. But I'm more worried about getting back to instincts.
Russell Westbrook's instinct is not to be a point guard. He tries and tries but he can't hide it. He's a natural freak athlete that wants to DUNK and just happens to have the scorer in the league on his team. That matters when the chips are down.
They also share a sort of vibe with this next team on the list so let's just talk about them together...
The Miami Heat: 2-seed, Eastern Conference
LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden. These guys are nice guys. Good guys. So why do they bother me so much?
Because I watch the NBA to see a competitive and physical art form, basically. The true reality TV. I want the best players of a game to be pushed to their physical and emotional limits and to learn what happens and be able to tell people about it and talk about it. I want different characters to relate to and to dislike and situations that are analogous to real life.
These guys know they're good and they know they're nice and they want things given to them because of it. That is why the Spurs and the Celtics can even compete with either of these teams. Boston and San Antonio know that you have to be cold sometimes if you want something. That's what competition is. How much are you willing to put aside to win?
The Heat and the Thunder know these things consciously. But again, we're talking about instinct. Both of these teams, and to be clear these are the two most talented teams in the league, have the instinct to pout when things don't go their way and are very uncomfortable when people root against them. It's not fair. The most talented and the nice guys don't win?
The Heat are the better example of this, of course. The Thunder are young enough to still be fairly humble, but they still seem to separate rather than come together when the pressure is on.
With all that said, the Heat are incredible front runners. Frightening. If they can keep public opinion on their side (yes, that matters), they will most likely win it all. If they don't, it opens the door for...
The Chicago Bulls: 1-seed, Eastern Conference
This is a sucker's pick. When LeBron guards Derrick Rose, the Bulls can't really score. Just as the "rational" fan warns the casual fan to beware falling in love with talent, playing the "right way" is often a refuge for the insecure.
I believe, however, that Rose, Deng, Noah and Gibson are championship players and have no desire to hide. They just don't have that instinct.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Aim Low
"We're in it to win it!"
"Anything short of a title this year will be considered a failure."
"CHAMPIONSHIP OR BUST!!!"
Don't these phrases sound great? Isn't this what you want your team to be thinking at the start of the season? Well, I have an answer for you: Fucking no.
The Cleveland Indians have been stating all Winter long that they plan on making the playoffs and being a contender, which was the first clue to me that they weren't going to do that or be that.
In case you missed it, the Indians started off the season by embarrassing themselves with two straight extra inning losses at home to the Toronto Blue Jays who are certainly no Goliath. Really, it was a gift of an opener. An 80-82 team gets to open at home against a mediocre team with no true ace? I'll take it! Additionally, Cleveland got two gifts in this game:
First,the fans witnessed a fantastic start from their young and newly minted "ace," Justin Masterson. To clarify, a great performance out of a starting pitcher is a gift and not some sign of quality play. It's a combination of luck, talent, the a mental state of the pitcher. It's not a good thing to waste.
Second, fan favorite (and Buddies Favorite), "Jungle" Jack Hannahan, hit a 3-run home run with 2 outs. This is a gift because Hannahan is the Indians' 9-hole hitter and is known as a defensive specialist.
Sadly, their closer, Chris Perez (who may or may not have been ready to pitch after an injury during Spring Training; potentially another massive failure by the decision makers in the organization), unravelled in the 9th inning and blew the lead and the save. The Indians did not score a run after the 2nd inning in a game that eventually went 16 INNINGS. Their runs were produced by a groundout by their defensive specialist 1st baseman and a home run by their defensive specialist 3rd baseman. None of their "good" hitters did anything of note in 16 INNINGS. They had two chances to drive in a runner from third with less than two outs to win the game in a walk-off and failed both times.
The two gifts they received on opening day should have proved enough for them to limp into an opening day victory, even on a day in which they generally played poorly. But really, that's the real tragedy here: "Opening Day." The citizens of Cleveland paid money to go to the Cleveland Indians' home opener and their team didn't even have the decency to win.
Just today, the Indians blew another late lead, had poor at-bats with bad results, and never really sniffed anything you might call a "rally." All this while wasting yet another high-quality start by a starting pitcher.
Now that we're caught up, let's get back to the goal of making the playoffs.
This is what can happen when you publicly aim higher than what your team is capable of delivering. Players can overshoot their talents. They'll look at the standings, the scoreboard, the roster, or the stat sheet and say, "Oh no...I need to hit more home runs." That leads to swinging harder than what your swing has always been and instead your own play just coming up short, you lose who you are as a player altogether, and that's no way to play a game this difficult.
The other option? The Indians play no different than they would have played without the "expectations," and the only disappointed people are the fans (also worse than a goal-less scenario).
Two guys set hurdles for themselves to jump over. One sets a high one and one sets a low one. The first guy falls and the second guy makes it over. Now, just because the first guy failed doesn't mean he can't jump higher than the second guy but the fact remains, the first guy is on his face and the second guy is on his feet.
Now I'm not advocating giving up before you start, but you do have to know who you are. The Indians would be better off viewing themselves as a .500 team and an underdog, playing the best they can, and hoping for some luck rather than trying to convince themselves that they are a playoff team by rights.
So far, I see a team that has lied to itself all off season and needed a good start for some cheap affirmation for what they were trying to convince themselves of. The Indians had a lot of breaks to do just that and have squandered every one and I don't believe that they have the talent to dig themselves out of what I see the fallout of these first two games being.
I know it's early, but I'm already aiming low.
"Anything short of a title this year will be considered a failure."
"CHAMPIONSHIP OR BUST!!!"
Don't these phrases sound great? Isn't this what you want your team to be thinking at the start of the season? Well, I have an answer for you: Fucking no.
The Cleveland Indians have been stating all Winter long that they plan on making the playoffs and being a contender, which was the first clue to me that they weren't going to do that or be that.
In case you missed it, the Indians started off the season by embarrassing themselves with two straight extra inning losses at home to the Toronto Blue Jays who are certainly no Goliath. Really, it was a gift of an opener. An 80-82 team gets to open at home against a mediocre team with no true ace? I'll take it! Additionally, Cleveland got two gifts in this game:
First,the fans witnessed a fantastic start from their young and newly minted "ace," Justin Masterson. To clarify, a great performance out of a starting pitcher is a gift and not some sign of quality play. It's a combination of luck, talent, the a mental state of the pitcher. It's not a good thing to waste.
Second, fan favorite (and Buddies Favorite), "Jungle" Jack Hannahan, hit a 3-run home run with 2 outs. This is a gift because Hannahan is the Indians' 9-hole hitter and is known as a defensive specialist.
Sadly, their closer, Chris Perez (who may or may not have been ready to pitch after an injury during Spring Training; potentially another massive failure by the decision makers in the organization), unravelled in the 9th inning and blew the lead and the save. The Indians did not score a run after the 2nd inning in a game that eventually went 16 INNINGS. Their runs were produced by a groundout by their defensive specialist 1st baseman and a home run by their defensive specialist 3rd baseman. None of their "good" hitters did anything of note in 16 INNINGS. They had two chances to drive in a runner from third with less than two outs to win the game in a walk-off and failed both times.
The two gifts they received on opening day should have proved enough for them to limp into an opening day victory, even on a day in which they generally played poorly. But really, that's the real tragedy here: "Opening Day." The citizens of Cleveland paid money to go to the Cleveland Indians' home opener and their team didn't even have the decency to win.
Just today, the Indians blew another late lead, had poor at-bats with bad results, and never really sniffed anything you might call a "rally." All this while wasting yet another high-quality start by a starting pitcher.
Now that we're caught up, let's get back to the goal of making the playoffs.
This is what can happen when you publicly aim higher than what your team is capable of delivering. Players can overshoot their talents. They'll look at the standings, the scoreboard, the roster, or the stat sheet and say, "Oh no...I need to hit more home runs." That leads to swinging harder than what your swing has always been and instead your own play just coming up short, you lose who you are as a player altogether, and that's no way to play a game this difficult.
The other option? The Indians play no different than they would have played without the "expectations," and the only disappointed people are the fans (also worse than a goal-less scenario).
Two guys set hurdles for themselves to jump over. One sets a high one and one sets a low one. The first guy falls and the second guy makes it over. Now, just because the first guy failed doesn't mean he can't jump higher than the second guy but the fact remains, the first guy is on his face and the second guy is on his feet.
Now I'm not advocating giving up before you start, but you do have to know who you are. The Indians would be better off viewing themselves as a .500 team and an underdog, playing the best they can, and hoping for some luck rather than trying to convince themselves that they are a playoff team by rights.
So far, I see a team that has lied to itself all off season and needed a good start for some cheap affirmation for what they were trying to convince themselves of. The Indians had a lot of breaks to do just that and have squandered every one and I don't believe that they have the talent to dig themselves out of what I see the fallout of these first two games being.
I know it's early, but I'm already aiming low.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
NFL Playoffs: Super Bowl
In the argument over the BCS system has always been an argument against an argument. When everyone is trying to uncover who the "best team" is, they are missing the point. The point of competition is not to find out some abstract truth of skill. The point is just to play for it. You want something? I'll play you for it! It's not about the best team, it's about who wins the game.
The New York Giants and the New England Patriots know this better than anyone. In Tom Brady's first Super Bowl, his team wasn't the "best team," and neither was Eli Manning's in his Super Bowl win (ironically, against Tom Brady). Also, neither of these teams should really be here.
The best team during the regular season was the Green Bay Packers and just because the Giants beat them, doesn't mean that isn't still true. Look at the consistency and quality of how those two teams played across a very reasonable sample size. The Packers are better. But who really cares about that now? The Giants embrace the belt-up-for-grabs style that the playoffs bring (and the Packers really weren't ready for it).
And I don't think the Patriots are the best team in the AFC either, but we'll get to that...
So how did we get here and what's going to happen?
New York Giants vs. New England Patriots
6:29 pm, Sunday
Super Bowl
The Patriots can't win this game. Let me explain...
Let's, once again, re-examine the Patriots' stroll to the Super Bowl.
We've already been over the fact that they didn't beat a good team all year, but now that's changed! They beat the Ravens. Case closed!!!
The Baltimore Ravens probably think they're big believers in what I just said about throwin' down and deciding things on the field rather than academically deciding who the "best team" is. The part the Ravens always forget about is the score. Baltimore's M.O. has always been, and continues to be until further notice, to be the team that deserves to win but loses. They did it again, and now the Emperor and Darth Vader are back in the Super Bowl with a seemingly legitimate shot at winning it. IDIOTS!!!
So again, by my count, the Ravens are now the fourth decent team the Patriots have played this season, making them 2-2 in those games. And they scored more points than they have against any decent team all year...with 23!!! I thought this was a fucking offensive Juggernaut!!
Hrmphh...
I mean, it is...but my point stated in my previous post remains: If you can match them in talent/having your shit together, you'll probably win and clearing that hurdle is not quite as hard this year as it has been.
All year, we've marvelled at how cool this offensive set that the Patriots run with two of the best three tight ends in the league on the field at the same time. It's awesome. Most teams struggle to cover any decent tight end and they throw two at your ass.
Here's the secret:
Two tight end sets like that are essentially a fucking gimmick offense. A gimmick offense run by a future Hall of Famer, but a gimmick nonetheless. They run those sets because THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER TALENTED OFFENSIVE PLAYERS. The Patriots run these sets to hide their deficiencies. Average at running back and weak as hell at wide receiver. And the New England defense, while seemingly improving (against Tebow and Flacco), is still below average.
The Giants' journey was a little different.
It was the perfect season to hide how good this team is. The Giants had key injuries all year and perhaps the most difficult schedule of any team. Now that their wide receiver corps and, perhaps more importantly, their front four are healthy they are capable of anything. The Giants also beat the best offensive and the best defensive teams in the league in the playoffs, on the road...two weeks in a row. That was their path the Super Bowl.
Don't get me wrong, this Giants team is flawed. They don't run the ball especially well (or even protect the quarterback at a noticeably above average level) and they don't have a great secondary. But, with their front four firing, they can hide their secondary in two ways: 1. They don't have to blitz anybody from their secondary so they have more bodies with which to cover and 2. Corey Webster is actually good and it helps to have at least one guy back there who knows what he's doing. The ways they can hide their offensive line: 1. Eli Manning, 2. Nicks (wasn't healthy in the match up in the regular season), Cruz, Manningham, 3. The Patriots' secondary.
I think you know where I'm going with this.
Patriots fans will tell you that they want the Giants so they can have some kind of condescending revenge on the team that never "deserved" a Super Bowl, but they're forgetting one thing: The Giants are the better team this year. The records don't tell it, but watching the games does. The NFC has been stronger all year and the schedules make it ultra obvious. The Giants, when healthy, are simply better than the Patriots. Everyone thinks Brady/Belichick is going to throw something at New York that they can't handle but what, really, do the Patriots have to throw? Chad Ochocinco? If he's your secret weapon, a guy who doesn't know the fucking playbook and has never played well in a big game in his life, good luck.
The only thing that scares me is that, with Gronkowski either not playing or playing with a high ankle sprain, the Giants might think this is too easy and forget to try. But really...there's no way. The Patriots are still inexplicably favored by 3.5 and it's the Goddamn Super Bowl. Nobody is sleeping through this one.
The pick:
Giants over Patriots, 37-23
The New York Giants and the New England Patriots know this better than anyone. In Tom Brady's first Super Bowl, his team wasn't the "best team," and neither was Eli Manning's in his Super Bowl win (ironically, against Tom Brady). Also, neither of these teams should really be here.
The best team during the regular season was the Green Bay Packers and just because the Giants beat them, doesn't mean that isn't still true. Look at the consistency and quality of how those two teams played across a very reasonable sample size. The Packers are better. But who really cares about that now? The Giants embrace the belt-up-for-grabs style that the playoffs bring (and the Packers really weren't ready for it).
And I don't think the Patriots are the best team in the AFC either, but we'll get to that...
So how did we get here and what's going to happen?
New York Giants vs. New England Patriots
6:29 pm, Sunday
Super Bowl
The Patriots can't win this game. Let me explain...
Let's, once again, re-examine the Patriots' stroll to the Super Bowl.
We've already been over the fact that they didn't beat a good team all year, but now that's changed! They beat the Ravens. Case closed!!!
The Baltimore Ravens probably think they're big believers in what I just said about throwin' down and deciding things on the field rather than academically deciding who the "best team" is. The part the Ravens always forget about is the score. Baltimore's M.O. has always been, and continues to be until further notice, to be the team that deserves to win but loses. They did it again, and now the Emperor and Darth Vader are back in the Super Bowl with a seemingly legitimate shot at winning it. IDIOTS!!!
So again, by my count, the Ravens are now the fourth decent team the Patriots have played this season, making them 2-2 in those games. And they scored more points than they have against any decent team all year...with 23!!! I thought this was a fucking offensive Juggernaut!!
Hrmphh...
I mean, it is...but my point stated in my previous post remains: If you can match them in talent/having your shit together, you'll probably win and clearing that hurdle is not quite as hard this year as it has been.
All year, we've marvelled at how cool this offensive set that the Patriots run with two of the best three tight ends in the league on the field at the same time. It's awesome. Most teams struggle to cover any decent tight end and they throw two at your ass.
Here's the secret:
Two tight end sets like that are essentially a fucking gimmick offense. A gimmick offense run by a future Hall of Famer, but a gimmick nonetheless. They run those sets because THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER TALENTED OFFENSIVE PLAYERS. The Patriots run these sets to hide their deficiencies. Average at running back and weak as hell at wide receiver. And the New England defense, while seemingly improving (against Tebow and Flacco), is still below average.
The Giants' journey was a little different.
It was the perfect season to hide how good this team is. The Giants had key injuries all year and perhaps the most difficult schedule of any team. Now that their wide receiver corps and, perhaps more importantly, their front four are healthy they are capable of anything. The Giants also beat the best offensive and the best defensive teams in the league in the playoffs, on the road...two weeks in a row. That was their path the Super Bowl.
Don't get me wrong, this Giants team is flawed. They don't run the ball especially well (or even protect the quarterback at a noticeably above average level) and they don't have a great secondary. But, with their front four firing, they can hide their secondary in two ways: 1. They don't have to blitz anybody from their secondary so they have more bodies with which to cover and 2. Corey Webster is actually good and it helps to have at least one guy back there who knows what he's doing. The ways they can hide their offensive line: 1. Eli Manning, 2. Nicks (wasn't healthy in the match up in the regular season), Cruz, Manningham, 3. The Patriots' secondary.
I think you know where I'm going with this.
Patriots fans will tell you that they want the Giants so they can have some kind of condescending revenge on the team that never "deserved" a Super Bowl, but they're forgetting one thing: The Giants are the better team this year. The records don't tell it, but watching the games does. The NFC has been stronger all year and the schedules make it ultra obvious. The Giants, when healthy, are simply better than the Patriots. Everyone thinks Brady/Belichick is going to throw something at New York that they can't handle but what, really, do the Patriots have to throw? Chad Ochocinco? If he's your secret weapon, a guy who doesn't know the fucking playbook and has never played well in a big game in his life, good luck.
The only thing that scares me is that, with Gronkowski either not playing or playing with a high ankle sprain, the Giants might think this is too easy and forget to try. But really...there's no way. The Patriots are still inexplicably favored by 3.5 and it's the Goddamn Super Bowl. Nobody is sleeping through this one.
The pick:
Giants over Patriots, 37-23
Friday, January 20, 2012
NFL Playoffs: Conference Championships
The playoffs thus far have been a triumph for defense, and it's great to see.
Before the picks, I'll reveal to you that my original Super Bowl pick was Green Bay over Baltimore. I will now try to explain to myself why that didn't happen and try to figure out what now will happen.
Baltimore Ravens at New England Patriots
3:00 pm, Sunday
If I were twelve years old, I would look at the fact that the Patriots won by a lot and the Ravens won by a little and extrapolate from that information that the Patriots are the more likely team to win.
Now that I'm an adult, I realize that what happened in the previous game (as well as other things that seem like indicators of future performance) are just about irrelevant. But rather than just picking the opposite of what seems to make sense and leaving it at that, I'll try to convince you that the Ravens are going to win.
The Patriots sure are a great offensive team. They aren't as explosive as the Saints or the Packers, but they are coached by the Emperor from Star Wars and have the intimidation factor of having won several Super Bowls. But I will point you to this:
Again, the Patriots have yet to win a Super Bowl when their team is based on extreme efficiency on offense. And they also have still yet to beat a good team this season.
As far as I can tell, New England played three "good" teams this season, all in a row. The Dallas Cowboys, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the New York Giants. In those games, they went 1-2, only beating Dallas, the most gifted losers in football. Not only did New England lose those games, their offensive output was, in no way, impressive (they scored 20, 17 and 20 points in those games in that order). That's alarming.
In fairness, their lowest point total all year after that was 27 and they scored 35 or more six times (seven if you count the playoffs). That's alarming for the Ravens.
But you know what? I don't care about that. To me, the Patriots are the type of team that you have to meet a certain level of competency to even play on the same field as them. Due to the downfall of the Jets and the neck surgery of Peyton Manning, their schedule was shockingly easy for a first place team. They blew team after team out of the water but when a team actually challenged them, they lost most of the time. My sneaking suspicion was that the high-flying teams would be exposed a bit in the playoffs and, so far, I've been right. New England, to me, was actually the worst of the three, they just survived because they played a cupcake 2nd round game against the clueless Broncos.
The Ravens on the other hand looked pretty crappy in a win against the Houston Texans and have all sorts of distractions dealing with their shitty quarterback wanting credit for winning (which he doesn't deserve). Here's the secret though: The Texans, other than the fact that they're playing with one hand behind their back with a rookie quarterback, they are a better team than the Patriots, or at least a far more talented team. But when you play the furious style of football that Baltimore typically plays, the talent of the individual trying to stop the onslaught might matter more than your brilliant scheme.
The Patriots are a team of mediocre talent by playoff standards. The Ravens are a simple team that thrives on a difficult task (much like a certain NFC counterpart). There are mismatches in New England's favor, but I haven't seen the Patriots beat a good team ALL YEAR. That has to mean something.
Ravens over Patriots, 27-23
New York Giants at San Francisco 49ers
6:30 pm, Sunday
It's difficult to even talk about this game because it just doesn't make much sense. I'm going to pick the Giants and my reasoning is that I believe they are the most complete team and I think they're going to win the Super Bowl...but they were 9-7.
The 49ers are great at stopping the run and, in the regular season, the Giants were really bad at running (however, quite good in the playoffs). You assume that San Francisco will "stop the run," but they really had better stop it completely. Like...zero yards rushing...because I think the Giants have the better quarterback and more experience. Also, the 49ers haven't really been able to run the ball themselves for quite awhile now. That's bad.
A lot of people are optimistic about the 49ers right now. For some reason, I feel that's also bad. Can anyone really picture the niners in the Super Bowl? I didn't think so.
Giants over 49ers, 24-13
Before the picks, I'll reveal to you that my original Super Bowl pick was Green Bay over Baltimore. I will now try to explain to myself why that didn't happen and try to figure out what now will happen.
Baltimore Ravens at New England Patriots
3:00 pm, Sunday
If I were twelve years old, I would look at the fact that the Patriots won by a lot and the Ravens won by a little and extrapolate from that information that the Patriots are the more likely team to win.
Now that I'm an adult, I realize that what happened in the previous game (as well as other things that seem like indicators of future performance) are just about irrelevant. But rather than just picking the opposite of what seems to make sense and leaving it at that, I'll try to convince you that the Ravens are going to win.
The Patriots sure are a great offensive team. They aren't as explosive as the Saints or the Packers, but they are coached by the Emperor from Star Wars and have the intimidation factor of having won several Super Bowls. But I will point you to this:
Again, the Patriots have yet to win a Super Bowl when their team is based on extreme efficiency on offense. And they also have still yet to beat a good team this season.
As far as I can tell, New England played three "good" teams this season, all in a row. The Dallas Cowboys, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the New York Giants. In those games, they went 1-2, only beating Dallas, the most gifted losers in football. Not only did New England lose those games, their offensive output was, in no way, impressive (they scored 20, 17 and 20 points in those games in that order). That's alarming.
In fairness, their lowest point total all year after that was 27 and they scored 35 or more six times (seven if you count the playoffs). That's alarming for the Ravens.
But you know what? I don't care about that. To me, the Patriots are the type of team that you have to meet a certain level of competency to even play on the same field as them. Due to the downfall of the Jets and the neck surgery of Peyton Manning, their schedule was shockingly easy for a first place team. They blew team after team out of the water but when a team actually challenged them, they lost most of the time. My sneaking suspicion was that the high-flying teams would be exposed a bit in the playoffs and, so far, I've been right. New England, to me, was actually the worst of the three, they just survived because they played a cupcake 2nd round game against the clueless Broncos.
The Ravens on the other hand looked pretty crappy in a win against the Houston Texans and have all sorts of distractions dealing with their shitty quarterback wanting credit for winning (which he doesn't deserve). Here's the secret though: The Texans, other than the fact that they're playing with one hand behind their back with a rookie quarterback, they are a better team than the Patriots, or at least a far more talented team. But when you play the furious style of football that Baltimore typically plays, the talent of the individual trying to stop the onslaught might matter more than your brilliant scheme.
The Patriots are a team of mediocre talent by playoff standards. The Ravens are a simple team that thrives on a difficult task (much like a certain NFC counterpart). There are mismatches in New England's favor, but I haven't seen the Patriots beat a good team ALL YEAR. That has to mean something.
Ravens over Patriots, 27-23
New York Giants at San Francisco 49ers
6:30 pm, Sunday
It's difficult to even talk about this game because it just doesn't make much sense. I'm going to pick the Giants and my reasoning is that I believe they are the most complete team and I think they're going to win the Super Bowl...but they were 9-7.
The 49ers are great at stopping the run and, in the regular season, the Giants were really bad at running (however, quite good in the playoffs). You assume that San Francisco will "stop the run," but they really had better stop it completely. Like...zero yards rushing...because I think the Giants have the better quarterback and more experience. Also, the 49ers haven't really been able to run the ball themselves for quite awhile now. That's bad.
A lot of people are optimistic about the 49ers right now. For some reason, I feel that's also bad. Can anyone really picture the niners in the Super Bowl? I didn't think so.
Giants over 49ers, 24-13
Thursday, January 12, 2012
NFL Playoffs 2012: Round 2
Tebow answered my challenge.
I do my best not to overreact to things and even to draw attention to it when the world overreacts to something, but how can you not love Tebow at this point? Sure, if you're a Steelers fan you probably still hate him, but Steelers fans a. aren't human beings and b. can't read...so who cares?!
A quick thought on Tebow:
The best quarterbacks in the league: Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady. Only one of those players could be even considered an above-average athlete by NFL quarterback standards (Rodgers) and still, those offensive are essentially choreographed dances. When you watch a successful play by any one of those teams, you're watching, for lack of a better term, the tip of the iceberg. Most of that touchdown you just witnessed happened before the play, definitely before the game, and possibly before the season.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHEN YOU WATCH TIM TEBOW.
Of course he practices and the Broncos have a game plan, but the thing Tebow has on the "best" quarterbacks in the league is that he is much better at improvising than they are and I don't think that is arguable. I don't mean to say that Tim Tebow is as good a player as Tom Brady, but Tim Tebow is raw and there's something sort of artistic about something so unrefined.
The picks:
New Orleans Saints at San Francisco 49ers
4:30 pm, Saturday
This is the first of three match ups that feel very similar. The three quarterbacks a top-of-my-head rundown of the best in the league all have very bad defenses and are playing against very good defenses. If you've ever read this blog or spoken to me before, you know which type of team I'm dying to pick in all of these games.
But this one's easy (mainly because I don't care about missing these picks).
Th 49ers are at home and, more importantly, the Saints aren't. The one hesitation I would have about picking the 49ers is the fact that Alex Smith is their quarterback but really, I'm probably going to pick the Ravens against Houston and is Smith really that much worse than Flacco? He's worse, but not in any way that I care about.
The Saints had better come with their best routine or they will lose this game. We all drool over the New Orleans offense and good-guy persona and dismiss the perceived neanderthal style of the Harbaugh family but there are things we are forgetting.
1. Just last season, the Saints lost to one of the worst playoff teams of all time on the road. The final nail in the coffin was hammered in by Marshawn Lynch, a slightly above average running back who made one of the best runs in playoff history; a play which doubled as one of the worst defensive plays in sports history. The way the Saints secondary kept trying to strip the ball when they game would have still been in doubt if they had just tackled him and subsequently gave up a game-clinching touchdown was shameful. That play speaks to the Saints' attitude on defense, which, when the chips are down, indifference.
2. The year the Saints won the Super Bowl, they played inside twice and once in Miami. The NFC Championship game was won on a Favre interception that looked like he was paid to do it and the Super Bowl on a commendable, yet still somewhat lucky surprise onside kick.
3. The 2011/2012 NFL playoffs currently consist of 25% Harbaugh.
4. Alex Smith is a mediocre quarterback. What can make up for that in the playoffs, you ask? A really good coach, a really good defense, and home field advantage.
Check, check, aaaaaaand check.
49ers over Saints, 23-17
Denver Broncos at New England Patriots
8:00 pm, Saturday
I'm getting chills just thinking about the Denver Broncos...CHILLS.
The misconception about the game between these two teams was that it was a blowout.
Again, with these dance troupe teams, when you lose by 21, how it happens matters. When the Broncos lost 41-23, it was fairly encouraging as far as I'm concerned. Now, let's say that the Patriots got up 38-0 and backed into a 41-23 victory. That would not have been encouraging. But the Broncos were up 16-7! New England was not stopping the Denver offense (they don't stop ANY offense) until the Broncos started inexplicably fumbling inside their own territory. Then the machine got going and the rout was on. The score doesn't tell us how close the game was, it's how long Denver was in it. As long as you keep it close and make these teams play the game of football, you're in fantastic position to win. Denver was in that game.
A couple facts to throw at you:
1. The Patriots haven't won a playoff game since they lost in the Super Bowl to Eli's Giants to go 18-1.
2. The Patriots haven't beaten a team with a winning record all season.
However, I'm still picking the Patriots. I hate this pick, but that doesn't make it any worse of a pick (probably makes it better). I have heard way too much about Tim Tebow in the national media for me to feel comfortable picking him. All of a sudden he's more of a cult figure than Tom Brady and I don't think I can go against Brady when he has even a whiff of underdog smell on him.
Patriots over Broncos, 31-21
Houston Texans at Baltimore Ravens
1:00 pm, Sunday
Marvin Lewis needs to be let go. His role for his whole career was basically to be Chad Johnson/Ochocinco's dad and he's gone now. This team doesn't need a babysitter, it needs someone who knows when it's appropriate to challenge a play and when it's not. I've always liked Marvin...but frankly, I don't know why. I'll miss him, but not that much.
The Texans were the most complete team in the AFC with a top defense, a good passing game, and a great running game. However, their coach and quarterback were both guys with a history of losing games they were in position to win and I had no confidence in either of them.
The Texans are currently a really good team with some very key injuries but I'm not sure it's made a huge difference in terms of results. Gary Kubiak has always failed as a clutch decision-maker but sometimes when you're forced to scramble (like when you're onto your third-string rookie quarterback, for example), you feel as if you're playing with house money and the nerves go out the window. The Texans are playing with more confidence now than when they had a better team.
On the flip side, T.J. Yates is super limited, and that shit doesn't fly against the Baltimore Ravens, I don't care how old they are.
This will not be a good game. Flacco's recent comments about how he gets no credit for wins is laughable. He's a mediocre quarterback, period. That's why I don't want to pick him to win...but I will.
Ravens over Texans, 17-6
New York Giants at Green Bay Packers
4:30 pm, Sunday
This is the Super Bowl of this weekend.
Throughout this whole post, I've been somewhat mocking the Brady/Brees/Rodgers triumvirate as if they really are dancers as suggested by the discount double-check commercial, but let's make one thing clear:
These Packers are fearsome.
The Patriots use their choreography to mask their lack of athleticism and the Saints do it because they're on turf. The Packers do it because WHY THE FUCK NOT?! They run some kind of west coast offense on cocaine (the GOOD stuff) where all the slants are 15 yards down field. They have four wide receivers who I would call, "great after the catch," and a quarterback who is accurate, strong-armed, mobile, smart and has a quick release. In fact, Aaron Rodgers is all of those things at an elite level in the NFL. I'm pretty sure the only team left that can beat them is the New York Giants.
The Giants are mean. You saw it last week. Their games are confusing. They give up a sloppy safety early in the game and then go on to shut out the Falcons' offense the entire day. They stopped two fourth and inches'. That front four might actually be monsters. Sometimes they sleep and let the Seahawks get by, but if you're big enough to catch their attention, they are going to try to eat you. THIS IS NOT AN ANALOGY OR HYPERBOLE.
OK, maybe it's both, but still...
I'm really going to enjoy watching this game and I'm going to be rooting hard for the Giants. I am, however, going to keep my Super Bowl pick (which is in my head) intact while it's still possible. Great finale to the weekend.
Packers over Giants 31-28.
I do my best not to overreact to things and even to draw attention to it when the world overreacts to something, but how can you not love Tebow at this point? Sure, if you're a Steelers fan you probably still hate him, but Steelers fans a. aren't human beings and b. can't read...so who cares?!
A quick thought on Tebow:
The best quarterbacks in the league: Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady. Only one of those players could be even considered an above-average athlete by NFL quarterback standards (Rodgers) and still, those offensive are essentially choreographed dances. When you watch a successful play by any one of those teams, you're watching, for lack of a better term, the tip of the iceberg. Most of that touchdown you just witnessed happened before the play, definitely before the game, and possibly before the season.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHEN YOU WATCH TIM TEBOW.
Of course he practices and the Broncos have a game plan, but the thing Tebow has on the "best" quarterbacks in the league is that he is much better at improvising than they are and I don't think that is arguable. I don't mean to say that Tim Tebow is as good a player as Tom Brady, but Tim Tebow is raw and there's something sort of artistic about something so unrefined.
The picks:
New Orleans Saints at San Francisco 49ers
4:30 pm, Saturday
This is the first of three match ups that feel very similar. The three quarterbacks a top-of-my-head rundown of the best in the league all have very bad defenses and are playing against very good defenses. If you've ever read this blog or spoken to me before, you know which type of team I'm dying to pick in all of these games.
But this one's easy (mainly because I don't care about missing these picks).
Th 49ers are at home and, more importantly, the Saints aren't. The one hesitation I would have about picking the 49ers is the fact that Alex Smith is their quarterback but really, I'm probably going to pick the Ravens against Houston and is Smith really that much worse than Flacco? He's worse, but not in any way that I care about.
The Saints had better come with their best routine or they will lose this game. We all drool over the New Orleans offense and good-guy persona and dismiss the perceived neanderthal style of the Harbaugh family but there are things we are forgetting.
1. Just last season, the Saints lost to one of the worst playoff teams of all time on the road. The final nail in the coffin was hammered in by Marshawn Lynch, a slightly above average running back who made one of the best runs in playoff history; a play which doubled as one of the worst defensive plays in sports history. The way the Saints secondary kept trying to strip the ball when they game would have still been in doubt if they had just tackled him and subsequently gave up a game-clinching touchdown was shameful. That play speaks to the Saints' attitude on defense, which, when the chips are down, indifference.
2. The year the Saints won the Super Bowl, they played inside twice and once in Miami. The NFC Championship game was won on a Favre interception that looked like he was paid to do it and the Super Bowl on a commendable, yet still somewhat lucky surprise onside kick.
3. The 2011/2012 NFL playoffs currently consist of 25% Harbaugh.
4. Alex Smith is a mediocre quarterback. What can make up for that in the playoffs, you ask? A really good coach, a really good defense, and home field advantage.
Check, check, aaaaaaand check.
49ers over Saints, 23-17
Denver Broncos at New England Patriots
8:00 pm, Saturday
I'm getting chills just thinking about the Denver Broncos...CHILLS.
The misconception about the game between these two teams was that it was a blowout.
Again, with these dance troupe teams, when you lose by 21, how it happens matters. When the Broncos lost 41-23, it was fairly encouraging as far as I'm concerned. Now, let's say that the Patriots got up 38-0 and backed into a 41-23 victory. That would not have been encouraging. But the Broncos were up 16-7! New England was not stopping the Denver offense (they don't stop ANY offense) until the Broncos started inexplicably fumbling inside their own territory. Then the machine got going and the rout was on. The score doesn't tell us how close the game was, it's how long Denver was in it. As long as you keep it close and make these teams play the game of football, you're in fantastic position to win. Denver was in that game.
A couple facts to throw at you:
1. The Patriots haven't won a playoff game since they lost in the Super Bowl to Eli's Giants to go 18-1.
2. The Patriots haven't beaten a team with a winning record all season.
However, I'm still picking the Patriots. I hate this pick, but that doesn't make it any worse of a pick (probably makes it better). I have heard way too much about Tim Tebow in the national media for me to feel comfortable picking him. All of a sudden he's more of a cult figure than Tom Brady and I don't think I can go against Brady when he has even a whiff of underdog smell on him.
Patriots over Broncos, 31-21
Houston Texans at Baltimore Ravens
1:00 pm, Sunday
Marvin Lewis needs to be let go. His role for his whole career was basically to be Chad Johnson/Ochocinco's dad and he's gone now. This team doesn't need a babysitter, it needs someone who knows when it's appropriate to challenge a play and when it's not. I've always liked Marvin...but frankly, I don't know why. I'll miss him, but not that much.
The Texans were the most complete team in the AFC with a top defense, a good passing game, and a great running game. However, their coach and quarterback were both guys with a history of losing games they were in position to win and I had no confidence in either of them.
The Texans are currently a really good team with some very key injuries but I'm not sure it's made a huge difference in terms of results. Gary Kubiak has always failed as a clutch decision-maker but sometimes when you're forced to scramble (like when you're onto your third-string rookie quarterback, for example), you feel as if you're playing with house money and the nerves go out the window. The Texans are playing with more confidence now than when they had a better team.
On the flip side, T.J. Yates is super limited, and that shit doesn't fly against the Baltimore Ravens, I don't care how old they are.
This will not be a good game. Flacco's recent comments about how he gets no credit for wins is laughable. He's a mediocre quarterback, period. That's why I don't want to pick him to win...but I will.
Ravens over Texans, 17-6
New York Giants at Green Bay Packers
4:30 pm, Sunday
This is the Super Bowl of this weekend.
Throughout this whole post, I've been somewhat mocking the Brady/Brees/Rodgers triumvirate as if they really are dancers as suggested by the discount double-check commercial, but let's make one thing clear:
These Packers are fearsome.
The Patriots use their choreography to mask their lack of athleticism and the Saints do it because they're on turf. The Packers do it because WHY THE FUCK NOT?! They run some kind of west coast offense on cocaine (the GOOD stuff) where all the slants are 15 yards down field. They have four wide receivers who I would call, "great after the catch," and a quarterback who is accurate, strong-armed, mobile, smart and has a quick release. In fact, Aaron Rodgers is all of those things at an elite level in the NFL. I'm pretty sure the only team left that can beat them is the New York Giants.
The Giants are mean. You saw it last week. Their games are confusing. They give up a sloppy safety early in the game and then go on to shut out the Falcons' offense the entire day. They stopped two fourth and inches'. That front four might actually be monsters. Sometimes they sleep and let the Seahawks get by, but if you're big enough to catch their attention, they are going to try to eat you. THIS IS NOT AN ANALOGY OR HYPERBOLE.
OK, maybe it's both, but still...
I'm really going to enjoy watching this game and I'm going to be rooting hard for the Giants. I am, however, going to keep my Super Bowl pick (which is in my head) intact while it's still possible. Great finale to the weekend.
Packers over Giants 31-28.
Friday, January 6, 2012
2012 NFL Playoffs (The final playoffs in human history)
Here's what I've been doing instead of posting in the last couple months:
Dark Souls, Elder Scrolls, Game of Thrones, Bell Hoppin', Homer, Tim Tebow, new house...I think that's it. Almost all of those things are better than this blog so, if you have access to any of them, go do that now and read this later. (For the record, Tim Tebow is the name of my rec basketball team and is in no way referring to the player himself. Any similarities are purely coincidental).
But since the Bengals have made it to the playoffs, I feel I have a responsibility to pick against them.
Cincinnati Bengals at Houston Texans
4:15 pm, Saturday
In the last few seasons, the Bengals have been going through a sort of detox. The three years following the offensive boom and subsequent Carson Palmer left knee boom the Bengals had just been trying to regain the ease and machine-like efficiency they had to their offense in '05 and failed in a variety of ways, 2006 being the most memorable. That era ended in with the year that Ryan Fitzpatrick played most of the season and Chad Johnson "played" most of the season. That year seemed like rock bottom...but wasn't.
In 2009 the detox began. Being on Hard Knocks seemed almost like therapy in the form of confession. It also helped show the world what it's like to be a Bengal (not that easy) and what Marvin Lewis has to go through. That year, the team was based on running the ball and defense which was a first in Bengal history. That year was not easy however, Carson handed every ball off with his right hand because his left thumb was hurt and his deep threat broke his arm and then died mid-season. They gained about 43 yards in their playoff game against the Jets.
Instead of building on what they had done, the stupidly signed Terrell Owens, probably the worst person in the league and lost every ounce of good Karma they had going. Their record: 4-12.
In 2011, every memorable offensive player has been replaced by rookies or nobody. Rookies who have shown more character than most players the Bengals have ever had. They haven't made the New Orleans Saints style turnaround yet, but they've learned to play through the bad luck that just seems to come with playing for the Bengals, and that's really all you can do. I truly appreciate what this team has done for me as a fan. They're uncommonly steady.
With that said, they've never really gone "all the way" this season. They've had seven chances to beat a playoff team and they have seven losses, all to playoff teams. There is something to be said for beating "who you're supposed to beat (and I think I've said all of them above)" but these are the playoffs. They've played just about everyone tough, but I can't pick them to win a road playoff game until I've seen them do something like it before. I hate myself for doing it but I'm doing it.
Texans over Bengals, 24-16
Detroit Lions at New Orleans Saints
8:00 pm, Saturday
I don't like what I'm going to do here either.
The Detroit Lions can absolutely beat the Saints. Calvin Johnson cannot be stopped by the Saints unless they use their entire secondary to cover him (which they did earlier in the season when Nate Burleson had 93 yards receiving). The Lions should score every time they get the ball.
But that's the problem. The Lions are the type of team that forgets to score. They threw for 408 yards the last time they played the Saints and only scored 17 points. Penalties, turnovers, and other various errors due to lack of concentration are the Lions' M.O. And conversely, the Saints ALWAYS remember to score. This is a game between the hard-worker and the super-talent and the hard-worker is at home. I'm always the first one to call the Saints a fraud but the Lions play right into their hands. If Detroit forgets that it's stupid and gets hot for a game, they can move on but again, I haven't seen it happen yet.
Saints over Lions 48-31
Atlanta Falcons at New York Giants
1:00 pm, Sunday
FRAUD! FRAUD!!!
Here's another NFC South team that I will openly call a fraud. Matt Ryan has marginally improved since his rookie season (and example of my greatest fear about Andy Dalton) and does nothing to convince me that he is someone I need to be afraid of in a big game. The rest of the team seems very capable (Ryan included) but doesn't catch my eye in any significant way.
The strange thing about this game is that the Falcons love to play at home and the Giants love to play on the road (particularly as an underdog). Someone on the Giants needs to say something stupid so public opinion slides to the Falcons or the Giants are in real trouble. I can't emphasize enough that the Giants do not deal well with minimal adversity. The one encouraging sign was that they beat the Cowboys last week in a must win game with their home crowd actually cheering them on (usually they hate that!).
Side note: Look at the Chicago Bears. That's approximately what the Giants would look like if Eli got hurt. Probably not coincidentally, Jay Cutler and Eli Manning are my two favorite quarterbacks in the league because of how much responsibility they have to their teams and how much unwarranted flack they get.
Anyway, we have a very flawed team at home against a flawless but unremarkable team. I think you know who I like.
Giants over Falcons 27-20
Pittsburgh Steelers at Denver Broncos
4:30 pm, Sunday
I want to say that this game all depends on Roethlisberger's ankle, but it doesn't.
No matter how Big Ben's ankle feels, the Steelers are going to win and I say this only because I have confidence that Pittsburgh can score at least one point.
As fun as Tim Tebow has been this season, I think it's over.
I submit this challenge to Tebow (since he seems to love those): I don't believe that you can score any points against the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Steelers over Broncos, 13-0
Dark Souls, Elder Scrolls, Game of Thrones, Bell Hoppin', Homer, Tim Tebow, new house...I think that's it. Almost all of those things are better than this blog so, if you have access to any of them, go do that now and read this later. (For the record, Tim Tebow is the name of my rec basketball team and is in no way referring to the player himself. Any similarities are purely coincidental).
But since the Bengals have made it to the playoffs, I feel I have a responsibility to pick against them.
Cincinnati Bengals at Houston Texans
4:15 pm, Saturday
In the last few seasons, the Bengals have been going through a sort of detox. The three years following the offensive boom and subsequent Carson Palmer left knee boom the Bengals had just been trying to regain the ease and machine-like efficiency they had to their offense in '05 and failed in a variety of ways, 2006 being the most memorable. That era ended in with the year that Ryan Fitzpatrick played most of the season and Chad Johnson "played" most of the season. That year seemed like rock bottom...but wasn't.
In 2009 the detox began. Being on Hard Knocks seemed almost like therapy in the form of confession. It also helped show the world what it's like to be a Bengal (not that easy) and what Marvin Lewis has to go through. That year, the team was based on running the ball and defense which was a first in Bengal history. That year was not easy however, Carson handed every ball off with his right hand because his left thumb was hurt and his deep threat broke his arm and then died mid-season. They gained about 43 yards in their playoff game against the Jets.
Instead of building on what they had done, the stupidly signed Terrell Owens, probably the worst person in the league and lost every ounce of good Karma they had going. Their record: 4-12.
In 2011, every memorable offensive player has been replaced by rookies or nobody. Rookies who have shown more character than most players the Bengals have ever had. They haven't made the New Orleans Saints style turnaround yet, but they've learned to play through the bad luck that just seems to come with playing for the Bengals, and that's really all you can do. I truly appreciate what this team has done for me as a fan. They're uncommonly steady.
With that said, they've never really gone "all the way" this season. They've had seven chances to beat a playoff team and they have seven losses, all to playoff teams. There is something to be said for beating "who you're supposed to beat (and I think I've said all of them above)" but these are the playoffs. They've played just about everyone tough, but I can't pick them to win a road playoff game until I've seen them do something like it before. I hate myself for doing it but I'm doing it.
Texans over Bengals, 24-16
Detroit Lions at New Orleans Saints
8:00 pm, Saturday
I don't like what I'm going to do here either.
The Detroit Lions can absolutely beat the Saints. Calvin Johnson cannot be stopped by the Saints unless they use their entire secondary to cover him (which they did earlier in the season when Nate Burleson had 93 yards receiving). The Lions should score every time they get the ball.
But that's the problem. The Lions are the type of team that forgets to score. They threw for 408 yards the last time they played the Saints and only scored 17 points. Penalties, turnovers, and other various errors due to lack of concentration are the Lions' M.O. And conversely, the Saints ALWAYS remember to score. This is a game between the hard-worker and the super-talent and the hard-worker is at home. I'm always the first one to call the Saints a fraud but the Lions play right into their hands. If Detroit forgets that it's stupid and gets hot for a game, they can move on but again, I haven't seen it happen yet.
Saints over Lions 48-31
Atlanta Falcons at New York Giants
1:00 pm, Sunday
FRAUD! FRAUD!!!
Here's another NFC South team that I will openly call a fraud. Matt Ryan has marginally improved since his rookie season (and example of my greatest fear about Andy Dalton) and does nothing to convince me that he is someone I need to be afraid of in a big game. The rest of the team seems very capable (Ryan included) but doesn't catch my eye in any significant way.
The strange thing about this game is that the Falcons love to play at home and the Giants love to play on the road (particularly as an underdog). Someone on the Giants needs to say something stupid so public opinion slides to the Falcons or the Giants are in real trouble. I can't emphasize enough that the Giants do not deal well with minimal adversity. The one encouraging sign was that they beat the Cowboys last week in a must win game with their home crowd actually cheering them on (usually they hate that!).
Side note: Look at the Chicago Bears. That's approximately what the Giants would look like if Eli got hurt. Probably not coincidentally, Jay Cutler and Eli Manning are my two favorite quarterbacks in the league because of how much responsibility they have to their teams and how much unwarranted flack they get.
Anyway, we have a very flawed team at home against a flawless but unremarkable team. I think you know who I like.
Giants over Falcons 27-20
Pittsburgh Steelers at Denver Broncos
4:30 pm, Sunday
I want to say that this game all depends on Roethlisberger's ankle, but it doesn't.
No matter how Big Ben's ankle feels, the Steelers are going to win and I say this only because I have confidence that Pittsburgh can score at least one point.
As fun as Tim Tebow has been this season, I think it's over.
I submit this challenge to Tebow (since he seems to love those): I don't believe that you can score any points against the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Steelers over Broncos, 13-0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)