I hope everyone who cares about the sport enjoyed the first weekend of college football. I am writing this post on the Thursday before the games started so I have no idea what happened this past weekend. I have a couple things I wanted to share here on Monday to start the day off right (where "right" means "me giving my opinion," its very Bill Simmons of me to equate me giving my opinion with other people's joy, I realize that. Speaking of Bill Simmons...).
-Bill Simmons posted a two part Vegas weekend play-by-play. I am sure there is a certain crowd in the world that really cares what the hell happened to him in Vegas. These same people probably also write into his mail bag and care what type of inside jokes Bill and his really super cool friends have. I personally don't, so it's not worth covering for me at all. Of course I will still give my comments on it after reading Part 1.
Contrary to the approximately 80 tags I have with the name "Bill Simmons," I actually have nothing against the guy. Many of the jerks, like me, who can be critical of him feel like his writing has gone from fairly original and clever in the beginning to self referential and really dragged down by his constant need to be the person who is the most right and funny in every situation. These Vegas "diaries," first off don't deal with sports, which I see as a problem coming from a guy who writes for ESPN and calls himself The Sports Guy. The second problem is it just feels incredibly self indulgent. It's like he has gotten confused and thinks because people care about his writing, they care about his life, his friends, what his friends say, what his wife says, and how much fun he and his friends have. It may just be me but it just feels very self indulgent to write a column about how much fun you had in Vegas with your friends and go into minute, little details on everything that happened. It's gotten to the point his Twitter updates are more interesting than his columns.
As he stated in his opening paragraph, he is almost 40, which is still young, but way too old to be transcribing drunken details of a Vegas weekend. We get it. There were self referential jokes, somebody got really drunk and did something, the gambling was fun, they made up a new "Theory," used pop culture references to refer to something that happened, there was an incident they will all remember for the rest of their lives, and they all realized being married sucks. I think that probably sums it up. I don't need to read it again really. I am sure Part 2 is much of the same.
Did I forget to mention the entire weekend was just an attempt to do a feeble remake of an Entourage episode or the movie "Swingers"? Because if I did, I should have mentioned that. Also, I am sure the debauchery was epic and Vegas is super awesome.
I have no problem when my friends or someone else I know personally share tales from the weekend or a trip to Vegas, but really hearing about a sports columnists really awesome Vegas weekend isn't that much fun to me. There is something about the worldwide sharing of inside jokes between friends and relating all the "cool" things that happened which feels very egotistical and self involved to me. If it was something sports related, maybe I could be a little bit nicer about it. This is supposedly Bill's last Vegas vacation with "the boys"...I certainly hope so.
-Rick Reilly went ahead and thought he would steal Bill Simmons' column idea for reasons on why you can no longer cheer for your favorite team. Bill's column was better in my mind.
First Rick Reilly copies his own previous columns (and copyrights the name of his weekly 800 word disgrace of a column) and now he is partially stealing column ideas from Bill Simmons. Every day is a new low for Rick.
The worst part is that not 1 hour after I wrote this, Deadspin picked up on it. So now I am writing this on Thursday and posting it Monday, so it seems like I am just copying the copying of what Deadspin readers noticed. I promise I noticed and wrote this independently of anything on Deadspin (End of pathetic plea..............now).
The worst part for me was his last reason to abandon your team:
10. Your team is the Cubs. Seriously. Go already.
The Cubs have officially been annointed by many in the media as the new "Red Sox-like cursed/unlucky team" and it drives me crazy. They are not unlucky nor are they loveable losers. They are a large market team that has mismanaged it's payroll and signed players they have no business signing. It's not that the fans are all losers, I am sure they are not, but the whole "we are loveable losers but just have bad luck" schtick the fans put out to the world gets old fast.
The Cubs are the Red Sox and the Yankees if they made (more) bad personnel decisions. They aren't "a little team that could, if only they had a little luck," they are a large market team that has made some bad signings and really hasn't developed too many players in their farm system, which hasn't helped their present situation. Reilly and the rest of the media can create goats that have cursed the team or use Bartman as an example of a curse that exists but it's all bullcrap to give the Cubs ineffectiveness a story line that fits in a column. When in doubt for a reason behind a team's struggles, blame a curse for it. I am surprised Dan Shaughnessy is not involved with this. Doesn't he need to try and sell more books?
-Bill Plaschke again whines about the Dodgers not trading for a star pitcher. The best part is that he doesn't make sense in doing it.
Agreed. This is why the Dodgers should not have taken a chance. This is why Colletti should have offered more to the Cleveland Indians for Lee.
It is a failed trade that could haunt them through October, a failure of the entire Dodgers organization to either offer or cultivate the right prospects.
They are cursed and haunted! Alert the mainstream media there is a new curse out there! Call Dan Shaugne...ok, I have used that joke already today.
Yes, the Dodgers should have cultivated prospects 2-3 years ago for the express purpose of trading for Cliff Lee in 2009. I can see a directive coming from the Dodger's ownership written in memo form, "Please begin to cultivate prospects for the express purpose of trading for good pitchers in three years."
Yes, I know Bill Plaschke means they should develop some sort of a farm system, not expressly for the purpose of trading for Cliff Lee, but the mere fact the Dodgers don't have the prospects to get Cliff Lee in a trade should, in theory, cause Plaschke to give up on the idea or at least cause him to stop writing about it one month after the trade deadline. Not so much I guess...
Or it could be that this belongs on Frank McCourt's desk. Remember that last summer, in an effort to save money, the Dodgers traded some of their best prospects for players -- Manny Ramirez, Casey Blake, Greg Maddux -- instead of just buying them.
Maybe I am confused but how could the Dodgers have bought Manny Ramirez, Casey Blake or Greg Maddux? Am I supposed to really believe the Red Sox or Pirates would have accepted money in lieu of prospects for Manny? Same thing for the Indians, I don't think they would have accepted money instead of baseball players. Maybe I am crazy but I think what Plaschke is suggesting is impossible. Maybe I am misunderstanding him here, but I don't think so. He wanted to give money in return for these three players, instead of giving up prospects.
Wasn't it just a paragraph ago Plaschke wanted the Dodgers to cultivate prospects to trade for Cliff Lee, but now he is complaining the Dodgers traded their top prospects for the stretch run last year...which got them in the NL Championship Series by the way. You can't have it both ways...and I am pretty sure you can't just pay for players because teams are going to want other players in return. Major League Baseball isn't Wal-Mart, it's a bartering system.
The bottom line is that, in acquiring Lee, the Phillies traded from a system that had four of Baseball America's midseason top 50 prospects.
The Dodgers had zero players on that list.
I understand the Dodgers haven't gotten any good prospects.......so how were they supposed to trade for Cliff Lee or another great starting pitcher again? I really doubt the Indians would have accepted cash. Really, Plaschke is not fighting the fight to get better pitchers on the Dodgers team but he is fighting to get a better farm system so he can trade players from that farm system and then complain about the farm system not having good enough players.
Perhaps he should quit complaining the Dodgers didn't trade for a great pitcher when it is clear they did not have the prospects to complete such a trade. It's fine to want the Dodgers to upgrade their pitching, but you can't complain when you know they don't have the prospects to upgrade the pitching staff.
-Does anyone realize what a great offensive year Adam Dunn is having?
Yeah, he is not a great fielder but still his offensive numbers are great. Even his batting average is respectable this year. I never understood when people would constantly talk about how often he strikes out, which is true, but he walks an incredible amount as well. I just wanted to highlight how well Adam Dunn was hitting this year. His batting average is even respectable. I have to say if he played for a bigger team that was winning he may be getting MVP votes...maybe that is going overboard.
Monday, September 7, 2009
1 comments Scoop Jackson needs your article ideas.
Sigh.
What if Brett Favre were a woman?
I'd dissect it, but at this stage, what really would be the point? Where can this possibly go but less sad?
What if Brett Favre were a woman?
I'd dissect it, but at this stage, what really would be the point? Where can this possibly go but less sad?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
6 comments Ted Keith Fail
Hi all, sorry I haven't posted for a while and, I won't lie to you, I may not post for a while either. Just a quick stop today to bring you this article from Ted Keith. It's a power rankings forr Sports Illustrated and I spotted this.
Somebody throw a bucket of ice water on the Cardinals already because they are on fire. They put together the best winning percentage in baseball in August (.769) and increased their lead in the NL Central from a half-game at the start of the month to 10 1/2 by the end of the month. The biggest reason has been their phenomenal pitching; Cards hurlers posted a big-league best 3.06 ERA for August. That would make pitching coach Dave Duncan as much of an MVP for this team as Albert Pujols.
No.
Somebody throw a bucket of ice water on the Cardinals already because they are on fire. They put together the best winning percentage in baseball in August (.769) and increased their lead in the NL Central from a half-game at the start of the month to 10 1/2 by the end of the month. The biggest reason has been their phenomenal pitching; Cards hurlers posted a big-league best 3.06 ERA for August. That would make pitching coach Dave Duncan as much of an MVP for this team as Albert Pujols.
No.
Friday, September 4, 2009
5 comments This Man Does Not Deserve A Puff Piece
Everyone who is in the Yahoo College Pick 'Em League don't forget to make your picks today. Some of the lines on the football games this weekend are pretty interesting in my opinion, especially the Virginia Tech-Alabama game.
I think we should just start a Bill Plaschke Friday, since it seems like we cover his latest "writing" on Fridays. Today he takes pity out on Juan Pierre and writes what a great person and baseball player he is. If there is anyone to take pity upon it has to be an average baseball player who doesn't have to do his job every night and still has two years left on a 5 year $44 million dollar contract. He just has it so hard and should always be in our thoughts, at least that is what Bill Plaschke wants you to think.
This is what I don't like about puff pieces. They have no redeeming quality, just absolutely none in my opinion. They are articles where an athlete gets profiled but none of the bad qualities or any type of negative discussion occurs, or if it does, it gets portrayed in a positive light. If you are doing an article on a person without legs who does wheel chair races, that is one thing, but if you are going to talk about Juan Pierre, you have to also talk about how he has not even come close to earning his contract for the first two years of said contract. Maybe it is just in my DNA but I find puff pieces as a whole worthless.
When Plaschke decided to write this piece what his intent? To let everyone know that Juan Pierre is playing well this year or to know that Juan Pierre is humble enough to take a backseat to the 3 superior outfielders on the Dodgers team? A lot of people are aware Juan Pierre is playing well this year but you can't ignore the fact in what you are writing that Pierre has (I shouldn't even say underachieved because he has achieved exactly what his career shows his potential is) if not underachieved, gotten a contract that was too big for his skill set. He has to be humble because he is getting paid way too much for his production. Don't bash him but don't make everything rosy and blow wind up your audience's butt because most people can see through that type writing. I am supposed to take Plaschke serious as a journalist but who can I when he writes stuff like this? I couldn't take myself seriously (which I really don't anyway) if I started fawning over an athlete.
Ok, enough rambling, let's get to the puff piece.
He failed to persuade anyone to trade for him. He failed to persuade the Dodgers to play him. He was stuck behind one Hall of Famer and two hellacious kids.
Could this potentially be because he has these numbers from playing baseball?
The irony of all ironies is that he has one of his best years as a professional when he no longer has a starting job. The story of Juan Pierre is like a Shakespearean tragedy. Oh how the Gods have forsaken this man!
"It ain't right," he said, and you thought, here it comes, a gushing of ego, a drenching of teamwork, the pathetic plea of the fallen.
Oh no, it's right. You are not a very good baseball player. For a guy with speed you sure get caught stealing a lot (74.7% stolen base success rate), don't get on base even close enough to steal bases (.348 career OBP), and don't walk enough (has led the league in at bats three times and has a career high of 55 walks). Unless the Dodgers were willing to trade a prospect or two along with you and swallow your entire salary, there was really no reason to make a trade for you. It's oh so right Juan and Bill...
"Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad, I feel guilty," he explained. "I've been thinking about it. I'm making $10 million and doing nothing. It's like I'm just taking the Dodgers' money."
He was taking the Dodgers money even when he WAS "doing something" on the baseball field. This hasn't changed at all, he just doesn't get to drag the team's payroll AND baseball team down at the same time now.
He hit .293/.331/.353 and .283/.327/.328 the two years he was "doing something" for the Dodgers. The only thing Juan Pierre was doing was holding up the Dodgers without a gun the past two years.
"I owe this team something every night, and it ain't right that I can't do that, and I've got to figure out a way to fix it," he said,
Sure, he should learn to steal bases more effectively, get on base more often and contribute to the team other than running fast to 1st base while hitting a ground ball...actually, he should do pretty much what he has been doing for part of this year.
His team being one of expansive personalities and pride, I root for everything Juan Pierre does that is small.
Of course Plaschke does. He roots for David Eckstein, old men who are scouts, and Juan Pierre. Essentially anyone that is fairly ineffective at their job he cheers for because that person reminds Bill of himself, because they are not always good at their job either.
Given one of his rare starts, Pierre reacted with what has become a common occurrence.
Three hits. Two runs. Two RBIs. An inning-ending running catch in center field.
A common occurrence? He has 28 total RBI's on the year and 51 runs. He got 7% of his total yearly total for RBI's and 4% of his total runs on the year in one game. I don't know if I would call that a common occurrence. If this was a common occurrence, he would actually be playing a lot more and I would not be using him as a punching bag right now.
Remember how Pierre hit .318 while starting all 50 games in left field during Manny Ramirez's suspension?
Even more impressive is that, since going back to the bench upon Ramirez's return, he has hit .329 in 11 sporadic starts, scoring a dozen runs.
Perhaps this proves he is better used as a part-time fill-in player and a 4th outfielder? I think it is odd he has never been that great of a player as a starter and the first year he has been a part-time player he plays a lot better. I don't think it is a coincidence.
"No excuses this year, none of that 'Oh, but I don't play enough' stuff," he said. "If I'm in there, it's my responsibility to make that happen, and I take that very seriously."
It's good to see he is taking this seriously now on the 3rd year into his contract with the Dodgers. Wouldn't want to take any of the Dodgers money for doing nothing would we?
Not even while pinch-hitting, a job career regulars often find difficult and distasteful. Even here, Pierre has turned potential humiliation into triumph, hitting .353 in 34 at-bats.
I hate to think I am picking on Juan Pierre because I actually believe he would be an incredibly useful 4th outfielder, which I think was proven this year, but he gets paid way too much to be as bad of a baseball player as he is. If he is your 4th outfielder, you are in decent shape, if he is starting for you, then you need to find better options.
And when Pierre broke the game open in the seventh inning with a two-run single that was hit so hard, it caromed off the mound and into left field?
He again hid from his pride, lightly pumped a fist to his chest, briefly stared at the sky, and quickly returned to first base.
"I'm not Hollywood, I'm not glitz and glamour, I'm not a guy people notice, and that's OK with me," Pierre said. "For me, winning is enough."
These three sentences are why they call articles like this a "puff piece." It is like eating cotton candy. It has no redeeming value and it feels good at the time but after a while you realize you aren't full. Juan Pierre puff pieces don't make me full and Bill Plaschke should stop writing them.
In Ramirez's return to Dodger Stadium last month following the drug suspension, the loudest cheers occurred during an appearance by Pierre. A standing ovation for a pinch-hitter in July? It has been the most emotional sound of a heart-stretching season.
I feel like there should be strings playing in the background and Chris Connelly should be narrating this right now.
"...and the crowd started cheering knowing finally Juan Pierre came to terms with the expectations he and the fans had placed on him. Just when less had been expected of Pierre, he had risen to the challenge knowing every time he went to bat he may not be given that chance for a couple more games. Almost having the game snatched away from him because he dared to make too much money had been a wake up call for Pierre. He had made peace with the fans and the expectations of his contract just as everyone had been ready to give up on him. By having the game not as big of a part of his life, Juan Pierre had become complete."
"I was shocked, I never heard anything like it before," Pierre said. "I've done the same things before, but it's like they finally recognized them."
You had done the same things before, just not as well as you are doing them now. How does he not understand the correlation between his better performance and the fans liking him more? They are cheering you because you are actually playing good baseball now.
Maybe because Juan Pierre also finally recognized them, all those little things, not as statistics but as glue, less gifts than obligations, a $10-million man just trying to earn his keep.
Glue? What the hell? Who needs good statistics when you have "little things" that are glue!
That's the problem, he is making $10 million and just earning his keep. If you sign a contract that big you should be expecting equally as large expectations. Puff pieces written by Bill Plaschke are unnecessary and they suck.
-Scoop Jackson has written the worst...article...ever.
It's called "What if Brett Favre Were A Woman?" The article somehow only gets worse after the title. I don't know why I linked it, I can't in good faith encourage you to read it...but just try to read it.
My first thought was, "Brett Favre does waffle like a stereotypical woman" and then my second thought was how absurdly bad this article was. Like epic bad. I am embarrassed for Scoop.
I think we should just start a Bill Plaschke Friday, since it seems like we cover his latest "writing" on Fridays. Today he takes pity out on Juan Pierre and writes what a great person and baseball player he is. If there is anyone to take pity upon it has to be an average baseball player who doesn't have to do his job every night and still has two years left on a 5 year $44 million dollar contract. He just has it so hard and should always be in our thoughts, at least that is what Bill Plaschke wants you to think.
This is what I don't like about puff pieces. They have no redeeming quality, just absolutely none in my opinion. They are articles where an athlete gets profiled but none of the bad qualities or any type of negative discussion occurs, or if it does, it gets portrayed in a positive light. If you are doing an article on a person without legs who does wheel chair races, that is one thing, but if you are going to talk about Juan Pierre, you have to also talk about how he has not even come close to earning his contract for the first two years of said contract. Maybe it is just in my DNA but I find puff pieces as a whole worthless.
When Plaschke decided to write this piece what his intent? To let everyone know that Juan Pierre is playing well this year or to know that Juan Pierre is humble enough to take a backseat to the 3 superior outfielders on the Dodgers team? A lot of people are aware Juan Pierre is playing well this year but you can't ignore the fact in what you are writing that Pierre has (I shouldn't even say underachieved because he has achieved exactly what his career shows his potential is) if not underachieved, gotten a contract that was too big for his skill set. He has to be humble because he is getting paid way too much for his production. Don't bash him but don't make everything rosy and blow wind up your audience's butt because most people can see through that type writing. I am supposed to take Plaschke serious as a journalist but who can I when he writes stuff like this? I couldn't take myself seriously (which I really don't anyway) if I started fawning over an athlete.
Ok, enough rambling, let's get to the puff piece.
He failed to persuade anyone to trade for him. He failed to persuade the Dodgers to play him. He was stuck behind one Hall of Famer and two hellacious kids.
Could this potentially be because he has these numbers from playing baseball?
The irony of all ironies is that he has one of his best years as a professional when he no longer has a starting job. The story of Juan Pierre is like a Shakespearean tragedy. Oh how the Gods have forsaken this man!
"It ain't right," he said, and you thought, here it comes, a gushing of ego, a drenching of teamwork, the pathetic plea of the fallen.
Oh no, it's right. You are not a very good baseball player. For a guy with speed you sure get caught stealing a lot (74.7% stolen base success rate), don't get on base even close enough to steal bases (.348 career OBP), and don't walk enough (has led the league in at bats three times and has a career high of 55 walks). Unless the Dodgers were willing to trade a prospect or two along with you and swallow your entire salary, there was really no reason to make a trade for you. It's oh so right Juan and Bill...
"Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad, I feel guilty," he explained. "I've been thinking about it. I'm making $10 million and doing nothing. It's like I'm just taking the Dodgers' money."
He was taking the Dodgers money even when he WAS "doing something" on the baseball field. This hasn't changed at all, he just doesn't get to drag the team's payroll AND baseball team down at the same time now.
He hit .293/.331/.353 and .283/.327/.328 the two years he was "doing something" for the Dodgers. The only thing Juan Pierre was doing was holding up the Dodgers without a gun the past two years.
"I owe this team something every night, and it ain't right that I can't do that, and I've got to figure out a way to fix it," he said,
Sure, he should learn to steal bases more effectively, get on base more often and contribute to the team other than running fast to 1st base while hitting a ground ball...actually, he should do pretty much what he has been doing for part of this year.
His team being one of expansive personalities and pride, I root for everything Juan Pierre does that is small.
Of course Plaschke does. He roots for David Eckstein, old men who are scouts, and Juan Pierre. Essentially anyone that is fairly ineffective at their job he cheers for because that person reminds Bill of himself, because they are not always good at their job either.
Given one of his rare starts, Pierre reacted with what has become a common occurrence.
Three hits. Two runs. Two RBIs. An inning-ending running catch in center field.
A common occurrence? He has 28 total RBI's on the year and 51 runs. He got 7% of his total yearly total for RBI's and 4% of his total runs on the year in one game. I don't know if I would call that a common occurrence. If this was a common occurrence, he would actually be playing a lot more and I would not be using him as a punching bag right now.
Remember how Pierre hit .318 while starting all 50 games in left field during Manny Ramirez's suspension?
Even more impressive is that, since going back to the bench upon Ramirez's return, he has hit .329 in 11 sporadic starts, scoring a dozen runs.
Perhaps this proves he is better used as a part-time fill-in player and a 4th outfielder? I think it is odd he has never been that great of a player as a starter and the first year he has been a part-time player he plays a lot better. I don't think it is a coincidence.
"No excuses this year, none of that 'Oh, but I don't play enough' stuff," he said. "If I'm in there, it's my responsibility to make that happen, and I take that very seriously."
It's good to see he is taking this seriously now on the 3rd year into his contract with the Dodgers. Wouldn't want to take any of the Dodgers money for doing nothing would we?
Not even while pinch-hitting, a job career regulars often find difficult and distasteful. Even here, Pierre has turned potential humiliation into triumph, hitting .353 in 34 at-bats.
I hate to think I am picking on Juan Pierre because I actually believe he would be an incredibly useful 4th outfielder, which I think was proven this year, but he gets paid way too much to be as bad of a baseball player as he is. If he is your 4th outfielder, you are in decent shape, if he is starting for you, then you need to find better options.
And when Pierre broke the game open in the seventh inning with a two-run single that was hit so hard, it caromed off the mound and into left field?
He again hid from his pride, lightly pumped a fist to his chest, briefly stared at the sky, and quickly returned to first base.
"I'm not Hollywood, I'm not glitz and glamour, I'm not a guy people notice, and that's OK with me," Pierre said. "For me, winning is enough."
These three sentences are why they call articles like this a "puff piece." It is like eating cotton candy. It has no redeeming value and it feels good at the time but after a while you realize you aren't full. Juan Pierre puff pieces don't make me full and Bill Plaschke should stop writing them.
In Ramirez's return to Dodger Stadium last month following the drug suspension, the loudest cheers occurred during an appearance by Pierre. A standing ovation for a pinch-hitter in July? It has been the most emotional sound of a heart-stretching season.
I feel like there should be strings playing in the background and Chris Connelly should be narrating this right now.
"...and the crowd started cheering knowing finally Juan Pierre came to terms with the expectations he and the fans had placed on him. Just when less had been expected of Pierre, he had risen to the challenge knowing every time he went to bat he may not be given that chance for a couple more games. Almost having the game snatched away from him because he dared to make too much money had been a wake up call for Pierre. He had made peace with the fans and the expectations of his contract just as everyone had been ready to give up on him. By having the game not as big of a part of his life, Juan Pierre had become complete."
"I was shocked, I never heard anything like it before," Pierre said. "I've done the same things before, but it's like they finally recognized them."
You had done the same things before, just not as well as you are doing them now. How does he not understand the correlation between his better performance and the fans liking him more? They are cheering you because you are actually playing good baseball now.
Maybe because Juan Pierre also finally recognized them, all those little things, not as statistics but as glue, less gifts than obligations, a $10-million man just trying to earn his keep.
Glue? What the hell? Who needs good statistics when you have "little things" that are glue!
That's the problem, he is making $10 million and just earning his keep. If you sign a contract that big you should be expecting equally as large expectations. Puff pieces written by Bill Plaschke are unnecessary and they suck.
-Scoop Jackson has written the worst...article...ever.
It's called "What if Brett Favre Were A Woman?" The article somehow only gets worse after the title. I don't know why I linked it, I can't in good faith encourage you to read it...but just try to read it.
My first thought was, "Brett Favre does waffle like a stereotypical woman" and then my second thought was how absurdly bad this article was. Like epic bad. I am embarrassed for Scoop.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
7 comments Peter King Prediction Day
I have horrific news for everyone. I will be skipping town for the next couple of days, so I won't be back on Monday to do the MMQB Review. Please hold your tears in as much as possible, because I will be back on Tuesday and plan on covering it then. There may be something up Monday if Fred puts something up or I get motivated before I leave to schedule something.
I had barely gotten finished with TMQ when I noticed that Peter King had his predictions up, which were interesting in my opinion, so I feel the need to comment on them today. I think Peter King Prediction Day should be a holiday, so much so I am capitalizing all the letters to give it importance.
I want to say one other thing that is completely and utterly off topic though. Bill Simmons has been railing the T-Wolves GM for the Rubio situation and I have to agree with him. The Wolves needed to make sure Rubio was going to play in America before drafting him and then drafting Flynn right after him pretty much ensured there was going to be problems between the Wolves and Rubio's camp. I still don't think Bill should be a GM but I think even he could have done a better job than David Kahn is doing, at least here in the beginning. I know the Wolves still have the rights to Rubio and it may pay off in a few years but right now it doesn't look like Kahn knows what he is doing.
Now that is done with, let's get to Peter King's MMQB-Tuesday.
This is the thought that went through my mind near the end of the first quarter Monday night at Reliant Stadium, after seeing Brett Favre move around and throw enough to think he's still some semblance of himself,
"Damn, that man has a tight ass. Deanna Favre is a lucky woman!"
Was that it? Before Peter starts slobbering all over the Vikings and Brett Favre, let's remember it is a preseason game and there has never been a question about whether Brett Favre can look like his old self for short periods of time. The question is whether he can look like Brett Favre for an entire game or in early November.
Commence slobbering...
It's possible that I'm witnessing the third-best team in the NFC North.
It's possible you are 25% correct. There are four teams and four options for them to place in the division.
Whoa.
Peter must have just gotten distracted when he saw a shot of Brett Favre's ass on television.
As far as division kingpins go, most everyone agrees the NFC East is king heading into the 2009 season.
Oh course everyone agrees to this. It's obvious based on the fact there is no proof this is true other than Peter King just said this is what everyone thinks. It was one of two divisions that put two teams in the playoffs from the NFC last year...but no one agrees the NFC South can even be considered king.
Everyone also agrees that I am the greatest blogger in the history of the universe. Saying it makes it true.
But I think as the season dawns, Chicago-Minnesota-Green Bay is better than New York-Philadelphia-Dallas.
What a scandalous statement! I love it when sportswriters come out with bold predictions like this based on teams improving on paper and on watching preseason games.
Have the Minnesota Vikings improved? That's what I really wonder? What did they add that would make me think so? Brett Favre? Nope, that doesn't convince me. It's not that I don't think the Vikings got better but I just think Peter's opinion is wrong when he says the NFC North is better than the NFC East.
I'd expect Brett Favre to get a league fine for his crackback block on Houston safety Eugene Wilson on Monday night.
Peter must be talking about the illegal and cheap block that Brett Favre threw at Eugene Wilson's knee that knocked him out of the game.
I hope Peter has an update on how Eugene Wilson is...
More significantly, he's going to feel very sore because he cracked back on Wilson by throwing his midsection into a sprinting Wilson's knee, which will certainly exacerbate his sore rib or ribs.
More significantly than losing money or Eugene Wilson's health, let's just make sure that Brett Favre didn't hurt his fake rib injury throwing an illegal block and attempting to injure Eugene Wilson. That's the more important thing for the Vikings and Favre. I just hope to God Brett Favre didn't injure himself throwing a cheap shot, that would just be the worst thing to happen to the NFL since..........well, ever.
Maybe if Favre was so worried about his fake rib injury he shouldn't just go falling into other player's knees when he gets the opportunity. Of course, he just plays the game like a child...a dirty, fake rib injury complaining child.
How dare Eugene Wilson let his knee get in the way of Brett Favre's flying body! I am glad Peter found out that Brett Favre was ok. How dare Eugene Wilson's knee get in the way of Brett Favre's gritty fake rib injury.
"It doesn't feel great,'' Favre said of his midsection, "but I think I'll be fine. I don't know what good it would do to get an X-ray. Say it shows a crack. There's nothing you can do about it anyway. But I'm sure that block didn't help it much.''
So...............HOW'S EUGENE WILSON'S FUCKING KNEE YOU BUNCH OF SELF CENTERED PRICKS?
Does either Peter or Brett give a shit Wilson limped off the field? That would be a big "hell no," they are concerned Brett may have hurt his fake rib injury.
It turns out after limping off the field, Wilson appears to be fine with a "knee injury." Not that Peter or Favre cared.
From Harvey Greene, senior vice president/media relations, Miami Dolphins: "No denying the Bears-Broncos game was intense, but it certainly wasn't the preseason game with the biggest regular season feel about it. I can take you back to a sold-out Yale Bowl on Aug. 17, 1969, in the first-ever battle between the Jets and the Giants.
Peter: Great point, Harvey. I was 12 then, living in Connecticut, and vaguely remember watching the game on TV. Don't have a great memory of the game, but you've just given me one.
How can Harvey expect Peter to remember this game when he was 12? Peter only remembers anything about Major League Baseball from when he was in his 20's or out of college. That is the time span Peter gave when he was defending why he called Derek Jeter the best player he has ever seen play baseball (which is still such a dumb statement, I can't get over it) a few weeks ago.
Obviously if Peter doesn't count the first 18-20 years of his life, he won't remember a football game when he was 12.
From Scott of Toledo: "I find it hilarious that so many Broncos fans are calling Jay Cutler a crybaby because he demanded a trade that basically let him know he was not wanted, especially given the fact that the player Broncos fans hold most dear -- John Elway -- whined and cried his way out of being drafted by the Colts. Karma, meet Broncos fans. Broncos fans, this is Karma.''
Peter: The Broncos never let Cutler know he was not wanted. Cutler found out Josh McDaniels inquired about dealing for his 2008 quarterback in New England, Matt Cassel, and then went on a wildcat strike of the team. Once Cassel was out of the picture, the Broncos had no intention of trading Cutler. Might they have traded him at some point in the future? Maybe, but probably not.
The Colts never let John Elway know he was not wanted either. They drafted him, he refused to play for them, then threatened to play baseball instead, and subsequently forced a trade to the Broncos...so yes Peter, this was karma for the Broncos.
Which situation is worse? A player finding out he may be traded/replaced and acting like a baby, not speaking to management or the coaching staff, and subsequently forcing a trade?
Or a player being drafted by a team he doesn't want to play for, threatening to play another sport instead of playing for the team who drafted him and then forcing a trade?
That's a tough one, and I have to say it is a draw, but in both cases neither the Broncos or Colts said they didn't want the quarterbacks involved. I am with Scott from Toledo on this.
Robert Brown of Austin, Texas: "As a Cowboys season ticket holder, I have to agree with you on the Cowboys video board. The interesting thing is that the only 'beautiful sight lines' in the stadium are of the video board. That's why they don't want to move it. The seats are so far away from the field that you almost have to watch the video board. When you visit the stadium, make sure to trek to the upper deck. Just bring a Sherpa, three days of supplies, and give yourself a couple of days to spend at the altitude acclimation points. Without a doubt, the new Cowboys Stadium is the worst stadium I have ever been in, and I grew up near Philadelphia going to the Vet.''
Maybe we are being a little dramatic about this, no? I do have to say, me being critical of Jerry Jones like I am, he is probably more focused on making it all look really pretty and not necessarily worrying about the fans seeing the action on the field, which is ironic since this year there may be more to watch on the field when the Cowboys play then there has been in a couple years.
Paul Phillips of Cape Elizabeth, Maine: "Has any team lost four potential Hall of Famers from one year to the next? The Patriots no longer have Tedy Bruschi (retired), Rodney Harrison (retired), Junior Seau (unsigned) and Mike Vrabel (traded).
Four potential Hall of Famers? If this question wasn't about the Patriots and Tedy Bruschi, Peter probably would have ignored it based on the inherent ignorance of the question. I liked having Mike Vrabel on my fantasy team at one point, but he is not a future Hall of Famer except in Paul's little pea brain. Come to think of it Seau is a Hall of Fame player and I am not sure the other three are.
Peter: First, and not to quibble, the words "potential Hall of Famer'' might be the most overused four words in our football vocabulary.
No, do quibble. This was not a smart statement.
That sound you hear is Peter and I dancing around a raging campfire together singing Kumbaya because we both agree "potential Hall of Famer" has jumped the shark has a term when used to describe a retiring player.
What if I gave you this argument: Bill Walsh wanted to take Phil Simms with his first pick in the 1979 draft, but Simms was already gone, and Walsh waited 'til round three to take another quarterback he liked, Joe Montana. Simms had a very good pro career. What if Simms had gone to the 49ers? I have no doubt he'd have won multiple Super Bowls too. But should we put him in the Hall because maybe he played for a team that didn't win as much as San Francisco?
That sound you hear is me pushing Peter into the raging campfire because I don't want anyone to know that he and I have agreed on two issues in one mailbag. I wish Peter could give a call to some baseball writers and give them this example before they vote for postseason awards.
Now onto Peter's NFL predictions.
AFC East complaints:
I still like the Patriots as much as the next guy does but for some reason I just feel like 13-3 is a bit too good for them this year. I can see them winning the division this year but I feel like 13-3 may be overstating it by a bit. Also, I went on record a few weeks ago and put Buffalo in the playoffs, which I may back off on a little bit here, but I think they are going to have a better record than 6-10. If Marshawn Lynch plays well when he returns they should have a pretty potent offense, which I think gets them 8-8 at a minimum. Miami is going to take a step back and I have honestly have no clue how the Jets will do, but I know Mark Sanchez will be praised heavily for whatever he does.
AFC West complaints:
Kansas City at 8-8? I just don't see that happening at all. I would bet Peter is basing this on his BFFs Pioli and Cassel being there this year but I don't see the team making to .500 this year. They may be second in the division only because someone has to be. I think Denver is going to be bad and I know the Raiders are going to be bad.
AFC North complaints:
Just looking at it, I don't really have too many. I will say it wouldn't shock me if Baltimore won that division this year over Pittsburgh but I see Cincinnati partially bouncing back this year to near .500 and I can see Cleveland winning 4 football games. I was down on Baltimore last year and I learned my lesson for this year. I will not underrate them so I think they win this division.
AFC South complaints:
I would put Houston at 9-7 and Indianapolis at 10-6. I think Indy will have some growing pains this year with the new coaching staff and some of the other offensive adjustments that are being made along the offensive line and on defense but I don't know if the Texans have a good enough defense to win the division quite yet. I do see Tennessee having an off year because the quarterback is Kerry Collins.
AFC Playoffs complaints:
I would put Pittsburgh and New England in the AFC Championship game because I don't think San Diego will be able to beat Pittsburgh, even at home. I have New England winning that game.
NFC East complaints:
For a guy who like the Eagles so much in his MMQB, he sure has them with a poor record. I can't imagine losing Stewart Bradley made that much of a difference in their record. I actually like the records Peter has in this division, though depending on the day you ask me, I may flip Dallas and Philadelphia for the 2nd and 3rd spots. I really like the Cowboys this year and they may actually win a playoff game this year. I can just envision Jim Zorn being gone from Washington after this year and Mike Shanahan taking the team over and moving up in the draft to take Colt McCoy...so for this to happen Washington will have to have a bad year and Zorn will get fired, both of which will happen.
NFC West complaints:
Seattle is probably going to have a better record than 9-7. I can see Arizona not making the playoffs this year, they got hot at the right time last year, but I don't think the defense is good enough to win this division again. I think San Francisco will be a 7-9 team this year, so they will be better than Peter thinks but there is no way the Rams win 5 games in my mind. He is over ranking them a bit.
NFC North complaints:
I think Green Bay will go 11-5, Minnesota will go 11-5, and Chicago will go 9-7. It's not that I don't like Chicago or Jay Cutler, but until that defense proves to me it will bounce back I think Minnesota and Green Bay are going to be a better team. I also realize Green Bay's defense stunk last year but I really believe they will have a good year with Dom Capers running the show and they are only a year removed from almost going to the Super Bowl so I can see their defense bouncing back. Detroit is about where I think they will be.
NFC South complaints:
We know the Panthers won't win the division since it seems no team can win this division twice in a row. I actually think the Saints are going to win the division at 11-5, with Atlanta at 10-6, Carolina at 8-8 and the Bucs could very well go 6-10. I think the Saints improved their defense enough in the offseason to allow the offense to not have to outscore every other team. Atlanta is going to have a good year but I don't know if they are going to have the same amount of success in their record they had last year but they should make the playoffs again.
NFC Playoffs complaints:
I don't see Chicago making the playoffs first of all. Peter has them in the Super Bowl, which I think is jumping on the Cutler bandwagon a little bit too much. If I had faith in the Bears defense I could maybe see this happening, but I don't have faith in the defense nor complete faith in the Bear offensive line. I think Green Bay and the New York Giants are going to meet (again) in the NFC Championship Game with the Giants winning that game. Then we will get a rematch of the Super Bowl two years ago between the Giants and the Patriots.
Not shockingly, Peter picked the Patriots to win the Super Bowl.
I was very wrong with my NFL picks last year so I probably will look back on this and look like a dumbass, but I am willing to bet I am more accurate than Peter King is.
Everyone who is in the Yahoo College Pick 'Em league, don't forget to make your picks for this week.
I had barely gotten finished with TMQ when I noticed that Peter King had his predictions up, which were interesting in my opinion, so I feel the need to comment on them today. I think Peter King Prediction Day should be a holiday, so much so I am capitalizing all the letters to give it importance.
I want to say one other thing that is completely and utterly off topic though. Bill Simmons has been railing the T-Wolves GM for the Rubio situation and I have to agree with him. The Wolves needed to make sure Rubio was going to play in America before drafting him and then drafting Flynn right after him pretty much ensured there was going to be problems between the Wolves and Rubio's camp. I still don't think Bill should be a GM but I think even he could have done a better job than David Kahn is doing, at least here in the beginning. I know the Wolves still have the rights to Rubio and it may pay off in a few years but right now it doesn't look like Kahn knows what he is doing.
Now that is done with, let's get to Peter King's MMQB-Tuesday.
This is the thought that went through my mind near the end of the first quarter Monday night at Reliant Stadium, after seeing Brett Favre move around and throw enough to think he's still some semblance of himself,
"Damn, that man has a tight ass. Deanna Favre is a lucky woman!"
Was that it? Before Peter starts slobbering all over the Vikings and Brett Favre, let's remember it is a preseason game and there has never been a question about whether Brett Favre can look like his old self for short periods of time. The question is whether he can look like Brett Favre for an entire game or in early November.
Commence slobbering...
It's possible that I'm witnessing the third-best team in the NFC North.
It's possible you are 25% correct. There are four teams and four options for them to place in the division.
Whoa.
Peter must have just gotten distracted when he saw a shot of Brett Favre's ass on television.
As far as division kingpins go, most everyone agrees the NFC East is king heading into the 2009 season.
Oh course everyone agrees to this. It's obvious based on the fact there is no proof this is true other than Peter King just said this is what everyone thinks. It was one of two divisions that put two teams in the playoffs from the NFC last year...but no one agrees the NFC South can even be considered king.
Everyone also agrees that I am the greatest blogger in the history of the universe. Saying it makes it true.
But I think as the season dawns, Chicago-Minnesota-Green Bay is better than New York-Philadelphia-Dallas.
What a scandalous statement! I love it when sportswriters come out with bold predictions like this based on teams improving on paper and on watching preseason games.
Have the Minnesota Vikings improved? That's what I really wonder? What did they add that would make me think so? Brett Favre? Nope, that doesn't convince me. It's not that I don't think the Vikings got better but I just think Peter's opinion is wrong when he says the NFC North is better than the NFC East.
I'd expect Brett Favre to get a league fine for his crackback block on Houston safety Eugene Wilson on Monday night.
Peter must be talking about the illegal and cheap block that Brett Favre threw at Eugene Wilson's knee that knocked him out of the game.
I hope Peter has an update on how Eugene Wilson is...
More significantly, he's going to feel very sore because he cracked back on Wilson by throwing his midsection into a sprinting Wilson's knee, which will certainly exacerbate his sore rib or ribs.
More significantly than losing money or Eugene Wilson's health, let's just make sure that Brett Favre didn't hurt his fake rib injury throwing an illegal block and attempting to injure Eugene Wilson. That's the more important thing for the Vikings and Favre. I just hope to God Brett Favre didn't injure himself throwing a cheap shot, that would just be the worst thing to happen to the NFL since..........well, ever.
Maybe if Favre was so worried about his fake rib injury he shouldn't just go falling into other player's knees when he gets the opportunity. Of course, he just plays the game like a child...a dirty, fake rib injury complaining child.
How dare Eugene Wilson let his knee get in the way of Brett Favre's flying body! I am glad Peter found out that Brett Favre was ok. How dare Eugene Wilson's knee get in the way of Brett Favre's gritty fake rib injury.
"It doesn't feel great,'' Favre said of his midsection, "but I think I'll be fine. I don't know what good it would do to get an X-ray. Say it shows a crack. There's nothing you can do about it anyway. But I'm sure that block didn't help it much.''
So...............HOW'S EUGENE WILSON'S FUCKING KNEE YOU BUNCH OF SELF CENTERED PRICKS?
Does either Peter or Brett give a shit Wilson limped off the field? That would be a big "hell no," they are concerned Brett may have hurt his fake rib injury.
It turns out after limping off the field, Wilson appears to be fine with a "knee injury." Not that Peter or Favre cared.
From Harvey Greene, senior vice president/media relations, Miami Dolphins: "No denying the Bears-Broncos game was intense, but it certainly wasn't the preseason game with the biggest regular season feel about it. I can take you back to a sold-out Yale Bowl on Aug. 17, 1969, in the first-ever battle between the Jets and the Giants.
Peter: Great point, Harvey. I was 12 then, living in Connecticut, and vaguely remember watching the game on TV. Don't have a great memory of the game, but you've just given me one.
How can Harvey expect Peter to remember this game when he was 12? Peter only remembers anything about Major League Baseball from when he was in his 20's or out of college. That is the time span Peter gave when he was defending why he called Derek Jeter the best player he has ever seen play baseball (which is still such a dumb statement, I can't get over it) a few weeks ago.
Obviously if Peter doesn't count the first 18-20 years of his life, he won't remember a football game when he was 12.
From Scott of Toledo: "I find it hilarious that so many Broncos fans are calling Jay Cutler a crybaby because he demanded a trade that basically let him know he was not wanted, especially given the fact that the player Broncos fans hold most dear -- John Elway -- whined and cried his way out of being drafted by the Colts. Karma, meet Broncos fans. Broncos fans, this is Karma.''
Peter: The Broncos never let Cutler know he was not wanted. Cutler found out Josh McDaniels inquired about dealing for his 2008 quarterback in New England, Matt Cassel, and then went on a wildcat strike of the team. Once Cassel was out of the picture, the Broncos had no intention of trading Cutler. Might they have traded him at some point in the future? Maybe, but probably not.
The Colts never let John Elway know he was not wanted either. They drafted him, he refused to play for them, then threatened to play baseball instead, and subsequently forced a trade to the Broncos...so yes Peter, this was karma for the Broncos.
Which situation is worse? A player finding out he may be traded/replaced and acting like a baby, not speaking to management or the coaching staff, and subsequently forcing a trade?
Or a player being drafted by a team he doesn't want to play for, threatening to play another sport instead of playing for the team who drafted him and then forcing a trade?
That's a tough one, and I have to say it is a draw, but in both cases neither the Broncos or Colts said they didn't want the quarterbacks involved. I am with Scott from Toledo on this.
Robert Brown of Austin, Texas: "As a Cowboys season ticket holder, I have to agree with you on the Cowboys video board. The interesting thing is that the only 'beautiful sight lines' in the stadium are of the video board. That's why they don't want to move it. The seats are so far away from the field that you almost have to watch the video board. When you visit the stadium, make sure to trek to the upper deck. Just bring a Sherpa, three days of supplies, and give yourself a couple of days to spend at the altitude acclimation points. Without a doubt, the new Cowboys Stadium is the worst stadium I have ever been in, and I grew up near Philadelphia going to the Vet.''
Maybe we are being a little dramatic about this, no? I do have to say, me being critical of Jerry Jones like I am, he is probably more focused on making it all look really pretty and not necessarily worrying about the fans seeing the action on the field, which is ironic since this year there may be more to watch on the field when the Cowboys play then there has been in a couple years.
Paul Phillips of Cape Elizabeth, Maine: "Has any team lost four potential Hall of Famers from one year to the next? The Patriots no longer have Tedy Bruschi (retired), Rodney Harrison (retired), Junior Seau (unsigned) and Mike Vrabel (traded).
Four potential Hall of Famers? If this question wasn't about the Patriots and Tedy Bruschi, Peter probably would have ignored it based on the inherent ignorance of the question. I liked having Mike Vrabel on my fantasy team at one point, but he is not a future Hall of Famer except in Paul's little pea brain. Come to think of it Seau is a Hall of Fame player and I am not sure the other three are.
Peter: First, and not to quibble, the words "potential Hall of Famer'' might be the most overused four words in our football vocabulary.
No, do quibble. This was not a smart statement.
That sound you hear is Peter and I dancing around a raging campfire together singing Kumbaya because we both agree "potential Hall of Famer" has jumped the shark has a term when used to describe a retiring player.
What if I gave you this argument: Bill Walsh wanted to take Phil Simms with his first pick in the 1979 draft, but Simms was already gone, and Walsh waited 'til round three to take another quarterback he liked, Joe Montana. Simms had a very good pro career. What if Simms had gone to the 49ers? I have no doubt he'd have won multiple Super Bowls too. But should we put him in the Hall because maybe he played for a team that didn't win as much as San Francisco?
That sound you hear is me pushing Peter into the raging campfire because I don't want anyone to know that he and I have agreed on two issues in one mailbag. I wish Peter could give a call to some baseball writers and give them this example before they vote for postseason awards.
Now onto Peter's NFL predictions.
AFC East complaints:
I still like the Patriots as much as the next guy does but for some reason I just feel like 13-3 is a bit too good for them this year. I can see them winning the division this year but I feel like 13-3 may be overstating it by a bit. Also, I went on record a few weeks ago and put Buffalo in the playoffs, which I may back off on a little bit here, but I think they are going to have a better record than 6-10. If Marshawn Lynch plays well when he returns they should have a pretty potent offense, which I think gets them 8-8 at a minimum. Miami is going to take a step back and I have honestly have no clue how the Jets will do, but I know Mark Sanchez will be praised heavily for whatever he does.
AFC West complaints:
Kansas City at 8-8? I just don't see that happening at all. I would bet Peter is basing this on his BFFs Pioli and Cassel being there this year but I don't see the team making to .500 this year. They may be second in the division only because someone has to be. I think Denver is going to be bad and I know the Raiders are going to be bad.
AFC North complaints:
Just looking at it, I don't really have too many. I will say it wouldn't shock me if Baltimore won that division this year over Pittsburgh but I see Cincinnati partially bouncing back this year to near .500 and I can see Cleveland winning 4 football games. I was down on Baltimore last year and I learned my lesson for this year. I will not underrate them so I think they win this division.
AFC South complaints:
I would put Houston at 9-7 and Indianapolis at 10-6. I think Indy will have some growing pains this year with the new coaching staff and some of the other offensive adjustments that are being made along the offensive line and on defense but I don't know if the Texans have a good enough defense to win the division quite yet. I do see Tennessee having an off year because the quarterback is Kerry Collins.
AFC Playoffs complaints:
I would put Pittsburgh and New England in the AFC Championship game because I don't think San Diego will be able to beat Pittsburgh, even at home. I have New England winning that game.
NFC East complaints:
For a guy who like the Eagles so much in his MMQB, he sure has them with a poor record. I can't imagine losing Stewart Bradley made that much of a difference in their record. I actually like the records Peter has in this division, though depending on the day you ask me, I may flip Dallas and Philadelphia for the 2nd and 3rd spots. I really like the Cowboys this year and they may actually win a playoff game this year. I can just envision Jim Zorn being gone from Washington after this year and Mike Shanahan taking the team over and moving up in the draft to take Colt McCoy...so for this to happen Washington will have to have a bad year and Zorn will get fired, both of which will happen.
NFC West complaints:
Seattle is probably going to have a better record than 9-7. I can see Arizona not making the playoffs this year, they got hot at the right time last year, but I don't think the defense is good enough to win this division again. I think San Francisco will be a 7-9 team this year, so they will be better than Peter thinks but there is no way the Rams win 5 games in my mind. He is over ranking them a bit.
NFC North complaints:
I think Green Bay will go 11-5, Minnesota will go 11-5, and Chicago will go 9-7. It's not that I don't like Chicago or Jay Cutler, but until that defense proves to me it will bounce back I think Minnesota and Green Bay are going to be a better team. I also realize Green Bay's defense stunk last year but I really believe they will have a good year with Dom Capers running the show and they are only a year removed from almost going to the Super Bowl so I can see their defense bouncing back. Detroit is about where I think they will be.
NFC South complaints:
We know the Panthers won't win the division since it seems no team can win this division twice in a row. I actually think the Saints are going to win the division at 11-5, with Atlanta at 10-6, Carolina at 8-8 and the Bucs could very well go 6-10. I think the Saints improved their defense enough in the offseason to allow the offense to not have to outscore every other team. Atlanta is going to have a good year but I don't know if they are going to have the same amount of success in their record they had last year but they should make the playoffs again.
NFC Playoffs complaints:
I don't see Chicago making the playoffs first of all. Peter has them in the Super Bowl, which I think is jumping on the Cutler bandwagon a little bit too much. If I had faith in the Bears defense I could maybe see this happening, but I don't have faith in the defense nor complete faith in the Bear offensive line. I think Green Bay and the New York Giants are going to meet (again) in the NFC Championship Game with the Giants winning that game. Then we will get a rematch of the Super Bowl two years ago between the Giants and the Patriots.
Not shockingly, Peter picked the Patriots to win the Super Bowl.
I was very wrong with my NFL picks last year so I probably will look back on this and look like a dumbass, but I am willing to bet I am more accurate than Peter King is.
Everyone who is in the Yahoo College Pick 'Em league, don't forget to make your picks for this week.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
14 comments TMQ: A Re-Introduction to Football Ignorance: NFC Edition
Last week Gregg Easterbrook used his own unique brand of lack of football knowledge to "preview" the AFC by not making any predictions or actually previewing anything, but merely just talking about what happened last year and playing loosely with facts and annoying me with his musings on football. This week he attacks the NFC with his unique brand of "previewing," which seems an awful lot like reviewing what happened last year.
The bubble to worry about is the cupcake bubble: all those fancy cupcake bakeries suddenly in New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco and Seattle, offering $5 cupcakes hard to distinguish from supermarket cupcakes. It's a bubble: Capital is flowing into the opening of cupcake boutiques because, right now, consumers are willing to pay a premium for a sweet that is inexpensive to bake. As with other bubbles, this one is based on exaggerated claims and assumptions that can't last. In 2009, for whatever reason, people will stand in line to fork over $5 for a cupcake that masquerades as "red velvet" or "pink lemonade." Odds people will continue to do this long-term? 0.0 percent. Anyone opening a fancy cupcake bakery is jumping into the downside of a bubble. Don't say you weren't warned.
Sorry to make you read all of that, but this is how the column starts off. It really does.
Because college football is commencing, it's time for TMQ's annual check of cupcake schedules.
Easterbrook does a miserable job of staying on topic. This is an NFC Preview for the NFL, yet he starts off the column talking about college football naturally.
Auburn has eight games at home and four away, and plays its first four at home. Auburn fearlessly faces, at home, Division I-AA Furman, which last year lost to Elon. Forget conferences; do you even know what state Elon is in?
Yes, it is in North Carolina and is located approximately 22 miles away from where I live. I hope Gregg does realize it is not a requirement for everyone to know where a school is located for that school to be good at sports. Granted, Elon's football team stinks but I really doubt half of the college basketball world still knows where Gonzaga or George Mason are located, but that doesn't prevent the teams from being good every once in a while. As I say in reference to Bill Simmons on occasion here, just because you don't know something or just found out about a player/team doesn't mean the rest of the world has the same amount of ignorance as you.
Tennessee has eight games at home and four away, and the home dates include meetings against Western Kentucky (2-10 last season, and the sole team beaten by 1-11 North Texas) and the Ohio Bobcats.
Michigan has four road games and eight at home, including three cupcake dates against Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan and Delaware State.
Now he is pissing me off by talking without complete information about college football. Here is the deal, it is a lengthy and difficult negotiation process for a college football team to schedule dates to play really good teams every week. Generally it requires home-and-away games, meaning if they play at home this year, they play at the other school's home the next year. That's generally not a problem, but when a school like Michigan relies on playing 6-8 games every year at home for athletic revenue, it's a problem if they have three home-and-away games against good teams on the schedule because combined with the conference schedule, the team may have more road games scheduled than home games. It's partially a revenue thing, not completely "we are afraid of competition thing."
Easterbrook also completely chooses to ignore the benefits of playing a "cupcake" schedule for a cupcake team...they get exposure. Delaware State gets the chance to play Michigan and that is a big deal for their program...but really why would you try and fit all of the Michigan fans into Delaware's home stadium? It makes sense for both teams to have the game at the better team's home field.
Part of the reasoning behind the cupcake schedule IS because the school doesn't want to lose, but can you blame them? Why schedule a game against LSU if you are Texas when that one loss could put you out of the National Championship picture in Week 1? Ask USC how this happened last year after their loss to Oregon State (yes, I know that was a conference game, but my point still stands). Basically the games against cupcakes serve as a preseason of sorts for some teams and it benefits both schools. To me, a cupcake schedule is a much bigger deal in college basketball because some teams (Clemson) have a tendency not to play a good team until after Christmas and it can skew their rankings for nearly half the season.
And scrappy Fresno State is honoring coach Pat Hill's vow to "play anyone, anywhere." Despite sometimes being a top 20 team, Fresno State has five games at home, seven away.
This is a completely different situation. Fresno State schedules this way, scheduling games against Wisconsin, Illinois, and Cincinnati, because they want to play good competition to give them a chance to make a BCS bowl game. Not to mention their conference schedule is pretty much a cupcake in itself, unless you think Idaho, San Jose State, Utah State or New Mexico State are powerhouse teams.
Fresno State has to play road games so they can help their resume and possibly make a BCS bowl game. Unlike all the other teams Gregg mentioned, who have very difficult conference schedules, the Fresno State Bulldogs have a pretty easy in-conference schedule, outside of playing Boise State. Easterbrook neglects to mention the fact Fresno State's situation is actually the reverse of teams who play "cupcakes" in the SEC, Big 12 and other "power" conferences. There are few great teams in Fresno's division so they have to schedule "cupcakes" out of conference.
I see what Easterbrook is saying here, I really do, but he never actually attempts to understand the reasoning why some of these teams actually have an easy schedule. It lets the better team get the kinks out early in the year and lets the worse team play a great team and maybe get a big win on their resume. I know what he is saying but he can't just take this at face value and never actually looks to understand why this all occurs.
All Arizona needed to hoist the Lombardi Trophy was two minutes of average pass defense. But the Cards' secondary could not prevent Pittsburgh from flying down the field for the winning touchdown with 35 seconds showing. Dan Bickley of the Arizona Republic reports Ken Whisenhunt thinks up plays in church. Maybe he should be praying for a cornerback!
Yes, because poor cornerbacks are the only reason a team would give up passing touchdowns. It has nothing to do with a pass rush or whether the scheme the (since fired) defensive coordinator has come up with. It's just all the cornerbacks' fault. Gregg is trying to be cute here, I get that, but he needs to realize more goes into giving up touchdowns through the air than just cornerbacks not playing well.
Indianapolis gave up 4 passing touchdowns last year I believe. Did they have great cornerbacks or did this have something to do with the fact Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis are on either side of the offensive line?
It's a bad sign that the club fired defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast because his defense couldn't hold the lead in the final two minutes of the Super Bowl. OK, that was bad, but didn't the Cards' defense get Arizona into the Super Bowl with tremendous playoff performances against Carolina and Philadelphia?
The Cardinals defense gave up 24 points to the Falcons at home in the first playoff game, I will give him the Panthers game, 25 points to the Eagles at home, and 27 points to the Steelers in the Super Bowl. It's not exactly dominating defensive performances and certainly not tremendous.
Arizona's chance to repeat as division winner seems good, since last year the weak NFC West was outscored by a combined 372 points; the Cardinals were the sole team in the division that outscored opponents, by just one point.
The Cardinals had that prolific offense and they still only scored one more point than their opponents? I don't see how changing offensive coordinators, as long as it is an upgrade, is a bad thing.
TMQ is especially tired of hearing about Julius Peppers, who has an extremely high opinion of himself -- in the offseason he theatrically demanded a trade or a new contract -- but seems mainly hype.
I don't know if he is all hype, but he is certainly not as good as he seems to believe he is.
Peppers may have had 14.5 sacks in 2008, but only because he played for sacks on every down; he wasn't impressive versus the run.
What the fuck does this even mean? Show us some statistics concerning this, rather than just typing words and hoping they are true. This reads like a shitty ass NFL preview someone who hasn't actually watched the games would say to acknowledge Peppers' sack numbers but try to create a reason why he is not good. What proof does he have that Peppers was weak against the run and always went for sacks? Peppers had 40 tackles and forced 5 fumbles. Jared Allen had 41 tackles and Dwight Freeney had 24 tackles. I guess they were just going for sacks also.
I am not defending my hometown boy here, this is just sloppy writing that has no factual basis...at least based on the "no facts guarantee" Gregg has provided.
Overall, Carolina recorded a measly 20 sacks last season --
Just absolutely incorrect. Carolina GAVE UP 20 sacks last year. The Panthers actually had 37 sacks last year. Somebody somewhere has to catch mistakes like this. Whether it be the editor, or God forbid, Gregg Easterbrook the guy who actually wrote the incorrect number and tried to pass it off as fact. Either way, I don't see how any columnist this day in age can be allowed to throw misleading and incorrect information out to the public. It took me 30 seconds to find the real number.
Chicago had excellent special teams in 2008, and all but one special teamer returns for 2009.
Really? How come I don't believe this? How does Gregg know all but one special team player returns this year? Does he already know who is going to be the gunners on punts and who will be in kick and punt coverage? Usually special teams consists of several bench players, which are often guys who barely made the roster. If Gregg does know who makes the special teams squad, then this man is amazing because he has pretty much just accurately predicted what the 53 man roster for the Bears is going to look like when rosters are currently set at 75.
Of course, since Easterbrook is not knowledgeable about football, he may not realize special teams consists of the long snapper, gunners, and everyone on the field during a punt, kickoff, or field goal/extra point attempt. He probably just thinks special teams is the punt returner, punter, and kicker.
Unified Field Theory of Creep: Peter Wunsch of East Northport, N.Y., writes, "In my local paper on August 27th, King Kullen, a Long Island grocery chain, ran ads proclaiming a Rosh Hashanah sale. This year, Rosh Hashanah begins on September 18th."
I usually don't get into Easterbrook's bizarre fascination with Christmas creeping into other seasons but in this case Rosh Hashanah is happening in three weeks, so it's really not that weird or unusual for a business to run a sell that far before the actual holiday. At least I don't think this is that odd.
One reason may be that the Cowboys' drafting has quietly fallen apart. Dallas had no first- or second-round choices in 2009. Their top three choices from 2008 (Felix Jones, Mike Jenkins and Martellus Bennett) have combined for 10 starts.
Easterbrook picks the most random ways to measure how good a player or team is sometimes. I think the fact the Cowboys picks did not play much last year could also show how much depth they had at those positions. Felix Jones and Bennett are stuck behind two Pro Bowl players in Jason Witten and Marion Barber, so it's not like they stink, they just aren't Pro Bowl players in their first year in the league nor have they had the chance to be. Jenkins will be getting more playing time this year but last year he was stuck behind Terence Newman and Pacman Jones.
He needs to just stop making assumptions and actually take 1 minute to investigate whether what he is saying is a load of crap or not. The Cowboys have depth, it doesn't mean the draft picks stink necessarily.
Now he talks about the Cowboys' latest drafts:
Nobody from 2006.
Wrong. Anthony Fasano is a good tight end, the Cowboys just made a mistake and traded him to Miami.
The Cowboys' 2005 draft was good.
"Good?" Easterbrook describes a draft that involved the team picking DeMarcus Ware, Marion Barber, Jay Ratliff, and Chris Canty as "good?" How in the hell does he get off saying that. There are THREE Pro Bowl players drafted that year! THREE LEGITIMATE PRO BOWL PLAYERS CAME FROM A DRAFT! That is an absolutely great draft.
This man is an idiot. How does he get to write a column for ESPN? How does no one edit this poor excuse for cat litter lining and correct his misguided opinions?
He literally just makes things up and writes them down.
Losing teams usually have good pass-defense stats, because opponents don't pass in the second half.
Any facts supporting this? No? Ok, then.
I wonder how the team who is playing the losing team got such a high score so that they don't have to pass in the second half? Maybe by passing in the first half and scoring touchdowns? Maybe??????????
So I would say it makes no sense to me how losing teams usually have good pass-defense stats. It's not like the winning team is running the entire first and second half. Guess what teams were last in the NFL in pass defense last year? Seattle, San Diego, Chicago, New York Jets, Kansas City, and Detroit. Gosh, that certainly looks like some of the worst teams in the league.
The Top 3 in pass defense? Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Baltimore...who all made their conference championship game last year. It's like there is almost a correlation.
The Packers have spent five of their last seven first-round draft choices on two positions: linebacker and defensive tackle. Seven of their last 12 first-round choices were invested in linebackers and defensive linemen. That means other positions on the team are starved for talent --
Or it could mean the other positions on the team have good depth and there are good players playing at those positions so they don't need to draft at those positions. This Green Bay offense is pretty damn powerful so there is really no need to draft at too many positions, outside of the offensive line maybe...so defense would be a good place to focus and since they are switching over to a 3-4 defense, I think it made sense to focus on the defense this year especially.
I can't get how an intelligent man, like Easterbrook seems to generally be, can be so stupid. You can't just assume because a team doesn't draft players at a position, that position will be starved.
Vikings players know Favre single-handedly dynamited the Jets' organization last season -- the starting quarterback was waived, the coaches fired -- then walked out the instant it suited him. He demanded special favor after special favor from the Jets, then gave nothing back. Management and other players couldn't wait for him to get out of Green Bay, so weary were both of Favre's self-centeredness. Now he brings his "I love me" show to Minnesota. If the Vikings win, Favre will grab the credit; if they lose, Favre will once again say he was mistreated. No Vikings player other than Favre will get any media attention in 2008; if Adrian Peterson runs for 3,000 yards, Favre will claim the credit. Plus Childress waffled so much in his pursuit of Favre that now he seems weak, as if he were a factotum awaiting Favre's instructions. Late in July, Childress told the Vikings' locker room there was "not a chance" Favre would join the team, and that he expected them to rally around quarterbacks Jackson and Rosenfels. Now it turns out Childress was continuing to talk to Favre the entire time he was telling his team otherwise. What credibility can Childress have when it appears that he looked his players in the eye and lied to them?
Sorry for the long paragraph, Easterbrook is like the anti-Bill Plaschke, but I couldn't agree more with what he is saying here.
Vick has never been proficient as a passer -- not only does he have trouble with accuracy when throwing long, defenses have learned that he looks exclusively at one side of the field. When Vick the quarterback looks right, every defender on the left can release his man, because Vick will never check that way again.
Easterbrook should write a book which would involve him just making shit up every week...wait, he already does that in column form.
I am critical of Mike Vick but I have never heard that he stares down his receivers. Easterbrook has this brilliant plan to stop Mike Vick, which involves leaving your man when you see Vick look at one side of the field, but he doesn't say exactly what the team should do if Vick takes off running to the other side of the field.
the Eagles in effect gave up their 2008 first-round choice, which Carolina used on offensive tackle Jeff Otah, and a 2009 fourth-round choice, which Buffalo used on tight end Shawn Nelson, for Peters, a 2008 second-round choice used on defensive tackle Trevor Laws, and a 2008 fourth-round choice used on safety Quintin Demps. In a year, Philadelphia may wish it had simply stayed put and chosen Otah and Nelson.
Ignoring the fact Easterbrook sort of knocked the Panthers earlier in this column for trading first round picks and now he thinks taking Otah (who the Panthers traded their 2009 pick for) would have been a good player to draft...ignoring that semi-contradiction, the Eagles got two starters in Peters and Demps for a starting OT in Otah and a TE that is currently 3rd on the Bills depth chart, I say they did fine for themselves and would not want to take either of those trades back at this point.
Alabama, Arkansas and Michigan employ the Weasel Three -- Bobby Petrino, Rich Rodriguez and Nicky Saban, each of whom walked out on existing commitments to grab more cash elsewhere. TMQ has been predicting woe for these colleges, in keeping with my immutable Law of Weasel Coaches, noted in the Bucs' item below. Last season, Alabama, Arkansas and Michigan were a combined 20-18 with no bowl wins:
Alabama played in a BCS bowl game and only lost two games all year and that was in the SEC Championship game and in a BCS bowl game. The Law of Weasel Coaches didn't really work here. They lost to the eventual National Champion and their bowl game to an undefeated team, so it's not like they played one of Gregg's "cupcake" teams and lost.
all the money these three schools invested in weasel coaches, and all the hits taken by the schools' prestige, resulted in blah performance.
I can't speak for Arkansas and Michigan who have had some off the field problems with transfers but I think Alabama's prestige has not taken a hit since they were in the hunt for the National Championship last year AND made a BCS bowl game. No one really cares about textbook violations. Easterbrook is crazy.
A psychiatrist to interview a possible draft choice? This only proves you'd be crazy to want to play for a team that thinks a psychiatrist can tell who will be good at throwing a football. On display here is the hubris of recruiting and draft-choice testing -- the belief that hyper-analyzing some 21-year-old (or 18-year-old in the case of college recruits) can predict athletic performance.
If a team is going to spend $40 million guaranteed on a player and basically put the future of the franchise for the next 4 years on his shoulders, they sure as hell better get every bit of information about this person they can. Sure it sounds crazy, but ask the Vikings if they wanted a psychiatrist to interview Demetrius Underwood or ask the Chargers if a psychiatrist could have helped them decide whether to take Ryan Leaf or not. I am not saying this is a good way to scout but it can tell you some information about a person...and really if you are going to spend a ton of money on a 1st round draft pick, you may as well do all your homework.
The evolving consensus is that Texas Tech runs up the score in gimmick games against lower-echelon teams (last year, the Red Raiders bravely faced two Football Championship Subdivision schools, Eastern Washington and Massachusetts, at home);
Is this the evolving consensus in Gregg Easterbrook's mind or are there actually people out there in the world who believe this as well? Shockingly, I am still amazed at how much Easterbrook can just write in his TMQ and get away with having no factual basis for it. It's not like he tries to pass it off as opinion, he says it is the "evolving consensus" but doesn't say from whom or where.
New defensive coordinator Gus Bradley says Seattle will use a base 4-3, Cover 2 -- the NFL's most common defense -- but play some 3-3-5. That's "the stack," a defense that's a fad in high school...In a stack, three linebackers stand directly behind three defensive linemen, trying to create uncertainty in the quarterback's mind about which of the slant lanes they will drop into. Since the spread is based on slants, curls and digs, the stack emphasizes taking away those routes, while daring an offense to rush.
Hmmm...I wonder what could be wrong with a defense that is designed to take away the spread offense? How about the fact nearly zero teams in the NFL actually run a real version of the spread offense? So this defense would have to match up with the times an NFL team runs a semi-spread offense and otherwise it could end up being a liability in some cases. I guess that could be some sort of a problem, that and the fact if you dare most NFL teams to run the ball on you...they are going to run the ball all over you.
The NFL is not high school and it is not college either, if you dare most teams to run and show you can't stop the run, "the stack" won't last long. I am not saying this defense won't work, I am saying if it is expressly designed to stop the spread offense, I don't know how well it is designed to work in the NFL even on a part time basis.
In the offseason, the Bucs showed the door to Derrick Brooks, their best all-time player, for cap reasons; then gave $20 million in guarantees to Kellen Winslow, who has missed some or all of his five pro seasons with injuries.
Here we go again. First, they play different positions so there is really no comparison between signing one of these players and cutting the other one. Derrick Brooks has not been signed yet by an NFL team, which either shows he wants too much money or the Bucs aren't the only team that thinks he has lost a step...but hey, feel free to just assume he was playing at a high level because he is the Bucs best all-time player.
TMQ has long contended there is more coaching talent at small colleges, below the testosterone-pumped level of the football-factory schools, than the NFL recognizes.
He said this not 3 paragraphs above where he made this following statement. (Let's ignore the fact Easterbrook was bitching last week that coaches with no NFL head coaching experience get all the jobs over experienced head coaches and now he is pretty much saying they should be hired more often.)
New head coach Raheem Morris has more experience in the Ivy League coaching at Cornell than as an NFL head coach.
He says this somewhat derisively. I didn't know that Cornell counted as a football-factory school. I would think Gregg Easterbrook would applaud the signing of a guy who was at a less football oriented school based on what he said above.
Next Week: America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions.
I am sure there was some "previewing" in here somewhere but I really had a hard time finding it. Next week is haiku's! Excuse me if I don't get too excited about it.
For those interested, don't forget to sign up for the College Football Pick 'Em. Information is in the MMQB post.
The bubble to worry about is the cupcake bubble: all those fancy cupcake bakeries suddenly in New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco and Seattle, offering $5 cupcakes hard to distinguish from supermarket cupcakes. It's a bubble: Capital is flowing into the opening of cupcake boutiques because, right now, consumers are willing to pay a premium for a sweet that is inexpensive to bake. As with other bubbles, this one is based on exaggerated claims and assumptions that can't last. In 2009, for whatever reason, people will stand in line to fork over $5 for a cupcake that masquerades as "red velvet" or "pink lemonade." Odds people will continue to do this long-term? 0.0 percent. Anyone opening a fancy cupcake bakery is jumping into the downside of a bubble. Don't say you weren't warned.
Sorry to make you read all of that, but this is how the column starts off. It really does.
Because college football is commencing, it's time for TMQ's annual check of cupcake schedules.
Easterbrook does a miserable job of staying on topic. This is an NFC Preview for the NFL, yet he starts off the column talking about college football naturally.
Auburn has eight games at home and four away, and plays its first four at home. Auburn fearlessly faces, at home, Division I-AA Furman, which last year lost to Elon. Forget conferences; do you even know what state Elon is in?
Yes, it is in North Carolina and is located approximately 22 miles away from where I live. I hope Gregg does realize it is not a requirement for everyone to know where a school is located for that school to be good at sports. Granted, Elon's football team stinks but I really doubt half of the college basketball world still knows where Gonzaga or George Mason are located, but that doesn't prevent the teams from being good every once in a while. As I say in reference to Bill Simmons on occasion here, just because you don't know something or just found out about a player/team doesn't mean the rest of the world has the same amount of ignorance as you.
Tennessee has eight games at home and four away, and the home dates include meetings against Western Kentucky (2-10 last season, and the sole team beaten by 1-11 North Texas) and the Ohio Bobcats.
Michigan has four road games and eight at home, including three cupcake dates against Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan and Delaware State.
Now he is pissing me off by talking without complete information about college football. Here is the deal, it is a lengthy and difficult negotiation process for a college football team to schedule dates to play really good teams every week. Generally it requires home-and-away games, meaning if they play at home this year, they play at the other school's home the next year. That's generally not a problem, but when a school like Michigan relies on playing 6-8 games every year at home for athletic revenue, it's a problem if they have three home-and-away games against good teams on the schedule because combined with the conference schedule, the team may have more road games scheduled than home games. It's partially a revenue thing, not completely "we are afraid of competition thing."
Easterbrook also completely chooses to ignore the benefits of playing a "cupcake" schedule for a cupcake team...they get exposure. Delaware State gets the chance to play Michigan and that is a big deal for their program...but really why would you try and fit all of the Michigan fans into Delaware's home stadium? It makes sense for both teams to have the game at the better team's home field.
Part of the reasoning behind the cupcake schedule IS because the school doesn't want to lose, but can you blame them? Why schedule a game against LSU if you are Texas when that one loss could put you out of the National Championship picture in Week 1? Ask USC how this happened last year after their loss to Oregon State (yes, I know that was a conference game, but my point still stands). Basically the games against cupcakes serve as a preseason of sorts for some teams and it benefits both schools. To me, a cupcake schedule is a much bigger deal in college basketball because some teams (Clemson) have a tendency not to play a good team until after Christmas and it can skew their rankings for nearly half the season.
And scrappy Fresno State is honoring coach Pat Hill's vow to "play anyone, anywhere." Despite sometimes being a top 20 team, Fresno State has five games at home, seven away.
This is a completely different situation. Fresno State schedules this way, scheduling games against Wisconsin, Illinois, and Cincinnati, because they want to play good competition to give them a chance to make a BCS bowl game. Not to mention their conference schedule is pretty much a cupcake in itself, unless you think Idaho, San Jose State, Utah State or New Mexico State are powerhouse teams.
Fresno State has to play road games so they can help their resume and possibly make a BCS bowl game. Unlike all the other teams Gregg mentioned, who have very difficult conference schedules, the Fresno State Bulldogs have a pretty easy in-conference schedule, outside of playing Boise State. Easterbrook neglects to mention the fact Fresno State's situation is actually the reverse of teams who play "cupcakes" in the SEC, Big 12 and other "power" conferences. There are few great teams in Fresno's division so they have to schedule "cupcakes" out of conference.
I see what Easterbrook is saying here, I really do, but he never actually attempts to understand the reasoning why some of these teams actually have an easy schedule. It lets the better team get the kinks out early in the year and lets the worse team play a great team and maybe get a big win on their resume. I know what he is saying but he can't just take this at face value and never actually looks to understand why this all occurs.
All Arizona needed to hoist the Lombardi Trophy was two minutes of average pass defense. But the Cards' secondary could not prevent Pittsburgh from flying down the field for the winning touchdown with 35 seconds showing. Dan Bickley of the Arizona Republic reports Ken Whisenhunt thinks up plays in church. Maybe he should be praying for a cornerback!
Yes, because poor cornerbacks are the only reason a team would give up passing touchdowns. It has nothing to do with a pass rush or whether the scheme the (since fired) defensive coordinator has come up with. It's just all the cornerbacks' fault. Gregg is trying to be cute here, I get that, but he needs to realize more goes into giving up touchdowns through the air than just cornerbacks not playing well.
Indianapolis gave up 4 passing touchdowns last year I believe. Did they have great cornerbacks or did this have something to do with the fact Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis are on either side of the offensive line?
It's a bad sign that the club fired defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast because his defense couldn't hold the lead in the final two minutes of the Super Bowl. OK, that was bad, but didn't the Cards' defense get Arizona into the Super Bowl with tremendous playoff performances against Carolina and Philadelphia?
The Cardinals defense gave up 24 points to the Falcons at home in the first playoff game, I will give him the Panthers game, 25 points to the Eagles at home, and 27 points to the Steelers in the Super Bowl. It's not exactly dominating defensive performances and certainly not tremendous.
Arizona's chance to repeat as division winner seems good, since last year the weak NFC West was outscored by a combined 372 points; the Cardinals were the sole team in the division that outscored opponents, by just one point.
The Cardinals had that prolific offense and they still only scored one more point than their opponents? I don't see how changing offensive coordinators, as long as it is an upgrade, is a bad thing.
TMQ is especially tired of hearing about Julius Peppers, who has an extremely high opinion of himself -- in the offseason he theatrically demanded a trade or a new contract -- but seems mainly hype.
I don't know if he is all hype, but he is certainly not as good as he seems to believe he is.
Peppers may have had 14.5 sacks in 2008, but only because he played for sacks on every down; he wasn't impressive versus the run.
What the fuck does this even mean? Show us some statistics concerning this, rather than just typing words and hoping they are true. This reads like a shitty ass NFL preview someone who hasn't actually watched the games would say to acknowledge Peppers' sack numbers but try to create a reason why he is not good. What proof does he have that Peppers was weak against the run and always went for sacks? Peppers had 40 tackles and forced 5 fumbles. Jared Allen had 41 tackles and Dwight Freeney had 24 tackles. I guess they were just going for sacks also.
I am not defending my hometown boy here, this is just sloppy writing that has no factual basis...at least based on the "no facts guarantee" Gregg has provided.
Overall, Carolina recorded a measly 20 sacks last season --
Just absolutely incorrect. Carolina GAVE UP 20 sacks last year. The Panthers actually had 37 sacks last year. Somebody somewhere has to catch mistakes like this. Whether it be the editor, or God forbid, Gregg Easterbrook the guy who actually wrote the incorrect number and tried to pass it off as fact. Either way, I don't see how any columnist this day in age can be allowed to throw misleading and incorrect information out to the public. It took me 30 seconds to find the real number.
Chicago had excellent special teams in 2008, and all but one special teamer returns for 2009.
Really? How come I don't believe this? How does Gregg know all but one special team player returns this year? Does he already know who is going to be the gunners on punts and who will be in kick and punt coverage? Usually special teams consists of several bench players, which are often guys who barely made the roster. If Gregg does know who makes the special teams squad, then this man is amazing because he has pretty much just accurately predicted what the 53 man roster for the Bears is going to look like when rosters are currently set at 75.
Of course, since Easterbrook is not knowledgeable about football, he may not realize special teams consists of the long snapper, gunners, and everyone on the field during a punt, kickoff, or field goal/extra point attempt. He probably just thinks special teams is the punt returner, punter, and kicker.
Unified Field Theory of Creep: Peter Wunsch of East Northport, N.Y., writes, "In my local paper on August 27th, King Kullen, a Long Island grocery chain, ran ads proclaiming a Rosh Hashanah sale. This year, Rosh Hashanah begins on September 18th."
I usually don't get into Easterbrook's bizarre fascination with Christmas creeping into other seasons but in this case Rosh Hashanah is happening in three weeks, so it's really not that weird or unusual for a business to run a sell that far before the actual holiday. At least I don't think this is that odd.
One reason may be that the Cowboys' drafting has quietly fallen apart. Dallas had no first- or second-round choices in 2009. Their top three choices from 2008 (Felix Jones, Mike Jenkins and Martellus Bennett) have combined for 10 starts.
Easterbrook picks the most random ways to measure how good a player or team is sometimes. I think the fact the Cowboys picks did not play much last year could also show how much depth they had at those positions. Felix Jones and Bennett are stuck behind two Pro Bowl players in Jason Witten and Marion Barber, so it's not like they stink, they just aren't Pro Bowl players in their first year in the league nor have they had the chance to be. Jenkins will be getting more playing time this year but last year he was stuck behind Terence Newman and Pacman Jones.
He needs to just stop making assumptions and actually take 1 minute to investigate whether what he is saying is a load of crap or not. The Cowboys have depth, it doesn't mean the draft picks stink necessarily.
Now he talks about the Cowboys' latest drafts:
Nobody from 2006.
Wrong. Anthony Fasano is a good tight end, the Cowboys just made a mistake and traded him to Miami.
The Cowboys' 2005 draft was good.
"Good?" Easterbrook describes a draft that involved the team picking DeMarcus Ware, Marion Barber, Jay Ratliff, and Chris Canty as "good?" How in the hell does he get off saying that. There are THREE Pro Bowl players drafted that year! THREE LEGITIMATE PRO BOWL PLAYERS CAME FROM A DRAFT! That is an absolutely great draft.
This man is an idiot. How does he get to write a column for ESPN? How does no one edit this poor excuse for cat litter lining and correct his misguided opinions?
He literally just makes things up and writes them down.
Losing teams usually have good pass-defense stats, because opponents don't pass in the second half.
Any facts supporting this? No? Ok, then.
I wonder how the team who is playing the losing team got such a high score so that they don't have to pass in the second half? Maybe by passing in the first half and scoring touchdowns? Maybe??????????
So I would say it makes no sense to me how losing teams usually have good pass-defense stats. It's not like the winning team is running the entire first and second half. Guess what teams were last in the NFL in pass defense last year? Seattle, San Diego, Chicago, New York Jets, Kansas City, and Detroit. Gosh, that certainly looks like some of the worst teams in the league.
The Top 3 in pass defense? Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Baltimore...who all made their conference championship game last year. It's like there is almost a correlation.
The Packers have spent five of their last seven first-round draft choices on two positions: linebacker and defensive tackle. Seven of their last 12 first-round choices were invested in linebackers and defensive linemen. That means other positions on the team are starved for talent --
Or it could mean the other positions on the team have good depth and there are good players playing at those positions so they don't need to draft at those positions. This Green Bay offense is pretty damn powerful so there is really no need to draft at too many positions, outside of the offensive line maybe...so defense would be a good place to focus and since they are switching over to a 3-4 defense, I think it made sense to focus on the defense this year especially.
I can't get how an intelligent man, like Easterbrook seems to generally be, can be so stupid. You can't just assume because a team doesn't draft players at a position, that position will be starved.
Vikings players know Favre single-handedly dynamited the Jets' organization last season -- the starting quarterback was waived, the coaches fired -- then walked out the instant it suited him. He demanded special favor after special favor from the Jets, then gave nothing back. Management and other players couldn't wait for him to get out of Green Bay, so weary were both of Favre's self-centeredness. Now he brings his "I love me" show to Minnesota. If the Vikings win, Favre will grab the credit; if they lose, Favre will once again say he was mistreated. No Vikings player other than Favre will get any media attention in 2008; if Adrian Peterson runs for 3,000 yards, Favre will claim the credit. Plus Childress waffled so much in his pursuit of Favre that now he seems weak, as if he were a factotum awaiting Favre's instructions. Late in July, Childress told the Vikings' locker room there was "not a chance" Favre would join the team, and that he expected them to rally around quarterbacks Jackson and Rosenfels. Now it turns out Childress was continuing to talk to Favre the entire time he was telling his team otherwise. What credibility can Childress have when it appears that he looked his players in the eye and lied to them?
Sorry for the long paragraph, Easterbrook is like the anti-Bill Plaschke, but I couldn't agree more with what he is saying here.
Vick has never been proficient as a passer -- not only does he have trouble with accuracy when throwing long, defenses have learned that he looks exclusively at one side of the field. When Vick the quarterback looks right, every defender on the left can release his man, because Vick will never check that way again.
Easterbrook should write a book which would involve him just making shit up every week...wait, he already does that in column form.
I am critical of Mike Vick but I have never heard that he stares down his receivers. Easterbrook has this brilliant plan to stop Mike Vick, which involves leaving your man when you see Vick look at one side of the field, but he doesn't say exactly what the team should do if Vick takes off running to the other side of the field.
the Eagles in effect gave up their 2008 first-round choice, which Carolina used on offensive tackle Jeff Otah, and a 2009 fourth-round choice, which Buffalo used on tight end Shawn Nelson, for Peters, a 2008 second-round choice used on defensive tackle Trevor Laws, and a 2008 fourth-round choice used on safety Quintin Demps. In a year, Philadelphia may wish it had simply stayed put and chosen Otah and Nelson.
Ignoring the fact Easterbrook sort of knocked the Panthers earlier in this column for trading first round picks and now he thinks taking Otah (who the Panthers traded their 2009 pick for) would have been a good player to draft...ignoring that semi-contradiction, the Eagles got two starters in Peters and Demps for a starting OT in Otah and a TE that is currently 3rd on the Bills depth chart, I say they did fine for themselves and would not want to take either of those trades back at this point.
Alabama, Arkansas and Michigan employ the Weasel Three -- Bobby Petrino, Rich Rodriguez and Nicky Saban, each of whom walked out on existing commitments to grab more cash elsewhere. TMQ has been predicting woe for these colleges, in keeping with my immutable Law of Weasel Coaches, noted in the Bucs' item below. Last season, Alabama, Arkansas and Michigan were a combined 20-18 with no bowl wins:
Alabama played in a BCS bowl game and only lost two games all year and that was in the SEC Championship game and in a BCS bowl game. The Law of Weasel Coaches didn't really work here. They lost to the eventual National Champion and their bowl game to an undefeated team, so it's not like they played one of Gregg's "cupcake" teams and lost.
all the money these three schools invested in weasel coaches, and all the hits taken by the schools' prestige, resulted in blah performance.
I can't speak for Arkansas and Michigan who have had some off the field problems with transfers but I think Alabama's prestige has not taken a hit since they were in the hunt for the National Championship last year AND made a BCS bowl game. No one really cares about textbook violations. Easterbrook is crazy.
A psychiatrist to interview a possible draft choice? This only proves you'd be crazy to want to play for a team that thinks a psychiatrist can tell who will be good at throwing a football. On display here is the hubris of recruiting and draft-choice testing -- the belief that hyper-analyzing some 21-year-old (or 18-year-old in the case of college recruits) can predict athletic performance.
If a team is going to spend $40 million guaranteed on a player and basically put the future of the franchise for the next 4 years on his shoulders, they sure as hell better get every bit of information about this person they can. Sure it sounds crazy, but ask the Vikings if they wanted a psychiatrist to interview Demetrius Underwood or ask the Chargers if a psychiatrist could have helped them decide whether to take Ryan Leaf or not. I am not saying this is a good way to scout but it can tell you some information about a person...and really if you are going to spend a ton of money on a 1st round draft pick, you may as well do all your homework.
The evolving consensus is that Texas Tech runs up the score in gimmick games against lower-echelon teams (last year, the Red Raiders bravely faced two Football Championship Subdivision schools, Eastern Washington and Massachusetts, at home);
Is this the evolving consensus in Gregg Easterbrook's mind or are there actually people out there in the world who believe this as well? Shockingly, I am still amazed at how much Easterbrook can just write in his TMQ and get away with having no factual basis for it. It's not like he tries to pass it off as opinion, he says it is the "evolving consensus" but doesn't say from whom or where.
New defensive coordinator Gus Bradley says Seattle will use a base 4-3, Cover 2 -- the NFL's most common defense -- but play some 3-3-5. That's "the stack," a defense that's a fad in high school...In a stack, three linebackers stand directly behind three defensive linemen, trying to create uncertainty in the quarterback's mind about which of the slant lanes they will drop into. Since the spread is based on slants, curls and digs, the stack emphasizes taking away those routes, while daring an offense to rush.
Hmmm...I wonder what could be wrong with a defense that is designed to take away the spread offense? How about the fact nearly zero teams in the NFL actually run a real version of the spread offense? So this defense would have to match up with the times an NFL team runs a semi-spread offense and otherwise it could end up being a liability in some cases. I guess that could be some sort of a problem, that and the fact if you dare most NFL teams to run the ball on you...they are going to run the ball all over you.
The NFL is not high school and it is not college either, if you dare most teams to run and show you can't stop the run, "the stack" won't last long. I am not saying this defense won't work, I am saying if it is expressly designed to stop the spread offense, I don't know how well it is designed to work in the NFL even on a part time basis.
In the offseason, the Bucs showed the door to Derrick Brooks, their best all-time player, for cap reasons; then gave $20 million in guarantees to Kellen Winslow, who has missed some or all of his five pro seasons with injuries.
Here we go again. First, they play different positions so there is really no comparison between signing one of these players and cutting the other one. Derrick Brooks has not been signed yet by an NFL team, which either shows he wants too much money or the Bucs aren't the only team that thinks he has lost a step...but hey, feel free to just assume he was playing at a high level because he is the Bucs best all-time player.
TMQ has long contended there is more coaching talent at small colleges, below the testosterone-pumped level of the football-factory schools, than the NFL recognizes.
He said this not 3 paragraphs above where he made this following statement. (Let's ignore the fact Easterbrook was bitching last week that coaches with no NFL head coaching experience get all the jobs over experienced head coaches and now he is pretty much saying they should be hired more often.)
New head coach Raheem Morris has more experience in the Ivy League coaching at Cornell than as an NFL head coach.
He says this somewhat derisively. I didn't know that Cornell counted as a football-factory school. I would think Gregg Easterbrook would applaud the signing of a guy who was at a less football oriented school based on what he said above.
Next Week: America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions.
I am sure there was some "previewing" in here somewhere but I really had a hard time finding it. Next week is haiku's! Excuse me if I don't get too excited about it.
For those interested, don't forget to sign up for the College Football Pick 'Em. Information is in the MMQB post.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
19 comments 10 Lessons in Baseball Knowledge Idiocy
I want to remind those who are interested to sign up for the College Football Pick 'Em. It's really easy, you pick the winner based on the line of the game, and I enjoy it a whole lot. The information is in yesterday's MMQB post.
Tuesday is always a tough day for me when it comes to picking out an article to talk about. I need much more time to cover TMQ, Easterbrook doesn't even post it until mid-morning and that is not enough time for me to wade through it all. It makes my head hurt. I love posting TMQ and Peter King the most, if you haven't noticed, so TMQ usually gets covered, I just have to give myself enough time to dive into it. To make matters worse, Peter King doesn't post his mailbag until 1pm or 2pm on Tuesday and I don't really have time in the afternoon to post anything about it. I really have no point, I just thought I would share that with everyone.
Joe Morgan has struck again. I always forget about his idiocy until a Sunday Night Baseball game comes rolling around and I happen to watch said game. Sunday night, he made a comment that "statistics are good if used to support something, but I like to observe whether a player is struggling at the plate or not for myself." This statement really isn't inherently wrong but I can't believe if he sees a statistic that says Ryan Howard is 2-24 over his last 7 games he actually needs to see Howard's swing to know he is struggling. It's just typical Joe Morgan.
I enjoyed how I did the JoeChat last time and it got an overwhelming non-response from everyone, so I will do it that way again. It's much easier for me to write and I think it is easier for you to read when you don't have to read the question...though I will copy and paste the question when pertinent.
Buzzmaster (11:07 AM)
Hey everyone...hang on a minute. Joe was traveling this morning but I don't think he's reached his destination yet. He may have run into some travel delays.
Buzzmaster (11:30 AM)
Joe is here everyone! His plane was late.
If Peter King was on that flight he would never have stood for this. He would stood up halfway through the flight angry with the wireless service the plane provides, bitched about the coffee, gone to the bathroom to clean out his bowels in preparation for a colonoscopy, asked to speak to the pilot "who should know who he is" when he found out the plane was running late, and then punched a stewardess in the face in response to finding out his hotel reservation had been taken.
Joe is much more docile than Peter. Joe probably just doesn't think they make any great airlines anymore because they are all so inconsistent with their arrival times.
1. (On the most dramatic parts of baseball right now)
The wild card races are really heating up. I think that's where the most drama will be by the end of the season.
Maybe it is just the way he phrased this sentence, but there should be no drama from the Wild Card race by the end of the season because the Wild Card race will be over at that point.
Assuming he just phrased this sentence in a crazy way, considering the closest teams in the divisional races in the AL involve second place teams 4.0 and 5.0 games behind and the closest race in the NL is in the NL West where the Rockies are 6.0 games out (as of Monday night) and the Wild Card in the AL has three teams within 5 games of each other and the NL Wild Card race has 5 teams within 5.5 games of each other, I don't think this is a far fetched prediction. Thanks for saying the obvious.
2. (Whether Mark Reynolds gets MVP Consideration in the NL)
Well, I think he should get some votes, but I don't think he should get any first place votes. You get to pick 10 people. I would say he'll get some votes. Because of his team's place in the standings, I don't think he'll be in the top 3 or 4.
This is just plain lunacy. It's the MVP, which is Most Valuable Player, not the MVPOWT, or Most Valuable Player On a Winning Team. A player should not get extra credit for being on a good team. I don't know if Mark Reynolds is the National League MVP, at least as long as Albert Pujols is alive, but to say he doesn't deserve 1st place votes because he doesn't play for a good team is ignorant and stupid. I don't think Joe Morgan has an MVP vote but if he does, it should be taken away immediately. There is a reason I started this blog and "smart" people like this saying stupid things like this previous statement is the main reason.
In what world will .295/.382/.576 with 37 HR's and 114 RBI's on a winning team be more valuable than a guy who puts up .316/.399/.589 with 41 HR's and 96 RBI's on a losing team? It is about how valuable the guy is, not how good the team he plays on is.
3. (Whether the Phillies can repeat)
They definitely have a chance of repeating. I think the key will be Cole Hamels. If he can get back to being the pitcher he was at the end of last season, with the addition of Lee, I think they have a chance. So, with Hamels and of course Brad Lidge.
Yeah of course, Brad Lidge...
OF COURSE BRAD LIDGE WHAT? This isn't a sentence that is the least bit recognizable. I realize this is a chat, so it is more informal, but what the hell does Brad Lidge have to do? Quit blowing saves? Because the Phillies don't have a chance if Brad Lidge continues not doing that. What about Brad Lidge? Is he the key to the Phillies repeating? If so, why? How are you still paid by ESPN to call baseball games?
4. (If he thinks Pete Rose will be reinstated)
That's a difficult question. I don't like to use the phrase never. To make this perfectly clear, I'm not concerned about Pete Rose getting into the Hall of Fame, or managing. As a friend, I'm concerned about him being reinstated to the game and having his head held high about his accomplishments.
His accomplishments? The hits record or the fact he was able to subsidize his salary from managing with gambling winnings? The hits record, that is his accomplishment, which was a product of playing for a long time, being a good hitter, and hitting at the top of the order.
The Hall of Fame and managing again should not be his priorities. Just getting reinstated should be his priority.
He will never manage again. EVER. So if Pete Rose has it in his crazy little head he will ever be able to manage again he is delusional. No one will hire him, especially since HE HASN'T STOPPED GAMBLING YET! I was amazed when I learned that from the Jayson Stark article last week.
I wouldn't hire him to run my Fantasy Baseball team for fear he would gamble my players away.
5. (His response to FJMorgan baiters)
KaTie (Fremulon)
Hey Joe, when you think of all the players in MLB, who do you think is the perfect example of playing the game the right way?
Classic.
First of all, I think there are a lot of players who play the game the right now. There's a long list I would have to give you. I was in Anaheim last night and Tori Hunter is one of those guys. I was in Boston over the weekend and Derek Jeter is one of those guys.
I can't believe he hasn't caught on to this yet. I think he may be playing along at this point.
There are a lot of them. We hear that players don't play well or hard, and I disagree with that. Dustin Pedroia.
You hear that Dustin Pedroia doesn't play the game well or hard? The MVP from last year? The small, short gritty guy with a big mouth? How come I don't believe this? I demand to know who is saying players today don't play well or hard...other than Joe Morgan himself of course. Maybe he hears the voices in his head say all the teams are inconsistent so he thinks everyone believes this as well.
I guarantee I could name you 40 or 50 guys that I think play the game the right way.
With this statement, Joe moved on to the next question. I kid you not. I want to see that list of players who play the game the right way dammit!
6. (Best catcher ever)
I'm probably prejudice a little bit, but I don't think there's any catcher better than Johnny Bench.
"Prejudice(d) a little bit?" This from the same man who probably wants this guy to be in the Hall of Fame. He would put the entire Big Red Machine in the Hall of Fame if he had his choice. I read an article this week in Sports Illustrated and it said Sparky Anderson told the 1975 Reds team Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench could do whatever they wanted and the rest of the team were "turds." Remember that next time Joe Morgan accuses a manager of playing favorites or criticizing how a manager treats his players.
7. (If Ben Zobrist deserves MVP votes)
There are a lot of guys having a good year on a lot of different teams. But to say that he's an MVP candidate, I don't think so. I think you're looking at Teixiera, Morneau, Mauer.
What spell does Justin Morneau have over those who get to vote for the MVP award? Here are the three guys I think should be in consideration, plus Morneau and I want you to rank them yourself...
.290/.375/.546, 29 HR 96 RBI
.367/.435/.608, 25 HR 79 RBI
.284/.380/.547, 31 HR 101 RBI
.335/.399/.565, 27 HR 82 RBI
Just looking at those numbers, I say the MVP voting should go #2, #4, #3, #1. Which would be Mauer, Miguel Cabrera, Texeira, and Morneau. Morneau shouldn't be in the top 3 at this point. I really hope Joe doesn't get to vote for this award.
8. (Joe talking about Juan Pierre)
I've said all along that Juan Pierre brought an energy to that team that they didn't have with Manny in the lineup.
In that case you have been wrong all along. You can have Juan Pierre and his energy (what is this a freaking marathon?) and I will take Manny Ramirez even when he struggles.
Maybe Joe Torre will do that. Manny's not hitting well either.
Manny is hitting .307/.427/.544 right now. Juan Pierre only matches those numbers in his dreams. You only take Manny Ramirez out to replace him with Juan Pierre if you are trying to lose a baseball game or it is the 8th inning and Pierre and his noodle arm are brought in for defensive purposes.
And when he's not hitting well, he's not helping you that much.
When Juan Pierre is not hitting well, how the hell does he help the team? The team's energy level goes up? Last time I checked runs were scored by not clogging the bases and bunting, not energy. Hitting three run home runs and driving in runs is so boring....even though that is primarily how Joe Morgan judges an MVP candidate.
Yes, this is the contradiction of Joe Morgan. He hates the three run home run, wishes teams would steal more bases, hates strikeouts and thinks bunting is a great way to play baseball but judges MVP candidates on their ability to hit home runs and drive in players and those guys very often strike out more often and bunt a whole lot less than other players.
9. (Why pitchers are better in the National League compared to the American League)
Some guys like the NL better. I think CC Sabathia wanted to stay in the NL because he likes to hit, but the Yankees made that impossible with the contract they offered.
Apparently Joe Morgan thinks the Yankees are like the Mafia and they made Sabathia an offer he could not refuse.
Three things Joe ignores or doesn't think of:
1. The Brewers made Sabathia a pretty good offer, in exess of $100 million if I am not wrong, so he very well could have stayed in the NL just to bat and have afforded to live fairly comfortably.
2. The Yankees didn't make it impossible for him to play in the NL, they just offered him a much bigger contract than he got anywhere else.
3. Sabathia only played in the NL for a little over 2 months, after playing in the AL prior to that, I doubt he played in the NL long enough and enjoyed batting so much he would have declined more money just to do it.
10. (Whether Pedro Martinez will pitch well for the remainder of the season)
I think he's pitching well. He should get a little better.
I thought the Pedro signing was a good idea for the Phillies, though we all know I am the only Pedro hater in the world, but how is he going to get better? He has a WHIP of 1.25 and an ERA of 4.50, which is about exactly what I expected from him.
The plus you have with him is that you don't have the innings on his arm.
That's very true, unless you want to count the 2,798.2 innings he has pitched over his career and the fact he is coming off major surgery. Other than that, yeah he should be completely fresh at this point in the season.
Buzzmaster (11:58 AM)
Thanks Joe!
Thanks for showing up 30 minutes late to share your bizarre look at the baseball world for 28 minutes.
-I generally agree with Wallace Matthews premise that the Yankees are crazy for only allowing Joba Chamberlain to only pitch 35 pitches in his last start. If this article was maybe three paragraphs long I could have enjoyed it, unfortunately Wallace just keeps on typing.
Last week, it was fewer starts, more rest in between. Now it's more starts, fewer innings, with the aim of getting this young, strong, incredibly talented athlete in shape to do what lesser specimens all over the league do on a daily basis, which is throw 100 pitches in October.
This is the point of the article where he should have stopped. Obviously the Yankees want Chamberlain to be able to start baseball games in October...but if Chamberlain has only thrown a maximum of 60 pitches per start for the last 2 months how is he going to have the endurance to throw 100 pitches in October? Maybe I am underestimating his arm strength and endurance. Either way, Wallace should have stopped here.
On to what Wallace says wrong...Lesser pitchers do not throw 100 pitches in October on a daily basis. There are only 8 teams that generally play into October and pitchers are not throwing 100 pitches on a daily basis in the playoffs. Wallace may be overestimating how many pitches pitchers throw in October. A pitcher has pitched a very good or a very bad game if he has hit 100 pitches in October. Usually the manager shortens the pitching staff in the playoffs and pitches may pitch on less rest, but pitches are not throwing 100 pitches on a daily basis.
Even by the standards of a game in which it is widely believed that dumb and lazy is the answer to just about everything -
I have no idea what he is talking about here. Dumb and lazy is not the answer to anything at all in baseball. Other than pitch counts, I would love to know when "dumb and lazy" is the answer to any baseball related problem.
Maybe Wallace Matthews is the guy that Joe Morgan is talking about when Joe said he heard people say players today don't play hard or well.
how often have you heard a manager say a player is "thinking too much'' or "trying too hard?'' - this is ridiculous.
It's because the player has natural/learned skills and is making the game more complicated for himself by not allowing the natural/learned skill to take over, it's not to tell the player to actually not think at all or quit trying.
Billy Martin, of course, would have pitched Joba until his arm fell off. He managed the Yankees in the World Series two years in a row, winning in 1977. Girardi hasn't been to the playoffs yet.
If Billy Martin would have done it that way, then clearly I think Joe Girardi needs to take after the guy who got fired and hired on a daily basis by George Steinbrenner. I am sure also it was completely Billy Martin and the fact he pitched guys until their arm fell off that won a World Series and not the players actually playing well that won the World Series.
It seems like Wallace's answer to writing a column is to do something dumb and lazy.
-Because CNNSI.com had so much success with Peter King's MMQB, they have decided to do a college football edition. It's called "College Football Overtime" and it is written by Stewart Mandel.
I actually generally like Stewart Mandel and he doesn't include any personal related topics in his first column, so that is always a good start to differentiate himself from Peter King. I don't know how much you will see College Football Overtime on this blog, but what makes me nervous is Mandel has a personal blog and his first "essay" is about a long line in an airport and his second essay is about how annoying Verizon Wireless is. SI, what hath you done to me? I hope Mandel doesn't start incorporating stuff like that from his personal blog into CFO or else he very well may make this blog.
What does SI.com put in the water that causes their columnists to feel the need to bitch about everyday nuisances in print? He knows his college football pretty well but I really hope he limits his thoughts to that.
Tuesday is always a tough day for me when it comes to picking out an article to talk about. I need much more time to cover TMQ, Easterbrook doesn't even post it until mid-morning and that is not enough time for me to wade through it all. It makes my head hurt. I love posting TMQ and Peter King the most, if you haven't noticed, so TMQ usually gets covered, I just have to give myself enough time to dive into it. To make matters worse, Peter King doesn't post his mailbag until 1pm or 2pm on Tuesday and I don't really have time in the afternoon to post anything about it. I really have no point, I just thought I would share that with everyone.
Joe Morgan has struck again. I always forget about his idiocy until a Sunday Night Baseball game comes rolling around and I happen to watch said game. Sunday night, he made a comment that "statistics are good if used to support something, but I like to observe whether a player is struggling at the plate or not for myself." This statement really isn't inherently wrong but I can't believe if he sees a statistic that says Ryan Howard is 2-24 over his last 7 games he actually needs to see Howard's swing to know he is struggling. It's just typical Joe Morgan.
I enjoyed how I did the JoeChat last time and it got an overwhelming non-response from everyone, so I will do it that way again. It's much easier for me to write and I think it is easier for you to read when you don't have to read the question...though I will copy and paste the question when pertinent.
Buzzmaster (11:07 AM)
Hey everyone...hang on a minute. Joe was traveling this morning but I don't think he's reached his destination yet. He may have run into some travel delays.
Buzzmaster (11:30 AM)
Joe is here everyone! His plane was late.
If Peter King was on that flight he would never have stood for this. He would stood up halfway through the flight angry with the wireless service the plane provides, bitched about the coffee, gone to the bathroom to clean out his bowels in preparation for a colonoscopy, asked to speak to the pilot "who should know who he is" when he found out the plane was running late, and then punched a stewardess in the face in response to finding out his hotel reservation had been taken.
Joe is much more docile than Peter. Joe probably just doesn't think they make any great airlines anymore because they are all so inconsistent with their arrival times.
1. (On the most dramatic parts of baseball right now)
The wild card races are really heating up. I think that's where the most drama will be by the end of the season.
Maybe it is just the way he phrased this sentence, but there should be no drama from the Wild Card race by the end of the season because the Wild Card race will be over at that point.
Assuming he just phrased this sentence in a crazy way, considering the closest teams in the divisional races in the AL involve second place teams 4.0 and 5.0 games behind and the closest race in the NL is in the NL West where the Rockies are 6.0 games out (as of Monday night) and the Wild Card in the AL has three teams within 5 games of each other and the NL Wild Card race has 5 teams within 5.5 games of each other, I don't think this is a far fetched prediction. Thanks for saying the obvious.
2. (Whether Mark Reynolds gets MVP Consideration in the NL)
Well, I think he should get some votes, but I don't think he should get any first place votes. You get to pick 10 people. I would say he'll get some votes. Because of his team's place in the standings, I don't think he'll be in the top 3 or 4.
This is just plain lunacy. It's the MVP, which is Most Valuable Player, not the MVPOWT, or Most Valuable Player On a Winning Team. A player should not get extra credit for being on a good team. I don't know if Mark Reynolds is the National League MVP, at least as long as Albert Pujols is alive, but to say he doesn't deserve 1st place votes because he doesn't play for a good team is ignorant and stupid. I don't think Joe Morgan has an MVP vote but if he does, it should be taken away immediately. There is a reason I started this blog and "smart" people like this saying stupid things like this previous statement is the main reason.
In what world will .295/.382/.576 with 37 HR's and 114 RBI's on a winning team be more valuable than a guy who puts up .316/.399/.589 with 41 HR's and 96 RBI's on a losing team? It is about how valuable the guy is, not how good the team he plays on is.
3. (Whether the Phillies can repeat)
They definitely have a chance of repeating. I think the key will be Cole Hamels. If he can get back to being the pitcher he was at the end of last season, with the addition of Lee, I think they have a chance. So, with Hamels and of course Brad Lidge.
Yeah of course, Brad Lidge...
OF COURSE BRAD LIDGE WHAT? This isn't a sentence that is the least bit recognizable. I realize this is a chat, so it is more informal, but what the hell does Brad Lidge have to do? Quit blowing saves? Because the Phillies don't have a chance if Brad Lidge continues not doing that. What about Brad Lidge? Is he the key to the Phillies repeating? If so, why? How are you still paid by ESPN to call baseball games?
4. (If he thinks Pete Rose will be reinstated)
That's a difficult question. I don't like to use the phrase never. To make this perfectly clear, I'm not concerned about Pete Rose getting into the Hall of Fame, or managing. As a friend, I'm concerned about him being reinstated to the game and having his head held high about his accomplishments.
His accomplishments? The hits record or the fact he was able to subsidize his salary from managing with gambling winnings? The hits record, that is his accomplishment, which was a product of playing for a long time, being a good hitter, and hitting at the top of the order.
The Hall of Fame and managing again should not be his priorities. Just getting reinstated should be his priority.
He will never manage again. EVER. So if Pete Rose has it in his crazy little head he will ever be able to manage again he is delusional. No one will hire him, especially since HE HASN'T STOPPED GAMBLING YET! I was amazed when I learned that from the Jayson Stark article last week.
I wouldn't hire him to run my Fantasy Baseball team for fear he would gamble my players away.
5. (His response to FJMorgan baiters)
KaTie (Fremulon)
Hey Joe, when you think of all the players in MLB, who do you think is the perfect example of playing the game the right way?
Classic.
First of all, I think there are a lot of players who play the game the right now. There's a long list I would have to give you. I was in Anaheim last night and Tori Hunter is one of those guys. I was in Boston over the weekend and Derek Jeter is one of those guys.
I can't believe he hasn't caught on to this yet. I think he may be playing along at this point.
There are a lot of them. We hear that players don't play well or hard, and I disagree with that. Dustin Pedroia.
You hear that Dustin Pedroia doesn't play the game well or hard? The MVP from last year? The small, short gritty guy with a big mouth? How come I don't believe this? I demand to know who is saying players today don't play well or hard...other than Joe Morgan himself of course. Maybe he hears the voices in his head say all the teams are inconsistent so he thinks everyone believes this as well.
I guarantee I could name you 40 or 50 guys that I think play the game the right way.
With this statement, Joe moved on to the next question. I kid you not. I want to see that list of players who play the game the right way dammit!
6. (Best catcher ever)
I'm probably prejudice a little bit, but I don't think there's any catcher better than Johnny Bench.
"Prejudice(d) a little bit?" This from the same man who probably wants this guy to be in the Hall of Fame. He would put the entire Big Red Machine in the Hall of Fame if he had his choice. I read an article this week in Sports Illustrated and it said Sparky Anderson told the 1975 Reds team Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench could do whatever they wanted and the rest of the team were "turds." Remember that next time Joe Morgan accuses a manager of playing favorites or criticizing how a manager treats his players.
7. (If Ben Zobrist deserves MVP votes)
There are a lot of guys having a good year on a lot of different teams. But to say that he's an MVP candidate, I don't think so. I think you're looking at Teixiera, Morneau, Mauer.
What spell does Justin Morneau have over those who get to vote for the MVP award? Here are the three guys I think should be in consideration, plus Morneau and I want you to rank them yourself...
.290/.375/.546, 29 HR 96 RBI
.367/.435/.608, 25 HR 79 RBI
.284/.380/.547, 31 HR 101 RBI
.335/.399/.565, 27 HR 82 RBI
Just looking at those numbers, I say the MVP voting should go #2, #4, #3, #1. Which would be Mauer, Miguel Cabrera, Texeira, and Morneau. Morneau shouldn't be in the top 3 at this point. I really hope Joe doesn't get to vote for this award.
8. (Joe talking about Juan Pierre)
I've said all along that Juan Pierre brought an energy to that team that they didn't have with Manny in the lineup.
In that case you have been wrong all along. You can have Juan Pierre and his energy (what is this a freaking marathon?) and I will take Manny Ramirez even when he struggles.
Maybe Joe Torre will do that. Manny's not hitting well either.
Manny is hitting .307/.427/.544 right now. Juan Pierre only matches those numbers in his dreams. You only take Manny Ramirez out to replace him with Juan Pierre if you are trying to lose a baseball game or it is the 8th inning and Pierre and his noodle arm are brought in for defensive purposes.
And when he's not hitting well, he's not helping you that much.
When Juan Pierre is not hitting well, how the hell does he help the team? The team's energy level goes up? Last time I checked runs were scored by not clogging the bases and bunting, not energy. Hitting three run home runs and driving in runs is so boring....even though that is primarily how Joe Morgan judges an MVP candidate.
Yes, this is the contradiction of Joe Morgan. He hates the three run home run, wishes teams would steal more bases, hates strikeouts and thinks bunting is a great way to play baseball but judges MVP candidates on their ability to hit home runs and drive in players and those guys very often strike out more often and bunt a whole lot less than other players.
9. (Why pitchers are better in the National League compared to the American League)
Some guys like the NL better. I think CC Sabathia wanted to stay in the NL because he likes to hit, but the Yankees made that impossible with the contract they offered.
Apparently Joe Morgan thinks the Yankees are like the Mafia and they made Sabathia an offer he could not refuse.
Three things Joe ignores or doesn't think of:
1. The Brewers made Sabathia a pretty good offer, in exess of $100 million if I am not wrong, so he very well could have stayed in the NL just to bat and have afforded to live fairly comfortably.
2. The Yankees didn't make it impossible for him to play in the NL, they just offered him a much bigger contract than he got anywhere else.
3. Sabathia only played in the NL for a little over 2 months, after playing in the AL prior to that, I doubt he played in the NL long enough and enjoyed batting so much he would have declined more money just to do it.
10. (Whether Pedro Martinez will pitch well for the remainder of the season)
I think he's pitching well. He should get a little better.
I thought the Pedro signing was a good idea for the Phillies, though we all know I am the only Pedro hater in the world, but how is he going to get better? He has a WHIP of 1.25 and an ERA of 4.50, which is about exactly what I expected from him.
The plus you have with him is that you don't have the innings on his arm.
That's very true, unless you want to count the 2,798.2 innings he has pitched over his career and the fact he is coming off major surgery. Other than that, yeah he should be completely fresh at this point in the season.
Buzzmaster (11:58 AM)
Thanks Joe!
Thanks for showing up 30 minutes late to share your bizarre look at the baseball world for 28 minutes.
-I generally agree with Wallace Matthews premise that the Yankees are crazy for only allowing Joba Chamberlain to only pitch 35 pitches in his last start. If this article was maybe three paragraphs long I could have enjoyed it, unfortunately Wallace just keeps on typing.
Last week, it was fewer starts, more rest in between. Now it's more starts, fewer innings, with the aim of getting this young, strong, incredibly talented athlete in shape to do what lesser specimens all over the league do on a daily basis, which is throw 100 pitches in October.
This is the point of the article where he should have stopped. Obviously the Yankees want Chamberlain to be able to start baseball games in October...but if Chamberlain has only thrown a maximum of 60 pitches per start for the last 2 months how is he going to have the endurance to throw 100 pitches in October? Maybe I am underestimating his arm strength and endurance. Either way, Wallace should have stopped here.
On to what Wallace says wrong...Lesser pitchers do not throw 100 pitches in October on a daily basis. There are only 8 teams that generally play into October and pitchers are not throwing 100 pitches on a daily basis in the playoffs. Wallace may be overestimating how many pitches pitchers throw in October. A pitcher has pitched a very good or a very bad game if he has hit 100 pitches in October. Usually the manager shortens the pitching staff in the playoffs and pitches may pitch on less rest, but pitches are not throwing 100 pitches on a daily basis.
Even by the standards of a game in which it is widely believed that dumb and lazy is the answer to just about everything -
I have no idea what he is talking about here. Dumb and lazy is not the answer to anything at all in baseball. Other than pitch counts, I would love to know when "dumb and lazy" is the answer to any baseball related problem.
Maybe Wallace Matthews is the guy that Joe Morgan is talking about when Joe said he heard people say players today don't play hard or well.
how often have you heard a manager say a player is "thinking too much'' or "trying too hard?'' - this is ridiculous.
It's because the player has natural/learned skills and is making the game more complicated for himself by not allowing the natural/learned skill to take over, it's not to tell the player to actually not think at all or quit trying.
Billy Martin, of course, would have pitched Joba until his arm fell off. He managed the Yankees in the World Series two years in a row, winning in 1977. Girardi hasn't been to the playoffs yet.
If Billy Martin would have done it that way, then clearly I think Joe Girardi needs to take after the guy who got fired and hired on a daily basis by George Steinbrenner. I am sure also it was completely Billy Martin and the fact he pitched guys until their arm fell off that won a World Series and not the players actually playing well that won the World Series.
It seems like Wallace's answer to writing a column is to do something dumb and lazy.
-Because CNNSI.com had so much success with Peter King's MMQB, they have decided to do a college football edition. It's called "College Football Overtime" and it is written by Stewart Mandel.
I actually generally like Stewart Mandel and he doesn't include any personal related topics in his first column, so that is always a good start to differentiate himself from Peter King. I don't know how much you will see College Football Overtime on this blog, but what makes me nervous is Mandel has a personal blog and his first "essay" is about a long line in an airport and his second essay is about how annoying Verizon Wireless is. SI, what hath you done to me? I hope Mandel doesn't start incorporating stuff like that from his personal blog into CFO or else he very well may make this blog.
What does SI.com put in the water that causes their columnists to feel the need to bitch about everyday nuisances in print? He knows his college football pretty well but I really hope he limits his thoughts to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)