From Mike Lombardi at the national football post:
The 49ers finished strong last year, winning their final two games against the Lions and Rams to get to the .500 mark.
Here, I'll go ahead and write that again:
The 49ers finished strong last year, winning their final two games against the Lions and Rams to get to the .500 mark.
Yeah, that's right. He's claiming that the 49ers finished strong last year by beating the two worst teams in the league. In other words, the 49ers might have finished last season 6-10 had they played real opponents at the end of the year, and all of the good feelings about that team might not be there.
The 49ers will be getting a lot of preseason buzz as a potential sleeper because they did show signs of life late last year, and because the Cardinals lost some key players (namely, Kurt Warner and Karlos Dansby). However, it would wise not to put the cart before the horse here.
If you ever read about the 49ers, one that that's always mentioned is how they're trying to become a "Mike Singletary team." This is one of those preseason buzz terms to get fans excited that doesn't mean dick once the games start. What it means is they want to run the ball and play good defense (because, you know, the rest of the league doesn't want to do that). A "Mike Singletary team" might have won back in the 1970s, but in today's NFL you have to throw the football. There were 10 QBs last season who threw for over 4,000 yards last season. Ten! Six of the eight division champions had one of those QBs (and one who didn't was Arizona and Kurt Warner, because of injury; they threw the ball plenty well). This is a passing league now, and yet the 49ers seem to be chasing the ghosts of the '70s Dolphins in finding success.
A lot of people will point to the Jets last season as a "Singletary" team that won, but anyone who actually watched the games noticed that Mark Sanchez played a lot better in the postseason than he did during the regular season. Had Sanchez not created some plays in the passing game, they wouldn't have gotten out of the first round against Cincinnati. And besides, did the Jets win the Super Bowl? No. Did they make it to the Super Bowl? No, they lost to the Peyton Manning-led, can't-hardly-run-the-ball Colts.
The running game is overrated in today's NFL. It should be nothing more than a change of pace to your passing game, with the ability to convert short-yardage. If it's your bread and butter, you'll have to scratch and claw to make the playoffs, like the Jets did last year. The Vikings tried to be a "run the ball, play good defense" team, and the best that got them was 10-6. But as soon as Favre joined the team and the passing game took off, they went 12-4. The San Diego Chargers couldn't run the ball at all last season and they went 13-3.
The 49ers are chasing fool's good. This is a QB-driven league, and unless Alex Smith turns it around, the 49ers will continue to finish around .500. Luckily for them, however, they play in the NFC West, and Warner's retirement clears the way for them to win the division at 9-7.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Why Jeff Samardzija was a gift from the media gods
I swear if Samardzija had never existed, media people would have no one to compare white Notre Dame receivers to. From an article on Notre Dame receiver John Goodman:
There is a long way to go, but these two are remindful of the Brady Quinn to Jeff Samardzija combination.
You'll never guess what race Goodman is (or new starting QB Dayne Crist, who gets compared to Quinn in this instance). Is there any reason Goodman couldn't be Maurice Stovall, Rhema McKnight, Golden Tate or Arnaz Battle, other recent standout receivers at Notre Dame? Of all the potential pairings to choose from (Clausen to Tate, Quinn to Stovall, Quinn to McKnight), it had to be Quinn to Samardzija. Goodman, by the way, doesn't have the size that Samardzija did, making the comparison essentially moot. He's built more like Rhema McKnight, but McKnight's black so we can't make that comparison. Here's another good one:
Goodman was a standout all-purpose athlete at Bishop Dwenger in Fort Wayne, Ind., handling everything from punt duties, to quarterback and defensive back responsibilities. He has soft hands and underrated speed.
Now why do you suppose he has "underrated speed?" Do you suppose any of Notre Dame's current black receivers has "underrated speed?" Of course not. In almost every write-up you see on a white receiver, it has to be mentioned how they have underrated or deceptive speed. What the hell is so underrated about it?
You know, if Wes Welker, Brandon Stokely, Ricky Proehl, Ed McCaffrey and Jeff Samardzija hadn't existed, they'd have nobody to compare the upcoming crop of white receivers to. Jordan Shipley...yeah, he's like Wes Welker. Eric Decker...he's like Ed McCaffrey. The most recent Notre Dame white receivers, Robby Paris and John Goodman...they are, of course, Samardzija.
I look forward to Toby Gerhart ceaselessly being compared to Mike Alstott. I guarantee he won't be compared to Jerome Bettis or Brandon Jacobs, or some other big back. No, it'll be Alstott. Just for fun:
Toby Gerhart - 231 lbs.: 4.55 40 at the Combine
Dexter McCluster - 172 lbs.: 4.58 40 at the Combine
There is a long way to go, but these two are remindful of the Brady Quinn to Jeff Samardzija combination.
You'll never guess what race Goodman is (or new starting QB Dayne Crist, who gets compared to Quinn in this instance). Is there any reason Goodman couldn't be Maurice Stovall, Rhema McKnight, Golden Tate or Arnaz Battle, other recent standout receivers at Notre Dame? Of all the potential pairings to choose from (Clausen to Tate, Quinn to Stovall, Quinn to McKnight), it had to be Quinn to Samardzija. Goodman, by the way, doesn't have the size that Samardzija did, making the comparison essentially moot. He's built more like Rhema McKnight, but McKnight's black so we can't make that comparison. Here's another good one:
Goodman was a standout all-purpose athlete at Bishop Dwenger in Fort Wayne, Ind., handling everything from punt duties, to quarterback and defensive back responsibilities. He has soft hands and underrated speed.
Now why do you suppose he has "underrated speed?" Do you suppose any of Notre Dame's current black receivers has "underrated speed?" Of course not. In almost every write-up you see on a white receiver, it has to be mentioned how they have underrated or deceptive speed. What the hell is so underrated about it?
You know, if Wes Welker, Brandon Stokely, Ricky Proehl, Ed McCaffrey and Jeff Samardzija hadn't existed, they'd have nobody to compare the upcoming crop of white receivers to. Jordan Shipley...yeah, he's like Wes Welker. Eric Decker...he's like Ed McCaffrey. The most recent Notre Dame white receivers, Robby Paris and John Goodman...they are, of course, Samardzija.
I look forward to Toby Gerhart ceaselessly being compared to Mike Alstott. I guarantee he won't be compared to Jerome Bettis or Brandon Jacobs, or some other big back. No, it'll be Alstott. Just for fun:
Toby Gerhart - 231 lbs.: 4.55 40 at the Combine
Dexter McCluster - 172 lbs.: 4.58 40 at the Combine
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Miami makes a monumental mistake
And I don't mean the Dolphins.
The Hurricanes gave Randy Shannon a 4-year extension today, locking him up for the forseeable future. Did we learn nothing from the Charlie Weis experience? You don't pay a coach until he's honestly, truly won something. I think Shannon has done a nice job bringing Miami back from the depths that Larry Coker sank them to, but let's be honest; the best bowl game he's been to is the Champ Sports Bowl, which Miami lost to Wisconsin last season. Has he won the ACC yet? No. Has he even played in the ACC Championship Game yet? Oh no. Miami is essentially giving him this contract on faith, which is a big mistake.
This upcoming season is going to be pivotal for Shannon. Miami has a brutal non-conference schedule; after a warmup against Florida A&M, Miami goes to Ohio State, to Pittsburgh and to Clemson in what has to be the toughest stretch of games in the country. The next step for Shannon is to win the ACC, which Miami can do. Georgia Tech is the best team in the conference, and Miami trounced them a season ago. The nonconference schedule is brutal, but that shouldn't stop them from winning their conference games.
So why did Miami give him an extension before he had truly proven himself? I have no idea. At least with Weis, Notre Dame had the (possibly legitimate) fear of him going back to the NFL. Randy Shannon has nowhere else to go; there was nothing to stop Miami from having him coach the season, and then revisit his contract. In fact, that would have been the prudent thing to do. After this season, Shannon will have had 4 seasons to coach Miami, and I think that's enough time to fairly judge him. If he hasn't won the ACC in four years, he probably never will. Miami absolutely jumped the gun on this one, and I would not at all be shocked if they end up eating a lot of this contract. This feels like a mistake from the word go.
The Hurricanes gave Randy Shannon a 4-year extension today, locking him up for the forseeable future. Did we learn nothing from the Charlie Weis experience? You don't pay a coach until he's honestly, truly won something. I think Shannon has done a nice job bringing Miami back from the depths that Larry Coker sank them to, but let's be honest; the best bowl game he's been to is the Champ Sports Bowl, which Miami lost to Wisconsin last season. Has he won the ACC yet? No. Has he even played in the ACC Championship Game yet? Oh no. Miami is essentially giving him this contract on faith, which is a big mistake.
This upcoming season is going to be pivotal for Shannon. Miami has a brutal non-conference schedule; after a warmup against Florida A&M, Miami goes to Ohio State, to Pittsburgh and to Clemson in what has to be the toughest stretch of games in the country. The next step for Shannon is to win the ACC, which Miami can do. Georgia Tech is the best team in the conference, and Miami trounced them a season ago. The nonconference schedule is brutal, but that shouldn't stop them from winning their conference games.
So why did Miami give him an extension before he had truly proven himself? I have no idea. At least with Weis, Notre Dame had the (possibly legitimate) fear of him going back to the NFL. Randy Shannon has nowhere else to go; there was nothing to stop Miami from having him coach the season, and then revisit his contract. In fact, that would have been the prudent thing to do. After this season, Shannon will have had 4 seasons to coach Miami, and I think that's enough time to fairly judge him. If he hasn't won the ACC in four years, he probably never will. Miami absolutely jumped the gun on this one, and I would not at all be shocked if they end up eating a lot of this contract. This feels like a mistake from the word go.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Something I just realized
This is an entirely plausible scenario for the Cleveland Browns that should have all of their fans shrieking in agony.
- Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace play the entire season, with Colt McCoy only getting token snaps at the end of blowouts (and they'll be involved in plenty of them).
- The team talks itself into Colt McCoy as the future at the position, even though he'll have shown virtually nothing on the field.
- They go into next offseason believing they already have a QB in McCoy, so they use their high draft pick on a position other than QB.
- McCoy flops as a starter in 2011 (if there's a season; a lockout sounds like a distinct possibility), leaving the Browns with yet another high draft pick, and still no QB.
The Browns are in a very tenuous position here at QB. They have shitty veterans, and a young QB drafted in a round that QBs typically don't succeed in (Brodie Croyle, Charlie Whitehurst, Trent Edwards, any success stories yet?). So the veterans suck this year...they go into 2011 with McCoy. McCoy sucks, much like almost every QB drafted in the 3rd round...they enter the 2012 offseason with still no QB.
Mike Holmgren has completely fucked this franchise, in my opinion. If they wanted a veteran, they should have traded for Jason Campbell. He only cost the Raiders a draft pick in 2012, for cripes sake. Or they could have held onto Quinn, giving him one more shot. Either way, acquiring Seneca Delhomme was the worst possible move they could have made.
What they really should have done is put together a package to get the #1 pick and draft Sam Bradford. They didn't like Clausen, so fine go get Bradford then. He'll cost you a lot of draft picks and money? Who gives a fuck, do you want a QB or not? Trying to get by on the cheap at QB will never lead you to victory. The Minnesota Vikings once went this route at QB, and they only got bailed out by Favre becoming available as a free agent. And even with Favre, they still don't have a QB of the future.
If I had one piece of advice for the Browns going forward, it would be to not fall in love with McCoy unless he actually produces on the field. They can't just hand him the starting job in 2011 without tangible proof that he can play; go out and acquire a QB to compete with him (preferably a first round pick; let's get some freaking talent, huh), and you know what? If McCoy pans out, you now have two QBs who can play and a great trading chip. This is what makes the Panthers' drafting of Clausen so good; if Matt Moore pans out, they can pay him to be the long-term starter, and just let Clausen's value increase while he seasons on the bench and teams become desperate to acquire a young veteran. Charlie Whitehurst has legitimately sucked at every level (college, pre-season in the NFL, he's never put up good numbers), and yet the Seahawks swapped 2nd round picks with San Diego this year, and traded a 4th round pick next year to acquire him. Just let Clausen simmer on the bench, and he'll start to look more and more attractive.
Knowing the Browns, though, they will just hand McCoy the starting job next year, he'll suck and they'll enter 2012 still with questions at QB. This is how far Mike Holmgren has potentially set this franchise back; when you consider it takes a rookie QB at least a year or two to develop (Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco still are not finished products), it could be 2013 or 2014 before the Browns enter a season with a good QB. Trade up for Bradford? Trade for Jason Campbell and draft Clausen? Put Josh Cribbs at QB and run the option all day? All better options than what Holmgren elected to do, and the Browns, amazingly, enter 2010 with a worse QB situation than they exited 2009 with.
---
Speaking of Whitehurst, hilariously the Seahawks could have simply drafted Clausen at 40 had they never made that trade, but instead their 2nd round pick was 60th overall, at which point Clausen was no longer available. According to everything I've read, the Seahawks were legitimately interested in Clausen and would have drafted him at 60, meaning they would have drafted him at 40.
In other words, had they never swapped 2nd round picks in order to acquire a career 3rd string QB who sucked in college, they could have come away from this draft with Russell Okung, Earl Thomas and Jimmy Clausen, a haul that could potentially change a franchise. Instead they still ended up with a good haul, but Golden Tate (who they drafted at 60) won't affect their franchise like Clausen could have. Just hilarious how that worked out. I knew that Whitehurst trade was dumb at the time; now it could be franchise-altering.
- Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace play the entire season, with Colt McCoy only getting token snaps at the end of blowouts (and they'll be involved in plenty of them).
- The team talks itself into Colt McCoy as the future at the position, even though he'll have shown virtually nothing on the field.
- They go into next offseason believing they already have a QB in McCoy, so they use their high draft pick on a position other than QB.
- McCoy flops as a starter in 2011 (if there's a season; a lockout sounds like a distinct possibility), leaving the Browns with yet another high draft pick, and still no QB.
The Browns are in a very tenuous position here at QB. They have shitty veterans, and a young QB drafted in a round that QBs typically don't succeed in (Brodie Croyle, Charlie Whitehurst, Trent Edwards, any success stories yet?). So the veterans suck this year...they go into 2011 with McCoy. McCoy sucks, much like almost every QB drafted in the 3rd round...they enter the 2012 offseason with still no QB.
Mike Holmgren has completely fucked this franchise, in my opinion. If they wanted a veteran, they should have traded for Jason Campbell. He only cost the Raiders a draft pick in 2012, for cripes sake. Or they could have held onto Quinn, giving him one more shot. Either way, acquiring Seneca Delhomme was the worst possible move they could have made.
What they really should have done is put together a package to get the #1 pick and draft Sam Bradford. They didn't like Clausen, so fine go get Bradford then. He'll cost you a lot of draft picks and money? Who gives a fuck, do you want a QB or not? Trying to get by on the cheap at QB will never lead you to victory. The Minnesota Vikings once went this route at QB, and they only got bailed out by Favre becoming available as a free agent. And even with Favre, they still don't have a QB of the future.
If I had one piece of advice for the Browns going forward, it would be to not fall in love with McCoy unless he actually produces on the field. They can't just hand him the starting job in 2011 without tangible proof that he can play; go out and acquire a QB to compete with him (preferably a first round pick; let's get some freaking talent, huh), and you know what? If McCoy pans out, you now have two QBs who can play and a great trading chip. This is what makes the Panthers' drafting of Clausen so good; if Matt Moore pans out, they can pay him to be the long-term starter, and just let Clausen's value increase while he seasons on the bench and teams become desperate to acquire a young veteran. Charlie Whitehurst has legitimately sucked at every level (college, pre-season in the NFL, he's never put up good numbers), and yet the Seahawks swapped 2nd round picks with San Diego this year, and traded a 4th round pick next year to acquire him. Just let Clausen simmer on the bench, and he'll start to look more and more attractive.
Knowing the Browns, though, they will just hand McCoy the starting job next year, he'll suck and they'll enter 2012 still with questions at QB. This is how far Mike Holmgren has potentially set this franchise back; when you consider it takes a rookie QB at least a year or two to develop (Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco still are not finished products), it could be 2013 or 2014 before the Browns enter a season with a good QB. Trade up for Bradford? Trade for Jason Campbell and draft Clausen? Put Josh Cribbs at QB and run the option all day? All better options than what Holmgren elected to do, and the Browns, amazingly, enter 2010 with a worse QB situation than they exited 2009 with.
---
Speaking of Whitehurst, hilariously the Seahawks could have simply drafted Clausen at 40 had they never made that trade, but instead their 2nd round pick was 60th overall, at which point Clausen was no longer available. According to everything I've read, the Seahawks were legitimately interested in Clausen and would have drafted him at 60, meaning they would have drafted him at 40.
In other words, had they never swapped 2nd round picks in order to acquire a career 3rd string QB who sucked in college, they could have come away from this draft with Russell Okung, Earl Thomas and Jimmy Clausen, a haul that could potentially change a franchise. Instead they still ended up with a good haul, but Golden Tate (who they drafted at 60) won't affect their franchise like Clausen could have. Just hilarious how that worked out. I knew that Whitehurst trade was dumb at the time; now it could be franchise-altering.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
As opposed to a smaller, shorter, left-handed Ty Detmer
I was looking up stats on Washington QB Jake Locker, and I came across this beauty of a quote:
Schefter posted on his Twitter page that an anonymous NFL GM, in speaking with ESPN NFL analyst Chris Mortensen, told Mortensen that Locker is "a bigger, taller, right-handed version of Steve Young."
You know, when I go about comparing players, I try to come up with as many differences between the two as possible. And you wonder how Cleveland can go into a season with Seneca Delhomme at QB, and Buffalo can go with a three-headed monster (Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Brohm) equivalent to the center situation of the Chicago Bulls during their second three-peat (Longley, Wennington, Perdue).
Little known fact; half of the teams in the league are run by fucking idiots, and I don't say that lightly. Cleveland is horrific on offense; they use their top two picks on a corner and safety. Buffalo needs a QB in the worst way; they draft a situational RB and a nose tackle nobody's heard of (and hire Chan Gailey to coach these players, on top of all that). JaMarcus Russell somehow manages to underperform Ryan Leaf; Oakland refuses to cut him (I'm still hoping Al comes to his senses on that one, or someone pulls the plug on him so they can finally get rid of that fat fucking disgrace; I can't handle anymore 6-24 performances against UFL-level Kansas City).
This is how Dallas ends up with one of the three most talented players in the draft with the 24th pick. This is how Baltimore trades out of the first round, and still manages to acquire two good young players for their front seven (Sergio Kindle and Terrance Cody). This is how Carolina, without a first round pick, ends up with a potential starting QB at 48. Because teams like Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland and Kansas City are run absolutely horrifically. Kansas City has no nose tackle or pass rush; they draft a safety (a damn good one, but still a safety). And then in the 2nd round they come back with Dexter McCluster, who's not quite a WR or RB, and Javier Arenas, who's a nice nickel corner and potential return guy. These are nice picks if the team is loaded, but the Chiefs quite clearly are not. Russell Okung pushes Branden Albert to another position and kills two birds with one stone, but that would be smart. The two 2nd round picks that Baltimore made would have been great for Kansas City, but they went for situational players instead. Apparently they don't realize the only situations they'll be in next year are on the receiving end of blowout losses. And let's not forget that they're QB'ed by captain checkdown, Matt Cassel.
All I ask are that teams be run logically. I don't have to agree with every move, since I'm not perfect either. But at least let me see the logic in these moves. These teams (Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland, Kansas City) are completely illogical. Let's face it; the Raiders are only getting credit for drafting Rolando McClain because the expectations are so low for Oakland. Drafting anyone other than Usain Bolt was going to be seen as a success for them, after last year's disaster. But come on...8 is a bit high to be drafting a middle linebacker. Patrick Willis is the best MLB in football, and one of the best to come around in a long time, and he was drafted 12th overall I believe. Brian Urlacher went 9th once upon a time. Lofa Tatupu and Karlos Dansby were 2nd rounders; Jon Beason went in the last first. The point is, the top-10 is not good value for a MLB, but since Oakland's draft was such a resounding disaster last season, the fact that they drafted anyone close to value at 8 was seen as successful, but in actuality it speaks to how ineptly they're run. We expect so little of them that even when they do make a semi-questionable pick, it's okay because at least it wasn't a track star playing football.
The Bills didn't draft a QB until the 7th round. The Browns didn't draft one until the 3rd round, and the one they did draft has a noddle arm that should be a real treat to watch in the circling winds off of Lake Erie. You wonder how this can happen with millions of dollars, and people's careers, at stake and then you remember...oh yeah, these are the same people who compare Jake Locker to Steve Young by contrasting them in every way.
Schefter posted on his Twitter page that an anonymous NFL GM, in speaking with ESPN NFL analyst Chris Mortensen, told Mortensen that Locker is "a bigger, taller, right-handed version of Steve Young."
You know, when I go about comparing players, I try to come up with as many differences between the two as possible. And you wonder how Cleveland can go into a season with Seneca Delhomme at QB, and Buffalo can go with a three-headed monster (Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Brohm) equivalent to the center situation of the Chicago Bulls during their second three-peat (Longley, Wennington, Perdue).
Little known fact; half of the teams in the league are run by fucking idiots, and I don't say that lightly. Cleveland is horrific on offense; they use their top two picks on a corner and safety. Buffalo needs a QB in the worst way; they draft a situational RB and a nose tackle nobody's heard of (and hire Chan Gailey to coach these players, on top of all that). JaMarcus Russell somehow manages to underperform Ryan Leaf; Oakland refuses to cut him (I'm still hoping Al comes to his senses on that one, or someone pulls the plug on him so they can finally get rid of that fat fucking disgrace; I can't handle anymore 6-24 performances against UFL-level Kansas City).
This is how Dallas ends up with one of the three most talented players in the draft with the 24th pick. This is how Baltimore trades out of the first round, and still manages to acquire two good young players for their front seven (Sergio Kindle and Terrance Cody). This is how Carolina, without a first round pick, ends up with a potential starting QB at 48. Because teams like Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland and Kansas City are run absolutely horrifically. Kansas City has no nose tackle or pass rush; they draft a safety (a damn good one, but still a safety). And then in the 2nd round they come back with Dexter McCluster, who's not quite a WR or RB, and Javier Arenas, who's a nice nickel corner and potential return guy. These are nice picks if the team is loaded, but the Chiefs quite clearly are not. Russell Okung pushes Branden Albert to another position and kills two birds with one stone, but that would be smart. The two 2nd round picks that Baltimore made would have been great for Kansas City, but they went for situational players instead. Apparently they don't realize the only situations they'll be in next year are on the receiving end of blowout losses. And let's not forget that they're QB'ed by captain checkdown, Matt Cassel.
All I ask are that teams be run logically. I don't have to agree with every move, since I'm not perfect either. But at least let me see the logic in these moves. These teams (Cleveland, Buffalo, Oakland, Kansas City) are completely illogical. Let's face it; the Raiders are only getting credit for drafting Rolando McClain because the expectations are so low for Oakland. Drafting anyone other than Usain Bolt was going to be seen as a success for them, after last year's disaster. But come on...8 is a bit high to be drafting a middle linebacker. Patrick Willis is the best MLB in football, and one of the best to come around in a long time, and he was drafted 12th overall I believe. Brian Urlacher went 9th once upon a time. Lofa Tatupu and Karlos Dansby were 2nd rounders; Jon Beason went in the last first. The point is, the top-10 is not good value for a MLB, but since Oakland's draft was such a resounding disaster last season, the fact that they drafted anyone close to value at 8 was seen as successful, but in actuality it speaks to how ineptly they're run. We expect so little of them that even when they do make a semi-questionable pick, it's okay because at least it wasn't a track star playing football.
The Bills didn't draft a QB until the 7th round. The Browns didn't draft one until the 3rd round, and the one they did draft has a noddle arm that should be a real treat to watch in the circling winds off of Lake Erie. You wonder how this can happen with millions of dollars, and people's careers, at stake and then you remember...oh yeah, these are the same people who compare Jake Locker to Steve Young by contrasting them in every way.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
An airball of an attempt to defend an MVP vote
I try not to write about the NBA here, as it's not really my cup of tea. But I had to pass along this article written by John Denton, a writer for orlandomagic.com, and someone who voted Dwight Howard MVP over LeBron James. I'm willing to listen to a defense of anything, even something as insane as Howard over LeBron, so let's get into it.
http://www.nba.com/magic/news/denton_howardmvpvote_050310.html
"I am here today to defend the Defensive Player of the Year, highlight the player usually left off SportsCenter’s highlights and say what those at ABC with their Cavs-Lakers pompons in the way won’t say:
It’s no slam dunk that LeBron James, as great of a player as he is, is absolutely, positively the best basketball player in the NBA."
I love, love, love the way he starts this out. Look at how defensive he is; can't you just hear the whiny tone? "The Cavs and Lakers are popular, whaa whaa whaa." Dwight Howard, of course, is popular in his own right, so this is a bogus assertion, but the real beauty is the last sentence. Realize for a second that he's voting for MVP, and he's basing his vote on the notion that maybe LeBron isn't the best player in the league. Uhh, Mr. Denton, what you need to prove is not that LeBron isn't the best player in the league, but that Dwight Howard is. Remember, you voted him for MVP.
"After all, Howard did something this season – lead the NBA in rebounds, blocked shots and field goal percentage – that no NBA player has done in the past 36 years."
Do you know why Howard has such a high field goal percentage? Because the only shots he takes are easy dunks and put-backs. He has a limited offensive game, therefore the only time he actually shoots the ball is when he's pretty much guaranteed to put it in. This is actually a point against Howard, in my opinion. If he was a true MVP he'd be taking more shots, as the Magic would run the offense through him. Instead he rebounds their missed 3s and puts down easy dunks. I'm not saying this a bad thing, I'm just saying you voted this guy freaking MVP for his high field goal percentage when it's only that high because of his own ineptitude.
Ahem...moving on.
"The NBA’s MVP is quickly becoming the Heisman Trophy of individual awards. In college football, quarterbacks and running backs are basically the only ones up for the award. And in the NBA, if you aren’t a high scoring wing player, you apparently have no shot at winning the top individual honor. Clearly, it’s defense by damned."
Again we get back to being defensive. I like the line, "if you aren't a high scoring wing player you can't win MVP." Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson...nope, no MVPs among them.
I was willing to listen to his defense of his vote, but he's such a whiny bitch that I can't hardly handle it anymore. Nobody would argue that Dwight Howard isn't a great defensive player; nobody would argue that he isn't the MVP of the Magic. However, we're talking the entire NBA here, and I think it's pretty clear who the best player in the NBA is. And you haven't even remotely convinced me otherwise. You know who else was a great defensive center? Dikembe Mutombo. That doesn't mean he was ever MVP of the NBA.
Okay, two more beauties:
"And unlike James, who took six games off down the stretch, Howard played all 82 games for a fifth time in his six-year career."
"And I know the award is based on this past season alone, but I do think it’s worth noting that it was Howard’s Magic -- and not James’ Cavs -- who emerged from the Eastern Conference last spring."
Yeah that's right...he's docking LeBron because he sat out 6 meaningless games at the end of the season. And I would love to know why it's worth noting what happened last season when the award is for this season.
-----
I'm a big fan of Hakeem Olajuwon, although I wasn't so much when he played (mainly because he knocked out Barkley's Suns two years in a row). But as big of a fan as I am of Olajuwon, I would never say he was a better player than Michael Jordan. And that's essentially what this guy is doing. When people say it's insane to vote Howard over LeBron, it isn't because nobody appreciates Howard's skills. Everybody recognizes what a great defensiver player he is, and what he means to the Magic. But LeBron is the modern-day Jordan, the best player in the league and probably by a wide margin. There's no shame in what Howard is doing, and if you want to vote him first team all-NBA...well, that's a no-brainer.
But the only MVP votes that Howard got were from media members close the Orlando Magic, and they should have their votes rescinded. Whenever a media member shows that level of obvious bias, they should be taken out of the voting. The fact that nobody else in the country had Howard as the league's MVP shows you the level of bias here.
http://www.nba.com/magic/news/denton_howardmvpvote_050310.html
"I am here today to defend the Defensive Player of the Year, highlight the player usually left off SportsCenter’s highlights and say what those at ABC with their Cavs-Lakers pompons in the way won’t say:
It’s no slam dunk that LeBron James, as great of a player as he is, is absolutely, positively the best basketball player in the NBA."
I love, love, love the way he starts this out. Look at how defensive he is; can't you just hear the whiny tone? "The Cavs and Lakers are popular, whaa whaa whaa." Dwight Howard, of course, is popular in his own right, so this is a bogus assertion, but the real beauty is the last sentence. Realize for a second that he's voting for MVP, and he's basing his vote on the notion that maybe LeBron isn't the best player in the league. Uhh, Mr. Denton, what you need to prove is not that LeBron isn't the best player in the league, but that Dwight Howard is. Remember, you voted him for MVP.
"After all, Howard did something this season – lead the NBA in rebounds, blocked shots and field goal percentage – that no NBA player has done in the past 36 years."
Do you know why Howard has such a high field goal percentage? Because the only shots he takes are easy dunks and put-backs. He has a limited offensive game, therefore the only time he actually shoots the ball is when he's pretty much guaranteed to put it in. This is actually a point against Howard, in my opinion. If he was a true MVP he'd be taking more shots, as the Magic would run the offense through him. Instead he rebounds their missed 3s and puts down easy dunks. I'm not saying this a bad thing, I'm just saying you voted this guy freaking MVP for his high field goal percentage when it's only that high because of his own ineptitude.
Ahem...moving on.
"The NBA’s MVP is quickly becoming the Heisman Trophy of individual awards. In college football, quarterbacks and running backs are basically the only ones up for the award. And in the NBA, if you aren’t a high scoring wing player, you apparently have no shot at winning the top individual honor. Clearly, it’s defense by damned."
Again we get back to being defensive. I like the line, "if you aren't a high scoring wing player you can't win MVP." Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson...nope, no MVPs among them.
I was willing to listen to his defense of his vote, but he's such a whiny bitch that I can't hardly handle it anymore. Nobody would argue that Dwight Howard isn't a great defensive player; nobody would argue that he isn't the MVP of the Magic. However, we're talking the entire NBA here, and I think it's pretty clear who the best player in the NBA is. And you haven't even remotely convinced me otherwise. You know who else was a great defensive center? Dikembe Mutombo. That doesn't mean he was ever MVP of the NBA.
Okay, two more beauties:
"And unlike James, who took six games off down the stretch, Howard played all 82 games for a fifth time in his six-year career."
"And I know the award is based on this past season alone, but I do think it’s worth noting that it was Howard’s Magic -- and not James’ Cavs -- who emerged from the Eastern Conference last spring."
Yeah that's right...he's docking LeBron because he sat out 6 meaningless games at the end of the season. And I would love to know why it's worth noting what happened last season when the award is for this season.
-----
I'm a big fan of Hakeem Olajuwon, although I wasn't so much when he played (mainly because he knocked out Barkley's Suns two years in a row). But as big of a fan as I am of Olajuwon, I would never say he was a better player than Michael Jordan. And that's essentially what this guy is doing. When people say it's insane to vote Howard over LeBron, it isn't because nobody appreciates Howard's skills. Everybody recognizes what a great defensiver player he is, and what he means to the Magic. But LeBron is the modern-day Jordan, the best player in the league and probably by a wide margin. There's no shame in what Howard is doing, and if you want to vote him first team all-NBA...well, that's a no-brainer.
But the only MVP votes that Howard got were from media members close the Orlando Magic, and they should have their votes rescinded. Whenever a media member shows that level of obvious bias, they should be taken out of the voting. The fact that nobody else in the country had Howard as the league's MVP shows you the level of bias here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)