Sports March 11, 2012

A massive trade occurred in the NFL, as the Washington Redskins acquired the 2nd pick in the draft from the St. Louis Rams in exchange for 3 1st round picks and a 2nd round selection. In my opinion, the Rams got the better end of this deal. Sure, the Redskins are going to get RG3, but will he really take the Redskins to the playoffs? Everyone will say Cam Newton's season was a success and compare Newton and RG3 all you want, but in the end, the Panthers missed the playoffs and were never really in contention. Historically, the Redskins have traded picks for veterans, and while they are now trading picks of a pick, the volume of talent they are receiving from the draft is small. Super Bowls are not necessarily won with immediate high draft picks or signing big name veterans. Instead, Super Bowls are won through drafting and developing players. Look no further than the other teams in the NFC East. The Giants have won two Super Bowls in recent years in which their important players (Eli Manning wasn't technically drafted by the Giants but he might as well have been, Ahmad Bradshaw, Hakeem Nicks, Victor Cruz (an undrafted free agent but the Giants should get credit for scouting and developing him), Mario Manningham, Justin Tuck, Jason Pierre- Paul, Corey Webster etc) were all taken by the Giants and have spent their entire careers with one team. Even the Cowboys and Eagles, in their more successful recent seasons, developed contending teams through the draft. In fact, last year when the Eagles deviated from this strategy and went after big name free agents, they struggled. In effect, while RG3 may end up being a great player, the Redskins would have been better off if they had kept the picks and acquired more talent through the draft. For this same reason, I think this trade is good for the Rams because now they have 2 first round picks in each of the next 3 drafts and if recent history tells us anything, those picks will be relatively high.

Another team that got effected by this trade was the Cleveland Browns. The Browns also want RG3, but will likely not get him at this point. With the 4th pick, if no trade had taken place, the Browns would have been in prime position to take RG3 (the Colts would take Luck, the Rams don't need a QB, and the Vikings would take Matt Kalil). Giving up picks to move up would not make sense. However, the Browns would have made a trade to prevent the Redskins from making the move. Therefore, the logical course of action for the Browns would have been to engage the Rams in discussion for the pick to keep them interested and to prevent the Redskins from making a trade, and then make no trade in the end. The other alternative, one that I find particularly risky, would be to give up quite a bit to get the pick from the Rams and then "resell" it to the Redskins for even more picks. However, this might backfire if the Redskins don't agree to the trade, but the reward is an immense amount of talent and the consolation is one of the best quarterback prospects in a long time. But, none of these alternatives played out, and the Browns must either stick with McCoy or go after a free agent like Campbell or Flynn.

The big name free agent quarterback this year is Peyton Manning (I didn't mention him with the Browns because I see no reason for him to go to Cleveland). The landing spots for him look decent. If he were to go to Arizona, he would be able to hook up with Larry Fitzgerald, and think of all the monster numbers those two would put up. If he were to go to Miami, he would be able to play Brady twice a year. The Chiefs have an immense amount of talent to put around him. But the place where I think he will do the most damage is Denver. I say this for several reasons. The most prominent of these reasons are simply the environmental factors: the air is thin a mile above sea level. Because of this, he will be able to get addition zip on his balls. The Bronco receivers also have talent. Eddie Royal had good years with Cutler as his quarterback though not so good recently, Dontarious Thomas was a high draft pick who torched a top ranked Steelers pass defense in the playoffs, and Eric Decker just had a breakout season. The downside to this, for both Denver and football, would be that Tim Tebow would likely end up on the short end of this stick. While Denver might be the best spot for Manning, lets hope he choses not to go there.

Sports March 4, 2012

Everyone has their two cents on Greg Williams, and I am no different. It has recently been revealed that Williams, not too long ago considered one of the premier defensive coordinators in the league, set up a bounty system in which his players got bonuses for injuring key players on the other team. This most recently happened when Williams was with the New Orleans Saints in a tenure that included a Super Bowl victory. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with rewarding players for good play. A bounty system in which statistics such as sacks and interceptions are rewarded are innocent and improve camaraderie among teammates. However, a line has to be drawn when it comes to injuring other players. I do agree football is a violent sport and should be treated as such. Yet, there is a difference between making a big hit and making a big hit with the intent to injure a player. The latter should be discouraged as many football players are having health issues later in life. While bounty systems are fine to implement, injuring players for money should not be taken lightly.

January 29, 2012

Being a Yankee fan, I just realized I've said nothing about the acquisition of Michael Pineda. I think its a great pickup. Pineda has a live arm and actually had quite a few wins in the first half of last season on a bad team. He's a good pickup to put in a rotation with CC and Nova. It also gives the Yankees the option of putting Burnett in the pen or as a 6th starter, somethings the Yankees did down the stretch of last season. Because its almost a guarantee a starter will go down at some point, having depth at that position is key. It also gives the Yankees another arm to compete with the staff the Rays always seem to put together. True, the Yankees lost a good prospect in Jesus Montero, but it shouldn't matter as the Yankees are loaded in catching prospects and have a pretty good one right now in Russell Martin. Also, Pineda is very young, so the future is not sacrificed in this situation.

I also think Bernard Pollard added to his reputation in a big way last Sunday by knocking out Rob Gronkowski. I really think Pollard has become something of a legend. Every time he plays the Patriots, he lays a big hit on some important player that not only affects the impact of that particular game, but the entire season. From knocking Brady out of the season, to forcing Welker to miss a playoff game the Pats were routed in, and then to potentially make Gronkowski miss the Super Bowl is a bit of a legend. Potentially costing the Patriots 3 Super Bowl victories is probably enough to get Pollard in the Hall of Fame (in my opinion). If I'm the New York Jets, forget acquiring Peyton Manning, I need Pollard to knock out some Patriots.

There has to be some kind of conspiracy in the AFC. Starting with Super Bowl XXXVIII, only three different teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl, the Patriots, Steelers, and Colts. No other team has gotten that opportunity. Over the same period of time, 8 NFC teams, the Eagles, Panthers, Seahawks, Bears, Giants, Cardinals. Packers, and Saints (half the conference and 2 teams from each division) have gone to the Super Bowl and counting this year, only the Giants have gone twice. In that same stretch of time, the only "other" AFC team to have a home field advantage has been the Chargers, while there have been 8 NFC teams, the Eagles, Seahawks, Bears, Cowboys, Giants, Saints, Falcons, and Packers, to get te 1 seed. In fact, 14 of the 16 NFC teams since Super Bowl XXXVII have won playoff games (the Buccaneers and Lions haven't) and one of those teams won Super Bowl XXXVII (the Buccaneers). Either the NFC is more evenly matched or there is some sort of conspiracy in the AFC. I vote for the latter. NFC teams seem to fit the mold of free agency more, going from worst to first and putting teams that didn't have the best record in the Super Bowl. In the AFC, however, there have been teams like the Browns and Bills who seem to be downright terrible every single year (I will admit those teams occasionally have good stretches, but most often they finish last and get high draft picks). The only reason I can think of for these streaks of success are dominance on one side of ball, whether it be the Steeler and Patriot defenses of the dynasty years or the great Colt and Patriot offenses in recent years, and just enough of the other phase to be decently rounded. These teams have also had dominant quarterback play. Or maybe, they just have more clutch players than other teams. Whatever the case, the AFC has been dominated by a handfull of teams, something the modern free agency and salary cap systems are supposed to prevent.

January 22, 2012

Before any of you Niners fans decide you want to kill Kyle Williams for destroying your Super Bowl aspirations, remember the good things he did in that game. True, he had three fumbles (a dropped toss, a muffed punt, and a fumble on a punt return), but he also performed quite well as a kick/ punt returner. After the muffed punt, he managed to break a long kick return. Over the course of the game, he also had quite a few decent punt returns. Had Kyle Williams not played as well as he had, the Niners might not even have forced overtime. In fact, looking at post game statistics, how did they force an extra quarter. 1- 13 on 3rd down is downright pathetic, and only 1 catch by a wide receiver the entire game is terrible. True, they had great success running the ball, but how they played that well will always be a mystery to me. Then again, what do I care, I'm a Giants fan.

It is now official, great defense and just enough offense does not win championships. Exhibit A, the San Francisco 49ers. The entire season, the 9ers had one of the best defenses in the league, especially versus the run. In doing so, they managed to compile 13 wins. Yet, they lost a playoff game to a team who spent the entire season with the opposite: great offense and just enough (or just as often not enough) defense. When they played the Giants, they managed to clamp down and force punts. The 49ers had little success on offense except for a handful of big plays. They managed to stay close and force overtime, but in overtime, they couldn't move the football at all. They still managed to halt the Giants, but the Giant offense wasn't completely static. When the 9ers special team coughed it up, the Giants managed to capitalize and win. The 9ers played great defense all game, but it wasn't enough to get them to the Super Bowl. Know the Giants, a team that got by with their offense will play another team with a similar philosophy. Maybe if the 49ers and Ravens won defense would prevail once more, but that is not the case. Offense has now become more important than defense.

Speaking of the Super Bowl, I think its going to be a great game. I predict a shootout and a game similar to Super Bowl XXXVIII; a back and forth battle with lots of big plays. I'm going to go as far as to say it will become the highest scoring game in Super Bowl history, even more than that memorable one between the Patriots and Panthers. Of course, as a Giants fan, I believe Eli will pull out a victory in the end like he always seems to do against Brady and the Giants will prevent the Hoodie from getting redemption.

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.