I almost forgot

Brandon Marshall is the new T.O., but not in the good way.  And, suspended.

Let us compromise on "some worrying" about the Seahawks

Burleson may be viable, but Seattle's injuries on the offensive line and the fact that Hasselbeck is going to favor Houshmandzadeh on short-to-intermediate routes will keep him mediocre.  And while Jim Mora has said that James will play a "complementary" role, the fact is that Julius Jones is on a short leash, and James is the better pass blocker; Seattle's injuries up front will again be a factor here.  I just don't have a good feeling about either of these guys, especially Jones, who could end up stuck in Committee Hell.  No, thank you.  We're playing to win championships, People.

 

You're right about my irrational love for all things Texas, though.  (Am I getting slogan smack from a "Buckeye"?  Really?)  That said, (1) in our league, there's very, very little in the way of running backs on the waiver wire except handcuffs and lottery tickets, and (2) as handcuffs and lottery tickets go, you could do worse than Jamaal Charles.  I don't think he'll take over in Kansas City (either the starting job or in the more qualitative, "pwning" sense of the term).  Rather, I see his upside as being Jerious Norwood-lite by season's end, and that's enough for me.

 

I'm less committed to Earl Bennett, especially since I own Matt Forte, but he's still worth watching.  (Good point about the weather, though.)  But all things in perspective.  As with this year's rookie running backs, there's decidedly less hype surrounding this year's "sleeper" wide receivers than there was last year.  I'm not feeling another Eddie Royal/DeSean Jackson/Steve Breaston in this group.  You?

 

Grant could see a slight uptick this year, if only because he gets more attempts, but Green Bay's defense needs to improve.  I agree on Minnesota, but I'm not as worried about their downside.  I've got to think that if Favre's one-to-one touchdown-interception shenanigans (read: throwing into triple coverage because I'm a legend) resurface, someone would sit him down and remind him that this is the AP show and Sage Rosenfels--yes, Sage Rosenfels--would love to get some playing time.  I also like Chicago to win the division.  (Note the non-mention of Detroit.)

 

I'm sorry "Man Bear" hasn't taken off, but all "bear"-derived nicknames are precarious, as bears, while fearsome and deadly in real life, can also be considered, however unwisely (e.g., fiction, toys, pet names), cuddly and cute.  It's a sticky wicket.

I wouldn't worry about the Seahawks

Accounts are that Hasselbeck is looking good.  Look, these aren't the days with Steve Hutchinson anchoring the left guard position, but they have to do better than last year.  And TJ Houshmanzadeh (I hope that's spelled right) will help Burleson, especially if he moves into the slot next to Housh. 

And Mike, let's just get this out in the open--you have an irrational love of all things Texas (someone still needs to explain what "Hook 'em" means) to even consider Jamaal Charles as an option, 12-team, 14-team, or 10-team league at this point until he pulls a Sproles.  He's not going anywhere with LJ still on the Chiefs.  They're going to air it out with Cassel for the first month anyway.

Did I miss the Earl Bennett hype?  Who is he?

NFC North--not sure what to say about Ryan Grant.  He had an amazing 1,000 yard season two years ago, duped me in to taking him in the 2nd round last year and then proceeded to all but demand that I (and thousands of others) waive him and admit they mussed up.  RBs in this league are becoming too flash-in-the-pan--LT (our generation's LT) was the last great consistent dominant RB.  If Peterson can be a top 5 back next year I'll be surprised.  Wear and tear just kills backs. 

That said, Chicago probably wins the division.  I'm highly skeptical of Childress's decisionmaking as the Vikings' coach, and not sure he'll really know how to effectively balance Favre's aggressiveness--read: limit it--when he has Adrian "Man Bear" Peterson (still trying to popularize it as a nickname, not working).  And if Minnesota goes south they'll go south hard.  Although Minny opens up against the Browns, which is as good a place to open as anywhere.  Chicago's slow-paced running attack and Lovie Smith's stern coaching style will keep Cutler in check.  I'm not sold on their receiving corps but you can't use receivers in Chicago in December/January.

Green Bay is interesting but I'm not sure why the love for Rodgers.  Excellent "rookie" season last year especially under pressure but they were still a 6-10 team.  I'm not shocked if Green Bay wins but they need to prove something first.

And Detroit?  C'mon.

(How great is it when an team is relegated to "c'mon" status--as in, really, we're discussing Detroit?)

So, I'd say, Chicago 11-5, Minny 9-7, GB 8-8, Detroit...ugh...3-13.  'Cause someone's gotta lose.

This is what happens when you invest in a Seahawk

The offensive line falls apart, Edgerrin James tanks Julius Jones's value, and my late-round Nate Burleson flyer pick looks dumb(-er). At least I wasn't the only one.

Solution (under the circumstances): drop both, pick up Earl Bennett and Jamaal Charles. The former is already a trendy flyer, but the latter? Well, that is what happens when you play in a twelve-team league. Every team has value, but unlike last year's ten-team league, there aren't many teams with enough value to entertain a wide variety of trade offers. I'm new to twelve-team leagues, of course, so maybe things will pan out differently over the course of the season.

Anyway, what of the NFC North? Green Bay learned that Ryan Grant is capable only of situational greatness and is likely to keep relying on Aaron Rodgers's arm. Meanwhile, Chicago, Minnesota, and Detroit all received upgrades at quarterback to complement dominant-to-viable rushing threats. Who wins this division? What should we expect fantasy-wise?

By the way, Knowshon Moreno notwithstanding, I stand by UST Numero Uno: Never trust a running back from Denver or New England.

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] Dunkaholic

If I'm Jordan Crawford, I also make sure my grandkids never see this "lost footage." Talk about much ado about nothing. With the kind of hype that was surrounding this video, I was (justifiably) expecting crotch-in-face action. Instead, we get something that, yes, is LeBron getting dunked on, but he's defending from the side rather than one-on-one, and there isn't a whole lot of contact, if any. As annoying people like to say, there is no there there.

Yes, it is still July.

Dunkaholic

Well finally we have a clear picture of LeBron getting dunked on. I'm not sure how he'll get over this.

Anyway, I'd like to say I'm somewhat disappointed in the media.  Surely it didn't take over a week to get this footage?  No one else had a camera phone there? C'mon.  Yes, Nike "confiscated" the main video, but I was deeply afraid this was going to turn into the latest grassy knoll.

"Did Jordan Crawford really dunk on him, or was there a second person involved?"

If I'm Jordan Crawford, I'm telling my grandchildren I dunked on LeBron.  But if I'm in the media, I just admit that July is the slowest sports month of the year and move on.

Also, one more request of the media--please stop with the hokey puns--if I see one more "Le-" prefix like "LePosterized," I'm going to flip.

It's just frustrating

The lack of a clear #1.  If MJD can be a #1 pick--even in leagues with high PPR--there's something wrong with the running back system in the NFL (at least from a fantasy perspective).  I like Peterson as a #1 but he absolutely killed me when I drafted him in the 7th round as a rookie two years ago when he failed to put up any points down the stretch--I would have been as well off starting Barry Sanders.

 

I like Brady as well.  The problem is even if Belichick has faith in him, we don't know how Brady will do coming back from injury.  How much will it take for his knee to pop again?  He's not a mobile guy so you're not looking for Donovan McNabb rushing numbers out of him (before McNabb morphed into Byron Leftwich in his 30s) but he does need to be able to stand and drop back to throw.  Additionally, because Cassel's gone, I don't know if you can trust anyone in the Patriots' offense (because really, if Brady is done, can whoever's backing him up now perform as well as Cassel did down the stretch? if he can, every team in the NFL should look to pay Belichick $20 million/year for him to coach their franchise. it's ridiculous.).

 

I'd like to remind you that you Stole Drew Brees From Me.  I was there a few years back for Brees' first season in NO, when I bet on him as the Great White Hope.  I'm fine without Brees although I will take him if he's available.  There's another guy I have in mind as my Great White Hope this season.

 

I agree on IDPs.  By the way, if we're going to have IDPs, why not add punters to the mix?  What about dedicated kick returners and punt returners?  And what about coaches (gauging them on challenges won--would be a neat kicker)?  How can we make this game as authentic as possible?  If you're playing fantasy football, it should be fantasy football--not fantasy offense.

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] Fantasy Football - We need Hank Williams...

The Peterson question depends on whether you play in a points-per-reception league. If so, Maurice Jones-Drew and possibly Matt Forte are also contenders. If not, I do think he's this season's clear #1 pick. Maybe not as clear as some #1 picks of seasons past, but in a season like this one, where you could make a case for taking Chris Johnson at #2, he's as clear a #1 as there is going to be. Part of this, though, is inertia. Peterson was a very highly touted prospect coming out of high school and college. As we've learned from football's other grand stab at rankings (college football), once you start out highly ranked, you get the benefit of the doubt until you do something to lose, or don't do enough to maintain, that ranking. Peterson still has the benefit of the doubt--in my mind and in general.

Tomlinson is potentially a third rounder. People may still reach for him the way they reached for Shaun Alexander before him, and like Alexander, he may reward them off and on. But he could be this year's Joseph Addai (who is himself potentially a fifth rounder).

Brady, on the other hand, still has plenty of mileage left and a team deeply commited to bringing back the Tom Brady Air Show. The question is simply how long until we can all feel secure, under the circumstances, about that knee. The staph infection didn't help. But if Belichick is comfortable riding with him (and shipping Cassel), so am I.

Nevertheless, my sentimental pick is Brees since he won me a league championship. Which means Will will draft him in Round 2 just to spite me. (Rest assured, the Theft of Patrick Willis of 2008 has not been forgotten.)

Speaking of which, why hasn't everyone jumped on board with individual defensive players? Playing in an IDP league is akin to driving standard. Once you learn how to do it, you wonder how you ever called what you previously did driving/fantasy football.

Fantasy Football - We need Hank Williams...

...if only he can ask us if we're ready for it.

 

With fantasy football season only about 45 days away (well, the draft at least), I figure it's time to gear up this blog for what i sure to be the most entertaining time of the year--the glorious confluence of college football, NFL football, and last but not least, fantasy football. 

 

Let's get things started--here are my questions for you guys:

 

1)  Does Adrian Peterson deserve to be as clear a #1 pick as people think?

 

2)  Where does the "over the hill" LaDainian Tomlinson go?  Is there any way he's not a first rounder?

 

3)  Speaking of falling from grace, what about Tom Brady?  Have Drew Brees or Peyton Manning eclipsed him?  What about the immortal Matthew Stafford?

 

(Not that I'm trying to glean your preferences, since we are in the same league--cast those aspersions aside, if only for the blog's sake.)

I'd feel pity for him if he weren't a former #2 NFL Draft Pick

Ryan Leaf is now on the run from the law as a criminal. 

 

[Insert Ryan Leaf-is-wanted joke here.]

 

A few possibilities:

1)  "Finally he does something that even Peyton Manning can't do,"

2)  "If they catch him, is he going to cry again?"

3)  "I wonder if it took him longer to decide to throw a pass than to decide not to turn himself in."

4)  "Maybe this is a try-out for the Dallas Cowboys."

5)  "He was actually a QB coach when all of this happened?  What did he coach?  Constant underachieving after graduation?"

 

And...go.

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] Winning, but No Message

Was a message necessary? Sure, it's great to win by 50 when you're down 3-1, but as they say, you can only win the game once. If anything, a rout would have just given the Cavs was a false sense of security. "Things are turning our way." But they're not. Defensive lapses, subpar rebounding, and turnovers by the Magic. LeBron dominating and his supporting cast contributing. These are not things you can count on every night. By now, the Cavs know this.

So it's still an uphill battle. But every seven-game series is 3-2 at some point. The Cavs need to consider this series up for grabs and take it one game at a time.

Winning, but No Message

So the Cavs won Game 5, with a convincing score (112-102) but a less-than-convincing performance--solid, but no dominance.  It seems...written (to quote this year's Best Film) that the Cavs are capable of putting up a 20+-point lead in games against the Magic this series.  But it's equally certain (written AND spoken?) that they'll blow the lead in a manner that will lead to an obvious rise in sports-based ulcers in Cleveland.

 

They won with improved performances--what were once, but no longer are, certain performances in the course of this NBA go-round--from their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options, Mo Williams, Delonte West and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.  But they also won with LeBron basically taking over the game in such a fashion that you wonder if he can do it in Orlando, where the Magic seem far more comfortable.

 

I was hoping Game 5 would be like the Pistons' Game 5 from 2007, where LeBron proved unstoppable, putting up 29 of 30 points in a stretch, in a fashion that stomach-punched every Detroit fan, a hurt that lingers to this day.

 

Maybe had LeBron scored or assisted on the 32 points in front of Orlando fans, the vibe seemed hopeful but not positive in Cleveland media/news.  Like, maybe we can do this; not, we should.  Daniel Gibson (let's ignore the nickname for a bit) said after the game to the fans that the Cavs were coming back for Game 7. 

 

But do the Magic fear this?  Or was Game 5 just a throwaway for the inevitable devastation they'll unleash in Game 6?

Re: So it's over, right?

It is likely over.  The Magic will probably have one shooting game over the last three games (probably Game 6) that it won't matter what the Cavs do.  The Magic will just hit too many threes.

 

BUT

 

I don't think it is totally over.  And this has nothing to do with LeBron.  I'm not sure he can do any more than he has done in the first four games, and they still lost three of them.  It comes down to Mo Williams, Delonte West, and Z.  Those three guys hit the open jumpers LeBron creates all season long and the Cavs won 66 games because of it.  They are not shooting well at all.  Sure, they are getting points, but their shooting percentages are atrocious.  If they get their collective touch back, I think the last three games will really be interesting to watch.  I still think the Magic will win one of the last three games and finish the series, but I don't think it is a complete stretch of the imagination to see the Cavs come back and win this thing.

 

Don't you agree those three have to start shooting better?  And that is the difference in this series compared to the regular season and the first two rounds?  It is almost like I am watching the team that played in the 2007 Finals again.

So it's over, right?

This nightmare of a series is over, right?  Put it to sleep, right?

Or maybe not?  Cavs-Magic has turned into somewhat of a one-sided affair.  Not necessarily in the results (ignore the 3-1 ad the Magic have) if you look at the fact that three games have been decided by 1, 1 and 2 points, but rather the process--I haven't watched a single game this year where the Cavs have imposed their will on the Magic.  Where the Magic fans have genuine fear in their eyes/hearts/minds, much as the Pistons fans did in years yore.  Each game, and I attempt to be less fatalistic than the normal Cavs fan, I feel this slinking feeling, like the Cavs are pushing a rock up an endless hill, as if things are more than awry.

So--spare me the "LeBron's on the Cavs so anything can happen" spin some in the Cleveland media (although very few) and many more in the national media will serve up between now and Thursday.  Can it be done?

And if not, what are the Cavs missing?  Why can't a 66-win team take control, at least once?

Highlight or Memory/Matchups

Agreed that it's only closure, but only if the Cavs win the series.  There's no question that it was a huge, ridiculous shot that gave everyone here in Cleveland hope.  That said I couldn't believe the negativistic atmosphere that permeated Game 2.  Sitting in the stands, it was dead quiet when the Magic came back on the Cavs to bring it within 10 (admittedly a big run having been in a 23 point deficit).  There were scattered boos.  People (at least in my section) were actively cursing the Cavs for being a bunch of [screw]-ups.  All of this when they were STILL up by 7! 

I hate to say it but I don't know if the people in this city are ready for a champion, especially witnessing how crazy it was outside after the people left the building...I must've heard "MVP! MVP!" at least 100 times walking to my car.  It was as if the series was over, not as if the Cavs had narrowly avoided losing twice consecutively--in a building they'd lost in only twice (some would say once) in the regular season.  Just bizarre.  Great shot, but seriously?  It's 1-1. 

(Big caveat to the last sentence--I don't know how one becomes "ready" for a champion.  Is this possible?)

Two points of discontent though:

1)  I like how the Magic are trying to marginalize LeBron's shot, as if it's not a big deal (one Magic player said the Cavs' celebration meant that "we [Magic] know we're in their heads now"--really?), they've recovered before from shots by Andre Iguodala and "Fat Baby" (Fat, not Big--he's Oliver Miller reincarnate).  Look--Courtney Lee was in absolute shock after the game, the Magic players were devastated.  Not disappointed.  Devastated.  And let's never use LeBron and AI/Fat Baby in the same sentence.  It will affect them.

2)  I get that the Magic are a tough matchup for the Cavs, and that the Magic have had good second halves the last two games.  But haven't they had miserable first halves, falling down by 16 and 23?  Sure, the Cavs have blown massive leads--but the Magic allowed them to put up massive leads!  Is anyone mentioning this?  The reality is that teams that thrive on a penetrate-and-kick offense fare better in the second half of games (as the other team gets worn out having to close out on long-range shots on what seems like every play) but most teams don't struggle that significantly in the first half as the Magic have the first two games of the series.  So why aren't we at least saying the Cavs can, oh, occasionally, be a poor matchup for the Magic?  Or was 16/23 point leads in consecutive games a fluke?

The Magic have proven to be a poor starting team, and a great finishing team, this series.  The Cavs have been just the opposite.  I wouldn't be wholly surprised if the roles flip in Orlando.

What a shot...

Absolutely incredible.  Although, I can't believe Pietrus chased Pavlovich to the midcourt line when that ball was absolutely going to LeBron.  At least get in the way dude!  My thought is how it is perfect closure for Cavs fans on The Shot...as long as the Cavs go on to win the championship.  The curse will be broken officially.  In fitting fashion too.

That said, I do not like this matchup for the Cavs.  It is an interesting thing.  I think the Cavs would beat the Nuggets or the Lakers.  I have no doubt about that.  And I think the Magic would lose to both of those teams.  But the Cavs are going to have a hell of a time beating the Magic.  The matchups just aren't right.  To me, there is only one solution.  Make Verajao the backup center and play LeBron at the 4.  Pavlovich has to play more.  Those two provide the right defensive matchups for Lewis and Turkoglu.  It also makes offense easier for the Cavs.  We'll see if Mike Brown moves more in this direction.  He did do it some last night, but I would like to see more.  Anyway, your thoughts?

The (2009) Shot

So dude--what are your thoughts on last night's game winner by LeBron?
I was at the game and will comment--but I'm still adjusting to the
fact that Jordan didn't hit that shot against the Cavs for once.

--
Sent from my mobile device

So wait here...

I think we're agreeing.  Leach might as well say crazy things that get him noticed by the rest of the company.  As long as he's not taking his shirt off arbitrarily, he can only gain by trying to talk up Michael Crabtree.  The biggest problem for Texas Tech is their location.  Where is Lubbock, anyway? 

So in other words, how is Leach diminishing his chances, or taking that risk?

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] See I don't have any issues with Leach

The major difference I see between Graham Harrell and Colt Brennan is that Brennan was still drafted (following hip surgery), albeit in the sixth round. But I agree that Mike Leach may indeed gain more by stirring controversey than he loses in terms of recruiting. When Josh Freeman goes as high as he does, it's probably clear to most recruits that "measurables" are all that matter, anyway.
 
That said, while Texas Tech may not be a "big-time" school with a steady stream of potential NFL players, it is currently, due to Leach, a high-profile school that occasionally gets a Zach Thomas or a Michael Crabtree. It's hard enough building a program out in the desert.

 

Fertile ground. 

Tech may never be seen as an NFL factory, but why risk being seen as a school that will actually diminish your NFL chances?

In this economy, how is this possible?

A little late on this, but it took me a while to recover--how is Byron Scott returning as coach of the New Orleans Hornets?  I guess it comes down to money, and only money (Scott has one year left guaranteed and odds are the owner, George Shinn, has no interest in paying two salaries).  But this is devastating.

When I was in 8th grade, I played on a really bad middle school team.  Our first game of the season, the coach didn't want me to play point guard--and let me be clear, the team we were playing was good enough that it wouldn't have made much of a difference--but our team couldn't get the ball over half court.  The other team would trap our guards, steal the ball, and score easily.  This went on for an agonizing 40 minutes.  It was the most humiliating game I've ever been a part of, and I hope nothing in my life ever matches that.

However, we still only lost by 57.  I should start a campaign to hire me as coach of the Hornets--my slogan?  "I've never done worse than Byron Scott."

See I don't have any issues with Leach

The harsh reality is that if you don't go to a big-time school in NCAA football, you're laboring under a "glass ceiling"--the supposed ceiling being the doubt that either a) you're facing inferior competition or b) you're a pure product of your system (or for that matter, both).  I'm no Big 12 fan by birth (although I suppose a little by indoctrination having gone to a Big 12 school) but it seems to me this is clearly a case of b), since you'd either need to be under a rock or this guy to think the Big 12 doesn't have ridiculous competition.  And maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I don't see a real difference between Texas Tech's Graham Harrell and Hawaii's (now Washington's) Colt Brennan--big QBs who flourished in a system that was pass, pass, pass (and maybe some fi, fo, fum).

So in fact I'd say what Texas Tech coach Mike Leach did--torpedoing Eric Mangini to protect the interests of Crabtree, his top recruit (by far--Harrell was never projected as a starter in the pros)--probably helps the interests of his program long-term.  Look, because colleges don't pay their athletes to play or in any way cheat to get their athletes--a rock-solid recruiting system by all accounts--the college system overemphasizes the importance of a coach and his reputation (and by the way, any alleged cheating hasn't happened recently.  You want to play for a big-name coach, a guy who defends his players to the death.  Look, Leach isn't a big-name coach.  He's getting there, but at least where I'm from, the Midwest, you have a better chance of identifying this guy than Mike Leach.  And recruits will notice that Leach is supporting his top guys, and they'll like that when they're making the ultimate decision as to what school to commit to.  And in fact it's probably good PR since a good contingent of Browns fans aren't fans of Mangini. Leach acting up for his players gets his name out there, which is all you can ask for at this point.

Building a college program takes time and a little bit of controversy, and I think Mike Leach is very aware of that.  Brilliant!

Choose your words carefully, or: Watch what Mike Leach does, then do something else

Let me begin by saying that I really like Mike Leach. He puts an interesting, or at least competitive, team onto the field most years, and he demonstrates a refreshing lack of interest in playing anyone's game but his own. That said, he's hit and miss (not unlike his teams). Example of a hit: Mike's Pirate School. Example of a miss: his latest shots directed at the Texas A&M coaching staff and Eric Mangini--and the ensuing fallout. Regardless of whether Leach's comments are accurate (they're certainly entertaining), he's only hurting himself by drawing attention to the fact that his star quarterback, Graham Harrell, a former four-star recruit who threw for a bazillion yards in college, went undrafted. Heck, even Greg Paulus received interest based solely on his high school rating.

 

This is a huge blow to Texas Tech recruiting. I've always assumed that regardless of whatever weaknesses a player transitioning to the NFL might have as a result of Leach's system (whether actual or merely perceived), the main reason they weren't, generally speaking, highly drafted was because they weren't very good to begin with, i.e., that Leach was using his system to do more with less. But apparently, even objectively talented players coming from Leach's system are doomed. It's not clear to me that Harrell would be much worse off than if he had played four years of basketball instead.

 

Not that any of this was a secret. But Leach's comments serve to remind recruits (and his rivals) that if you go to Texas Tech, you're laboring under a glass ceiling. They couldn't have helped Harrell's chances of walking on with the Browns either. Just not smart, Mike.

Can I say one thing about Bulls/Celtics?

Yes, I agree this has been a tremendously entertaining series, in terms of overtimes and close games.

 

BUT

 

This series does not contain good basketball.  Both teams have been atrocious on defense.  Both coaches have made significant tactical errors repeatedly (Del Negro has been worse, but Tony Allen should not see the court for the Celts).  Both teams have executed fairly poorly for long stretches of time.  And both teams have had players make incredibly dumb plays (looking your way, Paul Pierce, on that foul on Noah last night).  Why is nobody mentioning the fact that basketball has not been played that well?  Are people just that swept up in the excitement of the close finishes?

 

 

Re: The Hornets

That was the most pathetic, embarassing display of professional basketball that I have ever witnessed.  Byron Scott is surely getting fired.  The bigger question to me is what happens to the makeup of the team this summer.  Here in Dallas, the Mavs are going to be big buyers this summer in the sense that they are willing to take on salary that other teams are looking to shed for economic reasons.  Basically, the Mavs want to take advantage of teams making economic decisions without regard to basketball consequences.  And the player they are rumored (at least locally) to want the most?  Chris Paul!  The offer would look something like this (from what I understand): Josh Howard, Erick Dampier, and Jerry Stackhouse (plus other spare parts to make next season's salaries match) for Chris Paul, Tyson Chandler, and Peja.  If the Mavs were really aggressive, they would add more players and take back James Posey as well.  Now, from a basketball standpoint, this trade is incredibly one-sided in the Mavericks favor.  But, from an economic standpoint, it would save the Hornets something like $100 million in years after the 2009-2010 season, after factoring in Paul's extension that he is due soon.  Even with these massive savings, I thought there is no way the Hornets would make that trade, and still believe so.  But, after last night's performance, I wouldn't put it past George Shinn to make this trade.  I just wouldn't.

 

Anyway, pure speculation, but that is immediately where my mind went about halfway through the second quarter of last night's "game."

 

As for the Nuggets, I think they are very good, but I also feel like the Hornets have totally fallen apart.  I want to see the Nuggets when they have faced some adversity.  I withhold judgment until then.

How do you lose a playoff game by 58 points?

If you're the Hornets, aren't you asking yourself this question this morning?

 

If you're Byron Scott, don't you feel like you should probably quit since you're getting fired?

 

If you're me, don't you regret picking the Hornets to win anything?

 

And are the Nuggets that good or the Hornets that irrelevant?

And the O-sack-po goes to...

The Washington Redskins. I didn't think he'd slip as far as 13. The Redskins just got a great player, despite "O-sack-po" being one of the most strained nicknames I've ever heard.

And damn the Broncos for drafting Knowshon Moreno, thus making him ineligible for my fantasy team due to Internal Rule 41.1(b)(3)(ii): "Never draft a Denver running back."

Atrocious

You tell me if moving down 12 spots in the draft to allow a team to select (what it believes is) a franchise quarterback is worth a 2nd rounder and three backups.

Awful.  I'm trying not to write only about the Browns but what Mangini is doing--signing/trading only for Jets players--appears nothing short of traitorous in Cleveland.  He should've stayed with the Jets.

It's official...

The Cleveland Browns have become the Cleveland Jets.  More hatred for ManKok in Cleveland will ensue.  The Browns trade down all the way from 5 to 17(!!!!!).  If the purchase price is anything less than a first rounder next year I will be furious.  Browns should also pick up a 2nd and/or 3rd rounder this year, especially since the Jets traded to get a QB in "Clean" Sanchez.

I'm OK with the Jets 1st, 2nd/3rd (fine with one but would prefer both) and then a 1st rounder.  Anything less and "Fire ManKok" signs will be put up throughout the city (which can only help deflate housing values here further).

KNEW IT!

Beware the Cleveland curse.  Curry to Seahawks at 4.

Now, if the Browns were wise, they'll at least take Michael Crabtree, the dynamic Texas Tech wideout.

The thing about the Browns is there isn't much positive sentiment for the Mangini-Kokinis regime that took over a few months back.  They've been excessively secretive, haven't made any splash in the FA market (despite Kokinis's alleged strengths as a personnel evaluator for free agents, not draftees).

So...let's assume the worst.  I think the Browns take "Clean" Sanchez, and Crabtree falls to the Raiders or Jaguars at 7/8.

The draft just got interesting

Watching it live, Chiefs just made their pick.

LOVE the selection of Tyson Jackson from LSU for the Chiefs.  For the Browns.  If I'm the Browns, I'm hoping that the Seahawks bite and take Mark "Clean" Sanchez and Curry drops to 5.

Of course, because it's Cleveland, I have to think Curry is going to the Seahawks at 4.  Possible trade by another team to pass the Browns.

And the main question for Tyson Jackson (per Steve Young): DOES HE LOVE THE FREAKING GAME?1?!?!?!

Matt Stafford at 1 has a real good chance to be the next Joey Harrington--but for $41 million guaranteed!  Kiper said he might not be a "Hall of Fame quarterback" but could be a "very good" quarterback.  Nice work!

Hatin' & Anticipatin'

Maybe today's kids are different. Maybe they prefer the new Star Wars trilogy, and maybe they think Jimmy Fallon is funny. If so, God help us. David Letterman (when he cared/cares), and Conan were/are funny. Jimmy Fallon is obnoxiously goofy and self-ingratiating. And what he's done to the Roots is just sad. I think I just might be—yes, I am—a hater. (Dons fedora.)

I'm also looking forward to the draft. It's kind of an odd event. There's a plethora of draft previews and predictions and discussions in the weeks leading up to it. Then we spend weeks afterward grading the draft, reassessing our fantasy football cheat sheets, etc. But the event itself commands only indirect attention—something to be done with a beer in hand and a bunch of open Safari tabs on screen. This is kind of like Lost or Heroes for me: I don't enjoy actually watching those shows, i.e., the experience of those shows (mediocre acting, visuals; little per-episode plot movement), but I'm interested in eventually reading their plot summaries on Wikipedia.

Anyway, save the drama for your mama—Detroit will take Stafford with the first pick. While I agree that Stafford is overrated, it's not surprising that he's in this position given his size and skill set. And like I said, this is a great situation for him—just not in terms of winning football games.

Being a college football fan first (as well as a Texas alum), I'm curious to see where the Big 12's major prospects, including a couple of cover boys, land. I'm looking for Josh Freeman to be this year's Brady Quinn.

Stafford/Draft

I saw Stafford break plates with passes (like Duck Hunt, with less duck and more dinner plate) on the Jimmy Fallon Show (clips of it--I promise I didn't watch it, although I bet Jimmy thought he was hilarious) and wasn't overly impressed with Stafford's demeanor, nor have I been throughout the last year when teams zeroed in on him as the best QB (and by proxy, the top pick).

That said it should be a fun draft today.  10 minutes in between picks in the first round (as opposed to 15 as it was in years past) should keep things rolling a bit, and maybe, just maybe, a historically indecisive team like the Vikings or Cowboys will miss its pick (and in the case of the former, I should say, miss its pick again--thanks for the memories, Bryant McKinnie).

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] For Edwards?

And kudos for spotting the (admittedly obvious, but still largely underrated) "character issues" bargain, Percy Harvin. This kid is going to be a star, and...well, let me just say there are "character issues," and there are Character Issues. Harvin only has the former.

 

Matt Stafford seems to be essentially the same player now that he was coming out of high school. Even so, it won't be hard to improve on 0-16. He was always going to go through rookie quarterback growing pains, but now he gets to do so with what has to be the bare minimum of accountability.

For Edwards?

Definitely no more than a second rounder if the report on ESPN is true that the Cards are now asking only for a second round pick for Boldin.

 

Kudos for nailing the Cardinals caving first.

For me there's no question

I take the 29th pick.  If you can get a first-rounder for Edwards, a guy who led the leagues in drops last year, who will be completely ineffective this year when teams double-cover him (being able to bring up the safety to pick him up deep every play is the biggest negative impact the loss of Winslow has on the team) and will then bolt for a ridiculous contract next year, you do it.

 

I've heard rumors of them asking for Mathias Kiwanuka AND a first-rounder.  Are you kidding?  TAKE THE FIRST ROUND PICK.  Read my lips--if he stays with the Browns this year, he a) won't make the pro bowl, b) won't get 1,000 yards receiving, and c) will promptly sign with another team after trashing Cleveland/its fans next year.

 

So--if I have the choice between a first round pick and nothing, I'll choose the first round pick.  Now, of course, they won't, because Boldin is a more attractive prospect and I bet the Cardinals are more likely to give on their demands than Mangini. 

 

And then, I swear, if the Browns draft Mark Sanchez from USC, I'll lose my mind.  Really?  On a team that is spending $10 million next year on Anderson and Quinn, you're going to further de-leverage Anderson and Quinn's trade value by getting a third unproven, expensive quarterback?  THAT's the solution?  Really?

 

I know, other than occasional rumors, there isn't any substantiation to this, but I thought I'd prepare you for the inevitable reaction. 

 

Ideal draft is--get Curry at 5, trade away Edwards for the 29th pick and select either Percy Harvin or the best USC LB available (or Laurinaitis if none are around), and then trade away Brady for whatever they can get (I've heard a first round pick but don't believe it) and take the best talent available.  Please, I'm begging you.

 

What would you trade to get Edwards?  Will he end up being traded?

 

And most importantly--does Matthew Stafford have a chance in this league, going to an 0-16 team with (again) a rookie coach?

Hey Will

 You're a Browns fan.  What would take from the Giants for Braylon Edwards?

Yeah it's still only one game

(And in the case of the Celtics-Bulls and Mavericks-Spurs, two.)  I'm not ready to give a pass to the Hawks as a tough opponent just because they beat up on (why isn't this said more?) what is effectively a one-man team in the Heat with Wade.  I imagine this series will predictably go to the home teams until game 7, which is when Wade makes the difference.

And don't underestimate the Celtics.  While the Magic's complete collapse (18-point lead at home?  win the game!) agains the 76ers is rooted in the Magic's history of underperformance (pre- and post-McGrady) in the playoffs, the Celtics demonstrated last year that they tend not to really care until someone makes them care.  The Bulls shouldn't have had a 5-point lead with 2:54 left in last night's game in Boston, but then again the Celtics at some point (collective consciousness theory here) realized that hey, we need to win this or we'll be down 2-0.

I suspect the Celtics-Magic series will be challenging because you have a team that doesn't initially care (Celtics) against a team without a proven winner (Magic), but the Celtics will use that heart to pull it out, and bring an interesting matchup against the Cavs in the Eastern Finals.

I also suspect Garnett will play in the Eastern Finals.  This seems too contrived, like Pierce's "injury" last year that required him to be carried off the court, put in a wheelchair, only to play three minutes later.  Garnett will romantically be likened to Willis Reed, the Boston media will eat it up, and the Cavs' biggest Eastern challenge will come from the "truly inspired" Celtics in a "feel-good" story.  Makes me kind of sick.

The other thing about not paying attention to the first game of a playoff series--and I think this should be directed at each of the Hawks, Bulls, 76ers, Mavericks and Rockets (only the Mavericks I picked to actually win the series)--is what I call the Allen Iverson Theory of Game Ones.  In Iverson's lone appearance in the finals in 2001 against the Spurs, the 76ers pulled out a fantastic win in game 1, an inspirational overtime win.  After the win, Iverson gave a press conference saying how much he felt the 76ers were disrespected, and how the 76ers were there to win, and could pull it out.

The Spurs then swept the next four games.  Whoops.

It has to be asked...

I know each playoff series has only had one game.  But is it too early to ask if the Cavs might get their toughest test before the Finals in the second round?

Lisa Simpson's Guide to the 2009 NBA Playoffs

This blog is called Ignore the Chalk. That is, ideally, "be aware of the chalk (Nuggets over Hornets, go to law school), but don't be afraid to diverge from the chalk when your instincts tell you otherwise (take the Hornets, become a street puppeteer)," as in Will's case. Not "ignore the sport so thoroughly that you have no idea what the 'chalk' is, what sport it refers to, or if it even refers to a sport," as in my case.

Round 1:

Cavs over Pistons in 5, because the Pistons are brave, but leaderless and subconsciously aware that they are on the losing side of history.

Celtics over Bulls in 6, because even without Kevin Garnett, the Celtics have heart, and everyone standing behind Derrick Rose is terrified.

Magic over Sixers in 4, because the Sixers' end-of-season home win against the Cavs wasn't a sign of momentum. It was a death rattle.

Heat over Hawks in 7, because each team will question themselves, but only the Heat will have Dwayne Wade to answer.

Lakers over Jazz in 5, because neither team's name applies to its respective hometown, and the Lakers are better.

Nuggets over Hornets in 5, because the chalk is the chalk for a reason.

Spurs over Mavs in 7, because the Spurs dynasty may be coming to an end, but the Mavs' legacy of underachievement lives on.

Blazers over Rockets in 7, because Greg Oden has the vigor of a 21-year-old, but the wisdom of a weather-beaten, world-weary 47-year-old.

Round 2:

Cavs over Heat in 7.

Celtics over Magic in 6.

Lakers over Blazers in 5.

Spurs over Nuggets in 6.

Conference Finals:

Cavs over Celtics in 6.

Lakers over Spurs in 6.

NBA Finals:

Cavs over Lakers in 7, because it is written.

NBA Playoff Picks - The 2009 Edition - Where the (L)Eeast Became the Most (Competitive)

The blog's new, but every year I make sure to scribble down my picks for the NBA Playoffs, although the bracket usually possesses (Warriors of 2007 aside) no real Cinderella mystique (frankly, the NCAA Tournament doesn't either, but at least there, there are underdogs who can win a round or two before they lose to the Usual Suspects).

 

Here the West actually has some of that NCAA Tournament feel--it's more wide open than it has been in years, but much like the Tourney, among teams that really don't have a shot against the Big Dog (guess who, but I'll save it for later in the post).  The East is incredibly competitive at the end of the bracket, though, with three first round matchups being competitive, the projected second round matchups being a hoot, and the Eastern finals having a good shot of going the distance. 

 

Ok, enough of a tease, let's get to the picks:

 

FIRST ROUND.

 

Western Conference

 

#1 Lakers vs. #8 Jazz - Lakers advance in 5 games.  (Or as we say, go with the chalk.)  I know much has been made of Deron Williams being good enough to keep this close, but the Jazz are a terrible road team this year (so they lose games 1, 2 and 5) and while their home crowd will be up for it, the Lakers are a 60-win team for a reason. 

 

#2 Nuggets vs. #7 Hornets - Hornets advance in 6.  (That's right...ignore the chalk.)  Big upset here because I don't trust 'Melo and while Billups' story (bringing the Nuggets back from collapse to emerge as the unlikely #2 seed) is endearing (especially since it involves the Pistons' demise) the Hornets proved to be a tough matchup for the Spurs last year and people forget that it's tough to win in New Orleans.  Chandler is playing banged up, yes, but Chris Paul's good enough that he knows how to get the most out of his players.  I see the Hornets picking up one of the first two in Denver, then winning both at home, losing in Denver, then winning at home.

 

#3 Spurs vs. #6 Mavericks - Mavs advance in 6.  (Ignore the chalk.)  It's not the end of a dynasty, necessarily (the Spurs have one more run left in them), it's that the Spurs are banged up.  I don't love the Mavericks but they have enough big-time scorers in Dirk and Jet to get it done.

 

#4 Blazers vs. #5 Rockets - Blazers advance in 7.  I refuse to pick the Rockets until they a) get rid of Tracy McGrady (he's still on the roster, even if he's not on the playoff roster) or b) Yao Ming.  While people are now officially overhyping the Blazers and Brandon Roy, the Blazers have enough talent (and no stench of prior failure) to get it done in 7.

 

(L)Eastern Conference

 

#1 Cavs vs. #8 Pistons -Cavs advance in 5.  I was tempted to go with a sweep here but there's too much history, and the Pistons' reliance on shooters (Hamilton and Rasheed) should pick them up game 3.  If they lose game 3, it's over in four.

 

#2 Celtics vs. #7 Bulls - Celtics advance in 6.  Bulls will shock the Celtics for one game at home, split games 3 and 4, Celts carry 5 and the momentum to win in 6.  I like Rose but don't really trust anyone else on the Bulls to come through in the clutch.  When Ben Gordon's your end of game scorer...ouch.  Plus the Celtics with a healthy Pierce and Allen are still a 50-win team.

 

#3 Magic vs. #6 Sixers - Magic advance in 5.  I lost all respect for the Sixers (it took a while) when they beat the 11th-15th men of the Cavaliers, but it took them overtime to do it.  While I distrust Dwight Howard's ability to take over games, he doesn't need to.  The Magic are better.  Same as Cavs-Pistons, Sixers either win game 3 or it's a sweep.

 

#4 Hawks vs. #5 Heat - Heat advance in 7.  The great "underestimated" series.  This is the Hawks team, a year older, that took the eventual champions to 7 games, albeit getting blown out in game 7.  The Heat are clearly not the Celtics defensively, but they do have a guy who bounced back from claims that he was the next Penny Hardaway (HOF first few years, then break down) and became the league's leading scorer and a Top 3 MVP guy.  While Atlanta doesn't seem to really care about the Hawks, or sports in general (if anything, it's a football town), they seemed to really get up for the playoffs last year.  I expect this year to be no different.

 

SECOND ROUND.

 

Western Conference

 

Lakers vs. Blazers - Lakers in 5.  I know everyone loves this matchup and thinks the Blazers will give the Lakers a scare, but I see Kobe taking that personally.  I don't think it'll be that close.

 

Mavericks vs. Hornets - Hornets in 7.  Here's the series to watch in the West, even if they're only competing for the rights to lose to the Lakers.  Paul will be the difference-maker, as I see the Hornets getting their groove back.

 

Eastern Conference

 

Cavs vs. Heat - Cavs in 7.  This series really scares me, because Wade and LeBron have had some epic battles.  This is the Cavs/Celtics from a year ago, where the Celts pulled it out in game 7.  But I'm not wholly surprised if the Heat figure things out.  I don't see Wade going quietly.

 

Celtics vs. Magic - Celtics in 6.  The Magic need to prove to me that Hedo and Rashard are healthy, and that they have someone capable of taking over games.  As it stands, Howard hasn't proven that yet and the Magic's last two dismissals from the playoffs have been unceremonious.   Even a depleted Celtics team has more heart at this point.

 

CONFERENCE FINALS.

 

Western Conference

 

Lakers versus Hornets - Lakers in 5.  Here's where the Hornets' shortcomings (health, depth) become obvious.  The Lakers just overpower them into the finals.

 

Eastern Conference

 

Cavs versus Celtics - Cavs in 6.  I think the Cavs retain home court advantage, winning all three at home, but fail to close it out until they visit Boston a third time.  That said, this prediction is what it is with, or without, Garnett.

 

FINALS.

 

Cavs versus Lakers - Cavs in 7.  I can't believe I'm doing it but I'm actually predicting my home town team will win a championship (and no, I've never done this before in my life, although I did predict the finals in 2007).  It'll be a heartbreaking series for both sides, but ultimately, I think the Lakers are going to prove a little quicker to give up than LeBron and the Cavs.

 

And if they win it all, as a lifelong Clevelander...wow.  I still can't imagine.

You want issues? You got issues.

(Yes, I'm aware I need to work on post titles.  This blog is like a sitcom...I hope it'll get better (before it gets cancelled)).

I honestly don't think the Spurs are much of a plot this year.  Their dyNasty arguably ended when they fell in the playoffs quietly last year to the Lakers.  Here you just have a Ginobili injury, and at that it's probably because he wore himself out in the Olympics.  Give them time.  The Spurs will be back. 

Love the Blazers though.  Who doesn't?  Although I have my doubts--and wonder if they'll end up being the Bulls of the West (bunch of young kids who are high draft picks with potential, but it never pans out)--it's the "youngest team" syndrome: people are fascinated by teams that haven't been there before.  Plus I think they'll make the second round (playoff preview hint).

So my top 3 non-Garnett storylines are coming soon.  Before that, quick tangent--Garnett isn't "officially" out yet, is he?  To me it sounds like the day progressed oddly--first, you hear about Doc Rivers saying Garnett isn't ready and he might not be ready this playoffs.  Then there are reports saying there's a "strong possibility" Garnett's not playing.  By 3pm Eastern, blogs everywhere are reporting he's out--for sure--for the playoffs.  Seems odd to me.  Ok, storylines:

1)  Orlando -- are they really different?  The Garnett thing is relevant because now the Team That Was Dismissed in favor of a Cavs-Celtics rematch now has a very legitimate shot at taking out the defending champs and giving the Cavs more than a scare in the Conference Finals.  Why hasn't this been discussed more yet?  Am I missing something?  The team almost won 60 games, without Jameer Nelson!  Amazing.

2)  Will the Lakers quit again?  I want a refund for Game 6 of the Finals last year, where the Lakers lost--in Los Angeles!--to a (fine, use the word "hungry" and "veterans" in the same sentence if you must) Celtics team by 39!!!!!!  And didn't really seem to care.  It's been stressed before that this loss demonstrates Kobe doesn't have Jordan's heart because there's no way, in those circumstances, Jordan would let his team lose.  But that's not the point to me.  The point is that this is essentially the same cast--and while, yes, Bynum's back, he's not a guy who has proven he's going to take over anything except the injured list--and they remember that loss.  I would.  Now, how they respond is the question.  They're going to have a game like that, and how they respond (if they have a chance to respond) is more likely to define Kobe's legacy than anything.

3)  I'm tempted to go with LeBron, but in my mind it's just too obvious (and honestly, that could well be the storyline every year until he gets old/goes bad, hopefully a long time from now).  So let's go with Pressure to Perform.  The way I see it there are three teams (other than Orlando) that really have to prove they can go to the Next Level--or there's a major risk of a huge overhaul.  Shockingly, they're all in the West:  Denver, Dallas and Houston.  Denver and Melo haven't gone anywhere.  They've been gifted with the #2 seed, but the Hornets (even with Chandler and Peja not at 100%, if they even play the whole series) there's a serious upset risk.  Billups has led the team in the right direction, but Melo hasn't gotten out of the first round yet.  Dallas came far too close and went from a deep, talented team to a team that's aging quickly, despite Dirk having a quiet/solid year.  And then Houston hasn't been able to get out of the first round since Hakeem left for Toronto/retirement.  Yao does his thing but it's never enough, and although they had an outside shot at a top-3 seed, now they find themselves without home court against a hungry team.  How many first round exits can a team endure?

You can't look at these playoffs consequentially.  Yes, the finals will be the Cavs/Celtics/Magic against the Lakers and everyone else is playing for third place at best.  But there are enough up and coming teams (Chicago, Atlanta, Portland) and enough near-death teams (Denver, Dallas, Houston) to make things interesting.

Re: Well done

Three biggest playoff subplots (non-Garnett injury):

 

1)  The total whackiness of the 2-7 matchups out West.  Like you said three potential upsets in the first round.  I too am excited to see the Blazers.  I think, right now, they are playing second best in the conference.

 

2)  LeBron's quest to win a title at age 24 without the most impressive supporting cast.  He certainly doesn't have a Gasol on his team, let alone Bynum and Odom.  As an aside, surely a title this year quiets some of the LeBron to New York talk.  I mean, if he is all about winning titles and he wins one this year, how could leaving to go to New York improve his chances?  But then again, the New York media is driving those stories and I doubt they stop even if the Cavs take the title.

 

3)  The end of the Spurs era.  I think this year is it.  They have had 10 straight 50 win seasons and four titles over the last decade.  Duncan is the best power forward ever.  They might extend that 50 win season streak a few more years, but I think they are done as a legit title contender without a drastic makeover.

 

That's it.  Your three?

Well done

You win the record on prediction speed (given that this was only finalized last night).  But I'm not reading until I make my own picks.  And at that, I promise it will be a pantheonic post, so what it lacks in speed it will make up for in sheer depth.

 

Well done also on the Cavs prediction.  I had them pegged for 58 wins at the beginning, but 66?  Ridiculous.  And throw out last night's game--I'll take going 39-2 any day of the week.

 

What are the biggest subplots of the playoffs?  First is obviously the Garnett injury, but I'm delighted at how the West matchups came out.  You have a real chance at three first-round upsets.  I can't wait to see the Blazers play.

Ok. I'll go first.

Playoff predictions.

 

Round 1:

Cavs over Pistons in 4.

Celts over Bulls in 7.

Magic over Sixers in 5.

Hawks over Heat in 7.

Lakers over Jazz in 5.

Nuggets over Hornets in 7.

Mavs over Spurs in 6.

Blazers over Rockets in 7.

 

Round 2:

Cavs over Hawks in 5.

Magic over Celts in 6.

Lakers over Blazers in 7.

Mavs over Nuggets in 6.

 

Conference Finals:

Cavs over Magic in 7.

Lakers over Mavs in 5.

 

The Finals:

Cavs over Lakers in 6.

The Western Conference

Will, you are dead on about the West.  Being in Dallas, I have followed this "race" quite closely.  Let's see what we have here:  Denver is probably the 2 seed after trading away Camby for nothing; San Antonio has a shot at the 3 seed without Ginoboli really playing this year and Duncan running around on bum knees; Houston is the other team with a good shot at the 3 seed without Tracy McGrady and their best player (Yao Ming) being spectacularly unspectacular; Portland (who should be the team to beat out West in future years) being considered by many to be the second best team in the conference with a bunch of guys who I'm not sure can legally drink alcohol; Dallas somehow remarkably with a shot at the 6 seed even though they have spent the past two seasons walking around, mumbling to themselves, and drooling after the Golden State humiliation; and the Hornets being the other team chasing the 6 seed, even though they didn't finish in the top 12 in the NBA in FG percentage, 3 point percentage, steals, rebounds, blocks, points scored, or assists.  How is this a great conference?  I actually think Dallas will get to the second round considering their play of late and the fact that it looks like Josh Howard is finally healthy.  The Mavs have no business getting into the second round of the playoffs, but it could happen.  And the really crazy thing?  They might win in the second round too!

 

Basically, I look at the Western Conference and I see the same thing that happened last year.  The Lakers are going to roll to the NBA Finals and look impressive doing it.  Then, the media will spend a week fawning over the Lake show and telling us how invinsible they are before a dominant defensive Eastern Conference team rips them apart.  Book it.  Oh, and the Cavs will be that East team.  My 65 win prediction was pretty damn good, wasn't it?

More hating on the Cutler trade and more (yes) basketball.

The trade still frustrates me. I think you're right that the value of a "proven QB coming into his prime" comes is probably closer to Cutler's value than what Cassel fetched.

1) Both players had their first and only pro bowl seasons in 2008.

2) Cutler's lifetime passer rating over three seasons (5 starts in 2006, 16 in 2007 and 16 in 2008) averages out to about an 88, with last season being his worst (albeit not statistically significant) at 86.0. 88's a solid but not great average. If we look solely at ratings, and believe Cutler won't improve significantly, we have a solid but not franchise quarterback. Yes, he threw for a ridiculous 4,500 yards last year but that was a function of a better offense than he'll have in Chicago, as well as a defense that wasted no time giving up points (28 per game, third worst--even worse than Kansas City), forcing the Broncos to rely more on the pass. Drew Brees he ain't.

3) By comparison, while Matt Cassell's 89.4 rating isn't significantly different (only 3700 yards passing but again the Patriots' defense wasn't a scythe, so Belichick didn't need to air it out as much), I can only give so much credence to the term "proven"--certainly not two first-round picks versus one second-rounder.

I find it depressing that a guy like Cutler yielded so much value in a trade. At the end of the day, it's an anomaly so I suppose it can be left at that. Although if anyone would like Derek Anderson, Browns "stud" QB, he can be had for two first-rounders. Anyone? Bueller?

Modifying the USTs makes sense, although I'd like to create sub-rules under this category to make things more confusing. So here we go:
1) Avoid mediocrity, inasmuch as it can be avoided - Nobody likes losers, everybody hates teams that get eliminated in the first round of the playoffs on a yearly basis.

Sub-Rule 1a) - The PJ Carlesimo Coach Corollary - don't hire mediocre coaches or fluke coaches.

Sub-Rule 1b) - The Phil Jackson Coach Corollary - hire only multiple-championship legends (unlikely) or take risks on supergenius assistants. Roll the dice.

2) The Jack Haley Rule - If you're going to acquire psychologically-risky players, you better get some backup.

On another note, NBA Playoffs begin this Saturday. Mike, let's make a gentleman's bet. Fill out a bracket, as will I, predicting a) the winner of each round and b) the number of games it takes (no credit for b) if you pick the right number of games but the wrong team). I have the horrible sense that there's not much more logic to NBA Playoff brackets than there is to the NCAA brackets--so here's the chance to prove it.

I don't watch basketball. (Is that a problem for a sports blogger?)

I don't think Cutler is intrinsically worth that much more than Cassel, but for what Cutler is purported to be--Proven Franchise Quarterback Coming into His Prime, essentially the primest of all NFL roster real estate--I'd expect the asking price to be closer to what was paid for Cutler than what was paid for Cassel. The key adjective here is "proven," and for most teams, Cassel's one season just wasn't enough. By contrast, the Broncos received two similar offers for Cutler from teams in situations similar to the Bears' (solid defenses and running games, questionable receivers).

Where the Bears dropped (fumbled?) the ball was in failing to capitalize on the facts that (1) the Broncos were going to trade Cutler no matter what and (2) the Broncos apparently saw significant value in Kyle Orton, or at least more than they saw in some other offerings. But hey, it's water over the dam. Time to find Cutler some receivers.

All of which brings me to the USTs. Reading proposed rules 1 and 1a together, I would redraft as, "Avoid mediocrity, inasmuch as it can be avoided." This is a nice philosophical touchstone, and presumably achieved primarily through the acquisition of either (1) proven talent or (2) potential talent (at the extremes, "break the bank" vs. "take a flyer").

The Bears' move falls into (extreme) category 1, and considering the nature of the position (central, potentially long-term), I can't fault them for it, my quibbling over the exact price notwithstanding.

I just. don't. get. the Nuggets. And Jay Cutler. And Denver.

I focus probably too much on the NBA, which means that the next few months (NFL draft aside) I'll probably emphasize 90% of my time/postson the NBA Playoffs (the other 10% will emphasize baseball, cheating in baseball, and football players getting arrested during the offseason).

Let me get to the point. The Western Conference is getting entirely too much respect. I can understand the praise lavished upon the "top 9" teams in the conference, as long as you completely ignore the bottom six teams. At least five--possibly six if Golden State chokes out three of its final four games--teams will finish with fewer than 30 wins! Compare this to one such team in the East (the Wizards, who are doing their best imitation of a West team, with 18 wins at this point).

And out of the top 9 teams Not Named the Lakers, the Nuggets look to emerge as the second seed with an amazing 55 wins. All for a team that traded Marcus Camby to the Clippers in exchange for a 2nd round pick while they were in cap-shedding mode. This is a team that relies on the increasingly shot-hungry Carmelo Anthony (driving less to the basket each game as he continues his quest to be the next Glenn Robinson) as its number 1 option. Credit to Chauncey Billups for improving the team more than Allen Iverson could (although Iverson would be one of the first to acknowledge scoring isn't as easy as it was when he was on the sunny side of 30 years of age), but are the Nuggets a team you would fear going into the playoffs, when Dahntay Jones is starting at shooting guard?

And while I'm bashing Denver sports teams/athletes, since when did Jay Cutler (now the Bears QB) become a franchise QB worth 2 first round picks and a third round pick? At the end of the day, is he THAT much better than Matt Cassel (who only garnered a 2nd round pick? Really?

GM Rules - The Dos and Don'ts of Running a Sports Franchise

I propose we make a list of "Unbreakable Sports Truths" (USTs) or some other variation. The premise is this: if you or I (or anyone we know who is an ally) ever becomes a GM of an NBA team (maybe NFL or college rules can be added as well), these are rules we will abide by. With that said I'll propose two rules to be added in this e-mail, but I really think it's worth keeping a list. This will be something we can verify in 5, 10, 20 years.

So, two rules (and a corollary):

1. The PJ Carlesimo Rule. You don't ever hire a coach who was fired from a middling team that failed to ever reach the conference finals. The history with this is solid. Look at every coach in the NBA, go down the list. Many of them fall into this category. The majority of them are middling to poor teams. And the good teams will be dragged down quickly--for example, Michael Curry will kill the Pistons by mid-next season, and trades will be a-coming, including Rip Hamilton.

1a. (Corollary, though maybe we split it out into its own rule.) The Phil Jackson Rule. You only hire coaches that are a) proven championship winners who left their prior teams on their terms or b) are completely unproven, genius assistants/other coaches with no prior NBA head coaching experience with a specific philosophy (offense or defense). I know this is complex but hear me out. First, championship winnerS is the emphasis. Do not hire Larry Brown or Doc Rivers to build up your franchise. You will regret it, they are anomalies, products of imploding Lakers' teams. Second, as to b), why hire Rick Carlisle or Rick Adelman and doom yourself to years of second-round or conference final elimination? Why not swing for the fences and pick a genius assistant that will be the next Phil Jackson? I know you're going to say, there are countless bodies of dead former assistants-turned-head coaches. But the only ones that are successful are ones with a philosophy. I don't mean the Porter/Skiles "tough guy" philosophy but guys who are offensive geniuses (D'Antoni who I think should have won with the Suns had Amare not been suspended) or defensive geniuses (dare I say it, Mike Brown or Tom Thibodeau). Why is this essential? "Tough guy" philosophies inevitably wear out, players tune out. But cultures stick for a long time, and are hard to wear off. Spurs and Lakers will be competitive for a long time because especially with the young guys, they totally buy into the system and unless a new coach comes along and screws it up, won't soon forget.

2. The Jack Haley Rule. If you're going to bring a certifiably psychologically unpredictable talent to your team, you need a Jack Haley personality. Rodman defines the rule. The kind of folksy guy who's harmless (and otherwise ineffective in pretty much anyway) but somehow catches the ear of the charismatic superstar. That's what Jack Haley was to Rodman--a guy who never played, who probably would faint if he ever went in for a tattoo, but somehow, Rodman trusted. Rodman was an effusive personality, but Haley "got him", admired him, respected him. We see that with Rick Adelman and Ron Artest for the Rockets. For a couple months we had that with TO and Romo in Dallas. You need these guys or the star will inevitably turn on you worse than Randy Orton turned on Triple H (WWE reference, but give me a break--Wrestlemania's coming up).

Keep it going.