Hanging it up

One of my many downfalls of being a professional sports fan is that I watch the aging process of an athlete right in front of my eyes and watch as his body breaks down, is skills deteriorate and his attitude changes. Some athletes go off into the sunset riding high with a small decline but going out on their own accord rather than a string off injuries force him out or the unfortunate situation of not being signed as a free agency. Mariano Riveiera comes to mind, his last year was almost as impressive as all the previous years.  I dont remember or have any memories of Birds, Magics, Barkleys, etc last days playing, but I remember Jordans. Going to play in washington was so depressing to watch. I went to a kings game and watched Jordan in his last year but 15 points up in the 1st quarter, than watched as he went 2-17 the final 3 quarters, 2 missed lay ups, a dunk that he could barely put down, 1-7 from the free throw line and he finished the game with 22 points as he fouled out half way through the 4th quarter to a standing ovation from the crowd of innocent bystanders to that performance. I think the decline is much more visible in basketball because of the massive egos and the players are easily recognizable. Kobe comes to mind right now. I've nevvvvvvvvvvvvvver liked the guy, but despite the disdain for him, i've always said he's a top 5 player of all time. Not even Jordan could match the horror that I felt every time he launched a game tying/winning shot. His motion was flawless, his hustle is unquestionable, his desire to win is unmatched. Now, he's a former shell of himself...for the better part of 3 years he's had injury after injury and is no longer the player he once was. This got me wondering what other athletes, have basically nothing to prove should retire or walk away, though they might still be able to compete somewhat over the course of an entire season that's where the problems arise. Manning, you aren't going to win another super bowl, you own like 50 passing records, and despite the fact that you didn't win multiple super bowls you are still one of the greatest of all time, walk away my man. Baseball is unique from the other 2 major sports in that it has multiple positions that can help prolong a players career that is on the back end. DH, relief pitchers, spot starters, minors, etc, right field (<-----Just kidding). For the most part many athletes quietly leave the game without much noise and most casual fans a year after they retire or are forced to will randomly go..."what happened to Jermaine Dye, Eric Chavez, "insert name here" but for those that don't, I wish you a good retirement.

The games this weekend

Here are my picks, along with (ir)rationale.

Game 1: Packers at Seahawks.  Before I give the pick, I'm going to explain what I see.  I see a Packers team that has played poorly on the road this year against a few pretty good defenses (with the exception of the Saints).  I also see a Packers team with a very much improved defense and a really good offensive line (can't believe I'm saying it, and it's true!).  The Seahawks have a great defense.  They also have an offense with a really great ability to run the ball.  However, I think the Packers go into Seattle and win and here's why.  I think they will finally be able to slow down a mobile QB.  Wilson is really good, but if you force him to throw from the pocket, he gets a bit inaccurate.  I think the Packers contain him.  I see a close game, made 28-24.  I also see Rodgers playing like the best player in the league.  I'm probably going to be wrong, but who cares.  This game is going to be close either way, and I think the Packers pull it off.

Game 2:  Colts at Patriots.  The Patriots are going to blow the doors off the Colts.  The Colts have somehow appeared to have a good O-line and a good defense.  They have neither.  The Patriots will score early and often and win by at least 10.

manning

hahahhaahah. just retire my man. its embarrassing now.  

sincerly- brennan

Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?

I fall pretty squarely in the yes category for this question.  For a number of years, he was a top 3 QB (Manning and Brady were 1 and 2 for most of those).  However, these years were his Arizona years at the end of his career.  What I think gets him in is the early years with the Rams.  He was probably the best QB in the league (in hindsight) for the few years that he was QB of the Rams (the last two years aside... those were a mess with poor play and the whole Mark Bulger crap).  These years were prior to the ATG dominance that was Brady and Manning in the mid 2000s.  I guess the one thing I wonder is if he had the same career, but starting two years later, would he be in... The answer is maybe not.  I'm really big into defining a Hall of Fame career based on comparison to contemporaries, and Warner compares favorably.  He was probably the best early, and he was probably third best during the Arizona years, primarily because Aaron Rodgers had not ascended to that upper eschelon yet. 

This all seems like an arbitrary and very personal argument, and it's pretty good evidence that I shouldn't have a football HOF vote, but this is my view on the whole thing. 

Oh good, Oregon's not soft anymore

Why is "Oregon beat FSU so you can't see Oregon as soft anymore" a storyline? I heard it during the broadcast, I've seen it on ESPN and SI websites. I don't listen to talk radio or watch ESPN etc., but I'm sure it's all over the airwaves as well. This is a program that's seen success through three different head coaches, that's beaten USC and UCLA and Stanfurd in the Pac-10/12; that has beaten Kansas State and Texas and Wisconsin in major bowl games recently; that does so in part because its players are so well-conditioned they can run other teams into the ground (and yeah, that's "tough"). Ohio State isn't getting that vocabulary applied to it after beating Alabama, so I guess a soft OSU has never been part of the narrative--they just weren't very good for a bit there.

So is that "soft" storyline simply a refuge of lazy journalists? Is it just playing to the preconceptions of a bunch of college football fans who've spent the last decade insisting their conference is the only one in which real football is played and that teams out west are "soft" (which basically has seemed like a means of denying Pac-10/12 and minor conference teams access to the national championship whenever possible)? Is it just code for deriding sophisticated offensive innovation in favor of some conservative, romanticized impulse? Because I've been watching Pac football for 15 years, and watching other college games more the last few years because I live on the East Coast and can't find games I'm really interested in, and I don't see qualitative differences I'd characterize as "soft/tough." That's not to say that there aren't stronger and weaker conferences, stronger and weaker programs, stronger and weaker teams, but those characteristics are hardly as permanent as this shocked "Oregon's not soft" narrative would seem to imply.

So basically it seems like a made-up vocabulary designed to deny that western conferences and independent teams are equals of those in the southeast. And this reporting simply perpetuates that implication, even if it's one that makes little/no sense to people who've been paying attention and levying an honest assessment of what they see, rather than simply what they want to believe.