I'm in California for the week, and naturally my first thought was, "I'll get to watch Giants and A's games! No AL East!" Well, I was right about the second part, at least, though not so much the first. Last night the Giants and A's were both on some weird cable channels not included in my mom's basic cable, ditto for today's Giants game. I'm going to skip my rant about cable bundling and TV rights--you're welcome.
The more salient point is that I'm left watching Pirates-Dodgers. This is the first time this season I've been able to sit and watch an entire game if I feel like it, and for some reason this is what I can get. So be it. I may not be a fan of either team, but at least I dislike one (the Dodgers, obviously--who could hate the Pirates?). And sometimes I appreciate watching teams I'm not a fan of--I have no real investment, which means I can just appreciate the baseball. But there are two unfortunate points to raise here: (1) this broadcast is on Fox, so no Vin Scully, who I really like; and (2) it's the 4th inning, and the Dodgers are up 11-1, which is why I'm writing this post instead of watching carefully.
I could stop watching, I suppose, but I have chips and fresh salsa, I have a Sierra Nevada harvest ale, and I have a baseball game. It's not quite the perfect combination (I need some guacamole, too), but it's not bad. And because I'm somewhat disinterested in the teams, this is just simple baseball, which means I can just enjoy and not worry about the outcome too much.
My question is this: what's your perfect game and environment for watching it? Do you want to be at the live event (major or minor leagues?), or at home on your couch with a bathroom nearby? What do you need ready to eat and drink? Do you want your buddies watching with you, or no one else home? Do you want to be worked up during a pennant race/postseason, or at ease in the regular season? I am certain my mood determines this more than anything else, but right now, I think I'd want regular-season Giants-Dodgers, Vin Scully doing the broadcast, chips and salsa and guac, and a range of IPAs (I really wanted to get the Sierra Nevada 12-pack with a black, white, something I forgot, and Torpedo IPA, but I am not going to drink that much beer this week), and today I want no company.
[Edit: Yasiel Puig almost threw out a guy at home plate, and even if he didn't, that guy has an arm. Andrew McCutchen just missed picking a ball off the top of the fence, and even if it turned into a triple, that guy has range. Hanley Ramirez just made a leaping catch of a line drive in between hitting two home runs. Good stuff.]
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Starting Pitching, Tommy John Surgery, and Baseball Records
There has been a lot of talk lately about Tommy John surgery and why pitchers are not as durable as those from previous eras. Ask an expert, a former player, a casual fan, or a stat geek and you are likely to get many different answers ranging from "don't throw breaking balls in little league" to "they don't throw enough to be used to the abuse of pitching 300+ innings." Nobody knows the answer. From a physiological standpoint, I find it hard to believe that throwing more is an adequate answer considering these injuries are not muscle injuries, and thus do not respond to overwork the way a muscle might. On the other hand, I could be wrong, as early muscle memory may provide protection.
From my perspective (and from Jason's, I'm sure), I have a far greater interest in how protecting pitchers from major injuries by limiting innings and having pitch counts affects the game, the statistics, the records, and how Hall of Fame criteria might change.
Pitch counts are changing the way we view the game and the way we have to interpret statistics. Pitchers rarely complete games. Complete games now feel like no-hitters felt in the early 90's. They are fairly rare. Pitchers are also at the mercy of a slew of relief pitchers to get wins. This is interesting because advanced statisticians will tell you that wins are not predictive of actual pitching success. I agree with this in the current era of short pitching outings. 20 wins meant a heck of a lot more when pitchers would pitch regularly into the 8th or 9th inning. Pitchers are pitching less innings, and wins and losses are much more random events than in the past.
If baseball continues on the current trajectory, we are unlikely to see another pitcher win 300 games, record 3000 strikeouts, or complete more than a handful of games in a career. It is already becoming apparent that we are having difficulty evaluating statistics in this era. An example is Mike Mussina. Mussina won 270 games and had a great winning percentage. He also had an ERA of 3.68, which is typically well above the HOF cutoff. However, he pitched for New York for a good portion of his career, and short porches are not good for the ERA. How do we deal with 270 wins and a decent, but slightly high ERA? My guess is that voters will have a difficult time deciding when it comes to Mussina. He bridged the gradual change from workhorse starter to inning and pitch restrictions. In my opinion, the winning percentage and consideration of his time in Yankee stadium should be enough to get him in. He was a great pitcher and one of the best of his era. However, he never hit that magical 300. Will he be punished because he could only start every 5 days instead of 4? Or because he likely left games earlier than pitchers would have 20 years earlier and lost them due to shoddy relief work? WAR would suggest that he is in (he has a higher career WAR than Tom Glavine, who is in). I will be very interested to watch in the future.
Sadly, we will probably see very few pitchers approach even 270 wins. CC Sabathia is 33 and has over 200 wins. He will likely win quite a few more games, although he has had difficulty staying healthy lately. Otherwise, we are in for 250 wins becoming a major landmark and 200 wins becoming a relative rarity. How do we deal with this? How are we as fans supposed to interpret these new thresholds as baseball progresses through the pitcher protection era? I don't really have an answer. Perhaps advanced statistics will provide the answer. Only time will tell.
From my perspective (and from Jason's, I'm sure), I have a far greater interest in how protecting pitchers from major injuries by limiting innings and having pitch counts affects the game, the statistics, the records, and how Hall of Fame criteria might change.
Pitch counts are changing the way we view the game and the way we have to interpret statistics. Pitchers rarely complete games. Complete games now feel like no-hitters felt in the early 90's. They are fairly rare. Pitchers are also at the mercy of a slew of relief pitchers to get wins. This is interesting because advanced statisticians will tell you that wins are not predictive of actual pitching success. I agree with this in the current era of short pitching outings. 20 wins meant a heck of a lot more when pitchers would pitch regularly into the 8th or 9th inning. Pitchers are pitching less innings, and wins and losses are much more random events than in the past.
If baseball continues on the current trajectory, we are unlikely to see another pitcher win 300 games, record 3000 strikeouts, or complete more than a handful of games in a career. It is already becoming apparent that we are having difficulty evaluating statistics in this era. An example is Mike Mussina. Mussina won 270 games and had a great winning percentage. He also had an ERA of 3.68, which is typically well above the HOF cutoff. However, he pitched for New York for a good portion of his career, and short porches are not good for the ERA. How do we deal with 270 wins and a decent, but slightly high ERA? My guess is that voters will have a difficult time deciding when it comes to Mussina. He bridged the gradual change from workhorse starter to inning and pitch restrictions. In my opinion, the winning percentage and consideration of his time in Yankee stadium should be enough to get him in. He was a great pitcher and one of the best of his era. However, he never hit that magical 300. Will he be punished because he could only start every 5 days instead of 4? Or because he likely left games earlier than pitchers would have 20 years earlier and lost them due to shoddy relief work? WAR would suggest that he is in (he has a higher career WAR than Tom Glavine, who is in). I will be very interested to watch in the future.
Sadly, we will probably see very few pitchers approach even 270 wins. CC Sabathia is 33 and has over 200 wins. He will likely win quite a few more games, although he has had difficulty staying healthy lately. Otherwise, we are in for 250 wins becoming a major landmark and 200 wins becoming a relative rarity. How do we deal with this? How are we as fans supposed to interpret these new thresholds as baseball progresses through the pitcher protection era? I don't really have an answer. Perhaps advanced statistics will provide the answer. Only time will tell.
Jack Morris for Hall of Fame - Negative
Living in Minnesota has brought me a number of years of horror as local sports "experts" continue to push for Jack Morris' election into the baseball HOF. Jack Morris was great in the 1991 playoffs. He completed a lot of games. He even threw a few shutouts. He also had a 3.90 ERA. Four runs per 9 innings? Really? That's a HOF career? The closest ERA is 3.80 and that belongs to Red Ruffing, a guy who played at the turn of the 20th century. The funniest part of this whole thing is the whining that Morris himself does around HOF voting time. This year he proclaimed that he would have allowed less runs had a coach told him to have a lower ERA. WHAT? Does that even make sense? Wouldn't a pitcher always strive to have the lowest ERA possible? It is my understanding that giving up 0 runs per game guarantees a pitcher a perfect record. The funniest thing about this whole thing is that usually you hear arguments from advanced statisticians that a player was undervalued by traditional stats... Not Black Jack. He was average in terms of WAR as well as ERA and other categories. According to Pro Baseball Reference, Jack Morris isn't even on the list for top 25 WAR of all time that are not in the HOF (http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6195). He was beat out by the likes of Dave Stieb, Chuck Finley, Tommy John, and Jerry Koosman (!) who is mostly famous for sharing a rookie baseball card with Nolan Ryan. Was he a workhorse? Yes. Was he a Hall of Famer? No.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Name tags
The XFL was many things, though unfortunately, it was never very good football. One of my favorite things about it, however, was that players could put something other than their last name on their jersey. Most notorious, of course, was "He Hate Me," worn by Rod Smart.
I'm perfectly aware the No Fun League will never adopt this practice, but I wonder what guys would put on their jerseys if given the choice. Eli Manning/"Elite QB"? Richard Sherman/"Gonna shut it for you real quick"? Tom Brady/"[*Hair flip*]"?
Ideas/suggestions?
I'm perfectly aware the No Fun League will never adopt this practice, but I wonder what guys would put on their jerseys if given the choice. Eli Manning/"Elite QB"? Richard Sherman/"Gonna shut it for you real quick"? Tom Brady/"[*Hair flip*]"?
Ideas/suggestions?
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
overpaid players
Baseball with its guaranteed contracts is one of the worst financial atrocities for fans and teams i know of. Right now id say there are about 23-30 players that are out there that are overwhelmingly underperforming for their clubs, i can give you the list later. These contracts are so absurd that the owners in order to pay them and the rest of their players raise ticket prices and have dumb local tv contracts that black out the games for a large percentage of fans in that area, see dodgers hillarious dilemma. I dont understand how the owners would allow these guarantees to continue. If im paying some dipshit 20 million dollars id have certain benchmarks for that player to reach. I know this will never happen but i can always dream if i was an owner and voted in my idea for player contracts it would be like this: a player signs a contract at a base of 3 - 5 million depending on the player. Each stat hasa predetermined amount that gets added ( ie 30 stolen bases is an extra 1 million) . It will factor in sac flies, broken up double plays etc so that not just rbis and hrs will get a player paid. Sounds complicated its not. We have computers. If a player underperforms guess what you dont have to pay him as much. Gets injured??? Booom youre making a minimim of 3 million moron. What about a good clubhouse guy like a jeter whos old and gimps around all year....each team has a 1 player only contract where his stats dont matter. You sign him to a veteran exception and pay him whatever. If the other players get mad because of it, shut up and play idiot. What you`ll think??
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
i dont get it
I might be off base here but im going to gripe about something that has always bothered me.
I HATE when little kids cry when their favorite college team loses. Every single college football game the tv production crew finds this kid who has their face painted, sweatshirt addorned with the teams logo bawling their freaking eyeballs out because the team is losing. Dont get me wrong im a passionate fan, but give me a break kid. Youre ten. Youre parents didnt even graduate from this school. Im sorry your parents live in who the fuck cares town, america and has nothing better to do than t. Root for a college team that happens to be in the pathetic state they raised you.
Its not entirely on the kid. The parents yes you again are largely to blame. Teach your kid that yes sports can be important but please dont cry becauae georgia lost to auburn cry because you climbed a tree nd fell down. Stupid.
I HATE when little kids cry when their favorite college team loses. Every single college football game the tv production crew finds this kid who has their face painted, sweatshirt addorned with the teams logo bawling their freaking eyeballs out because the team is losing. Dont get me wrong im a passionate fan, but give me a break kid. Youre ten. Youre parents didnt even graduate from this school. Im sorry your parents live in who the fuck cares town, america and has nothing better to do than t. Root for a college team that happens to be in the pathetic state they raised you.
Its not entirely on the kid. The parents yes you again are largely to blame. Teach your kid that yes sports can be important but please dont cry becauae georgia lost to auburn cry because you climbed a tree nd fell down. Stupid.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Sweatervests and bowties
So Jim Tressel has been hired as the new president of Youngstown State University. Sports Illustrated has already addressed the sports angle in a way that sums up lots of my feelings, so no need to rehash that here, I suppose.
Tressel--and lots of other coaches--clearly has some great qualifications for a position like this. He's glad-handed donors to raise funds, served as the public face of a university--even if he had to share the spotlight with E. Gordon Gee, the actual president at Ohio State (and a dude who--gasp--had been a professor, and burnished his credentials with a ludicrous bow tie)--he worked for, and been involved with running major departments with huge budgets and myriad employees. He may turn out to be a great fit, and incredibly adept.
But can we also take a minute to ridicule whoever edited Tressel's Wikipedia entry to identify him as "an educator and former American football coach"? I'll acknowledge that coaches can teach their athletes a heck of a lot, but the lessons Tressel has imparted...seem not to have been consistently those most of us would want college students to learn. And I'll acknowledge that most professors are the last people you'd want running anything of substance that involves practical approaches to complex problems, quick action over careful discussion, and meeting deadlines within cost constraints, nor are they always models of virtue.
Tressel may prove to be great at this job. He may recognize that he needs to delegate key duties to people with more experience in higher education, may realize that he needs to use his position to bolster a strong academic vice president's work and vision, may take seriously his responsibility to various components of his university--including athletics, of course, but also academics, and student services, areas in which he has less experience.
Many university administrations have already moved toward a business model, and many have expanded rapidly in the last few decades to extend new services to their "customers." Some of this is positive--some of the business approaches are efficient and practical, while some of those additional services make possible the success of students who would have struggled far more, if they even attended college, a few years ago--but some of it also draws resources away from universities' central mission of education. I can think broadly of a college education as involving far more than academics, but I also worry that that component is being increasingly marginalized. And in the case of Tressel, who will be expected to uphold Youngstown State's Code of Student Conduct, I can't help but think that important parts of that larger education--academics and otherwise--are being compromised.
Tressel--and lots of other coaches--clearly has some great qualifications for a position like this. He's glad-handed donors to raise funds, served as the public face of a university--even if he had to share the spotlight with E. Gordon Gee, the actual president at Ohio State (and a dude who--gasp--had been a professor, and burnished his credentials with a ludicrous bow tie)--he worked for, and been involved with running major departments with huge budgets and myriad employees. He may turn out to be a great fit, and incredibly adept.
But can we also take a minute to ridicule whoever edited Tressel's Wikipedia entry to identify him as "an educator and former American football coach"? I'll acknowledge that coaches can teach their athletes a heck of a lot, but the lessons Tressel has imparted...seem not to have been consistently those most of us would want college students to learn. And I'll acknowledge that most professors are the last people you'd want running anything of substance that involves practical approaches to complex problems, quick action over careful discussion, and meeting deadlines within cost constraints, nor are they always models of virtue.
Tressel may prove to be great at this job. He may recognize that he needs to delegate key duties to people with more experience in higher education, may realize that he needs to use his position to bolster a strong academic vice president's work and vision, may take seriously his responsibility to various components of his university--including athletics, of course, but also academics, and student services, areas in which he has less experience.
Many university administrations have already moved toward a business model, and many have expanded rapidly in the last few decades to extend new services to their "customers." Some of this is positive--some of the business approaches are efficient and practical, while some of those additional services make possible the success of students who would have struggled far more, if they even attended college, a few years ago--but some of it also draws resources away from universities' central mission of education. I can think broadly of a college education as involving far more than academics, but I also worry that that component is being increasingly marginalized. And in the case of Tressel, who will be expected to uphold Youngstown State's Code of Student Conduct, I can't help but think that important parts of that larger education--academics and otherwise--are being compromised.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Large steps forward
Congratulations to Michael Sam on becoming the first openly gay player to be drafted into the NFL. Hopefully he is able to earn a roster spot (on his merits as a player alone) and become the first openly gay player in the NFL. This is a huge step forward.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Josh Gordon... Wow
Josh Gordon is looking at a 1 year suspension for failing a drug test. Considering that there are two rules for being a millionaire NFL player, don't do illegal/performance enhancing drugs and don't break the law, this is really bizarre. The Browns are going to lose one of the three or four best WR in the league. Sheer stupidity. And if there are readers out there (I think we might have one or two) who want to argue whether marijuana should be legal, I'm not a sympathetic ear.
My two cents on the first round of the draft
I am pretty amazed by how much talent there is in the draft this year. I felt that most teams made reasonable picks. Obviously, it is impossible to tell which players will work out and which will flame out, but very few teams made head scratchers. I'm going to run down what I think are the best picks, and the worst picks.
Best picks:
Texans, Jadeveon Clowney - Kudos to them for not panicking and taking a second-rate QB first overall. This guy is the most talented player to enter the draft in years. They had to take him.
Browns, Justin Gilbert - They traded back and got a pretty nice bounty, then traded up a spot to get Gilbert. He is a very good cover corner. The Brows defense looks formidable, especially with Haden and Gilbert at the corners.
Rams, Robinson (2), Donald (13) - What a haul for the Rams. They have really cashed in on the RGIII trade. Robinson is a day one starter, and Aaron Donald might be a difference-maker immediately. I loved both of these picks. I was hoping (I know there was no chance!) that Donald would fall to 21 and the Packers would be forced to take him. I love that guy.
Ravens, CJ Mosley - Awesome pick. They chose the best player available.
Vikings, Teddy Bridgewater - I hate the Vikings. Their fans annoy me with their persistent "we are going to go at least 15-1 this year" attitudes. They are a great fan base, in part because they are so delusional about their team. Well, the time may finally be coming that they are no longer delusional. Teddy Bridgewater is the best QB in this draft. It isn't close. Don't fall into the Mike Mayock trap of "the tape looks wonderful, but I just hated that pro day." What a bunch of crap. The guy came up big in big games. He was the only QB that I thought was a first round QB. He will likely not start day 1, which may benefit him, but he will the QB for that team for the next 10-12 years. Great job by Spielman the last two years drafting really good players, especially by trading back into the first round.
Worst Picks:
Jaguars, Blake Bortles - This pick reeks of Blaine Gabbert. It also shows how much scouts can hype themselves into a pick between the end of the college football season and the draft. Blake Bortles is a big dude. He has a so-so arm. In addition, he has displayed very little ability to move through progressions. He is a major project, and by all accounts a nice guy. However, it's really funny how a guy with so-so arm talent and questionable instinct at the position becomes viewed as a guy (these are things I heard on the broadcasts last night) "big arm" "great athlete" (4.9 40?). I just don't think this is going to work out well for the Jaguars. They could have continued to build their defense, or taken a WR. The QBs later in the draft aren't really any different than this guy.
Browns, Johnny Manziel - I just don't think the guy can play in the NFL. He reminds me of Cade McNown. Terrible personality, not the best passer, undersized, etc. The only difference is he isn't left handed. I could be way off, but I don't think I've ever disagreed more with scouts. The only thing Manziel will bring to the Browns is hype and media attention, which is good for the franchise, but I think the best quarterback on their roster is still Hoyer.
Those are my opinions. I'm probably wrong on all of them. I'll check back on this in 3-4 years and see just how wrong I was!
Best picks:
Texans, Jadeveon Clowney - Kudos to them for not panicking and taking a second-rate QB first overall. This guy is the most talented player to enter the draft in years. They had to take him.
Browns, Justin Gilbert - They traded back and got a pretty nice bounty, then traded up a spot to get Gilbert. He is a very good cover corner. The Brows defense looks formidable, especially with Haden and Gilbert at the corners.
Rams, Robinson (2), Donald (13) - What a haul for the Rams. They have really cashed in on the RGIII trade. Robinson is a day one starter, and Aaron Donald might be a difference-maker immediately. I loved both of these picks. I was hoping (I know there was no chance!) that Donald would fall to 21 and the Packers would be forced to take him. I love that guy.
Ravens, CJ Mosley - Awesome pick. They chose the best player available.
Vikings, Teddy Bridgewater - I hate the Vikings. Their fans annoy me with their persistent "we are going to go at least 15-1 this year" attitudes. They are a great fan base, in part because they are so delusional about their team. Well, the time may finally be coming that they are no longer delusional. Teddy Bridgewater is the best QB in this draft. It isn't close. Don't fall into the Mike Mayock trap of "the tape looks wonderful, but I just hated that pro day." What a bunch of crap. The guy came up big in big games. He was the only QB that I thought was a first round QB. He will likely not start day 1, which may benefit him, but he will the QB for that team for the next 10-12 years. Great job by Spielman the last two years drafting really good players, especially by trading back into the first round.
Worst Picks:
Jaguars, Blake Bortles - This pick reeks of Blaine Gabbert. It also shows how much scouts can hype themselves into a pick between the end of the college football season and the draft. Blake Bortles is a big dude. He has a so-so arm. In addition, he has displayed very little ability to move through progressions. He is a major project, and by all accounts a nice guy. However, it's really funny how a guy with so-so arm talent and questionable instinct at the position becomes viewed as a guy (these are things I heard on the broadcasts last night) "big arm" "great athlete" (4.9 40?). I just don't think this is going to work out well for the Jaguars. They could have continued to build their defense, or taken a WR. The QBs later in the draft aren't really any different than this guy.
Browns, Johnny Manziel - I just don't think the guy can play in the NFL. He reminds me of Cade McNown. Terrible personality, not the best passer, undersized, etc. The only difference is he isn't left handed. I could be way off, but I don't think I've ever disagreed more with scouts. The only thing Manziel will bring to the Browns is hype and media attention, which is good for the franchise, but I think the best quarterback on their roster is still Hoyer.
Those are my opinions. I'm probably wrong on all of them. I'll check back on this in 3-4 years and see just how wrong I was!
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Last bit of trust in Mayock lost...
Watching the end of the first round, and Mayock has officially lost it. He hates Teddy Bridgewater so much, that he is trying to find an alternate reason that the Vikings traded back into the first round (32nd pick). I don't know who the pick is, but he literally said "I need to look at my draft board and see if it could be anybody else" then buried his face in his paperwork. On TV! Seriously? He literally just went blank and stared down at his paperwork. Just saw it is Bridgewater... Good pick by the Vikings... Excellent job by Mayock just plain losing the ability to function on TV because he doesn't like a player.
Navigating Life to Watch the Draft?
I'm a complete loser. I like to watch the draft. When it was on Saturdays, and I was in grad school living 110 miles away from my wife, this was a pretty easy thing to accomplish. Now that we are in the same home, with a 2 year old, all I can do is hope and pray that the kid is in bed and the wife hasn't planned something better for us to do so that I can watch the draft. Pretty much anything is less of a waste of time, so I think my odds are about 25% that I am actually watching when the Packers pick at 21, and about 40% when Bridgewater inexplicably is not selected at the end of round 1. Good luck to me!
Green Bay Packers Draft Priorities
The NFL draft is today, so my Packers fanboy tendencies are really going to show today! I read a lot of mock drafts, and believe very few of them. They are never very clear if they are placing players at spots because they think the teams will take them or because they think the player should be taken at that spot by that team. In addition, none of these guys are in the room and know the draft board (except Peter King, who apparently lives in the St. Louis Rams draft room... Wonder if they have good coffee...).
I see a lot of steam for the Packers considering a CB at 21. The last thing they need is a corner. Even if they move Micah Hyde to safety (which is apparently an option), they still do not need a first round corner unless it is a huge value. The Packers have three very good CB options (I am going to assume they all stay healthy... You can't predict injuries). Tramon Williams played very well last year. He is hot and cold as a tackler, but is generally reliable in coverage. Sam Shields held his own against AJ Green and Calvin Johnson last year despite being significantly shorter than both. He is a very good corner, and gets better every year. In addition, he has become a more willing tackler. Finally, Casey Hayward is an excellent slot corner, and could probably play outside as well. When healthy, he may be the best of the three. This combination of players makes CB a position of strength, not weakness. In fact, in watching games last season, it was obvious that poor safety play made everybody on the defense look bad. In addition, they may not be the best group of tacklers, but AJ Hawk and the rest of the ILB group are so unathletic that the DBs are asked to make far too many open field tackles.
With that said, the Packers need an ILB. If CJ Mosley falls to them, who cares about the injury history! They need to pull the trigger. He is the best LB in the draft, and would immediately upgrade that position. They could also choose to address the safety position, although I don't see much of a difference between the players in the first round (Pryor or Clinton-Dix) and later round players like Brock Vereen. Bottom line, the Packers will take the best player available or trade to positions that allow them to select picks that fit needs at appropriate value. I'm very excited, and hoping that Mosley falls to 21.
One last note. It will not happen, but if Aaron Donald somehow falls to 21, take him. I'm calling it now, he is the best player in this draft (not a huge stretch, but still). I don't care if he is better suited to a 4-3. He is disruptive and aggressive and athletic. You alter your defense for players like him.
Enough said! Let's get this thing started!
I see a lot of steam for the Packers considering a CB at 21. The last thing they need is a corner. Even if they move Micah Hyde to safety (which is apparently an option), they still do not need a first round corner unless it is a huge value. The Packers have three very good CB options (I am going to assume they all stay healthy... You can't predict injuries). Tramon Williams played very well last year. He is hot and cold as a tackler, but is generally reliable in coverage. Sam Shields held his own against AJ Green and Calvin Johnson last year despite being significantly shorter than both. He is a very good corner, and gets better every year. In addition, he has become a more willing tackler. Finally, Casey Hayward is an excellent slot corner, and could probably play outside as well. When healthy, he may be the best of the three. This combination of players makes CB a position of strength, not weakness. In fact, in watching games last season, it was obvious that poor safety play made everybody on the defense look bad. In addition, they may not be the best group of tacklers, but AJ Hawk and the rest of the ILB group are so unathletic that the DBs are asked to make far too many open field tackles.
With that said, the Packers need an ILB. If CJ Mosley falls to them, who cares about the injury history! They need to pull the trigger. He is the best LB in the draft, and would immediately upgrade that position. They could also choose to address the safety position, although I don't see much of a difference between the players in the first round (Pryor or Clinton-Dix) and later round players like Brock Vereen. Bottom line, the Packers will take the best player available or trade to positions that allow them to select picks that fit needs at appropriate value. I'm very excited, and hoping that Mosley falls to 21.
One last note. It will not happen, but if Aaron Donald somehow falls to 21, take him. I'm calling it now, he is the best player in this draft (not a huge stretch, but still). I don't care if he is better suited to a 4-3. He is disruptive and aggressive and athletic. You alter your defense for players like him.
Enough said! Let's get this thing started!
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Mark Jackson Fired
Today the Golden State Warriors fired Mark Jackson after a 51-31 season. This is a team that has been nearly invisible since Chris Mullen retired. They lost to the best Clippers team ever in seven games. Winning in the Western Conference is extremely difficult as evidenced by 5 wins earning the 6 seed. I'm pretty sure the Warrior didn't lose because of Mark Jackson but because they ran into a better team. I think they will regret this move.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Boxing
I've never been a big fan of boxing. It was interesting mostly because of the personalities that were at their peak during the '90s and early 2000s. Tyson, Holyfield, Oscar De la Hoya, Lewis, etc etc. But nowadays I don't think i've ever cared less about a single sport in the entire world. I've caught myself watching bull fighting, darts, bowling on espn the last year. Not really paying attention but somewhat being an observer. It's the only sport where the top two fighters don't fight but yet one can remain the "champion." Why a network (showtime) paid mayweather 90 million dollars a year I will never know. Even MMA was entertaining to a degree. I got really into it a few years ago and now...eh....not really. But at least I respect those fighters way more than i do boxers. Boxing reminds me of people playing home run derby and than the dude that hit the most bragging about how he is the best baseball player. No, hitting is one element of baseball, just as boxing is of fighting. Mixed martial arts at least at the elite levels has so many fighters, using so many techniques and styles. Boxing is one element of many, that make me respect these fighters way more than boxing. Tell me I'm wrong but boxing is boring, out dated, and when you have a title fight set up that's not between the top fighters it's not a championship fight.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Damn you NHL! You are a train wreck!
I got very excited when the Wild one their first round series against the Avalanche. I'm not much of a hockey fan, but I enjoyed getting behind the local team. I got really excited to see them play the Blackhawks tonight. As such, I used the DirecTV guide to find the game, and it was on NBCSHD. Great! Tune to channel! What? I don't get that channel? The local team is not available to an individual who is paying $60+ per month? It should be available on broadcast television. If NHL players are wondering why they had their salaries severely cut during the last collective bargaining negotiations, just take a look at the number of casual fans who don't give a crap about your sport because you horribly-run organization doesn't even allow local fans to watch the games. Oh well. At least I have Rockets vs. Blazers to watch. If only Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje was still a Trailblazer, then I would be completely content!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)