The title of this post is cheesy, I admit, but I wanted to rant for a few minutes about what I perceive to be the problems with the NFL and NBA drafts.
I won't address the MLB Draft because, well, it's REALLY complicated to me.
I also won't address the NHL Draft because... wait... is there an NHL draft? I mean, I'm sure there is, but it gets less coverage than my fantasy football league draft. I bet it's on Versus...
Anyway, I got to thinking the other day about how huge draft coverage has become and even the way teams draft players now.
Then I read a column by ESPN.com's Bill Simmons about the effects of the NCAA basketball tourney on draft status and my mind went to racing.
My first statement is that dividing NFL Draft coverage into three days is a huge risk.
Basically, ESPN better hope Tim Tebow doesn't get drafted in the first round.
If he does, and there's a clean break between rounds one and two, no one will watch the second day of coverage.
Under the old format, a casual sports addict like me might keep watching the draft to see how early Pat White got taken in the second round.
I'm certainly not going to devote a whole second night's effort to finding out if Terrance Cody will be a Lion or a Bear (oh my!... sorry).
Tebow or McCoy may draw a TV crowd if one or both fall into the second night, but that's about it.
Second, I could not possibly care less what a guy does at his pro day.
Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, and surely that's got to be it, but I'm not impressed with how Sam Bradford throws under zero pressure in a t-shirt and shorts when he and Bob Stoops decided it was time for everybody to see Sam throw.
I actually heard a talking head say on the radio, and apparently ESPN agrees, that Bradford had "erased all doubts" about his physical toughness with his chiseled physique at Sammy Day.
SERIOUSLY?
Did the following conversation really happen?
Scout A: "Jeez, look at the guns on Bradford!"
Scout B: "And those pecs! I totally just forgot he got hurt on normal hits the last two times he touched the field in live action."
Scout A: "Me too. Surely all that extra weight in muscle will make his shoulder less susceptible to injury."
Scout B: "I know right? In fact, I think I would take him with the first overall pick simply because of how meaty he looks, and, ooohh.... that's the prettiest undefended 65-yard pass I've seen since JaMarcus Russell's pro day. Man, we're good at this!"
In regards to how I would draft for particularly these two sports, I would look for three things: talent, wins, and durability.
Bradford has the first two, unquestionably. He threw for fifty touchdowns in his 2008-2009 season in which he won the Heisman trophy, and he won 23 games and two Big 12 titles as a starter.
Durability-wise, he's shaky.
Not that he's always been that way, but when was the last time you saw Sam Bradford in a game where he didn't get hurt?
January 8, 2009, against Florida in the National Title Game.
That's over a year ago, folks.
My third ranting point is in regards to the NBA Draft, mainly.
Call me old-fashioned, but... (you actually did it, right? Good.) ... I wouldn't draft a "one-and-done" guy like John Wall unless he was available in the second round.
I wouldn't draft him then if I didn't need a guard.
I don't care how talented he is, and I don't care about how good he supposedly is in clutch situations.
First of all, I want to see how well he plays when over half of the guys guarding him have played against him before.
In one NBA season, Wall will play against everyone twice a year, conference foes three times, and division opponents four times.
When or if he gets to the playoffs, Wall might have to face off against the same point gaurd that he already faced at least three times for seven more games.
He's played Tennessee three times, and the other teams in his division plus Mississippi State and Alabama twice. Other than that, he's feasting off of point guards that have never played against him before.
By the way, Wall's scoring looks like this against Tennessee in three games: 24, 19 (lost), 14.
Against Miss. St.: 18, 17.
Against Alabama: 22, 23 (he actually got better).
Against Vanderbilt: 13, 13.
Against Georgia: 17, 24.
Against Florida: 19, 11.
Against South Carolina: 19 (lost), 12 .
Thus, of the seven teams that played against him more than once, only two teams failed to hold him to fewer points.
The most disturbing part is the fact that he scored fewer points the next time he, as a star who was held to under twenty points in a loss, played a team that beat "his" Wildcats.
That brings me to my next point about the "one-and-done" athletes.
They leave too much to be accomplished in many cases.
Sure, Wall and the 'Cats won an SEC title and got a top seed in the Big Dance, but he didn't lead his team to a national championship, or even a Final Four for that matter.
If I'm an NBA general manager or coach, what makes me think Wall will be any more committed to winning a title?
I would feel much better about drafting a guy who came back to college to beat the guys who beat him last year and win the titles that have yet to be won.
I want a guy who got ticked off that he went three years without sniffing the Final Four and came back to cut down some nets.
That's the guy that might stay in New Jersey or Sacramento or Philadelphia just to say he brought a title to that town.
There... I think I'm done draft ranting... just in time for an "oh by the way" related to my last post.
Duke's tournament record against team's ranked in the ESPN.com RPI top twenty at the end of the season is now 3-0, having defeated #18 Cal, #16 Purdue, and #8 Baylor.
Each of the other top seeds lost to the first RPI Top 20 they faced, which in Kentucky's case was their fourth game.
Duke is so lucky they got an easy bracket.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Which Road?
So I'm a Duke fan.
Also being a part-time sports writer and sports media junkie, I know that a lot of so-called experts feel like the Blue Devils got the easiest road to the Final Four and there's some sort of conspiracy involved.
Thus, I did a little research to ease their troubled minds.
Since the tournament is currently in the middle of the Sweet 16 round, I decided to take the average RPI from ESPN.com for each number one seed's first three opponents.
This posed two obstacles.
First of all, Kansas lost in the second round, so I just used Michigan State as their third opponent since that's who they would have played.
Second of all, I decided to use the average RPI of the two play-in teams for Duke's first round opponent.
(Editor's note: This touch did not make a difference. Let it be known that I've always thought the overall top seed should play the play-in winner.)
After all that math, I discovered the following standings, with the easiest road being number 1:
1. Duke avg. 68
2. Kentucky avg. 66.7
3. Kansas avg. 65.3
4. Syracuse avg. 54.7
So, there's some merit to the thought that Duke has a slightly easier road... at first glance.
I did some more math later, but just using this first set of rankings, I decided to throw out the opening round.
Why?
Because no number one has EVER lost in the first round, so those games don't matter and the 16-seeds are often lower conference champions that have to be included despite horrendous RPI's.
If you take the average of the second- and third-round opponents, the standings go as follows:
1. Kentucky avg. 41.5
2. Syracuse avg. 23.5
3. Kansas avg. 22.5
4. Duke avg. 17
So in the games where number one's are realistically susceptible to upset (see Kansas and Syracuse), Duke has had the toughest road.
Also, if you combine the two standings, Kansas' overall number one seed has earned them the most difficult road to the final four that included an upset trap with the ESPN RPI #17 Northern Iowa lurking as the number nine in their corner of the dance.
I then took my research another level to see which bracket's top seeds were the toughest, averaging seeds two through four in the regions.
This is what I got:
1. Kansas avg. 19
2. Syracuse avg. 14.7
3. Duke avg. 11.7
4. Kentucky avg. 11
After all this "assesserizing" of the bracket, I have come to one conclusion: whether you look at who they did play or who they were supposed to play, the top seeds had pretty equal roads to the Final Four.
Duke had the easiest first round opponent, but Kentucky's next two opponents were the weakest, while Kansas would've theoretically had the easiest venture in the Sweet and Elite rounds.
The only glaring injustice I discovered was that Northern Iowa was way too good to be a nine seed, but Kansas already showed us that.
The next most surprising seed was that California, the number eight seed Duke played in the second round and defeated by 15 points, was ranked 18th.
That's just one spot behind Northern Iowa, and makes Duke's second round opponent a tougher draw than any eight or nine seed other than UNI.
I thought they had a cupcake bracket?
Please give any "journalist" who feels this way my number or e-mail address. ;)
Also being a part-time sports writer and sports media junkie, I know that a lot of so-called experts feel like the Blue Devils got the easiest road to the Final Four and there's some sort of conspiracy involved.
Thus, I did a little research to ease their troubled minds.
Since the tournament is currently in the middle of the Sweet 16 round, I decided to take the average RPI from ESPN.com for each number one seed's first three opponents.
This posed two obstacles.
First of all, Kansas lost in the second round, so I just used Michigan State as their third opponent since that's who they would have played.
Second of all, I decided to use the average RPI of the two play-in teams for Duke's first round opponent.
(Editor's note: This touch did not make a difference. Let it be known that I've always thought the overall top seed should play the play-in winner.)
After all that math, I discovered the following standings, with the easiest road being number 1:
1. Duke avg. 68
2. Kentucky avg. 66.7
3. Kansas avg. 65.3
4. Syracuse avg. 54.7
So, there's some merit to the thought that Duke has a slightly easier road... at first glance.
I did some more math later, but just using this first set of rankings, I decided to throw out the opening round.
Why?
Because no number one has EVER lost in the first round, so those games don't matter and the 16-seeds are often lower conference champions that have to be included despite horrendous RPI's.
If you take the average of the second- and third-round opponents, the standings go as follows:
1. Kentucky avg. 41.5
2. Syracuse avg. 23.5
3. Kansas avg. 22.5
4. Duke avg. 17
So in the games where number one's are realistically susceptible to upset (see Kansas and Syracuse), Duke has had the toughest road.
Also, if you combine the two standings, Kansas' overall number one seed has earned them the most difficult road to the final four that included an upset trap with the ESPN RPI #17 Northern Iowa lurking as the number nine in their corner of the dance.
I then took my research another level to see which bracket's top seeds were the toughest, averaging seeds two through four in the regions.
This is what I got:
1. Kansas avg. 19
2. Syracuse avg. 14.7
3. Duke avg. 11.7
4. Kentucky avg. 11
After all this "assesserizing" of the bracket, I have come to one conclusion: whether you look at who they did play or who they were supposed to play, the top seeds had pretty equal roads to the Final Four.
Duke had the easiest first round opponent, but Kentucky's next two opponents were the weakest, while Kansas would've theoretically had the easiest venture in the Sweet and Elite rounds.
The only glaring injustice I discovered was that Northern Iowa was way too good to be a nine seed, but Kansas already showed us that.
The next most surprising seed was that California, the number eight seed Duke played in the second round and defeated by 15 points, was ranked 18th.
That's just one spot behind Northern Iowa, and makes Duke's second round opponent a tougher draw than any eight or nine seed other than UNI.
I thought they had a cupcake bracket?
Please give any "journalist" who feels this way my number or e-mail address. ;)
Friday, March 19, 2010
Beware of 96!
Listen, I've been hearing some crazy stuff out there, and I just want you to know the truth because, hey, you're good people.
If anyone has tried to tell you something off-the-wall, like 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea, they're dirty liars.
No good would come of this.
Eight or sixteen teams in a college football tournament, now that's an excellent choice, but that's not what's on the table.
We're talking about adding 31 teams to a tournament that didn't need to add it's 65th team.
Don't get me wrong, I normally think more of a good thing is generally still a good thing, but this is not one of those times.
There are three possibilities for this scenario and only one of them is remotely good.
That scenario involves the proper 31 additional teams being invited, with an introductory round full of games like the one I'm watching right now between Michigan State and New Mexico State.
Underdogs hanging with and defeating the favorites could be even more abundant, as the opening round would consist mainly of middle teams from the big conferences facing champions and second teams from the mid-majors.
I think that's more of a utopian option.
The next possibility is that the tournament would allow more teams like Arkansas-Pine Bluff into the field.
Not a single Golden Lion scored in double digits against Duke Friday night, and there are plenty more teams like them in the NIT and the CBI just waiting on a tournament expansion.
What's also waiting in those lower tournaments are my third, and most likely scenario: more teams from the "power conferences."
As an ACC man, I'd love to say that everyone except UNC deserved a shot at the Big Dance this year, but that would be a lie as well.
Seth Greenberg can get his bald head as fired up as he wants, but Virginia Tech did nothing to show the committee they wanted in the field.
Yet, with the proposed expansion, the Hokies would most certainly have made it.
Furthermore, a completely undeserving Tar Heel team could've jumped all the way up to a one-seed in the NIT, and that would be a true injustice.
If anyone has tried to tell you something off-the-wall, like 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea, they're dirty liars.
No good would come of this.
Eight or sixteen teams in a college football tournament, now that's an excellent choice, but that's not what's on the table.
We're talking about adding 31 teams to a tournament that didn't need to add it's 65th team.
Don't get me wrong, I normally think more of a good thing is generally still a good thing, but this is not one of those times.
There are three possibilities for this scenario and only one of them is remotely good.
That scenario involves the proper 31 additional teams being invited, with an introductory round full of games like the one I'm watching right now between Michigan State and New Mexico State.
Underdogs hanging with and defeating the favorites could be even more abundant, as the opening round would consist mainly of middle teams from the big conferences facing champions and second teams from the mid-majors.
I think that's more of a utopian option.
The next possibility is that the tournament would allow more teams like Arkansas-Pine Bluff into the field.
Not a single Golden Lion scored in double digits against Duke Friday night, and there are plenty more teams like them in the NIT and the CBI just waiting on a tournament expansion.
What's also waiting in those lower tournaments are my third, and most likely scenario: more teams from the "power conferences."
As an ACC man, I'd love to say that everyone except UNC deserved a shot at the Big Dance this year, but that would be a lie as well.
Seth Greenberg can get his bald head as fired up as he wants, but Virginia Tech did nothing to show the committee they wanted in the field.
Yet, with the proposed expansion, the Hokies would most certainly have made it.
Furthermore, a completely undeserving Tar Heel team could've jumped all the way up to a one-seed in the NIT, and that would be a true injustice.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
MLB Predictions
As Spring Training begins, many of America's top sports writers, bottom sports writers, and even the okay sports writers will begin to assess the talent present in Major League camps.
Then, one of the most inaccurate forms of journalism is formed: the predictive column.
Last year's efforts yielded such brilliant ideas as the Mets being a far-too-popular choice to win the National League.
I've never done one of these, but, this year, you will be the first to read my candid prognostication regarding the big leaguers.
The more I think about it, I've never made public my thought on eventual champions of any kind prior to the regular season.
Thus, you should feel lucky.
Or at least you'll know who not to pick.
Anyway, I'm basing my educated guesses on three main categories: pitching, hitting, and bench. The closer will count towards pitching, with the rest of the bullpen counting towards bench.
Why, you might ask?
Because I'm just making this up as I go.
AL East
Anyone who doesn't think the Yankees are the best team in this division is kidding themselves. I loathe the pinstripes as much as the next guy, but the champs reloaded nicely. The only area where I see a weakness is the bench, but, barring big injuries, that shouldn't keep them from winning the division. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay has the hitting to keep the Sox out of the postseason. In other news, I think I found three Blue Jays I'd heard of.
Projected finish: NY, TB, BOS, BAL, TOR.
AL Central
This divistion should be one of the most tightly contested races from start to finish. The addition of Johnny Damon gives Detroit the slight hitting edge, while the recent injury to Joe Nathan may be the straw that breaks the Twins' backs. Minnesota will need a big move to climb back into this division either now or by the trade deadline in July. Cleveland's roster is surprisingly mediocre, while the Royals could be this year's '08 Rays. Notice I'm not predicting it, though.
Projected finish: DET, CHI, MIN, KC, CLE
AL West
The easy no-look pick in this division is always the Angels, and they will be fairly strong this year. With a couple of moves now or later, they could steal back their own lunch money. That said, Cliff Lee and Chone Figgins make the Mariners an early favorite to take the division crown and try to get Mr. Griffey a pennant. The Rangers' lineup is impressive with Vlad and Josh Hamilton, but their pitching is a liability as usual.
Projected finish: SEA, LA, TEX, OAK
Playoffs
The Yankees sweep the White Sox and Seattle overpowers Detroit in a short series. Then, the Yanks take Seattle in six games in the Championship Series. I don't like it, but a return trip to the World Series seems inevitable for Joey G and the boys.
NL East
This could be the year that we finally get the three-team brawl between the Braves, Mets, and Phillies that some have been predicting for a few years. As for starting rotations, the Braves and Phillies have the edge, even with Javy Vasquez donning the stripes this year. Furthermore the Braves and Mets are two of the deepest teams in the league as far as reserves and bullpen go. Meanwhile, the Phillies hitting lineup is as formidable as you'll find. I can only predict this division based on how I hope it will finish. As a side note, aren't the Marlins about due to lease another World Championship sometime soon?
Projected finish: ATL, PHI, NY, WAS, FLA
NL Central
Then, one of the most inaccurate forms of journalism is formed: the predictive column.
Last year's efforts yielded such brilliant ideas as the Mets being a far-too-popular choice to win the National League.
I've never done one of these, but, this year, you will be the first to read my candid prognostication regarding the big leaguers.
The more I think about it, I've never made public my thought on eventual champions of any kind prior to the regular season.
Thus, you should feel lucky.
Or at least you'll know who not to pick.
Anyway, I'm basing my educated guesses on three main categories: pitching, hitting, and bench. The closer will count towards pitching, with the rest of the bullpen counting towards bench.
Why, you might ask?
Because I'm just making this up as I go.
AL East
Anyone who doesn't think the Yankees are the best team in this division is kidding themselves. I loathe the pinstripes as much as the next guy, but the champs reloaded nicely. The only area where I see a weakness is the bench, but, barring big injuries, that shouldn't keep them from winning the division. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay has the hitting to keep the Sox out of the postseason. In other news, I think I found three Blue Jays I'd heard of.
Projected finish: NY, TB, BOS, BAL, TOR.
AL Central
This divistion should be one of the most tightly contested races from start to finish. The addition of Johnny Damon gives Detroit the slight hitting edge, while the recent injury to Joe Nathan may be the straw that breaks the Twins' backs. Minnesota will need a big move to climb back into this division either now or by the trade deadline in July. Cleveland's roster is surprisingly mediocre, while the Royals could be this year's '08 Rays. Notice I'm not predicting it, though.
Projected finish: DET, CHI, MIN, KC, CLE
AL West
The easy no-look pick in this division is always the Angels, and they will be fairly strong this year. With a couple of moves now or later, they could steal back their own lunch money. That said, Cliff Lee and Chone Figgins make the Mariners an early favorite to take the division crown and try to get Mr. Griffey a pennant. The Rangers' lineup is impressive with Vlad and Josh Hamilton, but their pitching is a liability as usual.
Projected finish: SEA, LA, TEX, OAK
Playoffs
The Yankees sweep the White Sox and Seattle overpowers Detroit in a short series. Then, the Yanks take Seattle in six games in the Championship Series. I don't like it, but a return trip to the World Series seems inevitable for Joey G and the boys.
NL East
This could be the year that we finally get the three-team brawl between the Braves, Mets, and Phillies that some have been predicting for a few years. As for starting rotations, the Braves and Phillies have the edge, even with Javy Vasquez donning the stripes this year. Furthermore the Braves and Mets are two of the deepest teams in the league as far as reserves and bullpen go. Meanwhile, the Phillies hitting lineup is as formidable as you'll find. I can only predict this division based on how I hope it will finish. As a side note, aren't the Marlins about due to lease another World Championship sometime soon?
Projected finish: ATL, PHI, NY, WAS, FLA
NL Central
Unless something changes, this stands to be a boring division again. The Cardinals have the sweet hitting tandem of Pujols and Holliday to go with a solid starting rotation, but not much beyond that. The Cubs are fairly deep and have a good rotation as well. The other teams in this division will dabble in mediocrity for most of the year, barring some unforeseen moves by the Astros or Brewers.
Projected finish: STL, CHI, MIL, HOU, CIN, PIT
NL West
This will be a highly contested division top-to-bottom. That said, any prediction I make has the potential to be completely wrong here. Given the proven talent in the Dodgers' starting lineup and rotation, it's hard to pick against them, but the Giants and D-Backs aren't far behind. As far as depth goes these three teams have a lot of quality talent doing bench work for them. If Arizona's rotation pitches up to potential, what they lack in offensive firepower could be overcome. Still the Giants pose the biggest overall threat to Manny and friends.
Projected finish: LA, SF, ARZ, COL, SD
Playoffs
Atlanta and the Cardinals put up a classic five gamer, but the Braves' overall better pitching and stronger lineup makes the difference. Meanwhile, the Phillies go out West and take down the Dodgers. Then the Braves ride a stronger rotation past the Phillies in six games.
World Series
So yeah, I'm a homer. I picked the Braves to face the evil Yankees in the World Series. I'll go one step further and say the Braves beat the Yankees... in seven games... on a walk-off... by Chipper... in Atlanta. That's right, I'm saying the National League is going to win the All-Star Game for once because that's what this time of the year is about, hope in a team that you haven't seen play a real game yet. So whoever your team is, here's to them playing up to the potential of their talent. Unless your team is Toronto, at which point you should realize that they're really going to be terrible this year.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Just out of love...
He's been called National Champion.
He's been called "The greatest college quarterback of all time."
He's been called a hero.
He called himself the real Heisman winner.
He's been called NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year.
He's been called a flop.
He's been called crazy, even suicidal.
Anyone who watches football even casually knows who I'm talking about.
Vince Young has gone from phenom to legend back to phenom, and he now sits second on the Titans' depth chart behind the archaic Kerry Collins.
He blew off rumored emotional struggles that led to a frantic search earlier this year as a trip to a friend's house.
Even as a fan of Vince, I was skeptical about that odd adventure.
Regardless, it has been a roller coaster journey through football thus far for Vince, but his off-the-field ride took him right back to hero on Wednesday.
You see, Young was mentored through a healthy portion of his football career by Steve McNair, who, as anyone with cable or the internet knows, was shot by what seems to be his mistress on July 4.
Steve McNair was married with four kids.
Two of those kids are students at St. Paul Christian Academy, a school that had a "Dear Dads Breakfast."
According to teachers, 11-year-old Trenton and 5-year-old Tyler "were wondering what was going to happen with them" in regards to the breakfast.
Apparently Trenton and Tyler, like much of sports media, had forgotten about Vince Young's legendary capabilities when he's needed.
So Vince showed up at the restaurant where breakfast was happening, ate an omelet with the boys, signed a few autographs, and made those two boys' day.
He probably made their lives, though.
Vince summed up that, even though many have suggested he has completely lost his mind, he "gets it" better than most celebrities ever will in his quote to the Tennesseean.
"Those are my boys. I wouldn't say it was to pay anyone back; it was just out of love. Steve would do it for me. He pretty much did it for me when I was growing up. I have a history with the boys and I want to do anything I can. I am their big brother."
I'm not saying Vince Young is perfect, or he deserves to start (although he does), or that he won't ever let those boys or his fans down.
I am saying that the media outlets will probably let this story slide through the cracks before today is over in favor of something more interesting, like the latest leaked steroid user.
It's a shame because Trenton and Tyler are more important than that.
Just ask the greatest college quarterback of all time.
He's been called "The greatest college quarterback of all time."
He's been called a hero.
He called himself the real Heisman winner.
He's been called NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year.
He's been called a flop.
He's been called crazy, even suicidal.
Anyone who watches football even casually knows who I'm talking about.
Vince Young has gone from phenom to legend back to phenom, and he now sits second on the Titans' depth chart behind the archaic Kerry Collins.
He blew off rumored emotional struggles that led to a frantic search earlier this year as a trip to a friend's house.
Even as a fan of Vince, I was skeptical about that odd adventure.
Regardless, it has been a roller coaster journey through football thus far for Vince, but his off-the-field ride took him right back to hero on Wednesday.
You see, Young was mentored through a healthy portion of his football career by Steve McNair, who, as anyone with cable or the internet knows, was shot by what seems to be his mistress on July 4.
Steve McNair was married with four kids.
Two of those kids are students at St. Paul Christian Academy, a school that had a "Dear Dads Breakfast."
According to teachers, 11-year-old Trenton and 5-year-old Tyler "were wondering what was going to happen with them" in regards to the breakfast.
Apparently Trenton and Tyler, like much of sports media, had forgotten about Vince Young's legendary capabilities when he's needed.
So Vince showed up at the restaurant where breakfast was happening, ate an omelet with the boys, signed a few autographs, and made those two boys' day.
He probably made their lives, though.
Vince summed up that, even though many have suggested he has completely lost his mind, he "gets it" better than most celebrities ever will in his quote to the Tennesseean.
"Those are my boys. I wouldn't say it was to pay anyone back; it was just out of love. Steve would do it for me. He pretty much did it for me when I was growing up. I have a history with the boys and I want to do anything I can. I am their big brother."
I'm not saying Vince Young is perfect, or he deserves to start (although he does), or that he won't ever let those boys or his fans down.
I am saying that the media outlets will probably let this story slide through the cracks before today is over in favor of something more interesting, like the latest leaked steroid user.
It's a shame because Trenton and Tyler are more important than that.
Just ask the greatest college quarterback of all time.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Dear fantasy football team,
So all you guys have been drafted to play for this illustrious franchise, the Macon Babies, and you should feel lucky. To my first round draft pick, Steve Slaton, I knew when I pre-set my player rankings and draft strategy, that the chips would fall to where you would be my guy. Yes, you are more valuable to me than Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Steve Smith, and Clinton Portis. Don't let all those Pro Bowls and Super Bowls get you down. Your team is perennially awful, but you are my shining star.
In week one, I need a good performance out of you. When the Eagles play the Panthers in that opening tilt, I could use a 300-399-yard game out of Donovan McNabb. A couple of touchdowns would be great, but no interceptions please. At the same time, I need Steve Smith to get over 200 yards and a couple touchdowns. Basically, I need an offensive shootout. I'm not even going to discuss how ridiculous things need to get if Portis gets injured in the preseason and I have to put in the Panthers' Jonathan Stewart.
Furthermore, Peyton Manning, you're not on my team, and, in fact, you're my opposition. Thus, a 10-40 performance with 120 yards and a touchdown would be a blessing. Especially if all 10 of those completions are to my guy Dallas Clark. That's right, please ignore Reggie Wayne and your other speedy receivers. Clark is slower, therefore more thorough. Remember the tortoise and the hare? If not, I'll give you a hint: the rabbit loses.
Otherwise, if Brady hurts his knee again, I'm gonna need you to step up JaMarcus Russ... Okay, that's a long shot. I should just stop. Good luck, guys!
-Jeremy
Owner
Macon Babies
In week one, I need a good performance out of you. When the Eagles play the Panthers in that opening tilt, I could use a 300-399-yard game out of Donovan McNabb. A couple of touchdowns would be great, but no interceptions please. At the same time, I need Steve Smith to get over 200 yards and a couple touchdowns. Basically, I need an offensive shootout. I'm not even going to discuss how ridiculous things need to get if Portis gets injured in the preseason and I have to put in the Panthers' Jonathan Stewart.
Furthermore, Peyton Manning, you're not on my team, and, in fact, you're my opposition. Thus, a 10-40 performance with 120 yards and a touchdown would be a blessing. Especially if all 10 of those completions are to my guy Dallas Clark. That's right, please ignore Reggie Wayne and your other speedy receivers. Clark is slower, therefore more thorough. Remember the tortoise and the hare? If not, I'll give you a hint: the rabbit loses.
Otherwise, if Brady hurts his knee again, I'm gonna need you to step up JaMarcus Russ... Okay, that's a long shot. I should just stop. Good luck, guys!
-Jeremy
Owner
Macon Babies
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Simply Genius
Bronson Arroyo has always been an interesting character to me.
You know, the guy who started with the Red Sox that had the long hair.
He was also the only white baseball player with braids, and he has been a singer and guitarist with produced CD's.
On the field, he's always been the type of pitcher that no one seems to be able to explain, we just know he's good.
I couldn't tell you if he's a fireballer, or if he paints the corners, or if he throws a loop-de-doo knuckleball like we all did on Nintendo games.
I just know he always seems to be successful.
Now, as it turns out, he's also a genius, and he may have used steroids.
You see, Arroyo has admitted that he's not all that careful with his supplements now, and he used to take andro and amphetamines, which have both been banned.
But they weren't when he took them.
That's the kicker that most people booing Manny, Papi, and the rest of the "Dirty 104" as I have just in the last 10 words dubbed them, don't realize.
Anyone on that 2003 list was found guilty of taking supplements that were not illegal yet or had no formalized testing or punishment.
Arroyo's stance, paraphrased:
"Yep, I took lots of stuff back then. Good stuff. Legal stuff. Was it laced with steroids? WHO KNOWS??? But it was AWESOME! In fact, I'm probably on that list from '03. Be shocking if I wasn't. If you're asking whether I'd do it again, the answer is abso-frickin'-lutely. If that stuff were legal, I'd buy the Sam's Club supersized jug. To be honest, I'm not very careful now. I don't take what's banned, but I do take anything that's not."
Do you know what that means?
If it does come out that he was on the 2003 list, no one will be shocked.
Anyone who's read the story I just read won't buy a newspaper, magazine, or tell-all book simply to find out the details about Bronson's steroid use.
No one will assume that because he was on the list, he was shooting the hard stuff into his left glute. (or perhaps the right glute; I don't know proper protocol.)
He didn't pull the Palmiero finger point, or the A-Rod "I'm sorry for what I may or may not have done that could have possibly been against a rule or statute or maybe law," or even a Papi "I think I took tainted vitamins."
He told us exactly what he took, told us what he's taking, and told us why he did what he did then and why he does what he does now.
It'll probably be taken way out of context by those who aren't used to such, but not by me.
I appreciate honesty.
You know, the guy who started with the Red Sox that had the long hair.
He was also the only white baseball player with braids, and he has been a singer and guitarist with produced CD's.
On the field, he's always been the type of pitcher that no one seems to be able to explain, we just know he's good.
I couldn't tell you if he's a fireballer, or if he paints the corners, or if he throws a loop-de-doo knuckleball like we all did on Nintendo games.
I just know he always seems to be successful.
Now, as it turns out, he's also a genius, and he may have used steroids.
You see, Arroyo has admitted that he's not all that careful with his supplements now, and he used to take andro and amphetamines, which have both been banned.
But they weren't when he took them.
That's the kicker that most people booing Manny, Papi, and the rest of the "Dirty 104" as I have just in the last 10 words dubbed them, don't realize.
Anyone on that 2003 list was found guilty of taking supplements that were not illegal yet or had no formalized testing or punishment.
Arroyo's stance, paraphrased:
"Yep, I took lots of stuff back then. Good stuff. Legal stuff. Was it laced with steroids? WHO KNOWS??? But it was AWESOME! In fact, I'm probably on that list from '03. Be shocking if I wasn't. If you're asking whether I'd do it again, the answer is abso-frickin'-lutely. If that stuff were legal, I'd buy the Sam's Club supersized jug. To be honest, I'm not very careful now. I don't take what's banned, but I do take anything that's not."
Do you know what that means?
If it does come out that he was on the 2003 list, no one will be shocked.
Anyone who's read the story I just read won't buy a newspaper, magazine, or tell-all book simply to find out the details about Bronson's steroid use.
No one will assume that because he was on the list, he was shooting the hard stuff into his left glute. (or perhaps the right glute; I don't know proper protocol.)
He didn't pull the Palmiero finger point, or the A-Rod "I'm sorry for what I may or may not have done that could have possibly been against a rule or statute or maybe law," or even a Papi "I think I took tainted vitamins."
He told us exactly what he took, told us what he's taking, and told us why he did what he did then and why he does what he does now.
It'll probably be taken way out of context by those who aren't used to such, but not by me.
I appreciate honesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)