Jay Mariotti of course had to give his take on the Mike Leach and Texas Tech situation. I am writing about it today. You may ask why I am giving my opinion on it a week after the story broke. Well, the reason I am doing that is the same reason Jay Mariotti sucks for hearing about the story and immediately jumping the gun and instead of waiting for all the information to come in, then decides Mike Leach is guilty of all charges and is completely 100% in the wrong. It's what I call reactive journalism and I really can't stand it. Regardless of whether Leach was wrong or not, Mariotti just got one bit of information and popped out a column, which I think is a bit presumptive.
Reactive journalism is when a journalist gives a comment on a story developing and takes a hard stance one way without getting all of the facts first or waiting for all the facts to be brought out. Don't get me wrong, Mike Leach is very much in the wrong here, there's no doubt about that, but I don't believe he is the only person in this story that has been wrong. The bottom line: Don't condemn someone or pretend you know all the facts about a story the instant the story breaks.
(For instance, Jay Mariotti doesn't mention the Texas Tech administration doesn't like Mike Leach because of last year's contract negotiations. )
Of course Jay Mariotti is in no way familiar with this rule. If he gets a chance to come down on someone in the sports world he will do it with malice and as quickly as possible.
If you've wondered why there's an intense focus on concussions, why the NFL finally dumped the medical specialists who said head injuries don't pose long-term health dangers, why NFL players no longer can return to a game if they suffer even the slightest concussion and why one Democrat in Congress has compared this growing crisis to the deception of "tobacco companies pre-1990s'' -- well, America, meet Mike Leach.
We finally have our culprit for concussions in football. Concussions in the NFL and college football are all Mike Leach's fault. Every single last one of them.
First, let me put a disclaimer out there for what I am writing today. I do not think it is acceptable to lock an athlete in a garage or punish that athlete for not playing with a concussion. Obviously this is unacceptable and any coach that does this deserves to be fired. My point is that we have no idea if the accusations by the James family are true or not. Leach didn't force him to play with a concussion, he had been fed up with James' behavior in the past and his methods of sitting James for practice are questionable. The accusations certainly seem to be true, but excuse me if I don't trust ESPN to tell the whole story when they employ the victim's father and have a interest in showing Adam and Craig James are not in the wrong in any fashion. I can't pretend Mike Leach isn't an asshole, because he is, but I find it interesting the only major sports network that is still sticking with this story 100% (by sticking with this story 100% I mean they are reporting every little development) is ESPN.
The other major sites have moved past it. Meanwhile ESPN keeps uncovering evidence that current Texas Tech players didn't like Mike Leach. There is even a story about how Adam James will be welcome back to the team and how the trainer who put James in the closet (that was the size of a one car garage) didn't like doing it, but of course he did it anyway. This is the same trainer who contradicted James account of what happened originally. ESPN did give Mike Leach an interview though, so kudos to them for that.
There was barely a mention on the ESPN site about how CBSSportsline.com received emails from current and ex-Texas Tech players and coaches in support of Mike Leach. Leach is in the wrong, no doubt, but I also believe Texas Tech wanted to get rid of him because he is a pain in the ass and this gave them a chance to do so. The emails I linked earlier prove they didn't exactly like having him around. ESPN has stayed on top of the story simply because they don't want to fire Craig James and need to make him look credible to keep calling college football games for ESPN.
This article Jay Mariotti has written is not good. He should have just done what Gregg Doyel (who is no stranger to ripping people) did and let the story come out a little bit and write this article. It blames everyone. Sure, that sounds like a cop-out to just blame everyone involved in the situation, but there is also a lot of truth to it. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence neither Craig or Adam James liked the playing time Adam was receiving and plenty of evidence the contract negotiations with Leach left a bitter taste in the school's mouth last year. There is more to this story than an electrical closet/garage and a concussion. Someone needs to tell Jay Mariotti it is possible to write an interesting and meaningful column without choosing a side and putting that side with the full blame for a situation.
As long as creepy thugs such as the Texas Tech football coach exist, no amount of discourse, reform and legislation is enough.
Mike Leach is a weird guy. He loves pirates and just overall seems like a royal asshole, but after all we have found out about Adam James and the real circumstances around his "punishment" doesn't it seem a bit much to call Leach a "creepy thug?" (Contrary to ESPN's opinion, not everyone at Texas Tech liked Adam James) Maybe he is 25% creepy, but a thug? These are the type of statements that have caused Ozzie Guillen to call Jay Mariotti slurs and challenge him to a fight.
You personally I just think Mike Leach is just a victim of the "Crabtree Curse" Gregg Easterbrook always talks about. If you even get around Michael Crabtree, it ruins your life.
I am sure many of you have read the emails sent to Dennis Dodd of CBSSportsline defending Mike Leach. Granted, these are letters from Leach's coaches, current players, and ex-players so there may be a certain amount of bias in the letters because they like the guy...but isn't that the point? These people didn't have to write or say ANYTHING and they took the time out to write and tell what kind of person they thought Mike Leach was, as well as what kind of person they thought Adam James was. The easiest thing for these individuals who wrote in is to keep their mouth shut and see how the situation plays out. I believe ESPN's reporting shows some bias.
There were players who were happy that Mike Leach was gone from the team and there was one player quoted on ESPN as saying he was happy Leach was gone. This article on ESPN (what a shock) details some of the things Texas Tech players said about Leach that were negative and how he treated his players. Wes Welker said his experiences with Leach were positive. Would Wes Welker ever lie?????
Personally, I think Mike Leach has gone overboard at times with criticizing his players. Not everything he has said in the past is appropriate, so I won't defend him for that. I just want to see some fair coverage come out of this. Players are tough on their players and curse at them, I just don't get why video of Mike Leach cursing at Adam James is news to anyone who has played sports. Is Mike Leach a bully? Probably, but in the realm of the world outside of football I would say 90% of head coaches are bullies in college football. That doesn't make it right of course.
Part of me can't help but be a little jaded and find it interesting that the only sports site of the Big 4 (CBSSportsline, CNNSI, FoxSports, and ESPN) that was able to find and interview many players who didn't like Leach was ESPN...who just so happens to employ Adam James' father as an analyst. Other sports outlets have reported on the incident obviously, but no other network has had as much front page information and developments as ESPN. Sure, you could say they are just doing their job and reporting sports news, but I have to say ESPN isn't always the best at reporting sports news and developments when all the facts aren't known (i.e. Ben Roethlisberger legal situation at the beginning of the NFL year).
ESPN wouldn't by chance have any personal interest in making sure Craig James and his family aren't discredited would they? It severely hurts Craig James credibility as a college football analyst if it is eventually shown his son exaggerated the claims, got a prominent D-I head coach fired, and basically put himself in the middle of a situation where he didn't have all the facts. ESPN wants Mike Leach to be the bad guy here in my mind. Mike Leach has also done a lot to make himself be the bad guy here, so it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Sure, Adam James is Craig James' son and he wants to protect his son, but he also knows he is a high profile individual in college football. I can't and won't fault him for that. The problem lies in the fact he can't put himself in situations with those coaches he covers to look like his personal life is going to cross over negatively with his business life. I am sure Mike Leach was tough on players, football coaches tend to be that way, but if the claims were exaggerated that's a problem for Craig James. Calling the room Adam James was placed in an electrical closet when it was as big as a one car garage is a bit of an exaggeration. I can't fault Craig James for defending his son but he had just better be sure he has all the facts correct. I am not sure he did that.
When an athlete sustains a head injury of any sort, a coach should have the educated sensibility to drop all other priorities and concentrate fully on that player's well-being.
What is Mike Leach supposed to say? He is supposed to say, "One of my 100 football players has a mild concussion? He is a 5th string receiver who plays sparingly? Let's cancel practice and not focus on the bowl game that will potentially bring in a ton of money to the school and make sure he is going to be fine!" All Leach can do is have a trainer check this player out, which is what he did...obviously his methods were questionable in getting James out of the sun.
It would be nice if Mike Leach could personally tend to each and every player that gets hurt, but this is not realistic. Realistically a coach has almost 100 other players he has to tend to as well to make sure they win the bowl game, boosters who want a bowl game win, and other football-related things to do. That's why Mike Leach and Texas Tech has a training staff, to take care of injuries (even head injuries) and allow the coach to worry about coaching the football game. So it's not realistic for Mike Leach to drop everything and focus completely on Adam James and his concussion.
In the case of Adam James, a redshirt sophomore receiver, Leach reportedly doubted that he had suffered a concussion during a Dec. 16 practice and thought he was just another player disgruntled about playing time. Even though James had been examined a day later and told not to practice after being diagnosed with a concussion and an elevated heart rate, Leach wasn't a caring, compassionate soul about it. Actually, he came off as a warped and sinister ogre when, according to sources who spoke to ESPN and the Associated Press, he told a university trainer to move James into a secluded room -- "to the darkest place, to clean out the equipment and to make sure that he could not sit or lean. He was confined for three hours." If James tried to leave the area, a source told the AP, he would be kicked off the team at once.
Obviously if this is all found out to be true, then Mike Leach is an asshole and deserved to be fired. At this point, Mariotti decided to come to his conclusion without hearing any part of the other side of the story. Of course Jay Mariotti had a deadline to meet and didn't have time to report what Mike Leach said about the situation. I mean, and really, why would Mariotti wait for both sides of the story to come out before condemning Mike Leach?
According to the New York Times and Dennis Dodd (what Dodd wrote is in bold italics) this is what Mike Leach said he told the trainers to do with Adam James:
If what Mike Leach said was true in the New York Times on Friday, then what we all thought two days ago is a mirage. Leach and other sources claim that the coach did not, in fact, mistreat Adam James. Leach said only that he did not know where the player was taken and that he ordered only that James be taken "out of the light."
Regardless of which side is actually true, I think Jay Mariotti should have waited until Mike Leach decided to speak before condemning Leach. Or he could have at least acknowledged he is only listening to one side of the story. Of course he doesn't do that. What Mariotti fails to understand is that Mike Leach is not a doctor and was coaching football practice. He probably told the team doctor to take care of James and get him out of the sunlight if he has a concussion. Some sources say Leach said exactly this, while other sources say Leach gave specific instructions as to where to put James.
Pincock stated on Saturday that he didn't agree with Leach putting James in the one car garage that he placed him in. If Leach did order Pincock to put him in that location then he is in the wrong, but it's still Pincock's story against Leach's...and Pincock has sort of changed his story between what Leach's lawyer said and what the affidavit Pincock signed claimed. Either way Leach delegated this responsibility and wasn't personally responsible for shoving a player in an electrical closet. That it shouldn't make a huge difference, but still.
Leach is supported by head trainer Steve Pincock and a team doctor.
So who are these "sources" ESPN and the AP have? It's obviously not one of the team doctors or the head trainer. I have a weird feeling the same players who came out and spoke out against Mike Leach are the same ones who are ESPN and the AP's "sources" on this situation. Pincock, through Leach's lawyer already agreed with Leach's story, but now he says he didn't agree with the punishment and hasn't seen another player treated like that before or since that time. I am not even sure what to believe in regard to what he says. Leach's camp has him saying one thing and then after Leach gets fired, he slightly changes his story.
The Lubbock Avalanche Journal reported that the room was a shed and that Leach forced James to stand in it for two hours during practice.
That's awesome and informative. Unfortunately the actual people who put James there had a different take on the situation...or seemed to originally.
In this article Pincock says the first place Adam James was placed was an equipment garage and the second place he was placed in a media room, which did have an electrical closet, but James wasn't supposed to go in there. It turns out he did go in there at some point and shoot some video eventually put up on YouTube.
So unless there is a big conspiracy to discredit Adam James even after Mike Leach has been fired, we have conflicting accounts on what happened. Stuff like this is why I hate reactive journalism. Jay Mariotti doesn't even mention there could be another side to this story, or even acknowledge what he is writing isn't stone cold fact. There are semi-conflicting accounts on what Pincock was told to do and even if he was told to put James in that one car garage/electrical closet, did he HAVE to do it? We have James who said he was put in the closet, Pincock who said he wasn't put in the closet but says Leach ordered the player to be put somewhere dark to make him miserable and Leach's account where he told Pincock to put in a dark place, but was not specific. I am not sure how on December 29th Mariotti could have taken one account and found it to be the truth.
Two days later, Leach allegedly told a trainer to place James "in the darkest, tightest spot. It was in an electrical closet, again, with a guard posted outside." Know what comes to mind? The movie "Midnight Express," the true story of an American who was tortured for years inside a Turkish prison after trying to smuggle drugs through an airport.
Really? Jay Mariotti has just compared Americans being tortured in a Turkish prison to a football player allegedly being put in an electrical closet/one car garage. Maybe this is a bit of an extreme and overdramatic analogy?
I realize West Texas is far removed from modern civilization, filled with flying dust and tumbleweeds,
I bet they don't even have Starbucks and don't drive hybrid cars either. BARBARIANS!
a place that embraced and revered Bob Knight after he was fired for roughing up young people at Indiana.
Why would you embrace and revere someone who turned the basketball program and around was accused of absolutely zero NCAA violations or instances where he roughed up players? Shouldn't everyone be judged and never forgiven for wrong acts they committed a few years ago even if they never do it again? Jay Mariotti seems to think so.
According to Ted Liggett, Leach's attorney, James embellished the severity of his head injury. Liggett called it a "mild concussion,'' telling the AP, "I believe that [James] was a disgruntled student-athlete that, like many, were not happy with playing time.''
This is another part of the story that Mariotti sort of skips over. The fact Mike Leach, and other coaches on the team, had difficulty with Adam James in getting him to play through injuries (not a concussion) and generally act like he gave a shit out on the field. It is on record that James was not happy with his playing time, so I am sure both parties have some harsh feelings towards each other because of this.
To deal with the "mild concussion,'' Liggett says James "was placed in an equipment room as it was much cooler and darker" than the practice field "after a doctor had examined him and returned him to the field." He was required to spend one to two hours in seclusion, not three, said Liggett, who added that ice was made available to James while a trainer stood guard outside the room. On the later date, Liggett said James was ordered to stay in a "press room with air-conditioning and a stationary bike he could use.''
I believe it was also a doctor that said James had a "mild concussion" so I am not sure why that term is in parenthesis. It may be an exact quote but its also a fact in this case. I think this may be the one aspect of this situation that has been generally agreed upon, so there is no need to question the validity of it. James had a mild concussion. I am pretty sure this is a fact.
I am not a doctor and I have no idea what the proper procedures after a player has had a concussion are, but I am pretty sure keeping a player out of the sun and not in the heat (since James also had an elevated heart rate) is about the best many schools can do for a player. Even with a concussion, I don't think a college football player will be sent home to play Playstation 3 and hang out with his friends. If Adam James wants to be on the football team, he can't expect to leave the football facility, even if he is injured, while his teammates practice. As far as getting James out of the light, I think this was a good move. Again, the way he was gotten out of the light was questionable.
Oh, and we're supposed to feel better now, assuming the explanation is true in any sense? If anyone should be placed in solitary confinement and wrapped in a straitjacket under lock and key, it's Leach. What a friggin' lunatic.
Yes, we are supposed to feel better if the explanation is true because it pretty much refutes the allegations the James family has made in regard to how Adam James concussion was handled. It feels like a pretty bizarre way to handle a concussion, but I am not a doctor so I have no idea how a concussion should be handled.
I got a concussion in the 6th grade playing basketball and blacked out on the floor of a bathroom. I was sent back into my classroom with the lights turned off and no air conditioning while everyone else played basketball. Then I went about my day as a 6th grader. I wanted to be in a dark closet with no one around because my head hurt and the world was spinning. I am not saying this was the right remedy for Adam James, but after having a concussion the darkness was my friend. I am not saying this was the solution for Adam James or he should have been locked up like he was, but the lack of light can't hurt a concussion.
My point is that as far as I know there isn't a foolproof way to deal with a concussion, so putting a player in the dark out of the heat sounds to a non-professional doctor like me like something I wouldn't have minded at the time if I had a concussion. Of course if I hated the coach who put me there then I would be pissed.
Word hasn't reached Leach, evidently, that concussions can kill athletes of all ages. Or cause dementia and other cognitive decline. Or lead people to depression and suicidal thoughts. Since when did Leach become a licensed doctor and determine concussions can be treated in a dark room?
I am pretty sure the head trainer and team doctor put him in that room. I don't know much about this situation, but if either them thought this was a terrible idea would they have done it? Even if Mike Leach said to do this? I know Pincock said he did as he was told, but if the dark would have made James' concussion worse I don't think Pincock would have done it. So we can't say Leach was an asshole because he did something to worsen James' concussion. Since the trainer and doctor are licensed professionals I would like to think they wouldn't have put him in a dark room if this was a terrible idea.
Is this situation really involve a concussion issue? I don't feel like it is, so I am not sure why Mariotti is trying to turn it into one.
The way Leach reacted is the traditional, macho, grunt/snort response that ignores an enlightened ongoing campaign about how head injuries damage athletes later in life.
Maybe he should have handled the situation differently, but I don't think the way James was treated would have caused his concussion to be worse. If Leach had made James play football on the field both days, then maybe I would get on the "blame Mike Leach" train. It's hard to do that when you listen to all the conflicting evidence going back and forth. At least for me it is.
James' story becomes more credible upon learning his father is Craig James, the former SMU and Patriots star, who now works as an ESPN analyst.
How the hell does his story become more credible because of this? If James parents worked in a mill or were school teachers would his story have been LESS credible? Sons of ESPN analysts can lie and exaggerate just as much as everyone else's children can. In fact, Adam James may have been more likely to exaggerate his claims knowing his dad had the ability to do something about his problem with Mike Leach. I am just throwing that out there.
I've covered Craig James' football career and know what he stands for. I don't believe for an instant that his son is a crybaby hypochondriac seeking more playing time.
So basically Jay Mariotti is defending his co-worker and friend. Unfortunately there are other football players and coaches (current and former of both) on the Texas Tech team that know the situation better than Jay Mariotti who say Adam James wanted more playing time and wanted to sit out practices with injuries and that is where all this stems from. Again, that doesn't make it right, but it's pretty clear both the Leach and James parties had had enough of each other at this point.
Dennis Dodd said this:
I received two calls this week from people I trust saying James had bothered coaches and that he had tried to leverage his influence at the network to get his son playing time. Big Daddy James had become a royal pain in the you-know-what.
I thought from the beginning it was borderline unethical that friends and co-workers of James were reporting this story. It had that "railroad" smell to it from the beginning with James being portrayed as the protective parent.
Can we consider Jay Mariotti as one of these "friends" and "co-workers?" If so, then what Mariotti is writing isn't even journalism but a biased one-sided account in an effort to discredit a prominent college football head coach. I am pretty sure that is not what he is supposed to do as a sports journalist. Of course calling Mariotti a journalist is a stretch anyway.
To the contrary, James is a concerned father who was brave enough to expose Leach's medieval tactics.
Maybe this is the "railroad" smell Dennis Dodd was talking about.
Leach has been especially nutty, ripping his players for being too close to "their fat little girlfriends'' after an October loss to Texas A&M. He suspended a starting offensive lineman for violating unspecified team rules
What? He attempted to implement and enforce team rules? What a nut-job! Mike Leach is a crazy person for holding his players to team rules and standards he has set.
and banned the Twitter craze after a linebacker, Marion Williams, Tweeted about why the players were in a meeting room when "the head coach can't even be on time.''
Mike Leach banned Twitter? I don't know how a rational person could believe this isn't something only the criminally insane would do. Who bans Twitter, especially when a player uses Twitter to say negative things about the coach. Mike Leach is crazy!
It should surprise no one that Leach will use the legal process in an attempt to coach the Red Raiders in the bowl game.
I know. I hate our legal system that allows people who are accused of crimes or who have some other legal issue they want resolved to get heard in a timely fashion. What's this "due process" bullshit attorneys are always trying to shove down everyone's throat?
"There's much, much more than meets the eye,'' Liggett argued in the Lubbock newspaper. "The diagnosing doctor has signed a note stating that Adam James was in no way injured by the actions coach Leach took. In fact, he was better off in the building than he would have been outside.''
What, Fred Flintstone's cave wasn't available?
It's pretty clear Jay Mariotti has no idea what the specific remedy for a concussion is or is willing to suggest what a better method of dealing with Adam James' concussion would have been. Mariotti just blindly knows Mike Leach is in the wrong. He knows this because he knows Craig James. This doctor's note should pretty much take care of any concussion concerns Jay Mariotti has, but of course it doesn't.
No, the sword has one edge. And it can be fatal, sooner or later, only exacerbated by the presence of too many cruel and disturbed coaches.
I like how Jay Mariotti is turning this into a concussion issue to say that Mike Leach was in the wrong (rather than an issue of mistreating a student/athlete by locking him in a closet), even though Mike Leach didn't do anything that would have made James' concussion worse. If the allegations are true, then yes he was out of line in putting James in the electrical closet/one car garage, but he didn't make James concussion WORSE, so Mariotti's preaching about how Leach made James' concussion worse falls on deaf ears. Locking a player in an electrical closet is inhumane, if true, and Mike Leach should have been fired or at least harshly reprimanded, but he didn't make James concussion worse.
I will end with a good thought by Dennis Dodd:
The fact that Leach would not "apologize" to the James family didn’t make sense from the beginning. If Adam’s treatment was so heinous, why would a simple apology make Big Daddy go away?
Interesting. So the way Mike Leach reportedly treated Adam James was so terrible that Craig James and his family felt compelled to report it to Texas Tech officials, but it wasn't so bad that a simple apology would have fixed it? That doesn't make sense to me. If James' treatment was so bad as to get Leach fired, how would an apology been enough to make up for it?
Who really knows which side is telling the truth? My point is that before he writes columns criticizing Mike Leach for mistreating his players, Jay Mariotti has a journalistic responsibility to his readers (who all hate him, so it may not matter) to at least pay attention to the other side of the story. Rather than just reacting to the first thing he heard about the story and trying to turn this into a issue where Mike Leach made Adam James' concussion worse.
Was Mike Leach wrong for his treatment of Adam James? Yes, probably. The fact Mike Leach thought Adam James was lazy and probably took it out on him sometimes is not irrelevant, but neither is the fact the Texas Tech administration did not like Leach and the James family wanted Adam to get more playing time. I think all of these things had something to do with this incident. Leach was in the wrong, but Mariotti should not come down on Leach until he knew the whole story. The whole story is a little more balanced than was presented in this column.
Showing posts with label Dennis Dodd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dennis Dodd. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Saturday, July 25, 2009
13 comments Let's Make Fun of Two Pretty White Boys Who Smile A Lot
I woke up today and realized I haven't made fun of Jeff Francouer or Furman Bisher lately. I also have NEVER made fun of Tim Tebow and I was wondering how can I fix this. Fortunately good ol' Japanese hating Furman has given me an opportunity to fix part of this and I will fix the Tebow part myself. Francouer failing as an Atlanta Brave was an especially hard hit for Furman because Francouer is white, from the United States and came from the Braves farm system. It is like the Armageddon of failures for Furman. Let's see how he is holding up.
Sad to say, that in this fairy tale, nobody lives happily ever after.
Oh no, the Braves got some type of value for Francouer, they are living quite happily ever after. He's actually hitting better for the Mets and they still hate him.
“The Natural” has been cast off by the team that brought him in from the suburbs, gloated over him through those first two seasons when he was a steady producer, and then, suddenly, when he lost his game, there was no one to help him.
They used him dammit! When he was no longer of use to the team, or was actually hurting the team just by being in the lineup, they traded him. How dare a team look to win games and not keep a player that is dragging the team down with his inability to do his job halfway effectively! This is America dammit...people should be able to keep their job even if they suck at that job, especially if they make millions of dollars in return for sucking.
So Jeff Francoeur went searching on his own. I don’t understand how it came to that.
When there is no one in an entire MLB organization that can help you hit the ball better, that should tell you something about your prospects as a baseball player.
Neither do I understand just why a hitting slump can’t be cured like the common cold.
Apparently Furman is not aware there actually is no cure for the common cold either. I wouldn't expect him to know this, he is young and impressionable, he probably just forgot.
Mark DeRosa was one, rejected by the Braves, signed by the Rangers and under Jaramillo, as the story goes, found a swing that eventually led to a $13-million contract with the Cubs. Then Mark Teixeira passed that way, and need I say more?
Actually yes, you do need to say more. Like get the timeline correct. DeRosa started playing for the Rangers in 2005 and Tex started playing there in 2003. Not to mention Tex was the 5th pick in the draft and was a guy who got a huge bonus to play for the Rangers. He didn't need Rudy Jaramillo's help in any fashion. Mark DeRosa was also a good hitter prior to going to Texas, I think being able to play full time allowed him to get more at bats and get comfortable at the major league level, which allowed him to hit the ball better. Atlanta did not sign him, not rejected him, because they knew they could not offer him an everyday job.
So yes, you could have gotten this all much more correct.
So the season opened, Francoeur’s swing still showed some lack of discipline and his average hovered around .250.
That doesn't sound too bad, but what was his OBP Furman?
2007- 0.338
2008- 0.294
2009- 0.282 (with the Braves)
Yes, he took hitting lessons and his OPS dropped to a pathetic 0.634. How would he have hit without the hitting lessons? He was awful. Just awful and if Rudy Jaramillo and the Braves organization can't fix him, why keep him?
He became a target.
Yes, he was a victim of the organization looking to rid itself of bad baseball players.
Meanwhile, back in Atlanta, you wonder. How would Cox have reacted if Francoeur had told him of his Jaramillo plan? What if he had come back to the Braves hitting .300 with a generous sprinkling of home runs? Would he ever have been traded?
If he hit .300 and had home runs he probably would not have been traded. This is an incredibly stupid point to try and prove the Braves did not stick with him or should have done more to help him.
The Braves traded him because he did not have success as a hitter in the major leagues, if he had success then he would not have gotten traded most likely. I don't think the organization would have cared if he sacrificed kittens to hit the ball well, just as long as he contributed to the team in some other fashion other than playing above average defense.
Frank Wren, of course, handled the deal, but it had to be approved by Cox. And there went the hometown hero, who could have been a Clemson Tiger, but chose the Braves and their sweetened pot of $2 million or so. Now, all that remains of that class of golden prospects is Brian McCann.
Furman is still bemoaning the "golden days of the Braves minor league system," which was 2005 apparently. You can't just keep players around because they are from Georgia and came from the Braves' system. I know this is a difficult principle for Furman to accept, but it's true.
So Francoeur was dealt to the Mets and his name is misspelled on the lineup card.
Those fucking New York Mets, insulting Francouer for last the time by misspelling his name.
Big deal. I once walked into the Milwaukee Braves clubhouse and Henry Aaron’s name was misspelled. Besides, Francoeur isn’t easy to spell, anyway.
Nevermind, Furman forgives you.
Nor is it easy to say goodbye.
It was actually incredibly easy for me to say goodbye and it should have been for anyone who wasn't a horny woman or Furman Bisher.
-I am officially becoming annoyed with the media's obsession with Tim Tebow. I actually don't hate Tebow, which is odd since I do hate the University of Florida and pretty much anything that is related to the school. I don't know why, I have never liked the school. There have been two controversies this week concerning Tebow.
The first is SEC VoteGate.
The assembled media in the Wynfrey Hotel ballroom are trying to find the perp among the league's coaches. The crime against football reason: failing to vote for Florida's Tim Tebow as the first-team all-Southeastern Conference quarterback.
How dare someone not vote Tim Tebow first team All-SEC! Tim Tebow is a Christian man of God, by not voting for him you are pissing God himself off. Tim Tebow delivers babies for underprivileged mothers and steals orphans from poor villages and then drops them on the doorstep of wealthy and famous celebrities...then stares down the celebrity until they formally adopt the baby. Who would dare smite Tebow and not vote for him?
Well, it turns out it was Steve Spurrier who did not vote him for him, but it was an "oversight." Damn right it was, even Steve Spurrier is afraid to piss off Tebow and God.
What is the media's fascination with Tim Tebow? Who cares if someone did not vote for him first team All-SEC?
Nobody wants to admit publicly he didn't vote for Tebow. But somebody didn't.
I thank God/Tebow that Steve Spurrier stood up and said he did not vote for Tebow...but then he bitched out and said it was an "oversight." Have some balls and say you did not vote for Tebow and voted for Jevan Snead, who is actually a great quarterback in his own right, though he doesn't smile as much or have a camera in front of him as often when he is doing good deeds.
"Will it give me a little bit [of motivation]?" Tebow asked. "Yeah, I guess. But I have enough that gives me motivation right now. I honestly think it's funny."
Yeah, the fact Spurrier thought you were the second best quarterback in the SEC should really motivate you to prove him wrong. I have always thought it was a little egotistical for a player to get offended when people don't vote that player an unanimous choice for any All-Conference team. How big can your ego be that you can't accept there may be someone as good as you in the conference?
The Tebow-mania is overboard because everyone ignores the fact there are great skill players all around Tebow who can make him look good, guys like Louis Murphy and Percy Harvin....they have made Tebow's job a lot easier in the past. Tebow is great but his great teammates get ignored.
I got my Sports Illustrated for this week and Tebow was on the cover. I don't hate him but I am over all this adulation he receives.
The second controversy stirred up almost as much heat. Want to hear something else about Tebow that makes him so great? He's a virgin. I am not sure everyone heard about it.
It doesn't matter if the question what out of line or not, my favorite part is where reporters will write an entire column saying the question did not matter and was out of line...yet it is important enough to write an entire column about. Here is what Tebow-mania turns people like Dennis Dodd of CBS Sportsline into, when he should be covering the SEC meetings and talking football:
His latest job is with AOL Fanhouse. The site currently employs some of my favorite writers. Clay Travis is not one of them. Not now, because it sickens me to be reminded again that journalism has become a hobby instead of a vocation. Radio talk-show hosts who have never set foot in a locker room call themselves "journalists." Give an out-of-work linebacker an analyst job, and suddenly he's the "media."
Yes, I am not sure this is entirely an appropriate response to the question that was asked. This sounds a little bit like an off the topic rant...but this is what Tim Tebow does to sportswriters. It turns them into angry yellers who rant off topic. Who cares if Tebow was not affected by the question, when you can use that question to go off on a tangent?
But he wasn't done:
Nice day at work. Rest up and come back fresh tomorrow, Clay. There will be plenty of chances on Friday to ask a player if he has herpes. I'm sure the public is dying to know if Lane Kiffin ever "read" Playboy or if Les Miles watches HBO after midnight?
Somebody needs to take a nap.
Dan Wetzel wants us to all know that Tebow is in fact perfect.
The gushing from the media through the years – the latest being a Sports Illustrated cover appearance this week – is well-earned.
What can anyone say though? What’s his negative – that he’s too earnest? He’s too polite? Does Tim Tebow do anything wrong?
I think Tim Tebow is 1,000 times more mature than most college students and I applaud him for making choices to help out those less fortunate and do whatever he chooses to do in his personal life, but isn't this a bit much?
I find it fascinating the media is so fascinated with Tim Tebow. I am not even going to talk about the comment Thom Brennaman made during the National Championship about how "five minutes with Tim Tebow will change your life."
There is a difference between having respect for a college football player and fawning all over him. I think it has gone more to the "fawning over Tim Tebow" side of coverage of late. What is it about this smiling God fearing guy that turns sportswriters into little teenage girls gushing over the newest boy band? Other than the fact he is perfect of course...
Sad to say, that in this fairy tale, nobody lives happily ever after.
Oh no, the Braves got some type of value for Francouer, they are living quite happily ever after. He's actually hitting better for the Mets and they still hate him.
“The Natural” has been cast off by the team that brought him in from the suburbs, gloated over him through those first two seasons when he was a steady producer, and then, suddenly, when he lost his game, there was no one to help him.
They used him dammit! When he was no longer of use to the team, or was actually hurting the team just by being in the lineup, they traded him. How dare a team look to win games and not keep a player that is dragging the team down with his inability to do his job halfway effectively! This is America dammit...people should be able to keep their job even if they suck at that job, especially if they make millions of dollars in return for sucking.
So Jeff Francoeur went searching on his own. I don’t understand how it came to that.
When there is no one in an entire MLB organization that can help you hit the ball better, that should tell you something about your prospects as a baseball player.
Neither do I understand just why a hitting slump can’t be cured like the common cold.
Apparently Furman is not aware there actually is no cure for the common cold either. I wouldn't expect him to know this, he is young and impressionable, he probably just forgot.
Mark DeRosa was one, rejected by the Braves, signed by the Rangers and under Jaramillo, as the story goes, found a swing that eventually led to a $13-million contract with the Cubs. Then Mark Teixeira passed that way, and need I say more?
Actually yes, you do need to say more. Like get the timeline correct. DeRosa started playing for the Rangers in 2005 and Tex started playing there in 2003. Not to mention Tex was the 5th pick in the draft and was a guy who got a huge bonus to play for the Rangers. He didn't need Rudy Jaramillo's help in any fashion. Mark DeRosa was also a good hitter prior to going to Texas, I think being able to play full time allowed him to get more at bats and get comfortable at the major league level, which allowed him to hit the ball better. Atlanta did not sign him, not rejected him, because they knew they could not offer him an everyday job.
So yes, you could have gotten this all much more correct.
So the season opened, Francoeur’s swing still showed some lack of discipline and his average hovered around .250.
That doesn't sound too bad, but what was his OBP Furman?
2007- 0.338
2008- 0.294
2009- 0.282 (with the Braves)
Yes, he took hitting lessons and his OPS dropped to a pathetic 0.634. How would he have hit without the hitting lessons? He was awful. Just awful and if Rudy Jaramillo and the Braves organization can't fix him, why keep him?
He became a target.
Yes, he was a victim of the organization looking to rid itself of bad baseball players.
Meanwhile, back in Atlanta, you wonder. How would Cox have reacted if Francoeur had told him of his Jaramillo plan? What if he had come back to the Braves hitting .300 with a generous sprinkling of home runs? Would he ever have been traded?
If he hit .300 and had home runs he probably would not have been traded. This is an incredibly stupid point to try and prove the Braves did not stick with him or should have done more to help him.
The Braves traded him because he did not have success as a hitter in the major leagues, if he had success then he would not have gotten traded most likely. I don't think the organization would have cared if he sacrificed kittens to hit the ball well, just as long as he contributed to the team in some other fashion other than playing above average defense.
Frank Wren, of course, handled the deal, but it had to be approved by Cox. And there went the hometown hero, who could have been a Clemson Tiger, but chose the Braves and their sweetened pot of $2 million or so. Now, all that remains of that class of golden prospects is Brian McCann.
Furman is still bemoaning the "golden days of the Braves minor league system," which was 2005 apparently. You can't just keep players around because they are from Georgia and came from the Braves' system. I know this is a difficult principle for Furman to accept, but it's true.
So Francoeur was dealt to the Mets and his name is misspelled on the lineup card.
Those fucking New York Mets, insulting Francouer for last the time by misspelling his name.
Big deal. I once walked into the Milwaukee Braves clubhouse and Henry Aaron’s name was misspelled. Besides, Francoeur isn’t easy to spell, anyway.
Nevermind, Furman forgives you.
Nor is it easy to say goodbye.
It was actually incredibly easy for me to say goodbye and it should have been for anyone who wasn't a horny woman or Furman Bisher.
-I am officially becoming annoyed with the media's obsession with Tim Tebow. I actually don't hate Tebow, which is odd since I do hate the University of Florida and pretty much anything that is related to the school. I don't know why, I have never liked the school. There have been two controversies this week concerning Tebow.
The first is SEC VoteGate.
The assembled media in the Wynfrey Hotel ballroom are trying to find the perp among the league's coaches. The crime against football reason: failing to vote for Florida's Tim Tebow as the first-team all-Southeastern Conference quarterback.
How dare someone not vote Tim Tebow first team All-SEC! Tim Tebow is a Christian man of God, by not voting for him you are pissing God himself off. Tim Tebow delivers babies for underprivileged mothers and steals orphans from poor villages and then drops them on the doorstep of wealthy and famous celebrities...then stares down the celebrity until they formally adopt the baby. Who would dare smite Tebow and not vote for him?
Well, it turns out it was Steve Spurrier who did not vote him for him, but it was an "oversight." Damn right it was, even Steve Spurrier is afraid to piss off Tebow and God.
What is the media's fascination with Tim Tebow? Who cares if someone did not vote for him first team All-SEC?
Nobody wants to admit publicly he didn't vote for Tebow. But somebody didn't.
I thank God/Tebow that Steve Spurrier stood up and said he did not vote for Tebow...but then he bitched out and said it was an "oversight." Have some balls and say you did not vote for Tebow and voted for Jevan Snead, who is actually a great quarterback in his own right, though he doesn't smile as much or have a camera in front of him as often when he is doing good deeds.
"Will it give me a little bit [of motivation]?" Tebow asked. "Yeah, I guess. But I have enough that gives me motivation right now. I honestly think it's funny."
Yeah, the fact Spurrier thought you were the second best quarterback in the SEC should really motivate you to prove him wrong. I have always thought it was a little egotistical for a player to get offended when people don't vote that player an unanimous choice for any All-Conference team. How big can your ego be that you can't accept there may be someone as good as you in the conference?
The Tebow-mania is overboard because everyone ignores the fact there are great skill players all around Tebow who can make him look good, guys like Louis Murphy and Percy Harvin....they have made Tebow's job a lot easier in the past. Tebow is great but his great teammates get ignored.
I got my Sports Illustrated for this week and Tebow was on the cover. I don't hate him but I am over all this adulation he receives.
The second controversy stirred up almost as much heat. Want to hear something else about Tebow that makes him so great? He's a virgin. I am not sure everyone heard about it.
It doesn't matter if the question what out of line or not, my favorite part is where reporters will write an entire column saying the question did not matter and was out of line...yet it is important enough to write an entire column about. Here is what Tebow-mania turns people like Dennis Dodd of CBS Sportsline into, when he should be covering the SEC meetings and talking football:
His latest job is with AOL Fanhouse. The site currently employs some of my favorite writers. Clay Travis is not one of them. Not now, because it sickens me to be reminded again that journalism has become a hobby instead of a vocation. Radio talk-show hosts who have never set foot in a locker room call themselves "journalists." Give an out-of-work linebacker an analyst job, and suddenly he's the "media."
Yes, I am not sure this is entirely an appropriate response to the question that was asked. This sounds a little bit like an off the topic rant...but this is what Tim Tebow does to sportswriters. It turns them into angry yellers who rant off topic. Who cares if Tebow was not affected by the question, when you can use that question to go off on a tangent?
But he wasn't done:
Nice day at work. Rest up and come back fresh tomorrow, Clay. There will be plenty of chances on Friday to ask a player if he has herpes. I'm sure the public is dying to know if Lane Kiffin ever "read" Playboy or if Les Miles watches HBO after midnight?
Somebody needs to take a nap.
Dan Wetzel wants us to all know that Tebow is in fact perfect.
The gushing from the media through the years – the latest being a Sports Illustrated cover appearance this week – is well-earned.
What can anyone say though? What’s his negative – that he’s too earnest? He’s too polite? Does Tim Tebow do anything wrong?
I think Tim Tebow is 1,000 times more mature than most college students and I applaud him for making choices to help out those less fortunate and do whatever he chooses to do in his personal life, but isn't this a bit much?
I find it fascinating the media is so fascinated with Tim Tebow. I am not even going to talk about the comment Thom Brennaman made during the National Championship about how "five minutes with Tim Tebow will change your life."
There is a difference between having respect for a college football player and fawning all over him. I think it has gone more to the "fawning over Tim Tebow" side of coverage of late. What is it about this smiling God fearing guy that turns sportswriters into little teenage girls gushing over the newest boy band? Other than the fact he is perfect of course...
Monday, March 17, 2008
0 comments Hurry Everyone...the Duke Is Overrated Bandwagon Is Leaving! Oh and Lute Olson sucks...
I am going to mention a controversial topic right now. Not abortion, not the death penalty or even which FJM is truly better...but Duke basketball. I was surfing the Internet today viewing the previews of the NCAA Tournament and noticed a trend. Put down your guns, knives, pepper spray and pillows with bars of soap in them just for a minute. What other team is this universally hated in college basketball for no reason other than all the press they get? (Why UNC is not hated is beyond me. They even have the nerdy, douchy, white guy in Hansbrough...that is a different post though.) Now Duke looks vulnerable and only got a 2 Seed in the NCAA Tournament. If you hate Duke and are in the national media, HURRY UP AND WRITE AN ARTICLE ON HOW BAD THEY SUCK! Get a shot in now! But then predict they will advance far in the tournament.
Foxsports courtesy of Randy Hill: The most vulnerable high seeds...
Good teams with flaws or match-up issues that could send them home early.
Duke: The West's No. 2 seed lacks the inside presence to prevent a beat-down in the lane. If Arizona shows up to play against West Virginia, 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill may have fun against the Blue Devils in Round 2.
Duke has no inside presence, this is not news. So that is actually a good point. This has been happening for years now. Still, no mention of the fact Duke has superior depth and 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill (is he Randy's brother?) has to guard someone on defense, which would potentially be a mismatch. I do see the point though, but a Duke bash nonetheless. So I guess Duke won't advance past Arizona.
Duke vs. UCLA: If the second-seeded Blue Devils and top-seeded Bruins meet in the West finale, pay attention to Mike Krzyzewski's fast pace and spread tactics vs. Ben Howland's grind-'em-down Bruin philosophy.
So they will advance? To the Elite 8? Even without an inside presence? A team seeded in the 2 Spot is either the 5-8th best team in the country, so they would meet expectations. It does not make sense to say they have weaknesses that will take them out of the tournament early and then predict they may meet UCLA in the Elite Eight. I understand you are just giving potential matchups to watch for but I do love how you hedge your bets. I would love to see your bracket.
CNNSI.com courtesy of Stewart Mandel:
Overrated: Duke. As has been the case often in recent years, the Blue Devils peaked somewhere around mid-February, and their lack of frontcourt depth has caught up to them.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html
Mandel wrote a wonderful article and I linked it above. If you hate Duke, read it and laugh at them. Oh how true. So Duke has frontcourt depth problems. Again, nothing new here, so that is why they are overrated. Good Duke bash! Where are they gonna lose Stewie?
If these two meet in the Sweet 16, it will be fascinating to watch the Musketeers' senior backcourt duo of Drew Lavender and Stanley Burrell go up against more heralded counterparts Greg Paulus and Gerald Henderson.
Sweet 16? Not that overrated I guess. Two Points here:
1. Making the Sweet 16 is not bad. Granted, a 2 Seed should get further, but if they won this game, they would be in the Elite 8, which would be the expectation for them based on national rankings.
2. Paulus and Henderson are very heralded and that would be a fascinating matchup to view. I Googled it though Stewie (go to google.com and then type in "Duke Blue Devils 2007-2008 statistics") and found DeMarcus Nelson actually led the Blue Devils in PPG, Steals, and Rebounding. So I guess he would qualify as the best player on the team most nights. One of them would have to guard Nelson, who is also a Senior, I added that since you love senior backcourts. Not a big deal, but when you describe a matchup that could be fun to watch, be sure to include the best player on one of the teams. I am being nitpicky, I realize this, but that is like saying a team matches up well with UNC because they can guard Deon Thompson and Wayne Ellington.
CBS Sportsline courtesy of Dennis Dodd:
Most likely upset: West Virginia or Arizona over Duke in the second round. Because of the unending hype, you never know how good Duke really is. I'm saying the young Devils are not good enough to get through a quality second-round opponent.
Dennis Dodd has balls enough to actually make a Duke bashing prediction. I wonder why he feels this way? No analysis huh? Good reasoning at least in saying they are young. If you can get through the unending hype, you can actually see how good Duke is. I will help you Dennis Douche (can I call you that?). Teams play games and get a "record" which shows how many games that team has lost. Duke has a "record" that includes 5 losses. They have beaten 7 teams that are in the NCAA tournament and lost to 4 of the teams. They are 7-4 against NCAA Tournament teams. Including a victory over UNC and Wisconsin. Given that information, you can evaluate how good Duke is a little better. They were also second in the nation's toughest conference, based on RPI, so that may help also. I don't want to confuse you though.
Here is the coup de grace and honestly, I had to bitch about the lousy Duke comments before I could get to this. What is an article about the NCAA Tournament without a cheap shot at a Hall of Fame coach?
1. Lute looms: Regarding the, uh, "relationship" between former/future coach Lute Olsen and current/soon-to-be former coach Kevin O'Neill at Arizona: These guys aren't exactly on the same page. Wouldn't it be great if O'Neill got the Wildcats to the Final Four, something the 73-year-old Olsen doesn't have the time or chops to do anymore?
Maybe I am missing something and please tell me if I am. (By the way, who are you, that person who reads this blog?) O'Neill was the interim coach, Olson announced he was coming back. Therefore interim coach is not coach anymore. Did I simplify that too much for you Dennis Douche? How is Lute Olson not an effective coach anymore? What has he done to make you think this? Two questions:
1. Why do you hate Lute Olson?
2. Why would it be great if the Arizona Wildcats made the Final Four? Did Lute Olson molest you at a summer camp or did his grandson give you a wedgie at some point? Lute Olson coming back to coach for most humans is exciting because he is a sort of legend at Arizona.
(Dennis Douche waking up in the morning) Damn that 73 year old legend of a coach who has won a National Championship! Damn him all to Hell! How dare he attempt to take time off to get his personal life together! Damn him for trying to prevent a divorce 7 years after his wife of many years died of cancer. I bet his 1st wife would have been cured if he had the time or chops to take care of her appropriately. Damn him all to Hell! If there is nothing else I do in this world before I die, I will make sure Lute Olson gets what is coming to him!
Just for shits and giggles on how dumb this Dennis Douche fellow is, here is a later quote in this "article" Dennis Douche wrote.
That would be back when Jim Harrick (gag reflex inserted) was coaching.
How exactly do you insert a gag reflex? It is a reflex, I am not exactly sure you can insert it anywhere. Are you secretly RoboCop Dennis Douche?
(Dennis Douche at his annual physical that he has the time and chops to go to) "Go ahead and strike my knee doc!"
(Doctor striking knee violently) "Why did your knee not jerk? Why are you not blinking at all? Tyler Hansbrough is that you? Are you human or an android sent from Hell to annoy Internet readers everywhere?"
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I forgot to insert my gag reflex this morning. Therefore none of my reflexes work."
(Doctor laughs furiously in a hearty way) "Dennis, never forget to do that again. You have to insert your reflexes every morning."
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I apologize. I am just the type of person who takes cheap shots at Hall of Fame coaches for no reason."
I think Duke will lose in the Sweet 16 because I believe the team is tired from the long season and will run into a team that is just playing a little better. Duke is overhyped and over-loved and probably did not deserve a 2 Seed. I think it is hilarious that columnists predict their demise in the second round but then preview interesting matchups involving them in the later rounds. At least Dennis Douche had the balls to make a prediction and stick with it. Unfortunately he irritated me by not devoting a sentence to why he believed what he did, which would have helped his credibility a bit. We are not really sure how good of a writer Dennis Douche is based on this article and it's anger towards Lute Olson. I am saying Dennis Douche is a not good enough to write for the school newspaper.
Foxsports courtesy of Randy Hill: The most vulnerable high seeds...
Good teams with flaws or match-up issues that could send them home early.
Duke: The West's No. 2 seed lacks the inside presence to prevent a beat-down in the lane. If Arizona shows up to play against West Virginia, 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill may have fun against the Blue Devils in Round 2.
Duke has no inside presence, this is not news. So that is actually a good point. This has been happening for years now. Still, no mention of the fact Duke has superior depth and 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill (is he Randy's brother?) has to guard someone on defense, which would potentially be a mismatch. I do see the point though, but a Duke bash nonetheless. So I guess Duke won't advance past Arizona.
Duke vs. UCLA: If the second-seeded Blue Devils and top-seeded Bruins meet in the West finale, pay attention to Mike Krzyzewski's fast pace and spread tactics vs. Ben Howland's grind-'em-down Bruin philosophy.
So they will advance? To the Elite 8? Even without an inside presence? A team seeded in the 2 Spot is either the 5-8th best team in the country, so they would meet expectations. It does not make sense to say they have weaknesses that will take them out of the tournament early and then predict they may meet UCLA in the Elite Eight. I understand you are just giving potential matchups to watch for but I do love how you hedge your bets. I would love to see your bracket.
CNNSI.com courtesy of Stewart Mandel:
Overrated: Duke. As has been the case often in recent years, the Blue Devils peaked somewhere around mid-February, and their lack of frontcourt depth has caught up to them.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html
Mandel wrote a wonderful article and I linked it above. If you hate Duke, read it and laugh at them. Oh how true. So Duke has frontcourt depth problems. Again, nothing new here, so that is why they are overrated. Good Duke bash! Where are they gonna lose Stewie?
If these two meet in the Sweet 16, it will be fascinating to watch the Musketeers' senior backcourt duo of Drew Lavender and Stanley Burrell go up against more heralded counterparts Greg Paulus and Gerald Henderson.
Sweet 16? Not that overrated I guess. Two Points here:
1. Making the Sweet 16 is not bad. Granted, a 2 Seed should get further, but if they won this game, they would be in the Elite 8, which would be the expectation for them based on national rankings.
2. Paulus and Henderson are very heralded and that would be a fascinating matchup to view. I Googled it though Stewie (go to google.com and then type in "Duke Blue Devils 2007-2008 statistics") and found DeMarcus Nelson actually led the Blue Devils in PPG, Steals, and Rebounding. So I guess he would qualify as the best player on the team most nights. One of them would have to guard Nelson, who is also a Senior, I added that since you love senior backcourts. Not a big deal, but when you describe a matchup that could be fun to watch, be sure to include the best player on one of the teams. I am being nitpicky, I realize this, but that is like saying a team matches up well with UNC because they can guard Deon Thompson and Wayne Ellington.
CBS Sportsline courtesy of Dennis Dodd:
Most likely upset: West Virginia or Arizona over Duke in the second round. Because of the unending hype, you never know how good Duke really is. I'm saying the young Devils are not good enough to get through a quality second-round opponent.
Dennis Dodd has balls enough to actually make a Duke bashing prediction. I wonder why he feels this way? No analysis huh? Good reasoning at least in saying they are young. If you can get through the unending hype, you can actually see how good Duke is. I will help you Dennis Douche (can I call you that?). Teams play games and get a "record" which shows how many games that team has lost. Duke has a "record" that includes 5 losses. They have beaten 7 teams that are in the NCAA tournament and lost to 4 of the teams. They are 7-4 against NCAA Tournament teams. Including a victory over UNC and Wisconsin. Given that information, you can evaluate how good Duke is a little better. They were also second in the nation's toughest conference, based on RPI, so that may help also. I don't want to confuse you though.
Here is the coup de grace and honestly, I had to bitch about the lousy Duke comments before I could get to this. What is an article about the NCAA Tournament without a cheap shot at a Hall of Fame coach?
1. Lute looms: Regarding the, uh, "relationship" between former/future coach Lute Olsen and current/soon-to-be former coach Kevin O'Neill at Arizona: These guys aren't exactly on the same page. Wouldn't it be great if O'Neill got the Wildcats to the Final Four, something the 73-year-old Olsen doesn't have the time or chops to do anymore?
Maybe I am missing something and please tell me if I am. (By the way, who are you, that person who reads this blog?) O'Neill was the interim coach, Olson announced he was coming back. Therefore interim coach is not coach anymore. Did I simplify that too much for you Dennis Douche? How is Lute Olson not an effective coach anymore? What has he done to make you think this? Two questions:
1. Why do you hate Lute Olson?
2. Why would it be great if the Arizona Wildcats made the Final Four? Did Lute Olson molest you at a summer camp or did his grandson give you a wedgie at some point? Lute Olson coming back to coach for most humans is exciting because he is a sort of legend at Arizona.
(Dennis Douche waking up in the morning) Damn that 73 year old legend of a coach who has won a National Championship! Damn him all to Hell! How dare he attempt to take time off to get his personal life together! Damn him for trying to prevent a divorce 7 years after his wife of many years died of cancer. I bet his 1st wife would have been cured if he had the time or chops to take care of her appropriately. Damn him all to Hell! If there is nothing else I do in this world before I die, I will make sure Lute Olson gets what is coming to him!
Just for shits and giggles on how dumb this Dennis Douche fellow is, here is a later quote in this "article" Dennis Douche wrote.
That would be back when Jim Harrick (gag reflex inserted) was coaching.
How exactly do you insert a gag reflex? It is a reflex, I am not exactly sure you can insert it anywhere. Are you secretly RoboCop Dennis Douche?
(Dennis Douche at his annual physical that he has the time and chops to go to) "Go ahead and strike my knee doc!"
(Doctor striking knee violently) "Why did your knee not jerk? Why are you not blinking at all? Tyler Hansbrough is that you? Are you human or an android sent from Hell to annoy Internet readers everywhere?"
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I forgot to insert my gag reflex this morning. Therefore none of my reflexes work."
(Doctor laughs furiously in a hearty way) "Dennis, never forget to do that again. You have to insert your reflexes every morning."
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I apologize. I am just the type of person who takes cheap shots at Hall of Fame coaches for no reason."
I think Duke will lose in the Sweet 16 because I believe the team is tired from the long season and will run into a team that is just playing a little better. Duke is overhyped and over-loved and probably did not deserve a 2 Seed. I think it is hilarious that columnists predict their demise in the second round but then preview interesting matchups involving them in the later rounds. At least Dennis Douche had the balls to make a prediction and stick with it. Unfortunately he irritated me by not devoting a sentence to why he believed what he did, which would have helped his credibility a bit. We are not really sure how good of a writer Dennis Douche is based on this article and it's anger towards Lute Olson. I am saying Dennis Douche is a not good enough to write for the school newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)