An internet post that prompts me to dust off this blog

This guy claims to write for several internet websites, so I figure he's fair game. Let's get to it.

http://outofmyleagueminnesota.blogspot.com/2011/03/10-reasons-vikings-should-trade-adrian.html

10 reasons the Vikings should trade Adrian Peterson. Okay, I'm all ears.

10. A Decline Appears Imminent
Due to circumstances beyond his control, Peterson is set up for a drop-off in production. Without a legitimate threat under center, he'll regularly face eight and nine-man boxes, neutralizing his effectiveness. He was able to overcome this in his first two seasons (he averaged a combined 5.2 YPC in 2007 and 2008), but he was aided by an offensive line that featured Pro Bowl center Matt Birk and All-World left guard Steve Hutchinson. Birk departed before the 2009 season, and the 33-year old Hutchinson's play has deteriorated rapidly. Despite the offensive line's backslide, Brett Favre was able to keep defenses honest enough for Peterson to churn out a respectable 4.5 YPC over the past two seasons. Unfortunately, there's not a quarterback in the draft or on the open market capable of diverting defensive attention away from Peterson in 2011. Hence, opposing defenses will be afforded the luxury of pinning their ears back and swarming to Peterson, with little resistance from an increasingly permeable offensive line.

We get off to a roaring start with reason #10. Notice how he completely contradicts his argument within his own argument. He's arguing that without a proven QB, Peterson's production will inevitably decline. This is a belief held by many people, but it's never supported by facts. He readily admits that Peterson's yards per carry was over 5 in 2007 and 2008, when Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger and Gus Frerotte all took turns playing QB. He then credits that production to the offensive line. Okay, so what is the lesson here? It's obviously not that who the QB is matters, because Peterson kicked ass no matter who it was.


9. He's Being Wasted
Piggybacking off my last point, Minnesota's once-feared offensive line has become a liability. Right tackle Phil Loadholt regressed in his sophomore season. Left tackle Bryant McKinnie plays when he wants to play. Left guard Steve Hutchinson, when healthy, is a shell of his former self. Center John Sullivan has been overmatched every step of the way, and right guard continues to be patched together by backup-caliber talent. Games are won in the trenches, so what's the point of shelling out top dollar for an elite running back when your offensive line is constantly moving backwards? Perhaps Barry Sanders could best answer that question -- it's nonsensical. The Vikings have put the cart before the horse.

This would be a fantastic argument for a post about how the Vikings need to upgrade their offensive line. That's not what this is, though, is it? Somehow the decline of the Vikings' offensive line means they should trade Peterson. Or how about another thought; maybe they should just go ahead and improve their offensive line. Somehow the guy writes about the decline of the Vikings' offensive line and does not come to the conclusion that they should simply improve it. No, they should trade their best offensive player instead.

8. Sell High
It's a basic economic principle. Peterson's put to rest the injury concerns that followed him from the University of Oklahoma to Minnesota, and last season he righted his fumbling woes. He has four Pro Bowl seasons under his belt, and plenty of good football ahead of him. His value has never been higher, so trading him now would maximize his return in a trade. The timing is perfect -- next season he'll be a year older, and as I previously speculated, he'll be coming off a down year (by his standards). If his value is peaking, as I suspect, then it has nowhere to go but down.

"Sell high" is a fantastic principle, but there are, of course, limits. You know who else's stock has never been higher? Aaron Rodgers. Maybe the Packers should trade him as well. Hey, sell high. You should only "sell high" on players whose production won't reasonably hold up. Adrian Peterson is a special football player, and there's no reason to believe that won't continue for a few more seasons. I also love when people speculate on something, then use that speculation as fact. "I said Peterson's production will decline, therefore it will and his stock will be lower next season."

7. The Green Bay Packers
I realize it's difficult to accept for Vikings fans, but the Packers are the best team in the NFL. They're young, and their talent runs deep on both sides of the ball. With headliners like Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews, the pieces are in place for a dynasty -- or at the very least, a long run of NFC North domination. You can say all you want about the Vikings taking the Pack down to the wire in their first 2010 meeting back on October 24, but from that night forward the teams have gone in opposite directions. It's become painfully obvious that the Vikings are no longer in the same class as Green Bay. Considering that the Packers will likely have a stranglehold on the division for the foreseeable future, and that both Chicago and Detroit are trending in the right direction, the Vikings will be facing an uphill battle just to earn a Wild Card birth the next handful of years. As it stands, the Vikings are an aging 6-10 team on the decline. Wouldn't you rather be a young 5-11 team on the rise?

How the state of the Packers affects the Vikings' decision making on something like this, I'll never know. His thesis, basically, is that the Vikings are aging and need to get younger. Adrian Peterson just turned 26. Remember, guy, you're not advocating for trading Antoine Winfield or someone who actually is getting old. Peterson is right smack dab in the prime of his career. Therefore he should be traded so the Vikings can get younger. This is logic at work.

6. It's a Passing League
The modern era of the NFL is all about passing. Look no further than the Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks of the last eight years: Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady. If you can envision the names Joe Webb, Jake Locker, or Vince Young on that list, then you might as well stop reading because I can't reach you. If you're still here, allow me do drop one more knowledge bomb. In 2006, Joseph Addai rushed for 1,081 yards, good for 18th among NFL running backs. Why is this significant? Because it's the most prolific season of any Super Bowl-winning running back in the last five years. The forward pass has officially replaced "three yards and a cloud of dust" as the winning formula in the NFL.

This is actually a good argument. A good argument, that is, if the Vikings can turn Peterson into a starting QB. Chances are, a good starting QB isn't going to be offered for Peterson, and the Vikings will have to draft their own. They can do this without sacrificing their top offensive player.

5. Wrong Recipe
Dating back to the early 1990's, every Super Bowl Champion has achieved excellence in at least two of three areas: quarterback, coaching, and defense. Last season the Packers had all three. Looking for exceptions to the rule? The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccaneers won with good coaching and historically good defenses. The 2007 Giants, perhaps? Sure, they're probably the weakest champion on paper in recent memory, but they fused experienced coaching, clutch quarterbacking, and a top-level defense. Show me the team in the last 20 years that won a Super Bowl with the combination of an elite running back, a mediocre defense, an inexperienced head coach, and a gaping hole at quarterback.

This guy is setting up a false argument here. He's saying the Vikings will need a good QB, coach and defense to win a Super Bowl. I wouldn't argue with any of that. How does this preclude Peterson's inclusion into the mix? I don't understand how Peterson's presence makes it so that the Vikings can't acquire a good QB and improve on defense. Apparently the only way they can improve at QB and cornerback is by trading Peterson, which is a false argument. They can draft and develop a QB, keep Peterson, and develop younger defensive players like Chris Cook, Everson Griffen and Asher Allen. Or they could draft other defensive players and develop them. Either way, Peterson's presence is not stunting the Vikings' ability to improve.

4. The Window Has Closed
It's time to start rebuilding. Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards are both at risk of walking via free agency, and despite the departure of Brett Favre and Pat Williams, this is still an old team. Key contributors Antoine Winfield, Steve Hutchinson, Jim Kleinsasser, Ben Leber, Bryant McKinnie, Visanthe Shiancoe, E.J. Henderson, and Kevin Williams are all on the wrong side of 30. That core feels even older when you consider that there's no true "quick fix" quarterback available -- the Vikings will almost certainly be in developmental mode at the position next season. The time has come to begin stockpiling young talent, as the Packers, Bucs, and Chiefs have done in recent years. Instead of hovering around mediocrity with an unbalanced roster, the Vikings would be wise to break it down, take their lumps, and attempt to build it back up stronger and better than ever.

If this were about how the Vikings need to get younger on defense, I wouldn't argue. Too many starters on that side of the ball are over 30. But again, he's advocating for trading a 26-year-old who happens to be the Vikings' best offensive player. Somehow that ties into the window being closed.

3. Running Backs Don't Last
According to the NFLPA, running backs have the shortest average career of any position in the NFL (just 2.57 years). Due to excessive wear and tear, 30 tends to be the magical age that a running back falls off the cliff. If leaned on heavily early in his career, a back can flame out even sooner. Take Clinton Portis, for example. The University of Miami burner (he once ran a 4.26 40) took the NFL by storm in 2002. By his sixth season, he was noticeably slowing down. By his eighth season he'd become a plodder. Now, heading into his 10th season, he's been cut by the Redskins. Sarcastically dubbed Clinton "Tortoise," his burst is long gone and he's running on fumes. Clinton Portis is 29 years old. How did he get so old so fast? Portis toted the rock 1,308 times (including postseason) in his first four seasons. Adrian Peterson, who turns 26 this month, has logged 1,271 carries in his four-year career. As a violent runner who actively seeks out contact, Peterson's career as an elite-level back is probably somewhere around the halfway point. By the time the Vikings are able to surround him with the right pieces, he'll likely be washed up.

Okay, look at Clinton Portis. Now look at his body type compared to Peterson. You tell me who you think can survive punishment better. This is actually not a bad argument, however I'm loathe to compare Peterson to other RBs because he's clearly a different breed than most. Who was the last RB to combine his size, strength and speed, Walter Payton?

2. Running Backs are Replaceable
Sure, elite-level talents don't grow on trees. However, more so than any other position, a successful running back can be turned up out nowhere. Oftentimes it's because their specific running style is appropriately matched to a team's rushing scheme. Don't believe me? Of last season's 1,000-yard rushers, seven out of 17 (41%) were drafted in the third round or later. In fact, none of last season's top three rushers were draft day darlings -- Arian Foster was undrafted, Jamaal Charles was a third rounder, and Michael Turner was a fifth rounder. Furthermore, the majority of teams have wisely adopted the "running back by committee" approach -- that is, a rotation of good, fresh running backs can be as effective as one great workhorse. Last season Adrian Peterson, who's set to make nearly $13M in 2011, racked up 1,639 yards from scrimmage and 13 touchdowns. In New England, the undrafted tandem of BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead combined for 2,019 combination yards and 19 scores, and together they'll bank less than a quarter of Peterson's 2011 salary. As far as replacements, the draft includes names like Mark Ingram, Mikel LeShoure, and Ryan Williams, for starters. With regard to free agency, the ultra-talented DeAngelo Williams (27) highlights a lengthy list of veteran backs looking for work.

I actually like this argument. However, Peterson's a pretty special player. He's a guy who can score from anywhere on the field, so you can't just treat him like any other back. But it's true, RBs are the most replaceable players on the field. Oh wait, you're not done...

Perhaps the blueprint the Vikings should be following is that of the Atlanta Falcons. In 2008, the Falcons were able to turn their franchise around in just one season, going 11-5 after winning just four games in 2007. They did it with a new coach, a rookie quarterback, and a free agent running back (Mike Smith, Matt Ryan, and Michael Turner).

Notice how, in the same breath as saying that RBs are replaceable, he then mentions a team improving greatly, in part, by adding a RB. If Michael Turner helped the Falcons turn it around, maybe Peterson can help the Vikings turn it around as well? I don't know, I'm not a Mensa-level genius. This is a beauty here, too.

Is it crazy to think that the combination of Leslie Frazier, Blaine Gabbert, and DeAngelo Williams might share similar success?

I'm sorry, how exactly is trading Peterson going to net the Vikings Blaine Gabbert? Are they trading him to Carolina for the first pick? And why are you including DeAngelo Williams when we just agreed that RBs aren't important? This logic train has gone off the tracks.

1. The Haul
Would the Redskins' freewheeling, star chasing owner Dan Snyder be willing to sign off on another such swap? And if so, what would be considered a fair asking price for the league's best running back in the prime of his career? Maybe the conversation begins with hard-hitting safety LaRon Landry (26), Washington's first rounder (No. 10 -- Julio Jones, Prince Amukamara), and something along the lines of a 2012 second rounder. Cincinnati and Arizona both have very talented young cornerbacks, as well as high draft picks. Perhaps a deal could be structured around Leon Hall (26) and the Bengals No. 4 overall pick, or Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie (24) and Arizona's first rounder (No. 5).

I love - LOVE - when someone argues against a player, and then turns around and says they should get a great haul for said player. "Peterson is getting old, RBs are replaceable...let's trade him for a top-5 pick!" And by the way, anyone who has actually seen LaRon Landry play would not advocate for trading for him, unless you enjoy safeties who are clueless in coverage. But anyways...I have no idea what the Vikings could get for Peterson. But if everything you just said is correct, why would the Cardinals or Bengals part with a top-5 pick? They, too, need a QB. You just said it's a passing league, so why would they bypass on a QB to add a RB?

---

The point, of course, is not that any player is untradeable. The Vikings' future would undoubtedly be brighter if they had a great QB rather than a great RB. However, I happen to live in reality, and the reality is that the Vikings need Peterson. They'll most likely be breaking in a rookie QB next season, and without Peterson it would be one hell of a struggle to score points.

I didn't post this, though, for that reason. I posted this because of the comments section. "It makes complete sense to me." "Although I cannot argue one single point" "I bagen this article thinking it was lunacy. But it is a well argued set of points, compelling even. I have worried about longevity for some time. Backs don't last like Payton anymore -- see Shuan Alexander." Adrian Peterson = Shaun Alexander. Of course! This is what we're up against. This guy wrote an internet post with poor, contradicting logic, and it's considered by other Vikings fans to be of great value.

Notre Dame gets raped; Big East claims it was consensual

Per the Big East:

The Big East said Sunday the back judge is supposed to focus on the play clock. When it hits zero, he is then supposed to check on the ball before calling delay of game.

The league says there will always be some lag time, and that on the fake field goal, "this lag time created the situation where it appears the play clock expired just before the snap."

This is like the Supreme Court ruling that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy. What a flippin' joke. Delay of game is a black-and-white penalty; once the clock hits zero, if the ball isn't snapped it's a penalty. There's no "lag time," or anything of the sort.

Notre Dame twice last night was called for a delay of game penalty. Do you suppose there was any "lag time" allowed there? Of course not, because there is no such thing. When the shot clock runs out in basketball it's a violation, and when the play clock runs out in football it's a penalty. Period, no exceptions.

I was actually looking forward to the NCAA apologizing to Notre Dame for missing the call there, so I could tell them to take their apology and shove it up their ass. Instead they don't even do that, but rather deny the reality that a delay of game even happened. So not only do they not apologize for the mistake, but they insult our intelligence by acting like this happens all the time. Which it doesn't; delay of game is called often, and it's called when the play clock hits zero, not two seconds after the play clock hits zero.

Nothing, of course, will give Notre Dame the victory they probably would have had had delay of game been called (unless Michigan St. can hit a 51-yard field goal). But to spit on my face like this...fuck you, Big East. FUCK YOU.

Random musings a day before the NFL season kicks off

* The Baltimore Ravens have the makings of a pretty good team, but I am very worried about their cornerback situation. They will be starting Fabian Washington and Chris Carr (two failed Raiders, to put that in perspective) on Monday night, with newly acquired Josh Wilson as the 3rd corner. This is a team that counts Lardarius Webb as its best corner, so it's not a great situation even when they're healthy. And right now they're not, with Webb injured and Ed Reed seemingly on the permanent disabled list. If they can win and field a solid defense with that corner situation, I would be very impressed.

* The talent level of the San Diego Chargers has quietly regressed over the past couple of seasons, to the point that if you eliminated Philip Rivers from the equation, I'm not sure there's much difference between them and their division rivals. They'll be starting Malcolm Floyd and Legedu Naanee at receiver, and really have no impact on defense anymore. Shawne Merriman has declined badly, Jamal Williams is no longer there clogging the middle (he was a great nose tackle, really underrated), the linebackers seem average and I don't know what to make of their offensive line anymore. I'd be willing to bet that Marcus McNeill is missed more than Vincent Jackson; Norv can scheme around a missing receiver, but it's hard to scheme around a blindside protector who can't protect. I would still put the Chargers ahead of the rest of the AFC West because of Rivers, but they aren't so frightening anymore. I'm afraid their window of opportunity is very close to shut.

* When the Redskins acquired Donovan McNabb, I said that automatically made them a playoff contender. Uhh, I'd like to retract that statement. McNabb has gotten by before with substandard receivers, but I was not counting on the exhumed corpse of Joey Galloway to be starting for this team. It's not a stretch to say the Redskins' two best receivers are their tight ends, Chris Cooley and Fred Davis, with Clinton Portis probably next in line. I'm also skeptical of their move to a 3-4 defense. Players like Andre Carter and Albert Haynesworth really don't fit at all in a 3-4, but can be really good in a 4-3. I honestly have no idea why the Redskins are making such a switch; I would also wonder how a small inside linebacker like London Fletcher will fit into a 3-4. Brian Orakpo is the only player who seamlessly fits into a 3-4, and he was just fine last year playing in a 4-3.

* The Panthers and Giants finished with the same record last season, the Panthers went into New York and destroyed the Giants last season...so naturally, the Giants are the biggest favorites of the week according to Vegas. Okay I get it, the Giants are opening a new stadium, and they have a lot more fans than the Panthers so the action is going to be on them. But honestly, I think the Panthers are a nice sleeper (I hate that term; to me, the Rams were a sleeper in that last year in that they never woke up) team, with three explosive offensive playmakers, a more stable QB than last year (Matt Moore isn't great, but he shouldn't submarine their season like Delhomme did) and an interesting defensive line. The Panthers' defensive line had a very good pre-season, which doesn't mean much but they may have some intriguing young players there. One to watch for is 2nd year end Everette Brown, a 2nd round pick last year who will be counted on to be the team's best pass rusher. I think he's up to the challenge.

* The Denver Broncos, through various trades, have had 8 first and second round picks in the past two drafts. Here is what they've ended up with:

RB Knowshon Moreno, OLB Robert Ayers, CB Alphonso Smith (already traded), S Darcel McBath, TE Richard Quinn, WR Demaryius Thomas, QB Tim Tebow, G Zane Beadles.

Are you scared yet? You almost have to try to screw things up this badly. First and second round picks are premium picks, where you get starters and impact players. It's early, but I'd be shocked if more than three of these guys became long-term starters for Denver.

The Alphonso Smith pick is the best one. The Broncos, as a result of the Cutler trade, had the Bears' first round pick in 2010. They traded that pick for a 2nd rounder in 2009, which they used on Smith. Smith was just recently traded to Detroit for a backup TE named Dan Gronkowski. The Bears' first round pick went to Seattle, became the 14th pick and became S Earl Thomas. The flow chart for that pick went like this:

1st rounder in 2010 (Earl Thomas) ---- 2nd rounder in 2009 (Alphonso Smith) ---- 7th rounder in 2009 (Dan Gronkowski)

I continue to say, if you told me Josh McDaniels was a plant of the Raiders, Chiefs or Chargers, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. What a disgrace. Never before has a first round pick devalued so quickly.

* The Jets will continue their victory parade on Monday night....wait, what? They didn't win the Super Bowl last year? Well it sure seems like they did. I've never seen a 9-7 team that needed the Colts to roll over for them in order to make the playoffs celebrate themselves so vociferously. This team has all the makings of a crash-and-burn season. You know how the story goes; team gets off to slow start, QB is struggling, fans turn on the team, players turn on each other, season goes south, team finishes 6-10. And quite frankly, people are putting a little too much faith into Mark Sanchez. I like the guy, I think he can be good, but he was piss-poor for most of last season. Let's see it before we start proclaiming him the Sanchize.

* Almost everyone is picking the Packers to represent the NFC, and I'm left scratching my head wondering why. I mean sure, the Packers have a good team that went 11-5 last year. But they have some serious question marks as well. First, this team only has one legitimate pass rusher in Clay Matthews. Someone needs to step up and help him. And secondly, that corner situation looks awful shaky. Woodson can still play, but Al Harris is hurt and probably done as an effective corner in this league, leaving Tramon Williams to start and a rookie named Sam Shields playing the nickel. Sam Shields, by the way, was a receiver at Miami but apparently has been quite impressive. Either way, I really feel like you can move the ball on this team. This team feasted on bad QBs last season, but when they played good ones they got torched. Favre, Roethlisberger, Warner...they all had huge days against Green Bay, and I don't see why that would change this year. Unless they have an impact pass rusher that I don't know about besides Matthews.

Everyone picking Green Bay reminds me of a quote from somebody smart; when everybody is thinking the same, nobody is truly thinking.

* Finally, I haven't said anything about Notre Dame football in awhile, and that's mainly because I didn't know what to say coming into the season. This is a talented, underachieving roster with a coaching staff that led Cincinnati to an undefeated regular season coming in. I don't know what to make of that yet. Early returns are positive, as the defense was much better this past week, the discipline was noticeably better and Notre Dame was able to hold off a short rally by Purdue and hold their 4th quarter lead, something they struggled mightily with last season. So I'm encouraged heading into the Michigan game this week. But I'm not going to crown their ass (copyright, Denny Green) just yet.

As Lou Holtz once said (covered in spittle, no doubt); when we're good, I won't have to tell you.

In which I wish that Ken Whisenhunt was the Vikings' coach

Ken Whisenhunt absolutely should have gone out and gotten himself a better QB this offseason than Derek Anderson, but at least he's willing to admit when he's wrong about something and bench Matt Leinart. It's easy to bullshit people into Matt Leinart, as he's a former college star and first round draft pick. But Whisenhunt knows Leinart will not get the Cardinals to the promised land, so he's going to give Anderson a try.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Brad Childress. His stubborn refusal to give up on Tarvaris Jackson is going to be the death of this franchise, I swear. The Vikings traded Sage Rosenfels (and Darius Reynaud; also a mistake in my opinion) to the Giants today, and will now go with Jackson and Joe Webb as the backups to Favre. Jackson has been, to put it nicely, terrible this preseason. He finished the preseason 12-26, including 2-8 in the final preseason game against Denver. Rosenfels may not be great, but he was certainly better than that and he deserved to be the backup.

But you see, Brad Childress can't get himself to admit a mistake. Four years ago he drafted Jackson and said he could be Donovan McNabb someday, and damnit it's going to happen come hell or high water. It really makes you wonder why this team even traded for Rosenfels. It's obvious that no matter how much he outplayed Jackson, he was never going to be placed higher on the depth chart. It's like Childress had to throw people off the scent, so he traded for Rosenfels in order to make it look like he was creating a competition.

Favre hasn't missed a start in a very, very long time and odds are he'll make it through these 16 weeks unscathed. But you never know, and you always want to have a trustworthy backup in place. The Vikings do not have that. They had that in Rosenfels; sure, he's had his problems in the past with some untimely interceptions and fumbles, but damnit the guy can throw the ball with some touch and accuracy, which is more than you can say about Jackson.

During the final preseason game, tight end Garrett Mills ran a seam route and got behind the defense. Jackson threw the ball well behind Mills, who could not catch it. It was a throw that would have tempted me to cut the guy on the spot if I were his coach. That is a throw an NFL QB needs to make 9 times out of 10, and Jackson has trouble making it 5 times out of 10. The Vikings have waited four long years for Jackson to develop, and it is time to cut the cord. This isn't to say that Jackson couldn't be a decent backup for someone else. He can play decently in stretches, and at the very least he can always take off and run. But as long as he's with the Vikings and Childress is the coach, he will never be fairly evaluated. He had no business beating out Rosenfels for the backup job, and only did because Childress refuses to admit his mistake.

What worries me is that Childress apparently still believes Jackson is the QB of the future, which is ludicrous. Jackson is what he is at this point; he's a scattshot passer with great arm strength and great athleticism. This is his fifth year in the league, and judging by this preseason he hasn't changed and I'm pretty sure he never will. Favre only has one year left, and it would be ridiculous for the Vikings to consider Jackson as a starter for next season. But that appears to be exactly what they're doing. At which point they'll be just like the Cardinals, foolishly believing in a former draft pick who never panned out and then benching him for an underwhelming veteran.

Ken Whisenhunt and his QB situation

Ken Whisenhunt has done a great job as head coach of the Cardinals, taking a talented but underachieving roster and turning it into a playoff team. But he made a huge mistake this offseason, electing to go with Matt Leinart and Derek Anderson at QB, rather than finding a steadier hand.

The Cardinals, whether they wanted to admit it or not, have known for years that Matt Leinart is not the guy. They tried to hand him the job in the 2008 preseason, but he instead flopped miserably (3 INTs in against Oakland) and they instead started Kurt Warner, with whom they almost won the Super Bowl. Matt Leinart's career numbers are miserable, when you consider he was playing in the very same offense that Warner ran so masterfully. This offseason, with Warner retiring, the Cardinals had an opportunity to make a fresh start at QB, but instead opted for Cleveland castoff Derek Anderson to compete with Matt Leinart.

Of course, it's not enough to just say that a team should make a move at QB without having other options. But there were other options this offseason. Donovan McNabb was available. Jason Campbell was available. They passed on Jimmy Clausen twice. All of these QBs represented better options than what Arizona elected to go with, and now they're going to pay for it.

Matt Leinart's tenure in Arizona is basically over. He burned a lot of bridges this week, and it wouldn't surprise me if they outright released him. This means that the team is basically stuck with Derek Anderson for this season. I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but Anderson was as bad, if not worse, than JaMarcus Russell last season. This is a team with enough talent to remain a playoff team, and they've left it in some very uncapable hands.

Derek Anderson will make a nice test case for the role environment plays in a QB's performance. When Anderson was teamed with Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow, he played well, although he was inaccurate even then. When Cleveland got rid of all of their NFL-quality receivers, he became one of the worst QBs in the league. Now he's in Arizona, throwing to good receivers (including Larry Fitzgerald, one of the league's best) and playing with good RBs, but also playing behind a potentially leaky offensive line. Even with that caveat, there's no doubt this is the best situation Anderson has been in, and he's not without his strengths. Well okay, he has one strength; he throws a really nice deep ball. He's immobile and inaccurate with questionable decision-making ability, but man can he throw some pretty rainbows. We will get a good idea for how much a good supporting cast can help a QB, because Anderson is pretty dreadful otherwise.

I feel bad for Arizona fans, who were just starting to taste some success, and now the team has gone back to being run like it was throughout the 1990s and early part of this decade. The Cardinals made a huge mistake entrusting their otherwise talented team with these shaky QBs. They are roughly going from a A quarterback in Warner to a C-or-worse QB in Anderson or Leinart. They'd better hope their receivers can make up for the shortcomings of their QBs, or this is going to be a long season in the desert.

File this under "misleading statements"

Ross Tucker over at si.com seems like a generally decent writer. He occasionally provides anecdotes from his playing days, and he generally has a good grasp of what's going on in the NFL. But today he wrote an article about how the Broncos have their QB of the future on their roster, and it isn't Tim Tebow but Kyle Orton. So, fine, I mean I would definitely agree that Orton will be a better QB than Tebow over the next few years. But then we get this line:

In Orton, the Broncos already have a winning starter who has gone 29-19 during his career despite never really being "the guy" for either the Bears or the Broncos.

Here we go again (copyright, Whitesnake) with the "only QBs win games" stuff. Ugh, I can't believe I have to explain this.

Fact: Orton's teams do have a 29-19 record when he starts. Also a fact; Orton's 2005 Bears amassed a 10-5 record when he started. Also a fact; Orton completed 52% of his passes that season, with 9 TDs, 13 INTs and a 59 QB rating.

Is there anything in there that makes you believe Orton had anything to do with that 10-5 record? Orton was pretty clearly horrid that season (he was a rookie, after all), but that is the main season in which he amassed his won-loss record. Subtract that season and it drops to 19-14.

Ross Tucker is attempting to make you believe that only Orton affects the wins and losses of his team. Of course, that's not true. The Bears generally had a good defense every year he was in Chicago, although the 2008 unit wasn't that good, as evidenced by the fact that they missed the playoffs. The point is, it's ridiculous to attribute wins and losses to Kyle Orton. Orton is a winner when his defense is playing well and keeping scores reasonable (2005 Bears, first six games for the 2009 Broncos), but he all of a sudden stops winning when his defense crumbles (final ten games for the 2009 Broncos). Is that because Kyle Orton has a magical power to win and lose games by himself? No, it's because football is the ultimate team sport, and he needs a good team.

The main thesis of Tucker's article is fine, which is that Denver was stupid to draft Tebow when they already have a perfectly fine QB. And that's all Orton is, perfectly fine. He has the same problem that Jason Campbell has, which is that he's a league average starter and people don't like that. People either want a really good QB to get behind, or a really bad one to make fun of. Nobody likes having a league average starter that elicits no strong feelings either way.

But to call Kyle Orton a "winner" is to ignore the facts of his career. He had a rough rookie season, which is fine because he shouldn't have been playing and only was because Rex Grossman got injured in the preseason. He didn't become a full-time starter again until 2008, when he had an average season (79 rating) and the Bears finished 9-7 and out of the playoffs. Then last season he played above-average football (87 rating) while the Broncos collapsed from 6-0 to 8-8, unprecedented in the history of the NFL (the 2003 Vikings finished 9-7 after starting 6-0). He is not a "winner" with magic beans and pixie dust, he is a league-average starter capable of playing above-average football, and surrounded by a good team he can win. Surrounded by a mediocre or subpar team, however, Orton all of a sudden isn't such a winner.

I would also like the record to show it is also misleading to claim Orton has "never really been the guy" in either Chicago or Denver, when he was without question the starter for the '08 Bears and '09 Broncos, and will again be the unquestioned starter for the '10 Broncos. I suppose what Tucker means is that nobody has ever given him a big contract and long-term support, which is true, but the statement he uses is factually incorrect.

What I said then/ What they're saying now

Fans in Arizona are currently freaking out over their QB situation, and rightfully so. They lost a potential Hall of Famer in Kurt Warner, and are replacing him with a couple of backup-level players. Here's what I wrote in March:

The Cardinals signed Derek Anderson as competition for Matt Leinart, and while I think it's good that they aren't just handing the position to Leinart (who has done nothing to earn it), I don't think Anderson is the right guy. I've documented on here before how bad Derek Anderson was last season; basically, he was neck-and-neck with JaMarcus Russell for worst starting QB in the league. Anderson is a great deep-ball thrower with sketchy accuracy and questionable decision-making abilities. Basically, he's the antithesis of what Arizona should be looking for in a QB.

Arizona is losing one of the greatest rhythm throwers of all-time in Kurt Warner, and replacing him with two guys who are not rhythm throwers at all. Leinart possesses a lot of the same weaknesses as Anderson, only to a lesser extent but with a worse deep ball. What made the Arizona passing game so great was the accuracy and timing in which Warner got rid of the football; both Leinart and Anderson are incapable of running an offense that way. Between these two, I would personally start Anderson since he at least has one strength while Leinart possesses a bunch of mediocre skills. But I think Arizona is making a big mistake going with these two at QB. The Cardinals don't need a strong arm at QB (Warner didn't have that strong of an arm); they need someone who can get the ball to those receivers in good position and good timing.

So who was it who told the Cardinals to go into the season with these two as their QB options? It obviously wasn't me.

Things that no one is considering

The Vikings could perform at exactly the same level as last season, and would almost assuredly lose more games. Why? Because the schedule this season is much more difficult.

Last season, the Vikings played the AFC North and NFC West. The AFC North, outside of the Browns, is tough but the NFC West was the worst division in the NFL last season. This season, the Vikings play the AFC East and NFC East. The AFC East, outside of Buffalo, looks to be tough. The NFC East, outside of no one, also looks to be tough. This season, the Vikings will be replacing teams like Cleveland, Seattle and St. Louis with teams like Miami, Philadelphia and Washington. It's a world of difference in the level of competition there.

The Vikings rolled through all of their weak opponents last season, except for an overtime loss at Chicago. This season, the weak opponents are division rival Detroit and Buffalo. That's it. When the Vikings played tougher opponents last season, the results were mixed. They swept Green Bay and beat Baltimore, but lost to Pittsburgh, Arizona and Carolina.

What this means is the Vikings need to actually play better than last season in order to finish with the same 12-4 record. Outside of Detroit and Buffalo, there are no gimmes on the schedule. Last season, they had Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis in the first five weeks. This season, the first five weeks feature New Orleans, Miami and the Jets.

Of course, the season never does go as expected. Maybe the Jets will have a bad season, or the Eagles will fall off. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that those teams, at their worst, are as bad as Cleveland and St. Louis were last season.

------

Something else people seem to forget is that Favre got off to a slow start last season. He threw for about 120 yards in each of the first two games against Cleveland and Detroit, and the offense was not opened up until week 3. The Vikings could afford to do this because they were just that much better than Cleveland Detroit, but that is not the case this season. Favre missed all of training camp last year, and as a result the Vikings eased him into the season against weak opponents. That can't happen this season, as the Vikings open with New Orleans and Miami, and if Favre tries to ease into the season, they'll start 0-2. The Vikings' pass offense needs to come out guns blazing in order to beat New Orleans, and they can't just show up and beat Miami either.

Let me put it this way; I wouldn't be surprised if the storyline after week 2 is "Vikings' passing game struggles; maybe Favre shouldn't have skipped training camp." This schedule is no joke, and it starts in week one.

-----

Does this mean I'm pessimistic about the Vikings' prospects this season? No, I still think this is a talented roster that is quite capable of making a run at the Super Bowl. But I can see the potential pitfalls, and it all starts with the schedule. I mean, how do you like this five game run from October into November; Jets-Dallas-Green Bay-New England-Arizona. Find me a pushover in that group; you can't do it. The Vikings could play plenty good football and come out of that 2-3 or 3-2. The best bet are the final six games, featuring Washington, Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit. Washington and Chicago could be tough, but hoping for Buffalo and Detroit to suck isn't hoping for a miracle.

-----

Fun fact: including the playoffs, the Vikings were 9-0 at home and 4-5 on the road. It's true.

Peter King: Arbiter of all that is good and just in this world

I always get a kick out lines like this (from Peter King):

Not much has changed in that regard -- except Roethlisberger is off to a good start doing the right things.

Sportswriters like to use that term a lot; "the right things." As if there's a universal agreement on what's right and what's wrong. Well I'm sorry, but what exactly makes Peter King qualified to judge if Roethlisberger is "doing the right things" or not? Or any sportswriter, for that matter? And yet, you'll see that a lot. "So-and-so is doing the right things to repair his image." "So-and-so always says the right things to the media." What in the hell are the right things? To Peter King, donating money to Amnesty International could be "the right thing." To another person, giving to Amnesty International could be donating money to a radical organization. Who's to judge? Certainly not a sportswriter.

If you read King's article today, you can see what he thinks are the right things.

Roethlisberger used to avoid the local press or either talk down to them or give them nothing of himself; now he asks a couple of them for advice.

He never was much of a teacher on the field to the young receivers. "Now he's helping every one of them,'' said wideout Mike Wallace.

He used to avoid the never-ending autograph lines in camp; now, daily, he signs.

In other words, the right things include talking to the press, helping young wideouts and signing autographs. Of course, none of this precludes Roethlisberger from, say, sexual assaulting someone but I guess it's a start.

And here's an example of "the wrong thing," according to King.

Thirteen months ago, I convened five NFL quarterbacks in a room in Lake Tahoe to have a wide-ranging discussion for Sports Illustrated on the state of the position today. But it almost didn't happen the way I wanted it.

The day before we were to sit down in a restaurant overlooking a golf course, Ben Roethlisberger, who had won his second Super Bowl a few months earlier, told me he wasn't going to do it. Didn't want to. Was too busy. I told him he agreed to do it, and he had to keep his word -- months of planning and arm-twisting had gone into it. So Roethlisberger did it, but he wasn't happy about it. He big-dogged the photographer flown in for the occasion. Roethlisberger didn't give his best effort in the roundtable discussion; he was either texting or talking to one of the other quarterbacks or making calls a good third of the time. He left the room first when it was over, and a couple of us just looked at each other and said, in so many words, "What is wrong with that guy?''

Granted, this all makes Roethlisberger look like a humongous douchebag, but really, who gives a flying fuck about any of this except Peter King? Peter, it may be hard to believe, but the average person doesn't care if Roethlisberger gives you the time of day or not.

But here's what I really love about this story; notice how it's from 13 months ago, which was before last season. That means King buried this story for 13 months, only now pulling it out to make Roethlisberger look bad. I guess as long as he was winning Super Bowls, everything was fine and dandy and we could just bury any juicy tidbits about the guy. But as soon as he's accused of sexual assault, all of the stories about what a douchebag he is come out.

I just wish sportswriters would stay away from the moral judgements, and just stick to their supposed areas of expertise. I don't need Peter King telling me what "the right things" are. I don't need them delving into the psyches of certain players, as if they have even the slightest bit of qualification for it. Just report football news, please. Peter, I read your articles because you get inside access that few have and you'll drop nuggets that no one else will. I do not read your articles for your moral grandstanding. Leave that to the guy upstairs, please.

Something that continues to gnaw at me

The Cleveland Browns last season had the worst passing game in the NFL. So their off-season plans should have been pretty simple, right? Improve the passing game, improve our scoring, win more games.

Ahh, but see you're not a Mensa-level genius like Mike Holmgren. His first order of business was to make a change at QB. Pretty reasonable, since the passing game was worst in the league and the QB tends to be the most important part of the passing game. But, amazingly, Holmgren changed QBs and actually got worse. He traded Brady Quinn and let Derek Anderson walk, and then brought in Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. Delhomme will be the starter, which he earned by posting a 59 QB rating last season and throwing an astonishing 18 INTs against 8 TDs. Wallace posted decent numbers in backup duty in Seattle, but he's never been an NFL-quality QB and, frankly, his career probably would have been better served had he switched to WR right away.

Granted, Derek Anderson was pretty god-awful last season (competing with JaMarcus Russell all year for the title of worst starting QB), but Quinn at least showed a semblance of competence last season, and besides they're both young QBs who mostly just need a better supporting cast around them. So anyways, let's measure this all up. We'll forget about Anderson and Wallace, who never were or are going to be long-term starters, and focus on Delhomme and Quinn.

Delhomme is much older...he was the worse player last season...he played in a much better offense last season (his top receiver was Steve Smith, while Quinn has never started a game in which his top receiver wasn't either stone-hands Braylon Edwards or 2nd round rookie Mohammed Massaquoi)...he appears to have a mental block after melting down in a playoff game against Arizona over a year ago...and he's the one handed the starting job while Quinn is traded out of town. How does any of this make sense? If you're going to replace Quinn, fine, but actually upgrade over him please.

And then there's the supporting cast. As you may have guessed with the worst passing game in the league, they also have the worst collection of receivers in the league. Mohammed Massaquoi, Josh Cribbs, Chansi Stuckey, Mike Furrey...are you scared yet? Massaquoi actually does have some potential at this level, but he's severely miscast as a team's top receiver, and for a receiver Cribbs makes a hell of a special teamer. Stuckey and Furrey aren't even worth talking about.

This is all a joke, right? You're telling me the Cleveland Browns went into this offseason with the worst passing game in the league, downgraded their QB position and did nothing at receiver? Do they expect their passing game to improve through osmosis? I feel terrible for Cleveland fans right now. Not only did LeBron leave their basketball team and their baseball team is currently hopeless, but they also have to talk themselves into a Delhomme-to-Massaquoi combination.

Mike Holmgren, I know you've coached in three Super Bowls and you developed Brett Favre, but you sir are a fucking idiot. Why did you not go out and get a real QB and some actual receivers? Why are you subjecting your fans to another season of the worst passing game in the league? It's not often you have the worst passing game in the league (have I said that enough yet? I feel like that needs to sink in, because the Cleveland front office apparently doesn't realize it) and standing pat actually turns out to be a better option than what you actually did to improve it, but that certainly appears to be the case. Brady Quinn at least still has some potential (not to mention he actually was better than Delhomme last season), while Delhomme is on the downside of his career and, barring a miraculous late-career renaissance, is finished as an NFL QB.

It's pretty incredible what happened in Cleveland over this offseason. I don't mean LeBron leaving, but the complete ignorance of their passing game incompetence. You would think Holmgren, being a passing game guy, would be the first to recognize it, but instead he actually made things worse. It's not often a team is 32nd in the league in something and actually takes a step backwards, but that's what happened in Cleveland. If they win 4 games, I'll be shocked.

(Additional thought; the Browns actually do have pretty decent offensive line. The right side isn't much, but the other three are Joe Thomas, Eric Steinbach and Alex Mack. Jerome Harrison really ran well late in the season, and they drafted Montario Hardesty to split carries with him. If this team had actually upgraded at QB and brought in another receiver to play with Massaquoi, this offense might not be half-bad. As it is, they're tapped out at about 17 points per game.)

Where I become convinced I should be an ESPN writer

ESPN's Elizabeth Merrill did a profile on Brad Childress, and here, in my opinion, is the money quote:

Crazy? Maybe. But in "Chilly's" world, it isn't. He's a risk taker hidden in a mathematician's body, a psychology major buried behind a pair of glasses and a clipboard.

What does that even mean? The only thing worse than bad writing is bad writing disguised as clever prose. At first blush, this all sounds poetic, but once you break down what she's actually saying, it makes no sense at all. These are just a bunch of words strapped together in a sentence; they have no meaning as a group. In other words, this is garbage.

And by the way, anyone who's watched Chilly coach knows he's pretty much the opposite of a risk taker. Back in 2007, he not once but twice punted on 4th and inches late in games, when a first down ends the game and the ball was on the other side of the 50. The only way the opponents (Chicago and Oakland, respectively) could win was by getting the ball back, and Childress willingly did just that.

-----

A question nobody is asking Childress, but I feel is pretty relevant; why exactly are you pinning your hopes on Tarvaris Jackson in the case that Favre doesn't come back? Childress either has a huge blind spot for Jackson, or he was so confident that Favre was coming back that he didn't bother to change the QB position. But either way, the Vikings are perilously close to opening the season with Jackson under center.

I think Jackson is fine as a backup QB, and there's no question he's better than most people realize (meaning, he's mediocre while most people feel he's UFL-quality), but that doesn't mean he should be QBing a team with Super Bowl aspirations. Jackson will never be starting quality because he'll never be accurate enough, and for that reason alone the Vikings should have done something at the QB position to at least secure it for the future, if not finding someone who could start this season in case Favre doesn't come back.

The window of opportunity for the Vikings is closing. Steve Hutchinson, Bryant McKinnie, Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, Kevin Williams and E.J. Henderson are all getting up in age, and they can't play forever. That means the Vikings probably have one more good run in them before these guys start retiring, and once they start retiring there's no guarantee they'll be replaced. And if the Vikings don't get good QB play, they probably won't be making that run.

That day in 2006 when they drafted Jackson may well end up being the day that the Vikings sacrified numerous runs at a Super Bowl. Because of Childress' blind loyalty to Jackson, and his inability to ever be an accurate passer, the Vikings have not done anything to secure their future at QB. They got lucky with Favre last year, but if he does, in fact, retire then the Vikings are right back to where they were, a potential playoff team hindered in its Super Bowl aspirations by a mediocre QB. A mediocre QB that Childress refuses to replace.

This apparently is the Vikings' continued destiny; to be good enough to make a Super Bowl, but never actually get there. They made four Super Bowls in the '70s and haven't been back, despite having very few actual bad seasons. The '80s Vikings had enough talent to go to the Super Bowl; they never did. The '90s Vikings amassed enough talent by the end of the decade to be a Super Bowl team; they never made it. And now in the late '00s the Vikings once again have enough talent to make a Super Bowl, but will probably never make it as well.

In which I criticize Football Outsiders

I love Football Outsiders and all of the work they do, but they keep saying something that is a gross mischaracterization, and frankly is revisionist history. Here's what it is:

"Most quarterbacks in the league would lose their jobs to Kurt Warner," Barnwell said. "We think he'll be a lot better than people are projecting."

They're talking about Matt Leinart, and how he'll do replacing Kurt Warner this season. This quote makes it all seem pretty innocent, right? Leinart was good, but Warner was great so he got the job. Uhh, no, that's not the case at all. This is such a blatant lie that I'm ashamed these very smart people believe it.

Matt Leinart did not lose his job to Kurt Warner because Warner was so great (which he was). Leinart lost his job because he played poorly, and two years ago had such a horrific preseason game against the Oakland Raiders that the Cardinals could not, in good faith, give him the starting job.

You have to remember, Matt Leinart was a first round pick by the Cardinals, so they desperately wanted him to succeed. Teams give former first rounders an obscene amount of chances to succeed, and the Cardinals were no exception. In 2007, Kurt Warner posted a 89.8 QB rating, while Leinart had a 61.9 QB rating. And yet during the 2008 preseason, the Cardinals continued to try and give Leinart the starting job. It wasn't until he threw three picks in a preseason game against the Raiders (that's one half of play, mind you) that they finally gave the job to Warner.

Let's compare Matt Leinart to the oft-criticized Tarvaris Jackson. Do you suppose the guys at Football Outsiders would say, hey, anybody would lose his job to Brett Favre, we still think Jackson is a good player? Uhh, no, nobody would say that. And rightfully so, just as they shouldn't be saying that about Leinart. Career stats:

Leinart:
595 attempts, 57% completion percentage, 14 TDs, 20 INTs, 6.5 yards per attempt, 70.8 rating
Jackson:
545 attempts, 58% completion percentage, 21 TDs, 18 INTs, 6.7 yards per attempt, 77.9 rating

In no way, shape or form has Leinart been better than Jackson, who everyone thinks is a bum who doesn't belong in the NFL. Jackson has been slightly more accurate (let that sink in), more TDs, fewer INTs, better yards per attempt, and a better QB rating. And also keep in mind that Leinart posted those numbers throwing to Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, while Jackson posted most of his numbers throwing to guys like Bobby Wade and Troy Williamson.

This is not to say that Jackson is a viable NFL starter, because he isn't. What it is to say is that Leinart also is not a viable NFL starter, and on top of that it's irresponsible of Football Outsiders to tell people that Leinart lost his job simply because Warner was so good. That wasn't the case at all; he lost it because his play sucked.

Football Outsiders is a smart website, and these guys know better. They're blindly accepting Leinart's hype from college, which is the antithesis of what they preach. Frankly, I'm ashamed of them for doing this. They're supposed to be objective, and here they are quite clearly not being objective at all. Objectively speaking, Leinart has been worse than Tarvaris Jackson playing in a better offense.

Dez Bryant and media coverage

To borrow a cliched line, I feel like we've jumped a shark by making a news story out of Dez Bryant refusing to carry Roy Williams' pads. This is what passes for news nowadays? This is a story that affects nobody. It has nothing to do with their play on the field, and come September this story will be completely forgotten because, you know, it's meaningless. And yet for a couple days in July, this story was being covered by all sports media outlets, most notably ESPN. We've lost something here.

What I do like, though, is how this story is used as a springboard to examine the psychology of Dez Bryant. Remember, he fell in the draft because of off-the-field issues, so maybe this proves that he's a problem child. Or maybe not? Well let's go to our resident psychologist to find out, Herm Edwards. I mean, what a fucking joke. Let's sensationalize a meaningless story, and then dissect to see if it means Bryant really does have issues.

There's nothing worse than when sports media personalities talk about a player's psychological makeup. They don't know a fucking thing more than you or I do about it, and they are not qualified at all to talk about it. Herm Edwards knows football and should stick to that; he does not know what makes a player tick mentally. It's like when they built up Tim Tebow for his "excellent intangibles" while criticizing Jimmy Clausen for his "questionable intangibles." What makes Todd McShay or Mel Kiper qualified to make that judgement? Absolutely nothing.

----

Here's a fun thought experiment. I'm going to paste a line taken from ESPN's AFC West blog, and then you determine what this line would look like if the player in question was Jimmy Clausen instead of Tim Tebow:

" Because of his reputation as a hard worker, expect Tebow to try to get to camp as soon as possible."

Rookie camp for the Broncos began on Wednesday, meaning Tebow is officially a holdout. Jimmy Clausen got signed on time for Panther's training camp. Can you imagine Clausen getting the benefit of the doubt like that had he held out?

-----

An awesome quote from Broncos' LB Darrell Reid on Tim Tebow:

"Whether it's working on his throwing motion or in the weight room or running, he's almost always the last guy out of the building."

The "first guy in, last one out" line is as cliched a phrase as there is in sports, but notice how Reid doesn't say Tebow is always that guy, but rather almost always. It's like he was trying to lie about how hard a worker Tebow is, but he couldn't quite go all the way with it.

Another thought experiment; if a team has two or more players who are the "first one in, last one out" type, then who exactly is the first one in and last one out? It's can't be all of them, so do they all just stand at the exit at the end of the day and wait for the others to leave?

-----

Timing is everything in sports. Derek Fisher's miraculous turnaround shot against the Spurs, Robert Horry's last-second three against Sacramento...if the clock ticks a tenth of a second shorter, these plays don't happen. And now we have Brett Favre's ankle.

"Favre's surgically repaired ankle isn't expected to be healed until a day or two after the Minnesota Vikings break training camp next month."

Damn the luck, it just won't be ready until a day or two after training camp ends. What do you know. If I were the cynical type, I might say he's just milking this to get out of training camp.

(Back to Horry; what was he doing standing at the 3-point line to begin with? The Lakers needed two to tie, the rebounds are all happening in the paint, he's a forward for God's sake...why was he waiting on a one-in-a-million bounce? I've never been satisified with the fact that Horry was basically just being lazy on that play, and he somehow got a lucky bounce and became the hero)

The Drive, The Fumble, The Decision

Cleveland fans are bitter right now, and understandably so. Their city has yet again been punched in the gut by the cruel hand of sports. The Browns, the Indians, the Cavs...they've all been tormented over the years. But this time their agony was plastered all over ESPN for one full night. LeBron's decision to hold an hour-long special was an unprecedented "fuck you" that makes him either the most tone-deaf athlete on the planet or the most cold-hearted one. I don't think there's a middle ground.

-----

The first thing people need to realize is that athletes are not tied down to one city. The fans in Cleveland seem to believe that LeBron should have stayed there because he's a local kid. Well I'm sorry, but just being from Ohio does not marry you to the Cavaliers for eternity. LeBron has a career to worry about, and he needed to make the best decision for his career. Blind loyalty to the city of Cleveland would be stupid when he could somewhere else, win championships and cement his legacy.

But again, I think what really burns people is the manner in which he handled it. If he had just held a simple press conference in which he thanked the city of Cleveland for their years of support and then went on his merry way...well, fans would still be disappointed, but I don't think they'd be feeling the rage they feel today. The way he dragged the city of Cleveland through the mud last night really makes you wonder what exactly is in his heart. Has he surrounded himself with such yes-men that he didn't see the backlash coming? This hour-long special was a disaster from minute one, and everyone knew it.

-----

I don't mean to harp on that special too much, because at the end of the day he was leaving for Miami regardless of how it ended up being covered. But not only did LeBron burn Cleveland in the worst way, but I think he also offended NBA fans in general. I think Miami fans are the only ones today who are feeling good about how last night played out, and even then they'd probably admit that the coverage was over-the-top. I think the whole affair leaves us all with a bad taste in our mouths. Free agents have left before (Shaq leaving Orlando for Los Angeles being the closest parallel), but never before in this fashion. And it felt tawdry.

-----

If Cleveland fans want to blame anybody for LeBron leaving, they need to look at management. The team that was assembled around LeBron was, quite frankly, unacceptable. Look at what Oklahoma City has put around Kevin Durant in a few short years. They've given him young players to grow with, like Russell Westbrook and Jeff Green. The best Cleveland could do for LeBron was Mo Williams. Trading for Shaq was both a short-term and long-term disaster, in that he helped the team in no way and also cemented the fact that Cleveland was incapable of surrounding LeBron with an acceptable supporting cast. Trading for Shaq was merely a ploy to make it look like they were serious, and LeBron saw right through it.

Remember at the trade deadline when they would not part with J.J. Hickson in order to acquire Amar'e Stoudemire? I'm not a bid Stoudemire fan, but he undoubtedly would have made Cleveland much better, and perhaps could have been the difference in beating Boston. Instead they ended up with Antawn Jamison, who would have helped them more had he simply sat out the Boston series, and on top of that, Hickson barely played during the postseason. Don't think that LeBron didn't notice this. Cleveland's management was clearly clueless about building a contender around LeBron, and I'm glad he chose not to waste his prime years in NBA purgatory like Garnett did. Garnett's loyalty may have been something to admire, but his legacy was almost permanently tarnished by staying in Minnesota. Had Kevin McHale not shipped him off to Boston as a gift to Danny Ainge, Garnett's career would be viewed as a disappointment. Championships matter in a player's legacy, and LeBron knows this. Ultimately, that's why he's no longer in Cleveland.

------

With all of that said, I'm still perplexed as to why he went to Miami. I really wonder if he just got tired of trying to carry a team, and has decided to share the heavy lifting with Wade. Because no matter how well LeBron plays in Miami, it will always be Wade's team and Wade's city. He's the established star there, and he's won a championship. And I wonder if LeBron knows this to be the case, and wants that to be the case. I wonder if he wants Wade to be the Jordan to his Pippen, which would be very disappointing to me.

LeBron has been given a rare gift, in that he's gifted enough in all facets of the game to potentially go down as one of the best ever. There aren't many players born with this gift. Guys like Charles Barkley and Karl Malone were very good, but even they were not born with this gift. There have been maybe 10 players with this type of transcendent ability, Jordan being the tops among them. Even Kobe, for as good as he's been, was not born with as many gifts as LeBron (LeBron's size allowing him to physically dominate in ways that Kobe couldn't).

But by choosing to sign with Miami and play with Wade, I wonder if LeBron truly has the temperament to be an all-time great. Being an all-time great carries large responsibilities, chief among them being that you lead your team to championships. If LeBron does win championships in Miami, it (probably) won't be because he led them, but rather because he AND Wade led them. And that would be thoroughly disappointing to me. I wanted to see LeBron go somewhere and put his signature on that team, and become an all-time great as his own man. Instead he's chosen to tag along with Wade. Maybe that's the way he wants it, and winning championships will not hurt his legacy regardless of how he gets it. But it would be disappointing to me if he fell into a Pippen-like role in which Wade ultimately takes the big shots. I wanted LeBron to be that guy, because damnit, he's been gifted like so few have. And he may not realize his FULL potential tagging along with Wade.

-----

Chicago, in my opinion, would have been the place to go. The pecking order would have fallen into place nicely, with LeBron-Rose-Boozer-Noah comprising a pretty good top-four that could definitely win championships. And it would have featured LeBron as the man, with Rose being the sidekick, and Boozer providing some interior scoring and rebounding while Noah does the dirty work and becomes a modern day Charles Oakley. That was the dream scenario to me. LeBron could have realized his full potential with a good supporting cast, and he could have done so playing in the same city where Jordan did it. But again...maybe LeBron didn't want the challenge of living up to Jordan. It's a lofty standard to live by, and maybe LeBron didn't want that. Which, again, is disappointing to me.

-----

I don't know how LeBron's time in Miami is going to go. I kinda feel like if there's karmic justice in this world that it won't go well, with how much he hurt the city of Cleveland by leaving on national TV. Miami, outside of LeBron, Wade and Bosh, is a bare-bones roster that still needs outside shooting, interior defense and rebounding. Apparently they're going to sign Mike Miller, but it seem to me that it's been years since he's been an effective player. It's going to be very interesting to see if two superstars and a good player can carry a team that probably won't have much else.

But I do know that I'm not satisfied with how last night went. I'm not satisfied with the hour-long ESPN special (as a fan who's lived through a lot of sports-related heartache, I can relate to Cleveland), and I'm not satisifed with his decision. I did want him to leave Cleveland, because I don't think he can win a championship there. But I didn't want him to tag along with another superstar. I wanted him to become his own man on a team with a good supporting cast in place. I wanted him in Chicago. I don't know what's in LeBron's heart, but I'm worried that he just doesn't quite have what it takes to realize his full potential. He may realize 95% of it, which would still be a very good career and probably top-ten all-time. But this is a guy born with the ability to challenge Jordan's status as the NBA's all-time best. And I just don't think he wants it.

The LeBachelor

I've got to be honest; I've lost a little bit of respect for LeBron James for holding this one-hour special on ESPN on Thursday night to announce his free agency decision. I mean, how full of yourself can you be? "I'm so important I need a one-hour special dedicated to me." I'm not saying he need to be a hermit, but there is such a thing as humility, and LeBron appears to have none right now.

If LeBron signs with the Knicks, Nets or (laughably involved somehow) Clippers, I will lose all respect for him. If he leaves the Cavaliers, and effectively kills basketball in Cleveland for the forseeable future, it needs to be so he can win a championship. The Knicks, Nets and Clippers are not championship-caliber rosters. The Knicks signed the all offense/no defense Amare Stoudemire, who I'm not convinced is much of an upgrade over David Lee, and also have Danillo Galinari. Otherwise they have nothing. The Nets are young and years away from competing. The Clippers are a joke of a franchise. I will not respect him if he kills Cleveland for those three teams.

The Bulls and Heat, on the other hand, are good situations. The Bulls have a great second banana in Derrick Rose, and a good role player in Joakim Noah. The Heat announced today they'll be signing Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, so adding LeBron would give them the greatest collection of NBA talent in a long time. Those are worthwhile situations where LeBron could put them over the top.

If he signs with them, that tells me he cares about his legacy and knows it won't be complete without a championship. If he signs with the Knicks, Nets or Clippers, that tells me he's more concerned with increasing his marketability than he is in winning championships. And I will have no respect for that.

The most wonderful time of the year

Ahh yes, the start of NBA free agency, when teams hand out ridiculous sums of money to average players. Let's see what's happening so far:


Once strongly considering a return to Europe, Darko Milicic, the man selected after LeBron James in the 2003 draft, has decided to give the NBA another chance, thanks to a four-year, $20 million deal from the Timberwolves, reports Chad Ford of ESPN.

Do I even need to comment on this? I'll be married with children before Darko Milicic ever helps a winning team, besides being the 12th man. David Kahn is like Cartman trying out for the special Olympics. David, why did you give Darko $20M? "duhhr I don't know, I'm retarded."

Drew Gooden reached a five-year, $32 million contract with the Bucks, reports Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski.

Explain to me what Drew Gooden brings to the table that a minimum-wage NBDL prospect couldn't? The Bucks could bring in 20 different NBDLers and find someone who can do what Drew Gooden does, which is essentially nothing. Defend and rebound a little? This is not worth $32M. The inability of teams to recognize how invaluable certain players are annually astounds me. Every year a below-average stiff like Gooden gets $30M, when these teams could find someone much cheaper just by holding tryouts, and get the same production. I can't wait until the Bucks sign John Salmons for $30-$40M, tying up approximately $70M in those two.

The Atlanta Hawks have offered Joe Johnson a six-year, $119 million contract, two NBA sources told SI.com.

The award for most untradeable contract in the league goes to...Joe Johnson and the Atlanta Hawks! The Atlanta Hawks are apparently following the blueprint of the Washington Wizards, in locking down the 4th best team in the Eastern Conference (a couple years ago, the Wizards gave big contracts to Arenas, Jamison and Butler, even though they couldn't get out of the first round; the Wizards just last week had the top pick in the draft, so you see how well that went). It won't take two years for Atlanta to regret this contract, mark my words. Joe Johnson is a good player in a complimentary role, he is not a max contract, face-of-the-franchise type player. This is absurd.

The Houston Rockets have identified Chris Bosh as their primary target this offseason, a source told SI.com. The Rockets visited Bosh in Dallas just after midnight Thursday morning and are discussing sign-and-trade options to bring Bosh to Houston. Among the trade candidates that could be sent to Toronto are forward Luis Scola and guard Aaron Brooks.

I mean, I suppose Chris Bosh is worth it, but it would sadden me to see Aaron Brooks go. The Rockets drafted him late in the first round, and developed him into a pretty decent player. And to be honest, I'm not that big of a Bosh fan. He was the best player on a couple playoff teams in Toronto, but the Raptors also folded badly last season. When Charles Barkley was in Philadelphia, he carried some uninspiring 76er teams to the playoffs, so I don't think it's too much to ask of Bosh to do the same, especially considering how weak the East is after the top 3-4 teams. If you're a max player, you're damn right I'm going to ask a lot of you.

The Timberwolves have plans to meet Grizzlies restricted free agent Rudy Gay Thursday night, according to ESPN's Marc Stein.

You know, you guys could have just kept O.J. Mayo and you'd already have your inside-outside combination of Mayo and Jefferson. Instead they'll have to trade for Rudy Gay, and then probably turn around and trade Jefferson, giving them Gay-Love (tee hee) which isn't nearly as good in my opinion. This is why you can't make stupid mistakes; you end up spending the next couple of years trying to make up for that mistake.

Amar'e Stoudemire has exercised the early termination option in his contract, his agent, Happy Walters, confirmed to SI.com.

I feel bad for whoever gives Stoudemire a big contract. I don't care how many points you score, I have no use for a power forward who is as allergic to defense and rebounding as Stoudemire. It's not that he can't defend and rebound, he just doesn't care. All he wants to do is score points. He should stay in Phoenix, which understands his strengths and weaknesses better than anybody. A different team might ask him to defend the rim, which would turn the paint into a layup line.

Perhaps feeling skittish about their chances to entice LeBron James, the Knicks are feverishly trying to peddle center Eddy Curry and his remaining $11.3 million contract, reports the Chicago Tribune.

What the Knicks are doing to their fans is cruel and unfair. For the past two years, they've been telling their fans, "Don't worry folks, in 2010 we'll get LeBron or Wade so all of this losing will be worth it." Now that they've finally realized they won't be getting LeBron or Wade, they have to throw other bullshit out their to show they're really trying. "Just gotta dump Eddy Curry's contract and we'll have superstars on the way!" I hope Knick fans are prepared for Carlos Boozer, because I'm afraid that's about the only star player they're going to be getting. The Knicks forgot that they actually have to put a competitive team on the court before a superstar would actually consider going there. Danillo Galinari and David Lee just aren't going to cut it. Considering what the Knicks have put their fans through, there might be torches and pitchforks at Donnie Walsh's office before this is over.

A brief musical interlude

So I was watching VH1 Classic, and they showed a bit with Slayer where they were asked about '80s hair bands, and they said, "we wanted to be completely different than them."

Well guys, you were, in that you couldn't come up with melodies and hooks like they did, and so you replaced with it really fast guitar playing and growling vocals. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Slayer simply wasn't as good as some (not all, there were plenty of bad hair bands) of those other bands. And while they'd like to act like they're superior because those bands were all image and no substance, what exactly was Slayer about? There are some people who truly like their music, but mostly the attraction to Slayer is the dark, Satanic imagery and anti-authoritarion messages. Slayer's really no different than a hair band, in that they had to create an image to generate a fan base. The only difference is, hair bands made songs that sound good, while Slayer made songs that simply sound fast.

Slayer gets tossed in with Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax as the "big four of '80s speed metal," but that's always been completely unfair to Metallica and Megadeth. They made songs and albums that sounded good, while Slayer and Anthrax made songs and albums that sounded like a whole lotta nothing. There's more to music than just fast guitars, and Slayer and Anthrax didn't have it. Metallica and Megadeth, on the other hand, were talented and were able to play fast and yet have a good song underneath it all.

It just bothers me when bands like Slayer act like they're morally superior to hair bands, when in fact they had to rely on their image just as much as, say, Poison did. The imagery was completely different, but the effect on the fan base was the same. And while Poison wasn't all that talented either, they did write good pop songs that were just heavy enough to please hard rock fans. I just wish that when Slayer goes on a show, that the host would call them on their bullshit. Okay, I get it, you're jealous because those other bands sold millions of records and you didn't. Staying underground didn't make you morally superior, it just made you irrelevant.

A true disaster movie

When Hollywood decided to make the awful spoof Disaster Movie, it should have just been footage of the Minnesota Timberwolves' draft history. I was perusing it for fun, and it's even worse than you think. The gory details:

From 1990-1996, the Timberwolves possessed the 6, 7, 3, 5, 4, 5, and 5th picks. Any competent organization should be able to produce a pretty good starting lineup out of that bevy of lottery picks, right? That's 7 top-7 picks, so even if you miss on a couple, you should still be able to get a good foundation out of that. Instead, they ended up with Felton Spencer, Luc Longley, Christian Laettner, Isaiah Rider, Donyell Marshall, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen (who was traded on draft day for Stephon Marbury). By 1998, all the Timberwolves had to show for all of those picks was Kevin Garnett and Terrell Brandon, who they traded Marbury for.

In 1999, the Timberwolves possessed the 6th and 14th picks. With the 6th pick, they took Wally Szczerbiak. Immediately taken after him were Richard Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion and Jason Terry, meaning of the next four picks, every single one of them was better than what Minnesota ended up with. With the 14th pick they took William Avery, a forgotten Duke point guard. Immediately after him was the comical Frederic Weis (somehow there's a franchise run worse than the Timberwolves, and it's been the Knicks), but after him was Ron Artest, and two picks after that was James Posey. The Timberwolves could have ended up with a nice combination of players out of that draft to work with Garnett for the next decade. Garnett-Hamilton-Artest is a nice trio of players.

The next three years, the Timberwolves did not possess a single first round pick. Why, you might ask? Because they had to give superduperstar Joe Smith an under-the-table contract in order to keep him, which the NBA deemed illegal and docked the Timberwolves their next few first round draft picks for. This ensured that while Kevin Garnett was going through his prime, no young talent would be joining him. But hey...at least they kept Joe Smith, who any day now should be having his Hall of Fame plaque hung up.

When the Timberwolves finally rejoined the first round in 2003, who did they select? None other than high school stud Ndudi Ebi. I guess missing all of those first round picks wasn't so bad after all; at least it saved the fanbase from having to endure laughable selections like this one. Who was taken directly after Ebi? To be fair, Ebi was taken with the 26th selection, where you usually don't find good players. Except in this draft; taken directly after Ebi were Kendrick Perkins, Leandro Barbosa and Josh Howard.

I think my favorite thing about Minnesota's draft history is their propensity to select the right player, and then trade him for the wrong one. In 1996 they took Ray Allen, who would later team up with Kevin Garnett on a championship team. Of course that team wasn't in Minnesota, because they traded Allen for the incomparably selfish Stephon Marbury (self-nicknamed Starbury). In 2006 they drafted future all-star Brandon Roy. Of course he wasn't an all-star for Minnesota, as he was dealt to Portland for Randy Foye, who would later be traded to Washington and then forgotten. In 2008 they drafted O.J. Mayo and then traded him to Memphis for Kevin Love. That trade is a little more even since Love actually is a good player who could contribute to a winning team. Unfortunately, he plays the same position as Minnesota's top player, Al Jefferson, and Mayo would have provided a nice inside-outside combo with Jefferson. But hey, at least they got something in return this time.

Of all the draft day exploits the Timberwolves have had, the 2009 draft might take the cake. They were able to acquire the 5th pick from the Wizards for Foye, giving them the 5th, 6th, 18th and 28th picks in the first round. In a move that has to be unprecedented, they used their first three picks on points guards. Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Ty Lawson; every single one of them a point guard. Would you believe that the one who had the best rookie season, Lawson, did it for a team other than Minnesota? It is their history after all. Lawson was traded to Denver for a future first, and had a nice rookie season backing up Chauncey Billups. Flynn shot 41% from the field, and Rubio did not play for the Timberwolves. You won't believe this either, but the best point guard in the entire draft, Stephon Curry, went one pick after Rubio and Flynn, meaning that yet again Minnesota passed on the better player. What would have been comical is if Minnesota had won the lottery in 2010 and then had to reconcile John Wall being the best player in the draft, and them already having two young point guards on the roster (counting Rubio, which they probably shouldn't do).

It's a grisly history the Timberwolves have. A quality GM could have run roughshod over the league with these assets. They somehow made an outstanding selection with Kevin Garnett, but could never pair him with another good young player. Instead the best they ever did was two veterans in Sam Cassel and Latrell Sprewell, who imploded after one year. They could have paired Garnett with Ray Allen, or Richard Hamilton, or Brandon Roy. Instead they paired him with Stephon Marbury, Wally Szczerbiak and Randy Foye. All of these draft day misfires eventually led them to trading Garnett, and becoming one of the most irrelevent teams in the league. Teams like the Clippers and Knicks get lambasted for their mistakes over the years, and rightfully so. But it seems like the Timberwolves don't receive enough criticism for the horrid job they've done. Probably because they play in Minnesota, and nobody really cares.

A few random thoughts

* College football's conference realignment was a bigger bust than Dolly Parton (thank you, I'll be here all week). I feel like I got teased into bed by Scarlet Johannsen and woke up with Rosie O'Donnell. All the talk had been about a Pac-10 superconference with the Texas and Oklahoma schools shifting westward, and then maybe the Big Ten would take Nebraska and Missouri plus raid the Big East perhaps, and maybe even force Notre Dame to join a conference. Instead all we got was Colorado moving to the Pac-10 and Nebraska going to the Big-10. Big flippin' deal. I was looking forward to yearly Texas-USC matchups, and Oregon-Oklahoma. Instead I get Colorado-Washington St. and Nebraska-Northwestern. Hey, congrats Big-10 and Pac-10; all of that bluster, and you added two schools that haven't been relevant for about a decade.

* I love how every off-field transgression is now referred to as a "mistake." Last night I had ESPNNEWS on and John Clayton was talking about Vince Young getting into a fight at a strip club, and he said Young had "admitted to his mistake." Hmm, I don't think "mistake" is quite the right term for getting into a fight at a strip club. A mistake is when you're doing a math problem and you forget to carry the 1. Even being in a strip club and allowing yourself to be put in that position when you're a starting QB is...how should I put this...fucking idiotic. Roethlisberger's ordeal has also been referred to as a "mistake." The term "mistake" just makes it all sound a little too honest. I mean, we all make mistakes. But we don't all go to strip clubs and get into fights, and we don't all force girls into a bathroom and then do, well whatever Ben did.

* Hi, Brad Childress here. Just letting everyone know that when my star QB misses minicamps and OTAs, I'm okay with that, but when my star RB does the same, I get pissed! Hey Adrian, sorry bud but you aren't "contemplating retirement." heh heh even I can't say that one with a straight face. But seriously, get your ass to camp. I have no problem airing my double standards in public, as you can already see. And when Brett doesn't show up for training camp because he's still "contemplating retirement" well...don't you worry 'bout that. But your ass better be there on time and in shape. There's only one person on this team who can get into shape while riding his lawnmower, and it ain't you bud.

*Seriously though, the Vikings were able to get away with Favre missing training camp last year because they opened with Cleveland and Detroit, which allowed him to ease into the season (and he eased in like a gentleman, throwing for only about 120 yards in each game). The Vikings have no such luxury this season, as they open against New Orleans and Miami. If the passing game starts off slow again, they'll be 0-2. Mark my words, Favre will not be able to get away with missing training camp again.

*Chad Qualls, the Diamondbacks' closer, has a stat line that's so bad, you have to see it to believe it. 22.1 innings pitched, 2.1 WHIP, 8.46 ERA. In other words, he's allowing a helluva lot of baserunners (over 2 per inning!) and a helluva lot of runs. The Arizona bullpen is a disaster area as a whole, but Qualls has to be the worst pitcher in baseball this season. I can't imagine anyone else with that high of a WHIP and that high of an ERA. You shouldn't be able to keep your job with numbers like that, but Qualls is gainfully employed, and still the closer as far as I know. Kyra Sedgwick would be a better option.

Fun fact: Arizona averages almost 5 runs a game, and is 12 games under .500. That's all you need to know about that particular pitching staff.

I like Bill Simmons as much as anybody else...

But this is a column he wrote before the NBA playoffs that he might want to bury where no one can find it, before a smart-ass like me pokes fun at it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part1/100416&sportCat=nba
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/100416&sportCat=nba

I'll preface this by saying that when you're in the prediction business, you're going to be wrong a lot. But it's still fun to look back and see just how wrong we were.

I think this spring could be the last stand for the Rejuvenated Atlanta Hawks.

And what a stand it was. Has a team ever gone out so meekly before? They got swept in 4 games by Orlando by approximately 30 points a game, but not before needing 7 games to beat the undertalented Milwaukee Bucks. With Joe Johnson leaving it was their last stand, but it wasn't exactly the stuff of "300."

I think Larry Brown could absolutely outcoach his first- and second-round opponents this spring.

Stan Van Gundy in Round 1, Mike Woodson in Round 2 ... and Mike Brown looming in Round 3. I'm just sayin'.

He could...if his team could win a game first. The Bobcats were swept in the first round by Orlando. I wouldn't argue that Larry Brown is a better coach than Van Gundy, Woodson or Mike Brown, but the NBA is all about the players, and the Bobcats don't have them.

I think Ernie Grunfeld should be the 2009-10 Anti-Executive of the Year.

He turned Dallas into a contender and made Cleveland the overwhelming favorite.

In retrospect, those deals didn't hardly do anything for Dallas or Cleveland. Jamison was MIA for the Cavs in round 2, and Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood didn't mean a thing as the Mavs lost to the Spurs in round 1.


I think Cleveland will win the 2010 title.

Best team, best player, best season. Of course, we could have said that last year. But Jamison and Shaq give the Cavs a flexibility last season's team just didn't have.

Jamison was useless, and Shaq clogged up the lane. That Cleveland team is shit, and I'm never buying into their hype again, even if LeBron does come back.

I know "Deron Williams or Chris Paul?" is a legitimate debate.

I only mention this one because Simmons now goes out of his way to say that Rondo is the best PG in the NBA, when a mere two months ago he wasn't even in the discussion. I personally like Chris Paul the best, but Williams and Rondo are damn good and so is Derrick Rose. It is a legitimate debate, but it's between four PGs, not two.

I know the Celtics are going to lose in Round 1.

Wait, it gets better.

I know Cavs-Mavericks is a smart Finals wager in Vegas.

In retrospect, I have no idea why we ever bought into these teams. Well okay, Cleveland has LeBron. But Dallas' second best player is Jason Kidd, and that just doesn't cut it. Dirk should go to Phoenix and play with Steve Nash again. He's not winning a championship in Dallas unless they somehow bring in another superstar.

I can prove that the 2010 Orlando-Cleveland series will be different than the 2009 Orlando-Cleveland series.

It will be different, in that it won't happen. Orlando was a lot worse than last season (who knew Hedo was such a valuable player for them?), and Cleveland was, at best, no better.

I can prove that the Disease of More exists.

Our latest example: the 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers.

This is the stuff that kills you. When you go out of your way to say that the favorite has a fatal flaw...and then that flaw never appears.

I can prove that chemistry matters

Group 1 (has it): Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Atlanta, Portland, Milwaukee, San Antonio and Phoenix.

Group 2 (doesn't have it): Boston, Los Angeles.

Group 3 (unclear): Orlando, Utah, Miami, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver.

Okay, now this is where we get into trouble. Simmons too often falls into that fairy tale bullshit about chemistry mattering more than talent, and he thinks that somehow he can quantify chemistry. I don't doubt that chemistry exists and matters, but you can't actually prove it. Look at the teams he put in group 1; only Phoenix acquitted themselves nicely this postseason. Oklahoma City did fine but they still lost in the first round, as did Portland and Milwaukee (no fault really; they just aren't talented enough); Dallas and Cleveland were big busts, while San Antonio got swept in the second round. And then there's Atlanta; pardon my french, but what in the fuck are the Hawks doing in a "good chemistry" group? The Hawks have horrible chemistry; a whole bunch of selfish players who had other ideas besides winning in the 2nd round (what those ideas were is still a mystery). I mean, what the fuck Simmons. The Hawks???

I appreciate that a whopping 6 playoff teams have unclear chemistry, as if proving my point that chemistry is unquantifiable. But does Simmons come to this conclusion, despite his own evidence? Nope, he'll still tell you can see good chemistry and bad chemistry, even though 6 playoff teams that he no doubt saw play at least 20 times this season he had no clue about.

And then there's the group 2, the two playoff teams that Simmons thought absolutely, positively had bad chemistry this season; they are, of course, the two teams facing off in the NBA Finals. Maybe now we can drop the magic beans bullshit and analyze teams for their talent rather than their pixie dust?

--------

My point here isn't to pick on Simmons, since I like his NBA writing a lot and I actually agreed with a lot of this back when it was written. I liked Cleveland and Dallas as well, and thought Boston would go out early. When you make predictions you're going to be wrong, and Lord knows I've been wrong many times. I just wish he would stick to basketball, and drop the fairy tale stuff. Chemistry doesn't put the ball in the basket; pixie dust doesn't put a hand in Kobe's face as he rises for a jump shot. The game is about the players, except in those rare circumstances where players are openly gunning for themselves or something, in which case yes that's problematic.

Kinda like, I don't know...the Atlanta Hawks. I still can't believe he thought they had good chemistry.