NFL Draft "Live" Blog, Rounds 1 and 2

So since this blog has practically turned into a football blog, I decided what better time to return to the blogosphere than with a post following along with the NFL Draft, the most over-hyped event in all of sports? No better time, I say! So here we go.

First things first, my take on the Broncos/Jay Cutler fiasco: Oh, well. At first I was totally mind-boggled by the Broncos' decision to pursue Matt Cassel when they already had a Pro Bowl QB (not that this says much since it's just a popularity contest decided too far before the season ends), but as the situation moved on and Josh McDaniels made little effort to bring Cutler into the fold, it looked more and more like he wanted Cutler gone from the beginning. Now, with Cutler traded for a very healthy ransom (2 first round picks and Kyle Orton from the Bears, in case you somehow didn't know), I have to say that I'm not too upset about the way things turn out. Now the question is, what do the Broncos do with those picks in this draft to try to get the proud franchise back on its feet? Hopefully, the answer is draft defense, defense and more defense. If we must have Orton at QB to start the year, so be it.

As we go along, a fun storyline will be the fall of Mark Sanchez, the USC QB. After what we saw with Brady Quinn two years ago and Aaron Rodgers a couple years before that, Sanchez could have a long day if he slips passed the Seahawks at 4 or the Browns at 5.

#1 overall pick - The Lions sign QB Matthew Stafford the night before the draft, taking away some of the suspense in this pick. Regardless, I'm not a huge fan of the decision because I don't think all that much of Stafford (he didn't accomplish much in college and left early) and he's going to a very bad situation (first-time head coach with a defensive background, and no good offensive line). If he succeeds, good for him. If not, count me not surprised. ESPN Coverage Note: Thanks for the crack commentary, Keyshawn! In analyzing this pick, he says "The Lions haven't had a winning season in I don't know how long..." Really? You couldn't even be bothered to do research for the first pick in the draft? What will you contribute as the day goes on?

#2 overall pick - The Rams don't surprise anyone by taking OT Jason Smith from Baylor, a replacement for their long-time LT Orlando Pace whom they released this offseason because of his injury issues and age. A little Mark Sanchez chatter for the Rams here, but they have too much invested in Marc Bulger and there is a chance that with a new coach and a rebuilt o-line, Bulger may be able to play decently again someday.

#3 overall pick - The Chiefs pick DE Tyson Jackson to replace Jared Allen who they gave away in a trade last offseason. Good pick, but one they shouldn't have had to make if they didn't blow the Allen situation. Sanchez now on the clock...

#4 overall pick - With Julian Peterson gone, the Seahawks get possibly the only can't miss player of the draft, LB Aaron Curry out of Wake. I like the pick and I think he has defensive rookie of the year written all over him. Sanchez easily could have gone here, but evidently Seattle is not quite ready to get Matt Hasselbeck's replacement at QB.

#5 overall pick - First trade of the day and it's a biggy. The Browns trade with the Jets and New York snags Sanchez, ending the drama very early in the day. This is a great pickup for New York (assuming Sanchez isn't a one-year wonder from USC...) and they will have a shiny new franchise QB to go along with their shiny new stadium this year. The Browns get the Jets first and second round picks, and a collection of no-names from the Jets in return. So the question now becomes, will Sanchez be the next Carson Palmer (whose NFL career is still little better than OK) or the next Matt Leinart/Todd Marinavich, a pair of USC 1st round QBs that failed. Or maybe his inexperience at USC will make him the next Matt Cassel (then again, if it takes him 3 years to get ready, he'll be run out of New York). Should be fun to watch.

#6 overall pick - Amazing. The Bengals take the top player with major character issues. Wow. I guess this shouldn't come as a shock, but you just wonder if this franchise is ever going to learn. I hope Andre Smith doesn't have off-field problems and helps the Bengals improve, but I just don't understand the pick when a guy like Eugene Monroe, a tackle without character issues, is on the board also. Smith will really be under the microscope now, so he'd better tread lightly over the next year or two.

#7 overall pick - Wow again. Al Davis does it again. The man that's addicted to speed (um, maybe I should rephrase that...) chooses the fastest receiver in the draft, Darrius Heyward-Bey. Instead of taking a solid player that could contribute to a young team, the Raiders take a raw receiver with good tools but without the big-game experience and without the skills to contribute early. This is an awful pick (as Kiper and McShay agree), but sadly not a big surprise that Davis would reach. Herm Edwards takes credit for the pick, so that should tell you just how bad it was. This guy has Troy Williamson (read: bust) written all over him. Beware the workout warriors that wow at the Combine but not on the field in college.

#8 overall pick - The Jags don't make the sexy pick (WR Michael Crabtree) but instead pick Monroe, the OT that will help shore up a very poor offensive line from last year. Looks like a solid pick, although it may not excite the fan base. Now, however, the Crabtree watch begins as the top-5 caliber player has begun to slip and who knows where he may land. Jacksonville seemed like it might be as low as he'd go, but now the bottom may be falling out.

#9 overall pick - ESPN ruins the drama again by showing the player at his home celebrating before the pick is announced (honestly, I hate this. I'd rather the commissioner announce all the first round picks to improve the suspense more. Enough of ESPN patting itself on the back by breaking the story 45 seconds before the pick's announced.). DT BJ Raji, a player I would love to see in Denver, goes to Green Bay to give them a strong inside force on defense. From everything I've heard, Raji is far and away the best DT in the draft, and it's a position a lot of teams needed, so I wonder a bit why he fell as far as he did.

#10 overall pick - Well, the Crabtree watch doesn't last too long as the offensively-challenged Niners take the big Texas Tech wideout at #10. I like the pick, and even though their QB situation isn't too hot, the Niners needed to get a talented weapon at WR to complement RB Frank Gore and TE Vernon Davis and now they should be able to score much better in a weak defensive division.

#11 overall pick - Yet another spoiler alert from ESPN as the start discussing the pick 2 minutes before it's announced, and I still hate it. The Bills take Aaron Maybin, a one-year wonder at Penn State that came out as a redshirt sophomore and should add a pass rusher to the Bills d-line. I'm not necessarily sold on Maybin and frankly I'm glad he didn't end up with Denver (again, I'm not a big fan of guys that only had one good year in college and then came out early). Speaking of Denver, Broncos pick #1 now on the clock...

#12 overall pick - Hmmm, well, the Broncos break the Mike Shanahan mold immediately by taking a RB with their top pick, Knowshon Moreno out of Georgia. I'm okay with this pick because he is clearly the top RB in the draft, but again my concern is that, as just a two-year player at Georgia, does he have the experience to be a great player quickly. On the other hand, RB is a position that tends to convert well to the NFL from college, so if Moreno stays healthy he could easily contribute as a rookie. I will be downright shocked if the Broncos pick another offensive player today (2 more picks).

#13 overall pick - The Redskins get a guy that the Broncos probably should have taken, DE Brian Orakpo. This is a classic Redskins move as they pounce on the best on board guy (taking less than a minute to announce the pick, giving ESPN no time to screw us out of the drama), taking the sexy pick and bringing in the big name. I like the pick, and he should help their team very early on. This Redskins team could be a solid team if they can get good play out of Jason Campbell and some of their draft picks from the last two years.

#14 overall pick - Good pick by the Saints as they take DB Malcolm Jenkins out of Ohio State. ESPN tried to ruin it with any early camera shot of Jenkins, but props to Jenkins for having a solid poker face and not really giving anything away. Jenkins could have been a top 10 pick last year if he had come out, but he returned to school to try to win a championship (obviously didn't work out as planned) and may have cost himself some money. Still, he provides a lot of talent for a very bad New Orleans secondary.

#15 overall pick - Huge choice here for the Texans as this is a make or break year for Gary Kubiak in Houston. The Texans take LB Brian Cushing from USC and I think this is a good pick. I liked all three USC LBs and, while I think Rey Maualuga was the best, Cushing will be a very good complement to Xavier Adibi on the outside with Pro Bowler DeMeco Ryans in the middle. Very good young corps for Houston and hopefully this will give them the defensive presence to finally compete for a playoff spot.

#16 overall pick - Whoa, the Chargers come out of nowhere to select LB Larry English, a pass-rusher that should help out with pressure along with Shawne Merriman. I'm not sure this is the best pick they could have made, but supposedly they are so overflowing with talent (according to Chris Berman) that they could make a luxury pick. Honestly, I think the Chargers "talent" is overrated, but they are still a good team and their defense was definitely a weakness last year and this pick should help.

#17 overall pick - Browns move down again as the Bucs this time move up to take the spot (possibly vying for a defensive player or QB Josh Freeman they think the Broncos were coveting). And sure enough, Freeman is the pick (clearly the third best QB in the draft with a dramatic dropoff after him) and the Bucs will start the Raheem Morris era with a new QB. This seems like a good pick, although the concerns about Freeman's consistency could be a problem for a team that relies on its defense to win (turnovers by the offense tend to sabotage good defense). We shall see how Freeman progresses.

#18 overall pick - Good insight from Ed Werder at Broncos HQ as he spells out the Broncos pick, DE Robert Ayers from Tennessee. Evidently the Broncos believe Ayers has a great deal of versatility as a DE/LB or even DT, making him an easy pick. As for Moreno, the Broncos believe that he will be a great, durable back that will make the offense better and really help Orton or Chris Simms at QB. I'm not going to argue with this logic, and I certainly hope it's right. Meanwhile, Steve Young continues to cry foul about the Broncos' handling of the Cutler (hard to argue with) and their seeming lack of a backup plan with Cutler gone. While this is certainly true, I do still wonder just how good Cutler will be or would have been as his win-loss record (a little overrated for QBs, but can still tell you something) was only average in his first 2-1/2 years and he hadn't been on a winning team since high school. Let's just say I won't be rooting for Cutler to succeed in Chicago.

#19 overall pick - The Browns trade down yet again, this time allowing the Eagles to jump up and pick WR Jeremy Maclin out of Mizzou. Many mock drafts I saw had Maclin going as high as #7 to Oakland, so this seems to be a good value pick for Philly and I think is a solid pick to combo him with DeSean Jackson as targets for Donovan McNabb. The concern, as voiced by the analysts on ESPN, is that Maclin is a very similar to Jackson and the Eagles could have used the pick to trade for a proven receiver in Anquan Boldin instead of taking a chance on a rookie. Still, if the Eagles really valued Maclin's return ability, then this could be a good pick. It just means the Eagles will be small at wideout.

#20 overall pick - The Lions stay on the offensive side of the ball with their second pick, adding TE Brandon Pettigrew to give Stafford more weapons on offense. I like this pick as the TE can be the QBs best friend, especially when the team has a poor o-line. Good pick and clear evidence that Matt Millen is finally gone.

#21 overall pick - The Browns finally make a pick! And it's... Alex Mack? A center? Okey-doke. Seems like an interesting pick (remember Mangini took center Nick Mangold in the first round when with the Jets, so maybe he values the position). It's just not the kind of pick that can rally a fan base, but it could help their o-line and therefore help QBs Quinn and Anderson be more productive.

#22 overall pick - Wow, the Vikings make a surprising pick of Percy Harvin, a WR/returner/RB that could be a versatile part of an offense, or could be a big time bust. Harvin has some off-field issues (tested positive for pot at the Combine) and is undersized for a wideout in the NFL. The big wonder is whether Harvin can really be a productive pro with more college-style skill set. I hope this works out well for Minnesota, but I think this is a pretty risky choice.

#23 overall pick - This Pats pick leads me to a topic that came up this offseason. The NFL has finally changed the draft order rules so now a team's postseason results actually impact their draft order. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Pats, who were 11-5 yet missed the playoffs, are picking seven spots lower than the Chargers, who not only made the playoffs but even won a playoff game. Next year, this will not be the case. As for this year, the Pats trade the pick to the Ravens who use it on OL Michael Oher out of Ole Miss. ESPN is playing up the backstory angle of this pick as Oher was evidently homeless as a young man but has found his way to riches in the NFL. It was cool to hear him say that he could have "went in the seventh round" and he wouldn't have cared, and that he's sure he'll play 10+ years. Sounds like a great guy to have. Another interesting story is that Oher could have been a top 10 or even top 5 pick if he had come out last year, and knowing his history it's amazing that he didn't but instead stayed in school like so many guys should. Easy to root for this guy to succeed in Baltimore.

#24 overall pick - Falcons snap up DT Peria Jerry, a pass-rushing tackle and I'd say a pretty solid pick. This is a team that needed a little help on the d-line, and Jerry should take some pressure off of John Abraham to get pressure on the QB for Atlanta.

#25 overall pick - The Dolphins make a rather unsurprising pick, taking the best corner in the draft Vontae Davis out of Illinois. This is a Miami team that really needed help in the secondary, and Davis should help immediately. Also, and this is a big plus, Mel Kiper is very impressed with his chiseled upper body. So, there is that.

Side note - Other than the Raiders, it's really starting to look like mock drafts are getting better and better at projecting the picks. It really doesn't feel like there are many surprises in this first round, and maybe this is because there are new mock drafts released every 7 minutes in the U.S., but it might be that people are finally starting to figure out what NFL teams are looking for in the draft and projecting more accurately. Then again, maybe NFL teams are using mock drafts to do their research for the draft. Who knows.

#26 overall pick - Pats follow the Browns lead and trade their pick again, opening the door for the Packers to select USC LB #2, Clay Matthews. Matthews seems like just the kind of guy that will fit with the blue collar mentality in Green Bay, and I think he'll work well with Packers MLB AJ Hawk and Kiper seems to think he may play some DE as well, lining up opposite Aaron Kampman. Looks like a good pick.

#27 overall pick - Very odd pick here as the Colts pick Donald Brown, a RB out of UConn. I guess this means the Colts don't think Joseph Addai can carry the load himself. Certainly I'll grant that most NFL teams need at least 2 solid back and Addai did get banged up some last year, but it also seems to me that the Colts could have found a fine back later in the draft and addressed their defense with this pick. Regardless, Brown should be a good player in the pros and it should help Addai stay healthy all year.

#28 overall pick - Bills are another team that's quick to pick, and they take an offensive lineman, but not a tackle to replace the man they traded away for this pick, instead they take a center. Sure, if they believe that Eric Wood is the best lineman on the board, then more power to them, but it just surprises me to see multiple centers go in the first round (and Kiper thinks a third could go as well). Still not sure what Buffalo is going to do at tackle this season...

#29 overall pick - No surprise for the Giants pick here as they take Hakeem Nicks, a WR out of North Carolina. Nicks is known as the best big wideout in this class which is precisely what the G-men need to replace the released Plaxico Burress. I like this pick a lot and I agree with the ESPN talking heads that think Nicks will be an immediate impact player in the NFL. I watched him play a few times this year and came away impressed each time.

#30 overall pick - Once again the Titans making a surprising pick, taking WR Kenny Britt out of Rutgers. ESPN pulled a little head-fake on this one as they show us Chris Wells laughing and smiling on the phone and even having McShay break down Wells, only to find out the Titans pick Britt. Almost makes me think the Titans were watching the draft coverage and decided to pull a fast one on the ESPN producers (major props to them if this is true). Either way, it's about time the Titans finally spent a decent draft pick on a WR and Britt sounds like he should be a solid addition. He lacks great hands, but has size and speed and could be a good option for Kerry Collins, although I don't expect too much in his rookie year.

#31 overall pick - Sure enough, it was probably the Cardinals on the phone with Wells as the RB goes here and will be the back to replace Edgerrin James in Arizona. Seems like a good choice and no matter how productive he is in Arizona, Wells will have to be an upgrade over their running game last year. Durability questions are the biggest concern with Wells, and we'll have to see if that continues in the pros. If not, the Cards may have gotten a real steal.

#32 overall pick - The Steelers make a pick of DT Ziggy Hood out of Mizzou, a player I know very little about. It's hard to ever doubt this organization's defensive draft picks, though, given their track record, so I'm guessing this was a good pick. The big thing to note is the sheer volume of defensive linemen (and linemen in general) taken in this first round. Looks like teams are really starting to believe that games are won in the trenches.

With that, I will be doing fewer posts for the second round, and later on this week I will try to post my thoughts on the overall drafts of some of my favorite teams. I won't pretend to know enough about every player to grade teams, and for this reason I won't go through every team's draft, but if you want my thoughts on anyone's draft, post a comment or email me and I'll write a post on them. Now, on to the second round.

#33 overall pick - Berman drops a Bob Sanders comparison on us with the Lions pick of S Louis Delmas. Pretty high standard to live up to.

#35 overall pick - Rams pick up James Laurinaitis, LB out of Ohio State and a guy like Jenkins that came back for a senior year and may have cost himself some money. Laurinaitis was a mid-first projected player last year but decided not to leave early, and now he falls into the early second.

During a side segment, McShay and Kiper rip on the Raiders some more for reaching for DH-B at #7, saying it was the biggest reach in the first round. Hard to argue with that assessment.

#37 overall pick - Broncos give up a first rounder next year to pick up this pick from the Seahawks. With the Broncos up again, I'm expecting another defensive player to come off the board and sure enough, the Broncos go D but they surprise me by taking CB Alphonso Smith. I guess this will be the replacement for Dre Bly to play opposite Champ Bailey at corner, and most analysts seem to be touting Smith as a playmaker in the secondary, something Denver has really been lacking the last 2 years.

#38 overall pick - The Bengals get a steal (in my opinion) picking up USC LB Rey Maualuga early in the second. I think Rey got a bad rap for supposedly having a lack of discipline on the field (not playing within the system) and having short arms, but I think this guy is a very good playmaker and will really make an impact for Cincy, one of the worst defenses in the league last year.

#39 overall pick - The Jags wisely add more o-line depth, picking up Eben Britton who was a potential first rounder.

#40 overall pick - Pats trade with the Raiders to get another 2nd round pick. Pats then have consecutive picks, giving them 10 minutes to make 2 picks instead of the usual 5 for 1. Not surprisingly, the Pats use both picks on defense. Here's my questions: which of those guys gets paid more? I mean, couldn't they argue to be paid the same since it was really just the Pats choice which one went first? Their agents may have a field day with this one.

#44 overall pick - Shocking development as Miami take QB Pat White (who may play WR in the NFL) in the second round. This seems like a very odd choice, although the Phins may be looking at White as the optimal Wildcat-type player for them. Regardless, this seems very early for a guy like this.

#46 overall pick - The Texans jump at the plumeting Connor Barwin, a LB/DE player that has been expected to go for at least 10-15 picks now. Great pick and hopefully this will give the Texans the pass rusher they need opposite of Mario Williams.

#47 overall pick - The Raiders "reach" (that term may even be generous) for an unknown S that Kiper had ranked at #73 at his position. What the hell, Al?

#48 overall pick - The Broncos make another pick on defense, adding S Darcel McBath out of Texas Tech. Not exactly a household name either, but certainly less of a reach than the Raiders had.

#50 overall pick - The Browns take their second WR of the round, which makes me start to wonder if Braylon Edwards is indeed on the trading block as has been rumored.

#53 overall pick - Interesting to see LeSean McCoy move accross the state and end up in Philadelphia after leaving Pittsburgh early. This is a player that may have cost himself money by coming out early instead of waiting another year.

#64 overall pick - In classic Shanahan fashion, the Broncos steal the headline and make the final pick of the first day. Denver jumps up to #64 to take blocking-oriented TE Richard Quinn from North Carolina. Possibly this is an indication that Tony Scheffler, upset by the Cutler saga, may be on the way out. Another possibility is that Daniel Graham, a more expensive blocking TE, may be out soon instead. Either way, a little peculiar for the Broncos to trade up for a guy like this.

Well, nothing else exciting to report in round 2. I will not be going to distance with this draft because, frankly, who cares? The third round is the only one of any real interest and even then it is a reach to try to evaluate the players at this point, so as I said before I will simply take a look at a few teams complete drafts later on, but not the whole league. Hope you enjoyed or maybe learned something because I did.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Just Short Part II - Houston

Since it was so much fun to write about the miserable state of Denver sports on Monday, I've decided to give Houston, my current hometown, the courtesy of joining the party. With the exception of the Major League Soccer Dynamo, who won the league title in 2006 and 2007, their first two years in Houston, the city has actually endured a longer title drought than Denver. Since Houston does not have an NHL team, the Dynamo are the clear #4 in the city, but as much pride as this community feels for the soccer team (especially the large Hispanic population), I still feel like the city would quickly trade both Dynamo titles (and maybe even a third) for one title in the other three major sports.

I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention the now-defunct Houston Comets, the most successful team in WNBA history. Founded in 1997 as one of the original franchises in the league, the Comets won the first four WNBA titles. The success waned, however, and with it so did attendance and when the owners attempted to sell the team in 2008 but found no takers, the team folded. This is more of a statement on the viability of the WNBA (a league that has operated at a substantial loss throughout its history but has been propped up by the NBA as David Stern's brain-child) than on the state of the Houston sports community. Now the Comets' wikipedia page reads like an obituary.

Now on to the meaningful sports in the city. The most successful franchise in recent years has been the Astros who made the playoffs in 2004 and 2005 as a wild card each year. In 2004, the 'Stros advanced to the NLCS before falling in 7 games to the eventual World Series Champion St. Louis Cardinals. That year's run was highlighted by the eight postseason home runs hit by Carlos Beltran, a mid-season addition to the Astros who played less than half a season with the team before leaving for greener pastures in New York (pun definitely intended). The following year, the Astros made the only championship appearance of any Houston team since the mid-90s, beating the Cards in the NLCS this time on their way to the World Series where they were swept by the Chicago White Sox. While the Astros have been competitive the last three years, there were few expectations of a deep playoff run in that stretch and the future isn't exactly bright.

The only current Houston team in the big 3 sports with a championship victory is the Rockets who won the NBA title in 1994 and 1995. However, I don't know if any team in any sport has had to deal with the kind of asterisk to their titles that these Rockets have. As you may recall, a certain Chicago Bulls player had mysteriously chosen to pursue minor league baseball in that two year stretch, only returning in 1995-96 to win the next 3 titles with the Bulls. It seems any time anyone discusses the Rockets' championships, it must be mentioned that Jordan was "retired" for those two seasons. Of course no one mentions the fact that "45" returned to the Bulls midway through the 1994-95 season but the Bulls would be eliminated in the second round of the playoffs by Shaq, Penny and the Magic (that year's Eastern conference champs). Regardless, this disrespect is a clear chip on the shoulders of Houston fans that won't be removed until a Houston team, and specifically the Rockets, wins another title. In 1996, the Rockets would fall in the second round of the playoffs and the team has not advanced passed the first round since. As for this season, things do look surprisingly promising as the Rockets have climbed to 3rd in the Western Conference standings and appear poised to have homecourt advantage in the first round of the playoffs. Whether the team can capitalize on this and win a series remains to be seen and with the Lakers looming as the dominant force in the West, the city is trying to temper its enthusiasm.

Finally, there's the NFL in Houston. As we all know, the Houston Texans have existed since 2002 but have yet to achieve a winning record, much less make the playoffs. Before the Texans came the Oilers, one of the NFL's most frustrating franchises for its fanbase. The Oilers were a charter member of the AFL in 1960 but didn't find any success until the late 1970's when they made the playoffs three straight years from 1978-80, the first three years of University of Texas product Earl Campbell's career. Those playoff appearances would be fruitless, however, with two of them ending in AFC Championship losses to the Pittsburgh "Steel Curtain" Steelers. The Oilers would fall into oblivion again until 1987 when, under quarterback Warren Moon, they became one of the most successful teams in the AFC over the next 7 years, making the playoffs each year. Despite their regular season successes, the team was never able to get over the proverbial hump and never reached the Super Bowl. Included in this run was the infamous 1992 playoff loss at Buffalo in a game known simply as "The Comeback" in which the Oilers blew a 35-3 lead to lose 41-38 in overtime, the biggest comeback/choke job in league history. After a second round playoff loss in 1993, Warren Moon was traded and the team began a new downward spiral eventually ending in the team's acrimonious stadium dispute with the city and finally the move to Tennessee in 1997. It was this move that has made Bud Adams, current Titans/former-Oilers owner, one of the most despised men in Houston. It is also the reason that a lot of Houston fans still root for the Titans, a perplexing attachment that I myself have been guilty of. I've heard it described, accurately so, as having a nasty divorce with a vindictive wife and then somehow rooting for her to find true love and be happy in the future. You should want her life to be miserable, right? Right?!?

So again, back to the topic at hand. As I mentioned, the city of Denver has had the luxury of living in the world of "just short" with most of its teams. Houston is facing the same situation with the Astros and Rockets and is quickly approaching this point with the Texans. With the Rockies and Texans, I have known the numbness of rooting for a team with no chance at contending. With the Broncos and Astros, I've had the thrill and the disappointment of rooting for teams that get ever so close only to fail in the end. As a sports fan, you start to wonder when, even if, you will feel the joy of victory again. Sometimes so much so that you become the absolute worst thing in all of sports fandom: a bandwagon jumper. You pick the hot team and attach yourself just to try to recapture the glory of victory again, but the feeling is hollow and if the team wins, you feel like you've just cheated on your team for a one-night stand.

Once again, where do your teams fall? Would you prefer an all-out loser or a soul-crushing failure in the postseason? Post your comments below.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Just Short or Not Even Close?

It's a depressing time to be a Denver sports fan. I've covered some of the local teams' failings ad nauseam in this blog (well, maybe not that much but close) and watching yet another late-season swoon by the Nuggets has lead me to a question that I've debated many times in my sports life: is it better to have the teams you root for be perpetually awful/mediocre non-contenders, or to have them get close and always come up short?

Here's how this applies to the Denver sports scene. The last championship in the city of Denver was won by the Avalanche in 2001, shortly before hockey became irrelevant in the United States. Before that, we were blessed to get back-to-back Super Bowl victories from the Broncos in 1998-99, so I know it may not have been long enough since our last major title to really start the complaining process, but we're going on 8 years here! Since the Avs' last title, the team has gone from very good (immediately after the title) to good to mediocre to the point where they likely won't even make the playoffs this season, for the second time in the last three years, a far cry from the nine consecutive division titles the Avs won immediately after moving to Denver from Quebec in 1995.

The other local teams have been equally as frustrating. First, the aforementioned Broncos have had one realistically good season since the Super Bowls (and coinciding retirement of John Elway), a 13-3 season in 2005 that ended with an embarrassing 34-17 home conference championship loss at the hands of the sixth-seeded (and eventual champion) Steelers. Also in that span the Broncos gave us the Brian Griese era, consecutive blowout playoff losses to the Colts (2003-04, along with the much-"enjoyed" (read: endured) Jake Plummer era), the soon-to-be-infamous blown three-game division lead with three to play (capped by a wonderful 52-21 loss to the rival Chargers in the final game to seal the collapse), and now the Josh McDaniels era that is off to an inauspicious start as he seeks to alienate his young franchise quarterback in his first month on the job. Certainly not a fun time to be a Donkeys fan.

Second, the Rockies have come the closest to breaking the title drought with their improbable run to the 2007 World Series, but a four-game sweep at the hands of the heavily-favored Boston Red Sox put an end to that dream season. The Rocks made a significant splash in the Denver area as they won the first NL Wild Card ever in 1995, the franchise's third year in existence. After that, mediocre would be a generous way to put things as they wallowed in the cellar of the NL West for the next 11 years, rarely even threatening the .500 mark before the breakout 2007 season. Even in '07, concerns lingered that it was a "lightning in a bottle" situation where a so-so team got hot at the right time with the exact right set of circumstances to make a playoff run. Of course Rockies fans will never forget the young team reeling off 14 wins in 15 games to force a 1-game playoff with division-rival San Diego, and then the 13-inning epic that game became and finally the 7-straight wins to sweep their way to the NL Pennant. Unfortunately, 2008 brought the feared back-slide, and the Rox have already begun disassembling (read: selling off) their most successful roster ever with the trade of their best player, outfielder Matt Holliday. While I still hold out hope as all baseball fans do in March, I fear this year's Rockies will be little better than last year's.

Finally, there's the Nuggets. For a team that has historically been one of the NBA's most exciting to watch, never have they been a legitimate title contender and particularly not in the last 8 years. The team only gained any sense of competitiveness in 2003 because of sheer luck, winning third in the lottery behind a Detroit team that had inexplicably fallen in love with a foreign big man named Darko. Because of that love affair, the second-best prospect in the draft (behind a certain forward currently playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Carmelo Anthony, fell into the Nuggets' laps and the franchise was relevant for the first time in a decade. 'Melo made an immediate impact, leading a rag-tag Nuggets team to the playoffs for the first time since 1995. Suddenly Denver began to believe they had a shot, and began making free agent acquisitions to improve their contending status, such as signing Andre Miller, Kenyon Martin and eventually moving Miller for Allen Iverson. Unfortunately, these moves (which were both lauded and derided at the time they were made) all had the same inevitable result: first round playoff losses. In Anthony's first four season in the NBA, the Nuggets lost first round playoff series's all by the result 4 games to 1. Finally, they broke the streak last year, getting swept by the Lakers.

So now I sit here watching my new hometown team, the Houston Rockets, face my true hometown team, the Nugs, and as the Nuggets trail by 12 at home in the fourth quarter, I wonder if this year will be any different. Yes, all signs point to the Nuggets making the playoffs again and if they can get hot, they might even have homecourt advantage for the first round for the first time in the Melo era. Heck, they might even win TWO games with Chauncey Billups, their first real point guard in this era, manning the 1. But will they win a series? Maybe. Two? Probably not. A title? Flatly, no.

And now finally I return to my first question with you having a full understanding of where I'm coming from: is it better for your favorite teams to be downright awful or to be good but not good enough? For Denver fans, we are smack in an era of not quite good enough for all of our teams. None are so bad that they will flat-out rebuild and try to become better in a few years, but also none seem to be close enough to winning it all to be a team to rally behind. I thought the Rockies, with considerable youth, had the talent to start a string of successful seasons. Instead, they're a team whose window may have opened and closed in an 18-month span as ownership's purse strings are too tight to make the needed moves. For the Nuggets, my hopes have been raised and dashed so many times I'm becoming numb to them. The Broncos are closer to rebuilding than winning it all. And the Avs? Well, they basically died to me at the 2004-05 lockout and don't appear to have the talent or direction from ownership/management to become relevant again any time soon.

Alright, now that I'm thoroughly depressed, let me know what you think. Which situation are your teams in, and which would you prefer?

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

What is up with the Broncos?

I apologize for the absence from posting for the past week or so, but we just completed the printing of my father's latest book, The Ultimate Gamble (available here), and I have been swamped working on marketing the thing. It's a non-fiction philosophy book that examines whether or not god exists from both a scientific and religious perspective.

Anyway, the biggest news of the last few days has been the opening of free agency in the NFL and as usual, my hometown Denver Broncos have been extremely active. As expected, the Broncos took a sledge hammer to their defensive roster from last year cutting multiple starters including two players (Dre' Bly and Dewayne Robertson) that Mike Shanahan had traded for. When your team's defense ranks in the bottom 3-4 in the league in virtually every category, and was the main reason for your head coach's firing, then this certainly makes sense. We're also told the Broncos will be switching from a 4-3 defensive alignment to a 3-4, meaning a lot of new personnel would be needed anyway, regardless of how effective or ineffective the old players were.

So the Broncos made headlines late Friday -- the first day of free agency -- by being rumored to sign former Eagles' Pro Bowl safety Brian Dawkins. They also signed a pair of running backs (Correll Buckhalter and JJ Arrington) and a couple other defensive players. By late Saturday, the Dawkins signing was confirmed (along with the signing of another former Cleveland Brown, linebacker Andra Davis) but it was clearly overshadowed by the day's biggest story: the Kansas City Chiefs acquiring Matt Cassel from the New England Patriots. Next thing I know, a headline on ESPN.com reads "Cutler Upset" and I'm wondering what in the world could this be? That's when the Broncos' offseason moves turned confusing.

Evidently, according to multiple sources, the Broncos had been shopping quarterback Jay Cutler (just in his third year and coming off a Pro Bowl) and looking to trade for Cassel themselves. As we found out, the Chiefs, whose new GM is Scott Pioli, formerly of the Patriots, gave up just a second-round pick (#34 overall) for Cassel. But rumors were that the Broncos had almost come to an agreement with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers that would have sent Cutler to the Bucs for Tampa's first and third round draft picks, and then sent a first round pick to the Pats for Cassel. Certainly there must be more information yet to come to the surface, because right now this situation is rather mind-boggling. Here's why:

• If you're the Patriots and you have a chance to get a first round pick in the 12-19 range for your backup QB, why would you instead give up the QB and a veteran linebacker (Mike Vrabel also went to KC in the deal) for just a second rounder? Is there another conditional pick involved that hasn't been announced yet? Is this a buddy-buddy deal between Pats coach Bill Belichick and Pioli? Does Belichick secretly hate or resent new Broncos coach Josh McDaniels, a former Pats assistant, the same way he apparently hates Eric Mangini?
• If you're the Broncos, why in the world would you want a QB who has started just 15 games in his career since high school and had good, not great, numbers in those starts over a younger player that was a high draft pick, still has 3 years left on his deal, and is coming off of a Pro Bowl season? Add to that the fact that you're likely going to have to re-sign Cassel to a long-term deal for big money, and it really makes no sense. And if you're the Broncos, you'd better be sure you can complete the deal if you start talks because you already know that Cutler can very very temperamental (he stated publicly that he was angry over the Shanahan firing, for example).

As if that wasn't enough for the Broncos to worry about, now word is Brandon Marshall, the Broncos star wide receiver, has gotten himself in legal trouble yet again. Evidently over the weekend he was involved in a bar brawl and was arrested. This from a player that had to serve a 1-game suspension from the league last year because of his off-field antics, now he has the NFL investigating him again. If they find he was in the wrong, he could see another suspension of anywhere from 4 to 8 games this time, and the Broncos may just start to wonder if he's worth the trouble (can anyone say Pacman Jones?).

Let's hope this isn't indicative of how the new Broncos front office and coaching staff are going to run things in the future (can you say New England West?). Definitely an exciting weekend for the Broncos and their fans, but certainly not for all of the reasons most would like. Looks like McDaniels is going to have his work cut out for him with this team, and he's not entirely blameless in the situation.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Who'll Feel the Economic Pain First?

Interesting coincidence, as it turns out, not only did A-Rod take steroids, but apparently spring training is about to start pretty soon. Who knew they actually still play baseball anymore? With some big name free agents still on the market in baseball (names such as Manny Ramirez and Ben Sheets top the list now that Ken Griffey, Jr. finally signed) as pitchers and catchers report to Florida and Arizona, the issue of the economy looms large on the upcoming season. In previous years, players like Ramirez would have signed within a couple weeks of the end of the season (it's been almost four months since play ended) and even a guy like Sheets, with all of his injury concerns, would have likely found a home. But times, they are a-changing and owners are tightening their belts around the MLB and all professional sports.

Already, there are signs that teams (outside of the greater New York metropolitan area) are cutting back, or at least minimizing their spending. Here in Houston, Astros owner Drayton McLane, not necessarily known to be extremely tight with money, has all but shut it down this offseason as the Astros have signed only one free agent (Mike Hampton for around the veterans minimum) and have let several players from last year's wild-card runner-up team sit unsigned. Starting third baseman Ty Wigginton is still on the market, and pitcher Randy Wolf, a solid late-season pickup last year, sat on free agency until just 2 weeks ago when he signed with the Dodgers. Houston is not exactly a small market, yet the purse strings are as tight here as anywhere.

Baseball is the first major pro sport in the US that will get a true taste of the bad economy. For the NBA, most teams sold their season tickets around April or May of last year, before the stock market crash, meaning that their only noticeable impact from the recession is a decrease in walk-up ticket sales and the difficulty in getting money in loans for payroll. But for the MLB, last season didn't end until the economy began it's decline, and now we will find out just how much American families and corporations are cutting back their spending on sports entertainment. After years and years of attendance gains, Major League Baseball may see a huge drop-off as fans will be very reluctant to come out to the ballpark for mid-week games early in the season or between two bad teams.

With the NBA trade deadline passing this afternoon, we began to see (and hear) similar economic rumblings from that league. Many struggling small market teams looked to make trades to trim money, but even the big market teams were reluctant to bring on big salaries leading to a relatively quiet day of action. One of the higher-profile trades, the New Orleans Hornets sending former All-Star center Tyson Chandler to the Oklahoma City Thunder (a trade that was later rescinded because Chandler failed a physical), was a clear cost-cutting move by the struggling New Orleans franchise. The trade made very little sense on paper for the Hornets as a team, but as a franchise that is in one of the league's poorest markets, they felt they had to do something, and trading a big contract for a couple of expiring contracts seemed like their best option. Who knows what will happen now that that trade has fallen through. Word out of the NBA's All-Star Weekend last week was that the talk among NBA insiders was about the economy and some of the dramatic effects it could have on the league. The question of whether some franchises, such as New Orleans, New Jersey, and Memphis, would move or even be contracted was the undercurrent of the weekend.

While the MLB free agency period has shown us one view of the struggling economy, we will get an interesting perspective in the coming weeks as the NFL, the country's most successful league, will enter its free agency stage. With a more equitable profit-sharing system and a strict salary cap, the NFL presents a much different landscape from the MLB. Small market teams will not be completely locked out of free agency as they were in baseball, and big market teams, while still having some advantage, shouldn't dominate. Then again, a team like the Dallas Cowboys offers a much stronger opportunity for a free agent looking for outside income (advertising money, for example) than a team like the Buffalo Bills does, and the Cowboys will now be far more willing to give a nice healthy signing bonus than those smaller market teams. I shudder to think what the situation would be like if this year was the uncapped year as opposed to next year. (In case you didn't know, the NFL owners exercised an option to opt out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, reached several years ago, as of next year and if no new deal is reached, the NFL would have no salary cap in 2010.)

The reason for some of the financial woes for teams isn't even necessarily the lack of income from the teams. While this is the catalyst for problems, the root cause is that many of the super-"rich" franchise owners were really only rich on paper (in other words, companies/stocks/funds they owned had extremely high value). Now that these big companies' values have collapses, so too has the wealth of these owners. For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers owner's money comes from Quicken Loans. How do you think his portfolio is doing these days? That is a team that might be a financial risk if it weren't for LeBron James and the fact that the team is a title contender, assuring strong attendance. Many owners will be forced to cut back their spending -- such as big signing bonuses for NFL free agents -- because of the lack of availability of cash for them.

All in all, we don't know exactly how teams will respond because we don't know exactly how long the economy is going to stay bad, and how bad it will be over the next couple of years. Regardless, I'd call it a fair bet that at least one NBA franchise moves in the next two years for financial reasons (my money's on New Orleans, but Memphis seems promising, too) and the other leagues may see the same thing. Even if the franchises don't move, there's still a strong possibility that we could see some teams sold in the next two years. Which sport do you think will be first or most affected by the nation's financial turmoil?

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Response: NFL Tanking

On January 26th, I wrote an article examining the question of why NFL teams don't intentionally lose games (i.e. tank) in order to improve their draft position. One of my readers, Hunter, put together a very long, thought-out response to this post so I've decided so take another look at the topic by revisiting Hunter's comment.

First, a quick refresher on my 7.5 reasons why NFL teams don't tank:

1. Financial Cost of 1st Round Picks
2. Potential Failure of Drafted Players
3. Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams
4. Coaches Protecting Their Job
5. Players Seeking to Remain in the League
6. Pride/Rivalries
7. Competitive Balance

Now, Hunter's comment (my responses are in bold):

I think the entry does a good job of catching all the reasons why NFL teams generally do not tank. I believe the main reasons why NFL teams don't tank are #4 and #5, while #6 and #7 are still true, just to a lesser extent. (But?...)

I think the entry also lists things that actually AREN'T reasons why NFL teams choose not to tank, namely #s 1 and 2. #3 I have mixed feelings about. (The hell you say! Let's see if this pans out...)

Way-too-in-depth analysis follows! :) (This is true. So far so good.)

#4 (Coaches protecting their job) - Definitely keeps teams from tanking. The coach can choose to have the team tank, to help it build for the future. But he would probably only be willing to do this if the ownership guaranteed him job security first. You don't want to tank, let everyone see that the team "quit on you" and then get fired. That'll make it tough to find a new coaching gig. Since tanking is "taboo" the franchise/front office can't just come right out and tell the fans "we're tanking for draft position." So the coach has to believe that the ownership will keep him on-board despite any pressure from fans who are calling for his head. But since the coaches have salaries that are so large they demand results (as mentioned in an earlier blog post) that pressure may be pretty intense. The fans are used to throwing the coach under the bus whenever the team doesn't win.
(The only reason that tanking is "taboo" is because it actually can have a great impact on the competitive balance of the league. This is what the league's front office is concerned with, and this is the reason that teams are not "allowed" to tank. As you mentioned, coaches would be killed by the fan base if they tanked without coming out and saying it, and they would be killed by the league if they did acknowledge tanking. The other important consideration here, especially with the NFL, is the gambling ramifications of a tanking team. How can oddsmakers ever properly handicap a game in which one team is outright trying to lose? What if both teams are tanking? What about your fantasy implications?!? The horror!)

#5 (Players protecting their place in the league) - Also definitely keeps teams from tanking. If the player helps his team tank to build for the future, he too needs a guarantee that he'll still be around to reap the rewards. If the tanking team lets him go, and he has not been showcasing his talent because he was helping the team lose, it's going to be bad for his career. But as the owner or general manager, you can't possibly guarantee all your players that they will be back. After all, if all your players were the right guys to have on the team, you probably wouldn't need to tank and build for the future, right? So you can't promise them all a job, and anyone you don't promise a job to is going to be playing their heart out no matter what the coach says, so they can find a spot with another team next year. That's bound to mess up the tanking.
(While I agree this is important (I included it, so it must be!), I don't think this is as important as Hunter thinks. The fact is, a team can outwardly tank even if it's players all play hard, as long as those players are bad. Thus, the team can play backups/young players instead of their "stars", and they could even assure those stars that they will be back the next year (if they want to be after being benched...). So yes the players will play hard, but the team can easily still lose. It's simply up to the coach and front office to convince the better players that they will be rewarded in the future for their patience. Plus, those star players that the team ensures will return then could play intentionally poorly if they knew their jobs were safe. They can all just follow Braylon Edwards's example.)

#6 (Pride/rivalries) - Yep. Inevitably there will be a few guys who simply cannot lose on purpose because it is against their nature. 6a definitely contributes because again, tanking is "taboo" so you can't just tell the fans that's what you're doing and expect them to understand. Some fans WILL think that beating your rivals will salvage an otherwise disappointing season, but every game you win against a hated rival is still hurting your tanking strategy.
(My point exactly. The fan base expects the players to play all-out, and players that have pride in their play, or those seeking records, Pro Bowls, etc., will all try hard if they're put on the field. Plus, fans hate losing to rivals, and I think many fans would even irrationally be upset by losing to a rival, even if losing meant getting a great draft pick. Fan is short for fanatic, they say.)

#7 (Competitive balance) - This one is still true, but a bit more abstract. The coaches and players won't necessarily feel a strong obligation to "competitive balance." They might not care too much about whether the "right teams" were in the playoffs, if it helps THEIR team improve. So the pressure to maintain the "competitive balance" has to come from the owners and (most of all) the league itself. And it does. The owners and the league office have a large hand in making sure that tanking continues to be "taboo." If the fans know their team is tanking, they may think it's a bad thing (against the competitive spirit of the game) or they may think it's a GREAT thing (gives my team its best chance of having success later) but either way, they aren't going to want to SHOW UP to the games WHILE the team is intentionally tanking. That hits the owners in the pocketbook, and worse yet, looks very bad for the league. So the pressure stays on: This is still a business, and we've still got to sell tickets, so make sure you give your fans a reason to keep thinking the team might give them something to cheer about if they come to a game.
(I think I'm flattered that he called my writing "abstract." That seems like a compliment. Maybe. Anyways, this is what I mentioned above. The concept of competitive balance is meaningless to the individual teams if they know that losing is their best course of action. But for the owners, it's even worse that Hunter made it sound. Not only does poor attendance hurt them because of lower ticket revenue, but if they fail to sell out, their home games will be blacked out in the local market, and as we all should know by now, NFL teams make more money off of television revenue than anything else. Additionally, a team tanking this season tells the fan base that they are capable of tanking any time, and this could severely deter fans from purchasing season tickets if they know their team may give up halfway through the season. And finally, as he said and I mentioned above, the league front office has many reasons why it wants tanking to be taboo. From television revenue lost (networks won't pay as much for t.v. rights if they think some late-season games will be thrown, in essence) to gambling concerns (why do you think the NFL is #1 in the U.S. right now, really?) to fantasy football concerns (a vast industry that is growing rapidly), the NFL simply can't afford to let people think certain games aren't being played to win (cue the Herm Edwards quote).)

#3 (Lower value of individual players) - Okay, the value of each player to the team is less in the NFL, compared to the NHL, the NBA, or in MLB. But that's not because of some mystical quality that makes football "the Ultimate Team Sport." It's just because football requires more people in order to play. That's it. But while having the best player in the league on your squad doesn't mean *as* much in the NFL as in the other major sports, it still clearly beats not having the best player in the league. Sure, maybe one rookie isn't going to turn a loser into a contender. But if you want to turn a loser into a contender, you have to start somewhere, and there's no better way to start than having the opportunity to draft the college player who will best fill your team needs. Bringing in one free agent might not turn a loser into a contender. Getting a better Offensive Coordinator may not turn a loser into a contender. But every bit helps, each of those things can be a step in the direction you need to go. If you know you need an impact HB, why get yourself the 2nd best one in the draft when you could have the best one in the draft? Yes, an NFL team has many components. But every time you settle for a sub-optimal component, you lessen the chances of having the desired finished product.
(I completely agree with what Hunter is saying here. First, however, TMQ is not implying that football is "the Ultimate Team Sport" because of said mystical quality, but because of the exact reason Hunter gave: many more players are involved. In baseball, basketball and hockey, most players are involved in the game at all times (baseball is a bit different because of pitchers, but we all can agree that a great pitcher cannot alone make his team great). In football, especially at the professional level, players are only involved in the game roughly half of the time, and their are 10 other guys on the field with them, more than any other sport, making an individual that much less important. Plus, we all know that the NFL draft is a very inexact science, and that no matter how much scouting teams do and how many background checks they run or high school coaches they talk to, it seems to be little better than a 50/50 proposition whether an NFL player ever lives up to his draft position. Maybe it's better to have the #1 HB instead of #2, and maybe it's not. Plenty of teams have gotten the player they wanted much later than they expected him to be available, and others have taken the player they desperately desired and been completely unsatisfied. And still, teams that have missed on high draft picks have gone on to become successful despite those failures. So why intentionally throw away a season, even a non-playoff season, when you can build for the future?)

#1 (Financial cost of high picks) - I don't really believe that high draft picks are "so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team." If they were, we wouldn't be having a discussion about why teams don't tank for draft position, because high draft position wouldn't be desirable to begin with! But we know that it is, because high draft picks command more trade value than lower ones, and teams do make sacrifices to trade up in draft position. I don't really think it is THAT hard to stay under the salary cap. The cap isn't really that restrictive. Each year, there are very few guys in the free agent market that are simply "too good" to be free agents. The guys who are supposed to be retained, the teams find the money to retain them. Exceptions are almost ALWAYS due to conflict between the player and the team, or earlier mismanagement of resources by the team. If a team finds itself in truly dire cap trouble, it's probably their own fault, and not the cap's fault.
(Agreed, but the financial cost I speak of here doesn't actually have much to do with the salary cap. This is more to the idea of possibly missing on a super-high draft pick and being saddled with a huge paycheck for a player that doesn't perform. The higher the draft pick is, the more money the team must commit to an unproven player, potentially costing them the money needed to keep key veterans or add important free agents. This also goes back to the owners' perspectives, as they would surely rather pay a #5 overall pick instead of a #1 overall pick, even if it meant getting a slightly worse player, because both have about the same chance of succeeding in the league. Higher picks not only demand higher salaries, but also demand far more guaranteed money, which is money owners can never get back if the player fails.)

#2 (Potential failure of drafted players) - There is always the potential for a drafted player to fail. This is not less true for later picks than for early picks. In fact, it is MORE true for later picks than early picks, for reasons that should be obvious. The team cannot be afraid to trust its decision about which players are better than which other players. You did all that scouting for a reason. Take the guy you think is the best for your team. Don't trade down and take someone YOU believe is less talented just because it will be a lesser blow if he turns out to be a bust. Man up and take your shot. If you don't want the best high-priced rookies on your team, because you're afraid they might turn out to be a bust, then you shouldn't want the best high-priced veterans on your team either, because you should be afraid they might get hurt. Just use low-priced mediocre talent across the board and see where that takes you. No? Okay, then quit worrying and take the best player. The only reason a miss can hurt more than a hit can help, is because if you hit, the player may hold-out for a restructured contract with mo' $$$, but if you miss, it is very difficult to restructure the contract to less $$$. I think hold-outs are incredibly lame, but that's a whole other rant. :)
(Very fair point, and certainly the lower the pick, the more likely the player is to be a bust (I'm not so sure it's as great a difference as you think, though, especially since all the players we're talking about here are in the top 20 overall picks). However, as you said, there is no way to recoup money from a player that underperforms. Also, if you truly trust your scouting department, then you should either be able to find a player that fits your team no matter where you pick, or else you should know exactly who you need so you can trade, be that up or down, to get him where you get the best value.)

In summary:
I do think #s 4-7 explain why NFL teams don't tank, and I don't expect that to change. They will continue to not tank, even when it is in the best interests of the franchise to do so. It also occurred to me that when someone is controlling a team in Madden, #s 4 and 5 (which I pegged as the biggest reasons why teams don't tank) do not really apply, because you know exactly who you intend to keep, and the coaches and players are largely unaffected by things like pride, or uncertainty about the future of their career (coaches are ENTIRELY unaffected by these things.) Since our first-hand experience with owning and running a team comes from Madden, in which the two largest reasons not to tank are non-factors, it makes sense that the decision to tank should look so "obvious" to us on the surface. Considering these other factors, which Madden players don't have to deal with, was a fun and interesting exercise for me, and put me "in the shoes" of a real-life NFL owner/GM more than I had been when thinking about this topic previously. So thanks for writing the post that was the catalyst for that exercise! :)
(No, thank you for reading.)

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Pro Bowl Blog!

It's that time again! Time for the best exhibition game the NFL has to offer! That's right, it's the Pro Bowl! I will be writing this blog post as I watch the game live, just as I did last year with the MLB All-Star Game. Basically this is my chance to throw out some thoughts on the NFL, the Pro Bowl, and sports in general. Let's dive right in.

- We've got about a half hour until the game gets under way, so this seems like a perfect time to discuss the future of the Pro Bowl. This will be the final year the game will be held in Hawaii, as starting next year it will be moved to the weekend before the Super Bowl and will be held in the city that the Super Bowl is being played in. I can't say that I'm a fan of this decision. First of all, one of the biggest complaints with the game is the number of star players that sit out of the game with "injuries," so to put the game the week before the Super Bowl ensures that there will be no players from the two Super Bowl contestants in the game. Second, the game being a week after the Super Bowl allowed it to be a nice wind-down ending to the season, a game that fans can watch (or not watch, since everyone seems to claim that they don't watch) without the pressure of rooting for a team and potentially being disappointed at the end of the year. It's simply a chance to root for players, even those on rival teams, and see guys play together that never would normally. I understand the complaints that the game isn't played like a normal game (no blitzing is allowed, for example, and teams aren't allowed to line up with four wide receivers, etc.), but that adds to the sense that there's no reason to live or die by the result. Just let it give you a chance to savor one last game before the long offseason.

Third, I have a problem with the game no longer being in Hawaii. Let's face it, the NFL doesn't get most of its revenue from ticket sales. Most of the money comes from merchandise and especially television contracts. So who cares if they can only fill half the stadium in Honolulu. Are they really going to sell out the 2011 Pro Bowl if it's in Indianapolis? (Then again, since they force season-ticket holders to buy preseason tickets at full price, maybe they'll just force Super Bowl ticket holders to buy Pro Bowl tickets are full price. Crap, I think I just gave Goddell an idea.) The idea is to have the game in a destination city, somewhere the players can go and feel like they're being rewarded, and where fans that can't afford a trip to the Super Bowl could still have a family vacation to see a football game.

So, how would I change the game to make it more appealing? On Yahoo! today, a blogger gave the option of creating a 5-on-5 flag football tournament. This seems like a very interesting idea. He suggests that each NFL team send 5 players and that a single-elimination bracket, seeded based on regular season record, would be created. His idea was that only skill-position players (quarterbacks, receivers, running backs, defensive backs, tight ends) be allowed to participate, but I think some teams would actually choose to send some other players that are better athletes (like the Panthers might send Julius Peppers). All the players in this tournament would have to play both ways, and the tournament would be held over three days, with the first three rounds Friday and Saturday and the semis and final held on national network TV on Sunday. This seems like a fascinating idea, but I doubt the NFL would ever consider this. For one thing, it wouldn't necessarily be rewarding all the best players. It would also exclude a lot of very good offensive and defensive linemen that are deserving of recognition and, as usual, would favor the "glory boys" (QBs, RBs, WRs, etc.).

If I were in charge of the Pro Bowl, I'd leave things pretty much as they are, except I would eliminate fan voting and I would absolutely make sure the players weren't officially selected to the game until the regular season is over. It's an absolute joke that players on teams that collapse at the end of the year get rewarded for two good months at the start of the season. Meanwhile, guys that carry their teams at the end of the year, or rookies/younger players that start slow but break out down the stretch are forced to stay home and watch.

Alright, it's go time...

- Pre-game, Peyton Manning gushes about being able to play in the Pro Bowl with his brother and how this is the most special Pro Bowl he's played in. That's sweet and all, but Eli may be one of the players I mentioned above that got in because of a strong start, but by the end of the year was not really deserving of a Pro Bowl slot. Good for them both making it, I just hope we don't have to hear about it all afternoon.

- Do Pro Bowl commercial slots cost even 1/10th of a Super Bowl commercial? 1/100th?

- Why oh why is Flozell Adams starting in the Pro Bowl? Again, fan votes are ridiculous.

- Props to Kris Jenkins (AFC starting DT) for stating during the starting roster introductions, "This jersey is too tight" instead of his college. Awesome.

- Ronde Barber is so screwed by the Pro Bowl rules. Not only does he have to play five yards off the receivers, but he also has to play man coverage most of the time, too. Neither of these play into his strengths in the least.

- Tony Gonzalez is still a great player. If someone can find a way to get him from the Chiefs, as has been rumored, they will be getting a difference maker on offense.

- Ronnie Brown running the Wildcat was great. Leon Washington running the wrong way? Not so much.

- Manning to Gonzo for the TD. Like I said before, Gonzo can still play.

- Peyton Manning is a fantastic interview. I have no doubt that he will have a spot on a TV pre-game show the minute he retires. Then again, who doesn't get a shot at a pre-game show these days? Regardless, Manning is very honest and well-spoken and always interesting to hear from.

- Speaking of Flozell Adams, it's a treat to watch his lazy @$$ jogging around, pretending to block guys. I'll be surprised if he doesn't get a QB killed this afternoon.

- Ta-Dah! One play after that last comment was written, Adams is beaten on fourth and four by Robert Mathis who sacks Brees and forces a fumble. Congrats on your Pro Bowl right tackle, Cowboys.

- (approx. 1:30 in 1st quarter) Someone needs to remind Peyton Manning that intentional grounding is allowed in the Pro Bowl and no one really cares if he throws a pick, so coverage sacks are pretty much inexcusable. Throw it up!

- Uh-oh, the wind's picking up. I guess Eli's not going to play (not well, at least).

- Interesting to hear Kurt Warner talk about the Harrison TAINT in the Super Bowl last week. It sounds like Anquan Boldin was supposed to line up wider toward the sideline which would have made Harrison a non-factor in the middle of the field. But because Boldin lined up tight to the line, his route took him to the middle of the field, right to where Harrison had dropped. Makes you wonder how the game would have changed had Boldin lined up where he was supposed to.

- Nice effort by Marshawn Lynch on the fourth down run midway through the second quarter. Must be a little of that Bills karma rubbing off after the Bruce Smith interview. Of course it was a rather generous spot, but who's complaining?

- Manning better be careful. If he keeps throwing to Tony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark might get jealous.

- Do you think Andy Reid got a new Hawaiian shirt, or did he just bring one from one of his previous Pro Bowl coaching opportunities?

- Ugh, Brandon Marshall really should have caught that fourth and goal pass. You don't get many easier TD chances as a wide receiver.

- Julius Peppers sounds pretty clueless in his interview with Tiki. He doesn't care where he plays, he just wants to get paid.

- Yikes, poor Flozell gets beat again, but this time he's at left tackle while Jammal Brown of the Saints at right tackle gets beat as well, both by Colts. Freeney and Mathis meet at the QB, and Brees gets sacked again.

- Ha, now Albert Haynesworth is dancing around the money issue as Andrea Kremer asks where he wants to play. Sad how these guys think they're fooling anyone by not just saying: "I'll play for the team that pays me the most."

- Sweet! Houston's Owen Daniels scores a TD in his first career Pro Bowl. Good for him, and he better savor it, because he's not going to get too many Pro Bowl chances being stuck in the same conference as the likes of Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates and Dallas Clark. (Only two tight ends get to go.)

- Larry Fitzgerald is a freak. Granted Courtland Finnegan's coverage on that half-ending Hail Mary was nothing special (Fitzgerald had inside position the whole way down the field), but it's just incredible the way that guy catches everything thrown near him. Fitting end to a sensational postseason for the wideout.

- Halftime!

- It's amazing there aren't more kick and punt return touchdowns in the Pro Bowl, as none of the players on the field seem to have much interest in playing hard on special teams. Along with the kicker, punter, and return specialist, only two players are chosen for each squad as special teams specialists (a long-snapper and one "specialist"). Almost makes me wonder why they don't just go ahead and choose an entire special teams unit for each Pro Bowl team. Who cares if they end up with 60 players on each roster?

- As expected, Eli's numbers are really not Pro Bowl caliber. Cris Collinsworth apologizes for him because he has to play all year in the Meadowlands, but still. Should players (such as Eli and Kerry Collins) be chosen just because they were the QB for the league's best teams?

- Freeney and Mathis are having a field day with the NFC's offensive tackles. Very sad considering no blitzes are allowed, so the o-line only has to worry about four rushers.

- How good could the Vikings be if they had a real quarterback? If there's any team that ought to seriously consider either trading for Matt Cassel or even trying to pry Kurt Warner away from the Cardinals (and retirement), it would be them.

- Not sure what to think of Eli's pick in the endzone. On the one hand, Boldin never really had position on the play, so Eli probably shouldn't have made the throw. On the other hand, Boldin didn't exactly kill himself to break up the play. If I'm a GM this offseason, I don't know if I give Boldin a huge long-term deal; he's starting to seem like a bit of a prima donna.

- Speaking of Vikings, Jared Allen has been a steal for them. Then, after the fumble forced/recovered by Allen, Adrian Peterson punches it in, and my point about the Vikings absolutely stands. I don't think Matt Cassel is the second coming of Tom Brady, but with the talent already on that team, it seems like he could help them do a lot of damage. By the way, what were the Chiefs thinking trading Allen? Even if they are in the midst of a rebuilding process, the guy is 26! It's not like he was an old vet on the decline.

- Another sloppy play by Brandon Marshall as he fumbles the handoff on an end-around (that may have been an all-out reverse with Andre Johnson coming the other way). Marshall scares me as a Broncos fan, because he seems to have some maturity issues and being a Pro Bowler at this young age may go to his head.

- As we approach the end of the third quarter, I'm still waiting to see Jay Cutler make his Pro Bowl debut...

- As we hear from Vikings soon-to-be Hall of Famer Randall McDaniel, one thing stands out to me about all the HoF-ers they've spoken to today: they all seem very humbled by the fact that they were selected. It's great to hear from guys like that in this era of me-first, attention grabbing, self-absorbed millionaires.

- Immediately after I type that comment, the discussion about the sound bites of "let's get the 45" come on. (The players on the winning team get $45,000, while the losers get $22,500.) Of course I know that if they didn't have a financial incentive to win, these guys would never show, so I'm actually okay with it. At least they're honest.

- Anquan Boldin is really, really pissed off at the Cardinals organization. Not sure if it's completely financial (probably), but he really has a grudge against the Cards front office and I highly doubt he'll be in Arizona next year.

- Larry Fitzgerald is a great guy, not just a great player. The more I see of him and hear from him, the more impressed I become.

- Marshawn Lynch looks very good every time he touches the ball. It's sad he's stuck with one of the worst coaches in the league, because otherwise he'd probably be a top 5 fantasy player.

- Nice little fumble-rooskie play by the AFC. Not much surprise that Ravens coach John Harbaugh would call that play for Ravens FB Le'Ron McClain, but the NFC definitely was surprised.

- NFL games would be so much more entertaining to watch both on TV and in person if they just got rid of the post-kickoff commercial break.

- These defensive rules are just silly. If the defensive front can't get pressure (without blitzing, mind you) then the DBs are toast.

- Did I mention that Larry Fitzgerald is just ridiculous? Because he is completely uncoverable on fades and high throws in general. TD #2 for him here.

- By the way, I think if LeBron James actually said he wanted to play football for the Browns, they'd sign him in about 3 seconds. He would not, however, be wearing #23 (he was an All-State tight end in high school in Ohio). He'd probably be a tight end or wide receiver and would have to wear a number in the 10s or 80s. (Does this mean they've shown that Allstate insurance commercial too many times? Absolutely!)

- Roh-no! Cutler picked by Peppers. Looks like the refs are ignoring defensive offsides to even things out for the defense a little bit. Not only Demarcus Ware on that play, but the Colts ends and others have all gotten pretty suspiciously good jumps. I also don't recall a single false start, and frankly it's nice to not hear from the officials every few seconds.

- Tiki talking to Ronde is more than a little freaky. If it weren't for Ronde's goatee, Tiki could probably put on Ronde's jersey and I don't think anyone would know any different. That is, except for Al Michaels, who apparently believes Ronde looks older. Maybe if he was wearing as much makeup as Tiki, they'd look more identical... identicaler... whatever.

- Crunch time! Two-minute drill for Cutler! Go AFC! Get that 45(k)!

- AFC o-line looks overmatched on first three plays of the drive. HUGE fourth and 10 here. In-Com-Plete! Al Michaels claims the game is not "over over," but I would tend to disagree.

- Time to gush over the Mannings! That was fun and not expected at all!

- Just got a shot of Clinton Portis on the sideline. Did he actually play, or just get dressed to look good on the sideline? I can't remember a single play involving him.

- Field goal is good. Game. Over. 30-21.

- Amazing how Tony Gonzalez and Peyton Manning have gained a rapport on the field after playing together just once a year for nine years. Interesting to get Gonzo's take on the trade rumors; I think he might actually not mind staying in KC.

- Shocker of shockers, Larry Fitzgerald named MVP. Who'da thunkit?

That's all for me. Hope you enjoyed the game (if you watched) and if not, I hope you enjoyed the post anyway.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Super Bowl Review

I decided to wait a few days on my Super Bowl recap because it's always good to give major sports moments a chance to sink in. As we know, many so-called experts jumped the gun Sunday night and started touting this as the greatest Super Bowl of all time, something that a first reaction might lead one to believe. But upon further examination, what I found is that this game was a great fourth quarter to end a decent game. Granted, the great fourth quarter was enough to qualify the game as a whole as great, but it hurts the game from the historic standpoint because there have been other, more complete Super Bowls played and there have also been many other great finishes, even in the last decade.

The first half of XLIII was actually rather dull. The Steelers dominated possession, receiving the opening kickoff and taking their first two drives for points and allowing the Cardinals' offense just one possession in the first quarter. As I said in my last post, you can count me among those that believe that the Steelers should have gone for the TD on fourth and inches on their opening drive. My reasoning for this is that, even if they had failed to score, the Cardinals, a team with no real running threat, would have been forced to take the franchise's first ever Super Bowl snap from inside their own 1 yard line. Oh, and the Steelers have the league's best defense, to boot! If the Steelers coaches had more time to think about the decision, I think they would have come to the same conclusion. Worst case scenario, you fail, and you force your #1-ranked defense to stop the opponent 99 yards from your goal line. Seems feasible. Even if you fail and the Cards pick up a couple first downs, you'll still have pretty good field position on your next drive.

So after taking the 3-0 lead the first real theme of the night came up. On the Cardinals first drive, they moved the ball fairly well until holding was called on left tackle Mike Gandy that created a first and 20. Arizona still hadn't settled in with their passing game yet, so the holding call was the kiss of death and they eventually punted. The Steelers then scored a TD on their next drive. Gandy was called for holding three times in the game, and every one of them proved to be a drive killer as the Cards did not get one first down after any of them. This also was the first in a series of questionable calls that all seemed to go against the Cardinals for the first three quarters.

One could argue that the game was decided as time expired in the first half. With the Cardinals trailing 10-7 and driving, they faced a first and goal inside the Steelers' 5 with roughly 20 seconds to play. On the play, the Cardinals lined up spread in the shotgun, holding no timeouts, knowing that a sack likely ends the half so they either have to score or throw incomplete. The Steelers showed blitz, with all four of their linebackers creeping towards the line prior to the snap, causing the Cardinals to audible to a slant pattern for Anquan Boldin, lined up in the left slot. The Steelers did not blitz, however, as only 4 rushers came and the others dropped into coverage, including linebacker James Harrison who dropped into the slant lane and was rewarded with a perfect strike from Warner. He was then escorted 100 yards down the field for the back-breaking touchdown. It looked like there was a block in the back on Harrison's return that would have brought the play back to around the Arizona 40, but no flag was thrown. It also appeared that Harrison failed to break the plane of the endzone on the play, but the review evidence was inconclusive and the play stood as called, giving the Steelers a 17-7 halftime lead.

The Halftime Show was fine. I'm not a Springsteen fan, nor do I dislike him, so as usual I was rather indifferent toward the show. All I know is that the entire halftime took almost a full half hour, which is a lot longer than the normal 12 minutes of an NFL halftime. The layoff didn't seem to impact the game, however.

On a side note, I just have to question the NBC executive that thought it was a good idea to include Matt Millen on the pre-game and halftime shows. I've said before, no person outside of OJ Simpson and Isiah Thomas has done more to sully a stellar playing career after retiring than has Millen. This is the man that completely destroyed a football franchise with incompetence over 8 years, and was directly involved in the first 0-16 season ever, and that happened THIS YEAR, and he's getting a broadcasting gig? Really!?! I'm not saying he has to go hideout somewhere and never be heard from again (not that I don't support this idea fully), but I think you should at least wait until an offseason has passed. Then again, maybe NBC hates Detroit. Who knows?

Back to the game, the third quarter had roughly the same feel and results of the first quarter. Pittsburgh dominated possession while the Cards had yet to fully give up on the run. The Steelers really had numerous chances to put the game away in this quarter, but blew them badly. They even had the ball inside of the Cardinals' 10 yard line with a first down twice (thanks to the running into the holder call), and came away with just 3 points. It turns out that these holds by Arizona would be crucial as it kept the game at just two scores at 20-7 instead of possibly 24-7. And then the fourth quarter started...

The Cardinals finally remembered who they are. They are not a running team, they are a top-5 passing offense and they've gotten to the Super Bowl because their spread attack with a skilled QB is one of the best offenses in football. And they also finally showed a little urgency, getting into the hurry up for the first time since their TD drive in the second quarter. As one would expect, Warner got hot with the game on the line and started picking apart the Steelers secondary. The Steelers struggled to get pressure on Warner and he made precise throw after precise throw, leading the Cards down to the Pitt 1. And somehow, on third and goal from the 1, the Steelers didn't know that Warner was going to throw a fade to Larry Fitzgerald, the best fade-catcher in football. Despite being thoroughly molested by Ike Taylor, Larry Jr. made the great leaping catch and suddenly the Cardinals were within one score.

The teams would then trade punts before the Cards got the ball and made a couple plays to get down to the Steelers' 26. Once again, though, Gandy would be called for a hold on first down and the Cardinals faced a fourth and 20 from the 36. Now, Cardinals kicker Neil Rackers has been a fantasy machine for the last 3-4 years, and anyone that's followed the Cards at all knows that 53 yards (which is roughly what this attempt would have been) is within his range. We also knew that the wind was a non-factor Sunday night in Tampa. Yet despite this, Arizona elected to play the field position game and punt, and fortunately it worked out as the ball was downed perfectly at the Steeler 2, and then moved back a yard thanks to James Harrison's (yes the same guy with the TD earlier) personal foul as he basically assaulted an Arizona player on the play. John Madden even commented during the broadcast that he would have tossed Harrison from the game for what he did, and I've heard others that agree. Cardinals fans would say that this was another sign of the partisan officiating, but I think there's enough grey area there to argue against that.

What was partisan officiating was the following second down play, from the Pittsburgh 1. Willie Parker was given the ball on a run up the middle (this after an inexplicable first down pass that fell incomplete and stopped the clock) and was stopped clearly inside the goal line. Parker lunged back to about the one, but the replay seemed to show his knee down before the ball had left the endzone. Either way, the officials gave a very generous spot, and the Steelers faced a critical third and 10. I was thinking at the time, and Steelers coach Mike Tomlin evidently later said after the game he was thinking the same, that if the Steelers get stopped, they should just take the safety as they would still be up by more than a field goal. Turns out this was moot, as the Steelers completed a 19 yard pass on third down, only to be called for holding in the endzone (perhaps a make-up call?) giving the Cards the safety.

Arizona would score just two plays later when Fitzgerald made the Steelers defense appear to be in slow motion on a 65-yard slant touchdown right over the middle of the field. The score is now 23-20, and Ben Roethlisberger, who has had a remarkable knack for coming up with clutch late-game drives early on in his career, was put to the test once more.

The drive started from the Steelers 22 (I never understood, and still don't understand, the Steelers' decision to make 250+ pound tailback Gary Russell their kick returner; every game of theirs I've seen, this has led to poor field position after kickoffs). The first Steelers play is called back for holding, putting them at their own 12 with first and 20 and 2:24 to play. Then Roethlisberger goes into "I'm NOT going to lose this game" mode (Madden video game players know this as "the drive" which usually comes near the end of a half and the computer quarterback refuses to throw incomplete or get sacked) and starts dancing around the pocket, dodging defenders while always looking downfield to make the play. After completions to Santonio "Don't call me San Antonio ever again!" Holmes on first and third down, the Steelers have a first at their 39 with the two minute warning now gone. A quick pass is completed to Nate Washington (who quietly did nothing in the game, much like Hines Ward) but he's caught in bounds. The Steelers hurry up and Ben scrambles for 4 yards, but again stays in bounds and the Steelers use their 2nd timeout. 1:02 to play.

This is when the game is finally decided. On 2nd and 6 from the Arizona 46, Roethlisberger moves around in the pocket before finding Holmes wide open on an in-route, and Holmes spins outside and sprints passed the defense, weaving his way to the Cardinals 6. Suddenly, the Steelers aren't looking for 3 and a tie (and our first ever overtime Super Bowl), but instead have 50 seconds and 3 chances (3 downs before a field goal) to take the lead. On first down, Roethlisberger throws an excellent pass to Holmes in the left corner, and despite being the only real receiving threat for the Steelers in the game, he is uncovered. But the ball goes just through Holmes's arms, incomplete. So there's no possible way the Cardinals will leave Holmes uncovered on second down, right? Wrong. Holmes again slides through the defense unchecked, this time heading to the right back pylon where Roethlisberger finds him for one of the greatest throws and catches in football history.

I've spoken to a number of people about this catch, and after hearing the announcers on the game, it seems most people doubted on first glance that Holmes had gotten both feet down. Not me. My gut reaction was that he was in. As it affected my Super Bowl pick, I was rooting for him to be out, but indeed he was not. It was a sensational catch, and the throw deserves a ton of credit, too, as it had to clear three defenders and still be low enough for Holmes to catch it and get both feet down, which he did. The review confirms it, and the Steelers stun the Cardinals with the score. Is this better than David Tyree's "Helmet Catch" from last year's Super Bowl? Again, I say no, but the more I see it the more impressed I am with it. It definitely rivals Dwight Clark's famous Super Bowl catch from Joe Montana, and may even be better.

The game ends unceremoniously with Warner being sacked and stripped (story of his life, I suppose), although this was really the final blow by the refs as the play should have at least been reviewed as to whether Warner's arm was going forward. I would say it was, and I think it should have been ruled an incomplete pass (as was one of Warner's earlier passes that I think was less obvious than this one) leaving 5 seconds on the clock and one more chance at a miracle, but alas, it was not meant to be.

So my final impression is that we saw a fantastic game with an all-time great finish, but this will not make my top 5 Super Bowls of all time list. What we did see, though, is a great game between a Hall of Famer (Warner) and a guy that could be on his way (Roethlisberger).

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.

Super Sunday Wrap-up

Before I get to an in-depth Super Bowl wrap-up (which I will get to later on this week), I wanted to do a somewhat brief look at the two historic events that unfolded yesterday on Super Sunday.

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oy! Oy! Oy!

First things first, yesterday's men's final in the Australian Open will go down as one of the greatest tennis matches that I've ever watched. Although it isn't quite on par with the sensational Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal Wimbledon final from last summer, it is still a worthy chapter in the great brewing Federer-Nadal rivalry. In case you missed it, world's #1 Nadal won his first career hard court major title with a thrilling 7-5, 3-6, 7-6 (7-3), 3-6, 6-2 (that's five sets) victory over world's #2 Federer. It was another brilliant match between the two best players in the world.

As for this being a rivalry, some would argue that in order for a rivalry to exist, both sides must win roughly half the time, and Nadal has basically dominated Federer in their meetings, but I would say that this easily still qualifies as a rivalry. When you have the greatest player of his generation (Federer) involved in a series of matches against the greatest player of the next generation (Nadal), then it seems clear-cut to me. Especially as incredible as these matches have been.

The more these two players clash, the more I can't help but feel like we're not getting the best of Federer in their matches. The way Roger is able to absolutely annihilate his competition when he faces anyone else, and yet struggles with some of the most basic aspects of his game against Nadal, I have to wonder just what we're getting out of him. For example, yesterday Federer struggled immensely with his serve, even though he had been having one of his best serving tournaments of his career in this year's Aussie. It was very strange how it seemed Federer, a man that's never seemed to be the victim of his own emotions, had problems maintaining focus in yesterday's match. I don't know if this is the effect of playing against the best opponent in the world, or if Federer is developing a mental block specifically due to Nadal. Either way, I hope he figures it out so we can see him push back in this rivalry down the road. It definitely doesn't seem like he's over the hill (he's only 27, and even the all-time best Pete Sampras didn't run out of gas until he was 29 or 30).

As for Nadal, there's not much else to say than he is simply the best in the world right now. This guy's mental fortitude is unmatched, and he plays every point as loose as if it were the first point of the match, yet as aggressively and frantically as if it were match point. He almost never seems rattled, and his motor never seems to run down no matter how much his opponents make him run. I know that, being 24, my frame of reference isn't the best, but I have to wonder if he will go down as the greatest pure athlete to play the game. Yesterday during the coverage, two comments stood out to me in this vein: first, he was a superstar soccer player when he was a kid, and even as a pre-teen, and easily could have become a professional soccer player had he not chosen tennis; and second, he used to use two hands on all of his tennis strokes and actually chose to be a southpaw! Most people are lucky if they can be passable with one hand; he could choose between two!

Super Bowl XLIII

As I said, I will do a full breakdown of the game later on this week, so here I'll just give you some of my first impressions. First and foremost, this was a sensational game. It was interesting throughout, even if the Steelers did seem to dominate for the first three quarters. It was rather funny: many people at the party I attended to watch the game made comments that it seemed like the Cardinals were getting killed early on, and I even heard Chris Berman mention this on the post-game report on ESPN, but I didn't feel that way. In the first quarter and a half, while it seemed like the Steelers were in control, I couldn't help but keep thinking that Pittsburgh was actually unable to take full advantage of their control of the game and that the Cardinals did a good job of hanging around. Count me among those that thought coach Mike Tomlin should have had the Steelers go for it on fourth and inches on the opening drive. Of course that James Harrison TAINT was probably the biggest play in the entire game, changing a potential 14-10 Cards lead or 10-10 haftime score to a 17-7 Steeler lead.

The fourth quarter of this game, much like last year, made it an all-time great. Although the Steelers held a 13 point lead, the Cardinals were still very much alive and had shown that they could move the ball all game, as long as they could avoid penalties. You can also count me as one that had numerous complaints about the officiating, but I thought it evened out a bit by the end. Unfortunately, I still think it's disappointing that the officials would let the game end on a controversial play without reviewing it, even if the review officials believed that it was clear. Just the gesture of the review would have made disappointed Cardinals fans feel like they got a fair shake.

The one thing that has been going through my mind for the past 20 hours or so since the game ended was the question of where I'd place Ben Roethlisberger on a list of the most clutch QBs in the NFL right now. After a little thought (this is something I may write about in more detail at a later date), this is my top 5 quarterbacks I'd want to have with the ball with the game on the line:

1. Tom Brady - When healthy, Brady is still the most clutch QB in the league and will likely go down as a top 5 clutch QB of all time.

2. Ben Roethlisberger - His ability to avoid the pass rush and create plays when the pocket breaks down is second to none. The man is almost impossible for a single player to take down.

3. Peyton Manning - Manning's postseason struggles cost him a spot on this list. From quarter 1 through 3, there's no QB I'd rather have (except maybe Tom Brady circa 2007). But in the fourth quarter, Manning is only third.

4. Kurt Warner - You don't have an 8-3 postseason record on accident. When Warner is at his best, he's a machine in the hurry-up offense and he kills tired defenses.

5. Philip Rivers - It's weird, but it was surprisingly tough to think of a solid #5. The top four are all quite a bit better than anyone I could put here. Some other options: Drew Brees, Donovan McNabb (regular season only), Matt Hasselbeck (when healthy), possibly Jay Cutler (just not yet). I just don't know how much I trust any of these guys compared to those listed above.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least mention the fantastic catch by Santonio Holmes to give the Steelers the lead for good. There has been some argument that this could be better than The Helmet Catch last year by David Tyree, but I think that's kind of silly. The throw was better, yes, as Roethlisberger had a minuscule window to put the ball in, but the acrobaticism (that's right, I made up a word!) of the Tyree catch is what made it so magnificent. Both are roughly equal is meaningfulness, as Holmes catch gave the team the lead and Tyree's catch came on a third and long that, had it failed, likely would have meant the game. Regardless, I thought from the first moment I saw the play that Holmes had gotten both feet in (I know many have said they thought otherwise), but I hoped (being that I picked the Cards to win) that the replay would prove my first reaction wrong. Alas, it did not.

In the end, we were robbed of our first ever overtime Super Bowl (yet again) but we were given another historic game that cemented the legacy of two Hall of Fame quarterbacks and one all-time great franchise.

To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.