Sports December 4, 2011

The new look Miami Marlins have completely changed their personnel philosophy. Instead of the stingy, money saving team they have been in the past, they have decided to bay big money to get prime free agents. Yet, I am not of the opinion that this will work out. The team that has the best offseason usually doesn't have the have the most regular season success (except in the NBA). I know the Yankees won a World Series a couple years ago after a great offseason, but that is an exception and a case in which the Yankees happened to get the right guys. The opposite case is this years Eagles team, who got so many good players in the offseason and have many players with good individual seasons, but have not panned out as a team. The Eagles also failed because one of their key players, Desean Jackson, was/ is disgruntled. The Marlins are going through a similar situation. One of their best players, Hanley Ramirez, is also disgruntled because he may have to move positions. Though Hanley is one the best players in the game, he's moving from short to third because the Marlins got Jose Reyes, another elite shortstop. Because of this, there will be discord amongst the Marlins, and they may eventually fail. Keep in mind this year's Red Sox as well, another team with a bunch of good additions. They were good, but failed in the end, and many Red Sox fans blame it on the lack of a leader.

There's a case for Peyton Manning for MVP, and in my opinion, is actually quite compelling. Even though he is yet to play, and likely will not play, a snap this season, his value to his team is obvious. Last year, Manning took that team to a division title and the playoffs. The year before, he took them to the Super Bowl. But this year, the Colts are on record to be one of the worst teams of all time. That's a turn around that should not go unnoticed, even though Manning will likely not play this season.

Despite Manning, I think there is a better option for NFL MVP. No, it is not Rodgers, Brees, Brady, or any other conventional quarterback. I'm taking about Tim Tebow, and I'm not kidding. According to a study conducted by several Harvard student, Tebow is a miracle worker. Their justification is that the Broncos are statistically worse with Tebow as the quarterback than they were when Orton called the shots. On top of that, they lost Brandon Lloyd, a miracle worker in his own right and the NFL's leader in receiving yards a year ago. Isn't this what the entire award is about? To pick a player that has unmeasurable value to his team? So what if you don't like the way Tebow plays, he gets the job done and wins football games. It doesn't matter what his religious affiliations are, he is a winner and a great success. Sure, Rodgers is having an undefeated season and is on pace to be the best QB ever, but take any quaterback who can give the ball to those receivers and he'll make the playoffs (nothing on Rodgers, I don't think any QB can lead that team to a perfect record like he can). The Broncos were hopeless without Tebow and now, they're playoff bound. Even if he doesn't win it, I think Tebow should receive several MVP votes.

Sports December 4, 2011

Recently, I heard someone say Albert Pujols going to the Cubs this offseason would be good for baseball. True I think it would be ironic if Pujols was the one to end the Curse of the Billy Goat, I am not of that opinion. The best thing for baseball would be if Pujols stayed with the Cardinals and Prince Fielder stayed with the Brewers. Both of those guys staying put would mean that small market teams can keep star players and that the smaller markets are not farm systems for bigger market clubs. Pujols is possibly the best player in the game today, and if he were to leave St. Louis, it would be a big blow to the Cards in not only a good player, but possibly also ticket sales. If Pujols were to leave, several other small market stars may end up leaving themselves, and the MLB would become like the NBA. Fielder staying in Milwaukee would mean the same thing, except it would show a small market team could keep two stars, with Ryan Braun being the other. These two players should stay put to help small markets everywhere. Then again, I'm a Yankees fan. Bring all the super stars to New York under extraordinarily large contracts.

I have several problems with the NBA, one of them being the utter lack of player and team loyalty. In both the NFL and MLB, everyone says its an "Era of free agency" and that players are leaving teams on a regular basis. While that may be true, its nothing compared to the NBA. I mean, you don't see baseball and football teams trying to trade their best players so they can get ones they think are better. You would never see the Patriots actively trying to trade Tom Brady so they can get Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers. This is because there is loyalty between the Patriots and Brady. The same goes with baseball. The Red Sox would never trade Dustin Pedroia to get Robinson Cano because they are loyal to their players. The same does not go to the NBA. A prime example of this is the Celtics trying to deal Rajan Rondo for Chris Paul. Why? Chris Paul might be considered the best point guard in the league, but its not like Rondo is that far down the list. Sure, Rondo may have attitude problems, but he has performed well and deserves a reward. Also, is trading him really going to fix his attitude problems? Don't you owe it to him, after all the wins he has landed you, doesn't he deserve to start every game for the rest of his career as a Celtic? Just as it would be a shame if Pujols left the Cardinals, Rondo being traded from the Celtics would only show how NBA teams do not truly value their players.

Sports November 20, 2011

Although many people see the Astros moving to the AL as a move that will change the game for the better, I see it as a potential disaster. Sure it balances out the leagues and the divisions, but it leaves an odd number of teams in both leagues. Under the old system, and the one that will expire at the end of the 2012 baseball season, teams in the same league would play each other, and could because there were an even number of teams in each league. But now, interleague games will be played almost everyday. This may not matter for the first couple months of the season, but it will greatly affect the playoff races in September. Say, for example, the wild card leader has a slight lead over the second place team. The second place team, in September, has to play a tough team at the end of the season in its own league, while the first place team has to play the worst team in the other league. That will really mess up that race. Sure, you can argue that there are bad teams in both leagues, but shouldn't a playoff spot awarded in one league be decided by the teams in that league, not teams in the other league? The odd number of teams in each league will force this situation to become a reality, and a team that may not deserve to get a postseason spot may get in, while the other does not. True, the new rule that makes two wild card teams alleviates some of the problems, but there will still be race for the second spot, one that this situation decides incorrectly.

I also think the new wild card game has the right idea in mind. The Wild Card team should be penalized for not being a division winner and have some sort of handicap. The game will have huge implications, because it will make the Wild Card teams burn their best pitchers before the real playoffs start. One game is also the right number, because playing too many games will leave the division winners rusty, as is a common case with teams who sweep a team in the first round, then have a long lay over and end up losing. However, I don't think this rule handicaps the Wild Card enough. Any good team can win one game and then beat a far better team in a short series. Baseball is unique from a sport like Basketball in that the road team in the early rounds actually has a chance against a better team. So, I propose a new solution. The best team, in a five game series, should get 4 home games, with only Game 3 being played on the road. The rule that states that the best team can't play the Wild Card in the first round should be eliminated. The best team has earned the right to play the worst team in the first round, regardless of division. True, the Wild Card often has a better record than a division winner (look at the AL East dominance of the Wild Card spot), but the best team should have put a team in its own division away, given 18 opportunities to do so. The series between the other two division winners can remain the same, as a division winner cannot be severely handicapped. The one game playoff can stick around, I actually think it will be an exciting game, with a Game 7 like atmosphere.

More than halfway through the NFL season I hate the new kickoff rule. Kicking off from the 35 yard line has made kickoff returns obsolete and touchbacks all too common. Before, only the best kickers would get touchbacks, and those would be the elite kickers. Now, anyone who doesn't kick the ball through the endzone is considered below average. The return game has also disappeared. Hardly ever does a returner take the ball to mid field on a kick off anymore, and doing so has become very difficult. What was wrong with the old system anyway? What was wrong with a ~80% return rate? So what if one team has good field position consistently just because it has a good kick returner and a good kicker? This new rule is like saying you can't throw the ball over 20 yards down field and can only throw the ball 20 times a game. It's like saying its "unfair" to have a better quarterback that the other team and the player can only be used sparingly. I don't think these new rules are at all beneficial to the game. Football is unique in that it has 3 phases: offense, defense, and special teams. These new rules essentially eliminate a third of the last phase, and make football more of a 2 phase game. I hope the NFL sees the light and decides to go back to kicking off from the 30.

Sports October 23, 2011

I know Christian Ponder managed to keep the Vikings in the game against the Packers (even with 2 interceptions and a low completion percentage), I don't think the Vikings made the right decision by starting him against what looks like the greatest team of all time (they've won 12 straight including last regular and post season). Starting a rookie under those conditions is never good, especially when playing a division rival. I know the season is pretty much lost for the Vikings, but this was not the right time to use Ponder. A better time would be later in the season, maybe against another rebuilding team, to build confidence. After all, Ponder definitely has the talent, but only needs confidence to become a good quarterback. Over the last few seasons, the Vikings have been a good team when they have had good quarterback play, and developing a confident Christian Ponder is of vital importance. Donovan McNabb should have started today. Donovan is a veteran quaterback, and even though his skills are declining, has won big games in the past. He has also taken a good share of criticism in the past, and a little more can't tarnish his image.

The Colts also have a lost season, but for a different reason. They aren't winning because they lost their quarterback. People thought the Colts would be bad, but not this bad. It just goes to show you what an elite quarterback can actually do, and how good Peyton Manning actually is. Peyton makes the entire team better. The Colts receivers who used to be considered elite have had little to no production. The defensive players are also taking a hit. Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis, however good pass rushers they are, benefited greatly from Manning. The Colts almost always used to play with a lead, forcing the other team to throw the ball. Freeney and Mathis could then focus on rushing the passer, and get huge sacks. That aspect is now missing, and the Colts now play a lot of games from behind. A stable quarterback situation should fix that problem, but now that the rest of the team has been exposed, how will opposing teams view them?

The Raiders also lost their quarterback. The acquisition of Carson Palmer, once an elite college and NFL player, made many believe in that the Raiders would run away with the division. However, the more vital injury was to Darren McFadden, a potential MVP candidate and the NFL's leading rusher. McFadden was the Raider's offense with Jason Campbell at quarterback, and if he's out for a long time, his presence will be missed. Oakland frankly can't get by throwing the ball the entire game. The Raiders do have speedy receivers, but none of them are intimidating for an opposing defense. Their quarterbacks are also not as good as they have been in the past, hurting the Raider's chances. The AFC West may not be the best of divisions, but the Raiders have their work cut out for them.

Sports October 17, 2011

How about the Cardinals? A few weeks ago, most people thought they were done. Now, they're going to play in the World Series. How about that? The Cardinals run this year is a testamate to the baseball postseason system. In other sports, a lowly wild card team has little or no shot at all at going anywhere. In basketball and hockey, the lowest seeded team most often has a losing record. Even that team wins Game 1, the low seed has to win 3 out of 6 games, something that they failed to do consistently over the season. Plus, the odds are stacked against them against a team that is much deeper than they are. Football is different in that the lower seeds can have success and the one game, do or die makes it more possible for that team to thrive. However, recent postseasons have shown that the wild card teams in the NFL, the 5th and 6th seeds, are actually good teams that play in the same division as a 1st or 2nd seeded team and has competed with those teams for most of the year. The true low seed in the NFL is the 4th seed. When was the last time a 4th seed won the Super Bowl? Baseball, however, is a lot different. Only having 4 teams in the postseason makes a huge difference. Any team then can have a shot at only having to win 2 games, no matter how lowly they were seeded. A wild card making the World Series happens all the time. The Cardinals postseason run is therefore not as surprising as their regular season run. Even then, in the regular season, the Cards made the playoffs because the Braves collapsed. Sometimes, its better to be lucky than good.

I know the Texans are a lowly 3-3, but I think they are a much better team than that and still are my favorite to win the AFC South. I say this because the best toughest part of their schedule is behind them. Going 1-3 in the last 4 weeks having played the Saints, Steelers, Raiders, and Ravens is quite an accomplishment. Their schedule eases up after this, and the only real tests until the end of the season are against the Titans. True, a championship caliber team would probably fair better against other teams they could be competing against in the playoffs, beating any team is a confidence boost. Don't be surprised in the Texans finish the season 13-3, their schedule allows for it, and they definitely do have the potential. You never know, they can even ride it all the way to the Super Bowl.

There was a lot of hype about the Jets entering this season, and yes they beat the winless Dolphins, but they really don't look like the championship them they were billed as. Frankly, there is very little they can do. Against some of the good teams they have played, the Ravens, Raiders, and Patriots, they could do hardly anything. The Raiders pounded what was supposed to be an elite defense for 200+ yards, and the ground and pound took another hit when they couldn't run for over 40 yards against the Ravens. Their passing game did not fair well against the Ravens either. Their pass defense is good, but that isn't how they Jets want to win games. Of course, their Special Teams has been outstanding, but I no team has ever won on Special Teams alone. The Jets need to find answers, and quickly before this season falls out of control.

Sports September 20, 2011

Apparently the Dolphins found out that Reggie Bush isn't exactly an every down back in the NFL the hard way. My question is why. Anyone, including me, could have told you that Reggie Bush isn't the best back going between the tackles. Don't get me wrong, Reggie Bush is an explosive players with big play potential that can help any team, but he isn't the standard back in the NFL. In New Orleans, Bush had the most success as a third down back making big plays in space. In my opinion, Reggie Bush might be more suited to play wide receiver in the NFL, and make big plays that way. Devin Hester is another fast explosive player who became a wide receiver in the NFL and has become a legitimate deep threat in Chicago. Percy Harvin, who used to be a running back, also became a wide receiver, and can use his explosiveness to make plays at that position. Brad Smith also became a wide receiver, and the list goes on. Reggie Bush can be a successful player at that position, as he catches many passes out of the backfield anyway.

How about Cam Newton. So much for not being NFL ready as many experts said. Newton has thrown for 400+ yards in his first two games in the NFL, breaking a rookie record, then breaking it again. True, one of those games was against a Cardinals defense that just lost its best corner, but accomplishing that feat against the Super Bowl champion Packers was especially impressive. The Packers last season had a nack for takeaways and a shut down secondary. True Newton did have 2 interceptions, but he still managed to make plays against the Packers for big yardage. The only problem in Carolina is that the Panthers have lost both games, but it would be unfair to blame Cam Newton.

Who would have thought the Redskins would be winning the NFC East after Week 2? Not only have they managed to jump out to a lead, the Redskin's lead looks keepable. To start with, Mike Shanahan has won more Super Bowls as a head coach than any other coach in that division. Rex Grossman has also led a team to a 13-3 record and a Super Bowl, although it is arguable that he rode the Bears' formidable defense for most of that season. But most importantly, the Redskins are healthy. A good portion of the Giants' defense is injured, and a bunch of players will miss this season. The Giants also have key injuries at the receiver position, something that won't help reduce the drops or interceptions. Tony Romo, Felix Jones, and Miles Austin are also all injured for the Cowboys, not to mention Dez Bryant limping in the game against the Jets. Injuries to those 4 players can cripple the Cowboys' offense. Michael Vick suffered a concussion against the Falcons on Sunday, and backup Vince Young is already out. Jeremy Maclin had a big game on Sunday, but he took a beating. Even if Vick does come back to play next week, his vulnerability will be exposed, especially against a pressure happy Giants' defense that knocked 4 quarterbacks out of games last season. However, there are 2 NFC East games next week, so all of this could turn very quickly...

Sports September 13, 2011

What happened to the Red Sox? A few weeks ago, they looked in place to win the AL East, or at least the Wild Card. Now, they appear to have lost the division to the Yankees, and the Wild Card spot they seemed so destined to win as a consolation is know being contested by the Rays. I know I predicted a potential apocalypse in Red Sox nation when Beckett went down, but that seems to be a minor injury. Yet, even with eminent return of their ace, the Red Sox seem to have run into disaster anyway. Yet, this pattern has been relatively common for the Red Sox over the last few years. With the exception of 2007, the only year since 1998 (the start of the Yankees winning 8 straight division titles and 10 out of the last 13) they've never won the AL East (2007 was the one year they did, and low and behold, they won a World Series that year). Other than that, the Red Sox have come out strong in the middle part of the season, only to fall short and lose the division at the end. The curse of the Bambino might be over, but the Red Sox still do have problems finishing seasons off.

What about the New York Giants defense? I know they lost on sunday, but a good portion of the Redskins' 28 points can be blamed on the offense. Despite several key injuries, and arguably the 3 best Giants defenders out, they still managed to make a few plays. One big play was made by Jason Pierre- Paul. I know I doubted that pick when it was made, but it has turned out to help the Giants. Despite their 2 sack leaders from a year ago missing the game, Pierre- Paul still managed to get pressure on the quarterback. On one play, he forced a key turnover that could have helped the Giants win the game. Unfortunately, the offense spoiled the opportunity, but Pierre- Paul still made a big time play worthy of recognition.

The Ravens finally broke through against the Steelers with Ben Roethlisberger. The Ravens have had their difficulties in recent years in recent years beating the Steelers with Roethlisberger, but have done fine when he was away. The Ravens also seemed to fall short every time they played Roethlisberger as well. But Sunday was a completely different story. The Ravens were all over the Steelers, both offensively and defensively. For at least one game, they appear to be the team that will win the AFC North.