Ladies and gentlemen, the NFL playoffs are upon us once again. The 'second season', as some call it, is what I personally describe as one of the most exciting times in the sports year. You'll hear predictions from experts and amateurs alike, see various news networks reporting on the games, and read countless opinions and reactions. You'll hear so many updates on Le'Veon Bell's knee that you'll consider yourself a minor orthopedist. You'll read so many articles on picking against the spread that you'll know the odds better than Vegas. You may even watch so many Marshawn Lynch press conferences that you start answering every question with a Lynch-esque, "thank you for asking that question." But most importantly, you'll read Sports Gab's predictions, and you'll thank me. These predictions here? They're the most correct thing you'll read, hear, or see in the next 4 weeks. You can thank me later.
Panthers vs. Cardinals
In a very untraditional playoff matchup, we see a team with a losing record take on a team that is quickly losing credibility for one simple reason: Ryan Lindley will be starting for the Cards. The Panthers may have a losing record, but they've been looking very hot of late, winning four in a row. Granted, those games were against the Buccaneers, Saints, Browns, and Falcons, but Newton has looked sharp and the defense has looked vastly more like 2013's Panther defense. The Cards, on the other hand, have been struggling since backup QB Drew Stanton went down, and is unlikely to return. The Cardinals have been dealing with injuries all year, but the 'Next Man Up' mentality has fizzled out since Lindley took the reigns at QB. The Cardinals defense will certainly limit the Panthers, but if the Cardinals can't put up more than 17 points (which they haven't done since November), I can't see them winning. I predict that a tire Cardinals defense will allow two fourth quarter TDs to SuperCam and the Panthers, putting the game out of reach.
Prediction: 27 - 10
Steelers vs. Ravens
This game is sure to be a hard-hitting brawl between two teams who absolutely despise each other. Gone are the players like Hines Ward and Ray Lewis who made this rivalry enormous in the 2000's, but the animosity and the toughness remain. This season, Ben Roethlisberger has had his best season ever. The Roethlisberger-Antonio Brown combination has yielded 13 TDs, and the dynamic duo looks to prey on a very weak Ravens pass defense. Missing for the Steelers will be Le'Veon Bell, which will certainly be a tough loss to overcome. On the Ravens side of the ball, they have tons of experience being an underdog (see 2013), and have Joe Flacco, who arguably throws the best deep ball in the league. Being able to challenge the Steelers secondary often, and getting at least one huge pass or pass interference call, could change the tide of the game. However, I just think that the Ravens secondary is too weak to contain Antonio Brown. Additionally, the Ravens are still suffering from karma stemming from the Ray Rice incident, in my opinion. The Steelers win a close one.
Steelers 33 - Ravens 30
Bengals vs. Colts
In the Andrew bowl (Dalton vs. Luck), two young quarterbacks will try to bring their teams to the second round. On one side we have Andy Dalton, who has tried to do this three times, and has failed every time. Dalton has struggled in the playoffs in years past, always seeming to through a crucial interception. Or two. Or even three. This year, Dalton has the lightning-and-thunder duo of Jeremy Hill, a big bruiser, and third-down elusive speedster Giovani Bernard. If the running backs can take over the Colts' average rush defense, the Bengals could come out with a win. The Colts have a very poor running game, so they will be forced to rely on Andrew Luck. Of course, that means relying on a Pro Bowler with a great pocket presence and the most passing yards this year. For the Colts to win, Luck needs to avoid making mistakes, as the Bengals secondary is very adept at taking advantage of poor throws. Even without AJ Green, I predict that Jeremy Hill will have a huge game to take pressure off of Dalton, and Cincinnati pulls off the upset.
Bengals 24 - Colts 14
Cowboys vs. Lions
In a marquee matchup featuring big arms and athletic receivers, this game has the potential to be a shootout. The Cowboys' best player is DeMarco Murray, but in drawing the Lions, the Cowboys face the number one rush defense. With arguably the best offensive linen football, it'll be a real battle in the trenches in that regard. If the Lions win the battle at the line of scrimmage, the Cowboys can always air it out to superstar wideout Dez Bryant. The Lions can do the same to their own superstar receiver, Calvin Johnson, but Stafford has been shaky recently. I don't know if this sentence has ever been said, but I think that Tony Romo is the much more trustworthy option. That's right: I'm trusting Tony Romo in a playoff game. Don't make me regret it, Tony.
Cowboys 34 - Lions 21
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
The Big Three: Does the Philosophy Work in Today's NBA?
Specific
events are always mentioned in history classes as turning points: Christianity
becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, The Magna Carta, the Battle
of Stalingrad, LeBron James' 'The Decision' special on ESPN. Wait---LeBron James'
'The Decision' special on ESPN? Yes, you read that right. Why is that moment in
the same league as the Magna Carta? The assembling of the Miami Heat’s ‘Big
Three’, in 2010, was a major turning point by popularizing the concept of a
team with three bona fide superstars, which quickly caught on as a practiced
philosophy and ushered in the Superteam era, in my opinion. (I define a
superteam team to be one assembled primarily through free agency). Plus, the
NBA is equally as important as any religion, government, or war, in case you
didn’t know. Since that day when LeBron took his talents to South Beach, Big
Threes have been formed and broken, and some teams have bought into the system
more eagerly and confidently than others. Most recently, LeBron and his talents
went to Cleveland (it just doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?), along
with brilliant big man Kevin Love, to start a big three with Kyrie Irving, the
young point guard already in Cleveland. What has followed has not been the
performance expected of a team that was projected to be an Eastern Conference
and NBA Finals contender. Of course, the season is still young and the Cavs are
currently on a three-game win streak after dropping to 5-7, but their
disorganized play and ‘fragile’ quality, as James called it, begs concern. Is
the Big Three method worth the investment in the NBA today?
The
Big Three that started it all, Miami’s core of James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris
Bosh from 2010-2014, saw plenty of success. They went to the NBA Finals every
one of those years, winning two. Obviously, the assembly of star power took the
team far, but hindered them in three crucial areas: starting the 2010 season, a
lack of a good supporting cast, and no future guarantee. Pretty much every
superteam had struggled out of the gate, for obvious reasons. Most of the free
agent talent coming in is used to being the top dog on their team, so obviously
with three major stars, there is some confusion and hesitation initially,
something the Cavaliers currently struggle with and the Heat had issues with as
well. With so much talent, time is needed to effectively blend playing styles
and overcome initial awkwardness. For major markets like Los Angeles or New
York, patience is not a practiced virtue, and this adjustment period can be too
much for fans or front offices to handle. Secondly, superteams are wildly
expensive to assemble. With so much money being spent on stars, there is little
room to add a quality supporting cast. Miami struggled with this problem all
four years, going through at least four different starting backcourt mates for
Wade and about another four different starting frontcourt mates for Bosh. Miami
was forced to get older, washed-up players like Mike Miller, or use young, and
frankly mediocre players such as Mario Chalmers. The disparity of talent
hindered the Heat against the two teams they lost the Finals to: the
well-balanced 2010-2011 Mavericks and the talented, ball-sharing 2013-2014
Spurs. Lastly, with assembled talent there’s a lesser guarantee for the future,
as exhibited by LeBron’s departure following the Heat’s embarrassing play in
the 2014 Finals.
While the Heat
had tons of fans during the days when they had Big Three, their interest has
declined without LeBron. With a team that builds itself from the ground up,
like current powerhouses San Antonio and Oklahoma City (once Durant returns)
and teams recently becoming elite like Golden State and Washington. The players
on those teams feel more personal to the fans and the city, as they have
endured bad times and stuck with the team anyway. Especially for a franchise
like San Antonio, who has kept the same core of players for nearly 15 years,
the loyalty shown results in a feel-good quality for both the team and the
fans. In the NBA of yore, players would stick with the team that drafted them
for their whole careers much more often, so players staying put nowadays feels
like a refreshing novelty act. With the money becoming an increasingly more
influential factor to players in terms of whether to go to a new team, players
who don’t leave are applauded for staying true, while those that leave seeking
more money are criticized for selling out.
Superteams
have had varying levels of success this decade. Obviously the Heat had a great
run while it lasted, but teams like the 2012-2013 Lakers (Kobe Bryant, Dwight
Howard, Steve Nash) and the 2011-2013 Knicks (Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler,
Amar’e Stoudemire) and epically failed trying to use the model. So what went
wrong? For starters, a smart coach is needed to balance all of the egos and
talent. Mike D’Antoni and Mike Woodson were not effective in that regard.
Secondly, the players can’t be old. That’s just a fact that’s been proven by
the Lakers superteam, as Steve Nash played a grand total of 65 games in three
years. The positioning has to work as well, something the Knicks struggled
with, as all of their big three were primarily post players. Their backcourt
always struggled, as it was hard to afford guards with three stars, including
the incredibly pricey Anthony, on the payroll. Also with the positioning,
Chandler was a defensive specialist who didn’t contribute that much on offense,
and Anthony is a scoring machine but a liability on defense. When either paired
with Stoudemire, it didn’t go too well.
If you’re
going to assemble a superteam, the Heat model of three players in their prime
who make sense together on the court, with a smart and effective coach to
orchestrate the system, it can work. This is possible primarily for
large-market teams, and in the most demand for those markets as well. As a GM
of a large-market team, I would say assembling a superteam is acceptable, and
maybe even encouraged if you do it right. However, superteams tend to disband
quickly, so for smaller markets or GMs looking for a dynasty and longevity of
success, building from the ground up, with added veteran pieces as needed, is
the most effective model.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
An Open Letter to Major League Baseball
Dear Robert Manfred and Bud Selig,
Baseball has long been hailed as America's game. From Ruth to Mays to Aaron to Jeter, our country's pastime has had a long and storied history: a romantic journey from roughly the Civil War as an inspiration, a celebration, and a cultural mainstay. No one can deny that baseball has a past to be praised, but unfortunately for the game today, living in the past is both hurting baseball now, and if not fixed, could taint and ultimately destroy it.
I understand that one of the components that gives baseball its identity is its steadfast support of tradition. While upholding tradition is certainly important, rejecting change is dangerous. Change is pursued because people see it as an improvement of what already exists: simply rejecting change is missing an opportunity for enhancement. While baseball's traditions often make it charming (the 7th inning stretch, old stadiums, its similarity to the baseball of yore), they also limit the game from reaching its true potential. By reprimanding and shaming players like Yasiel Puig, who bring excitement to the game by taking more risks in base running and fielding, the game is limiting its potential for excitement and flat-out denying Latin baseball culture to affect American baseball, despite the Latin game's flair and the increasing influx of Latin-Americans in the game. Mr. Manfred and Mr. Selig, it's time to embrace change. Constantly living in the past and denying new movements has repercussions, such as turning young people away from the game. Sticking to the comfortable demographic of old white men is no longer acceptable. A sport that doesn't strive for diversity in its viewers and attendees doesn't allow itself the chance to learn and grow from new perspectives as well as spread the game to a wider demographic. With the increasing non-interest from young people, each new generation of old people will be less and less intrigued. If baseball doesn't fix itself, and fast, it could be on the verge of obsoletism.
So why doesn't baseball appeal to my generation? Here's the single reason: it's so goddamn slow. Take a single at-bat: the amount of time it takes for pitchers to play with the ball, step on and off the mound, stare at the batter, and throw to first base, combined with the amount of time it takes batters to step out of the box, swing their bat around, etc. overweighs the amount of actual action by such an exponentially huge proportion that it's ridiculous. The fact is, we get bored even without the long stoppages of play for conferences at the mound and counts with tons of foul tips. Games are slowing down. Runs scored per game are also lowering, so you can't blame more runs being scored: the game is becoming simultaneously less exciting (with less runs) and more lengthy. Mr. Manfred and Mr. Selig, you and your friends can continue to blame it on our impatience, our inability to appreciate the game, our need for instant gratification intensified by the Internet, and constant access to distractions. Maybe those are all fair reasons. But the fact of the matter is that until baseball makes changes, neither will we. If nothing is done to speed up the game, nothing suggests that the under 18 age demographic, and even the under 40 age demographic, will sit down and not so much watch as endure 4-hour games on TV. Here's the thing: we have better things to do than watch Norichika Aoki foul off dozens of pitches, watch Stephen Strasburg try to unsuccessfully pick off the guy at first four times in a row, or watch every single pitcher take 30+ seconds in between pitches. Maybe that better thing to do is Instagram a selfie at the game, Tweet about how long this game is taking, or, like most not watch at all, and you can grumble about the Internet and the amount of constant distractions we have all you want, but the fact is unless you speed baseball up, we won't watch.
Personally, I suggest instituting time limits between pitches and number of pick-off attempts per at-bat. Fun fact to those who say that forcibly speeding up baseball is against the essence of the game: a rule stating that pitchers must throw the ball within 12 seconds of receiving it from the umpire or the batter automatically gets a ball exists. Enforce it, Mr. Selig. And when your impending retirement comes, enforce it Mr. Manfred. The two sports young Americans watch most (and arguably the two most popular), are NFL and NBA. Both operate under large clocks, but under a smaller one as well, the play clock and the shot clock, respectively. You don't have to institute a larger time constraint, because that would be truly changing baseball's foundation, but adding a small time constraint would speed up the game significantly. Adding the shot clock saved the NBA from many of the problems baseball faces today. Learn from history. Maybe you'll lose some old white men who complain about stripping the game of its identity. Not only will the influx of young fans make up for it, but old white men is just about the only demographic you can afford to lose some fans in.
Age is also prevalent in the front office. Just about every important position in Major League Baseball is occupied by someone old, white, and male. Hire young people. Hire women. Hire diversity. Mr. Selig, choosing Mr. Manfred as your successor is just about one of the worst things you could do. By instating your right-hand man, you're just bringing in more of the same issues. Introducing racial, age, and gender diversity in the front office of the league can help bring new perspectives and new solutions.
Another issue is scoring. Part of the reason that both the NFL and the NBA are popular is because scoring is higher than ever in both leagues. While pitchers duels can be exciting, casual sports fans and even casual baseball fans don't really enjoy watching a 2-1 pitchers duel, unless maybe their team is playing. Socially, it's probably not acceptable to make every player take steroids, so other options must be pursued. First of all, adding a DH in the National League would promote scoring, and also limit the time needed for a pitching change, as a call to the bullpen because a reliever is up in the batting order would no longer be necessary. Secondly, an electronically-mandated strike zone would put a stop to giving pitchers strikes that are actually outside the strike zone, taking away some of their advantage.
The NFL is so popular in part because it is so widely accessible: there are so many platforms and medias to watch games on. Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, instead of complaining about the Internet, use it to allow the casual fan to have better access to games and to spread baseball. Baseball can't really compete during the early months, as NBA playoffs are going in, and in the later months, as the NFL is going on. So during summer, really take advantage of the fact that baseball is the only major sport on. Change the culture! Promote, promote, promote! You know there's something wrong when more people tune into the Scouting Combine-Long Snapper and Punter Day than a mid-summer baseball game (OK, so that might not actually happen). The point is, take advantage of the time when sports fans don't have anything to watch but your sport!
My final point is that Mr. Selig and Mr. Manfred, you have to do something. Sitting around and depending on your old white men simply won't hold you through in the 21st century. The last major change, adding the designated hitter to the American League, was 41 years ago. 41 years ago! Baseball, not only do I challenge you, but I implore you to make a change. I love baseball, I really do. Something I love is deeply flawed. For the sake of the sport I love, I beg of you to not only turn baseball into something much easier for me to love, but for people my age to appreciate it the way I do. Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, if you really love this sport, fix it. If you don't, then I fear the game won't be around for others to love. Will it be challenging? Of course. Will there be opposition? Most certainly. If it's for the greater good of something you love, should you face that adversity anyway? Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, if the answer is no, then I'll be forced to doubt the commitment baseball's leaders have to the game they're counted on to preserve and advance, for the sake of those that depend on it and love it.
Baseball has long been hailed as America's game. From Ruth to Mays to Aaron to Jeter, our country's pastime has had a long and storied history: a romantic journey from roughly the Civil War as an inspiration, a celebration, and a cultural mainstay. No one can deny that baseball has a past to be praised, but unfortunately for the game today, living in the past is both hurting baseball now, and if not fixed, could taint and ultimately destroy it.
I understand that one of the components that gives baseball its identity is its steadfast support of tradition. While upholding tradition is certainly important, rejecting change is dangerous. Change is pursued because people see it as an improvement of what already exists: simply rejecting change is missing an opportunity for enhancement. While baseball's traditions often make it charming (the 7th inning stretch, old stadiums, its similarity to the baseball of yore), they also limit the game from reaching its true potential. By reprimanding and shaming players like Yasiel Puig, who bring excitement to the game by taking more risks in base running and fielding, the game is limiting its potential for excitement and flat-out denying Latin baseball culture to affect American baseball, despite the Latin game's flair and the increasing influx of Latin-Americans in the game. Mr. Manfred and Mr. Selig, it's time to embrace change. Constantly living in the past and denying new movements has repercussions, such as turning young people away from the game. Sticking to the comfortable demographic of old white men is no longer acceptable. A sport that doesn't strive for diversity in its viewers and attendees doesn't allow itself the chance to learn and grow from new perspectives as well as spread the game to a wider demographic. With the increasing non-interest from young people, each new generation of old people will be less and less intrigued. If baseball doesn't fix itself, and fast, it could be on the verge of obsoletism.
So why doesn't baseball appeal to my generation? Here's the single reason: it's so goddamn slow. Take a single at-bat: the amount of time it takes for pitchers to play with the ball, step on and off the mound, stare at the batter, and throw to first base, combined with the amount of time it takes batters to step out of the box, swing their bat around, etc. overweighs the amount of actual action by such an exponentially huge proportion that it's ridiculous. The fact is, we get bored even without the long stoppages of play for conferences at the mound and counts with tons of foul tips. Games are slowing down. Runs scored per game are also lowering, so you can't blame more runs being scored: the game is becoming simultaneously less exciting (with less runs) and more lengthy. Mr. Manfred and Mr. Selig, you and your friends can continue to blame it on our impatience, our inability to appreciate the game, our need for instant gratification intensified by the Internet, and constant access to distractions. Maybe those are all fair reasons. But the fact of the matter is that until baseball makes changes, neither will we. If nothing is done to speed up the game, nothing suggests that the under 18 age demographic, and even the under 40 age demographic, will sit down and not so much watch as endure 4-hour games on TV. Here's the thing: we have better things to do than watch Norichika Aoki foul off dozens of pitches, watch Stephen Strasburg try to unsuccessfully pick off the guy at first four times in a row, or watch every single pitcher take 30+ seconds in between pitches. Maybe that better thing to do is Instagram a selfie at the game, Tweet about how long this game is taking, or, like most not watch at all, and you can grumble about the Internet and the amount of constant distractions we have all you want, but the fact is unless you speed baseball up, we won't watch.
Personally, I suggest instituting time limits between pitches and number of pick-off attempts per at-bat. Fun fact to those who say that forcibly speeding up baseball is against the essence of the game: a rule stating that pitchers must throw the ball within 12 seconds of receiving it from the umpire or the batter automatically gets a ball exists. Enforce it, Mr. Selig. And when your impending retirement comes, enforce it Mr. Manfred. The two sports young Americans watch most (and arguably the two most popular), are NFL and NBA. Both operate under large clocks, but under a smaller one as well, the play clock and the shot clock, respectively. You don't have to institute a larger time constraint, because that would be truly changing baseball's foundation, but adding a small time constraint would speed up the game significantly. Adding the shot clock saved the NBA from many of the problems baseball faces today. Learn from history. Maybe you'll lose some old white men who complain about stripping the game of its identity. Not only will the influx of young fans make up for it, but old white men is just about the only demographic you can afford to lose some fans in.
Age is also prevalent in the front office. Just about every important position in Major League Baseball is occupied by someone old, white, and male. Hire young people. Hire women. Hire diversity. Mr. Selig, choosing Mr. Manfred as your successor is just about one of the worst things you could do. By instating your right-hand man, you're just bringing in more of the same issues. Introducing racial, age, and gender diversity in the front office of the league can help bring new perspectives and new solutions.
Another issue is scoring. Part of the reason that both the NFL and the NBA are popular is because scoring is higher than ever in both leagues. While pitchers duels can be exciting, casual sports fans and even casual baseball fans don't really enjoy watching a 2-1 pitchers duel, unless maybe their team is playing. Socially, it's probably not acceptable to make every player take steroids, so other options must be pursued. First of all, adding a DH in the National League would promote scoring, and also limit the time needed for a pitching change, as a call to the bullpen because a reliever is up in the batting order would no longer be necessary. Secondly, an electronically-mandated strike zone would put a stop to giving pitchers strikes that are actually outside the strike zone, taking away some of their advantage.
The NFL is so popular in part because it is so widely accessible: there are so many platforms and medias to watch games on. Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, instead of complaining about the Internet, use it to allow the casual fan to have better access to games and to spread baseball. Baseball can't really compete during the early months, as NBA playoffs are going in, and in the later months, as the NFL is going on. So during summer, really take advantage of the fact that baseball is the only major sport on. Change the culture! Promote, promote, promote! You know there's something wrong when more people tune into the Scouting Combine-Long Snapper and Punter Day than a mid-summer baseball game (OK, so that might not actually happen). The point is, take advantage of the time when sports fans don't have anything to watch but your sport!
My final point is that Mr. Selig and Mr. Manfred, you have to do something. Sitting around and depending on your old white men simply won't hold you through in the 21st century. The last major change, adding the designated hitter to the American League, was 41 years ago. 41 years ago! Baseball, not only do I challenge you, but I implore you to make a change. I love baseball, I really do. Something I love is deeply flawed. For the sake of the sport I love, I beg of you to not only turn baseball into something much easier for me to love, but for people my age to appreciate it the way I do. Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, if you really love this sport, fix it. If you don't, then I fear the game won't be around for others to love. Will it be challenging? Of course. Will there be opposition? Most certainly. If it's for the greater good of something you love, should you face that adversity anyway? Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, if the answer is no, then I'll be forced to doubt the commitment baseball's leaders have to the game they're counted on to preserve and advance, for the sake of those that depend on it and love it.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
The Breaking Point
This week has not been kind to Roger Goodell. First, a video was leaked of the May Atlantic City incident in which Ravens running back Ray Rice beat his then-fianceé in an elevator. After cries for Goodell's resignation, another crisis arrived in the form of one of the league's biggest superstars, and therefore biggest role models, Vikings star Adrian Peterson. Peterson was indicted for child abuse in Texas, beating what new developments suggest as two four-year old sons with a switch. Lastly, Panthers Pro Bowl defensive end Greg Hardy missed this week while also serving time for domestic violence. The media attention and exposure of Goodell and the NFL's faults as a whole was spread far and wide, but most of the drama was an afterthought this Sunday as football went on as usual. The pressure on Goodell will undoubtedly continue, but the NFL will carry on, fortified in its standing as the most dominant sports league. As the allegations and investigations continue, I think it's important to evaluate our own feelings as a fan: although none of the players caught up in allegations played for the Redskins, my team, and none were on any of my fantasy teams, it would be naive to think I'll never face this situation. At what point do our morals coincide with our allegiance to a team?
Sports fans are among the most loyal of people, and NFL fans are even more so. I mean, can you think of any other league where fans would go all out with body paint for a team like the Oakland Raiders? As a Redskins fan, I've always maintained that nothing could challenge my commitment and faithfulness to the burgundy and gold. The Snyder era and I were born together, and if I can survive having only 2 playoff wins (with one coming when I was less than a week old), only remembering 3 playoff appearances, and starting everyone from Rex Grossman to John Beck to Patrick Ramsey, then I've always thought that I could stay loyal through anything. However, if a Ray Rice were to be starting on my team, and I was aware of his wrongdoings, would I morally be able to root for the Redskins? Such a complex, intricate, and emotionally testing question requires more than a simple black-and-white answer. I can only speak for myself personally as I try to evaluate the relationship between my moral compass and my Redskins loyalty.
The core of football is a very violent and physical competition. Rooting for a team entails rooting for players, essentially, to either knock someone else down or not get knocked down: this might already take a toll on the moral compass. As a kid, I remember being happy if a player on the other team got hurt. I know better now, but if my naive, innocent self portrayed this as something to celebrate, it's a testament to the NFL culture, reinforced by things such as the Bountygate scandal. Basically, it's a little subconsciously unscrupulous to root for an NFL team, so football is already testing that boundary.
Obviously, there's a difference between rooting for a football player and rooting for someone convicted of domestic violence. The violence in football is generally accepted, and players on both side are getting paid, plus football is a form of exercise and a forum for team-building, camaraderie, and communication. Beating a wife or girlfriend, on the other hand, has no conceivable positive aspects, and is definitely not societally acceptable, even on the fringes of taboo. Supporting an alleged domestic violence perpetrator whom one does not personally know is seemingly unheard of. However, the scenario changes when said person plays for your favorite football team, because of the loyalty one shows. Ultimately, is it worth it?
For me, as someone interested in football's best interests, an avid Redskins fan, and most of all, a woman, I don't think that I could root for a player like Ray Rice. I would likely still root for the Redskins, just not for this particular player. I can imagine that when the Ravens cut Rice, it was a relief for many Ravens fans, who could now root for their team without scruples. At the end of the day, I could not bring myself to support said person. Luckily, this is not a dilemma I have to face at present moment, but with the new investigations into domestic violence cases in the NFL, I may have to. As NFL fans, I think everyone should at least consider this potential debacle, so that they may come to a conclusion for themselves.
I'm not saying that football itself is immoral: I consider myself as among one of the biggest fans of the game and the league, with its faults. However, domestic violence is definitely something I consider immoral, and I think that it (and players who perpetrate it) have no place tarnishing, morally, legally, and otherwise, the game that I love.
Sports fans are among the most loyal of people, and NFL fans are even more so. I mean, can you think of any other league where fans would go all out with body paint for a team like the Oakland Raiders? As a Redskins fan, I've always maintained that nothing could challenge my commitment and faithfulness to the burgundy and gold. The Snyder era and I were born together, and if I can survive having only 2 playoff wins (with one coming when I was less than a week old), only remembering 3 playoff appearances, and starting everyone from Rex Grossman to John Beck to Patrick Ramsey, then I've always thought that I could stay loyal through anything. However, if a Ray Rice were to be starting on my team, and I was aware of his wrongdoings, would I morally be able to root for the Redskins? Such a complex, intricate, and emotionally testing question requires more than a simple black-and-white answer. I can only speak for myself personally as I try to evaluate the relationship between my moral compass and my Redskins loyalty.
The core of football is a very violent and physical competition. Rooting for a team entails rooting for players, essentially, to either knock someone else down or not get knocked down: this might already take a toll on the moral compass. As a kid, I remember being happy if a player on the other team got hurt. I know better now, but if my naive, innocent self portrayed this as something to celebrate, it's a testament to the NFL culture, reinforced by things such as the Bountygate scandal. Basically, it's a little subconsciously unscrupulous to root for an NFL team, so football is already testing that boundary.
Obviously, there's a difference between rooting for a football player and rooting for someone convicted of domestic violence. The violence in football is generally accepted, and players on both side are getting paid, plus football is a form of exercise and a forum for team-building, camaraderie, and communication. Beating a wife or girlfriend, on the other hand, has no conceivable positive aspects, and is definitely not societally acceptable, even on the fringes of taboo. Supporting an alleged domestic violence perpetrator whom one does not personally know is seemingly unheard of. However, the scenario changes when said person plays for your favorite football team, because of the loyalty one shows. Ultimately, is it worth it?
For me, as someone interested in football's best interests, an avid Redskins fan, and most of all, a woman, I don't think that I could root for a player like Ray Rice. I would likely still root for the Redskins, just not for this particular player. I can imagine that when the Ravens cut Rice, it was a relief for many Ravens fans, who could now root for their team without scruples. At the end of the day, I could not bring myself to support said person. Luckily, this is not a dilemma I have to face at present moment, but with the new investigations into domestic violence cases in the NFL, I may have to. As NFL fans, I think everyone should at least consider this potential debacle, so that they may come to a conclusion for themselves.
I'm not saying that football itself is immoral: I consider myself as among one of the biggest fans of the game and the league, with its faults. However, domestic violence is definitely something I consider immoral, and I think that it (and players who perpetrate it) have no place tarnishing, morally, legally, and otherwise, the game that I love.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Win Your Fantasy League! (You Read It Here First)
I'll admit it-I'm a fantasy football addict. I'm the commissioner of my own league, I send out weekly fantasy newsletters, and I even wrote a 21-page draft guide for my league members. (Email me using this email if you would like a copy). Instead of putting the whole guide on here, I'll give you guys my answers to 8 burning questions. I'm not saying that reading this will necessarily make you the #1 fantasy football player, but you'll probably at least be #2. Jokes aside, have fun reading!
1.
Who should be the #1 overall fantasy draft pick?
This
year, that question warrants more thought than previous years. There’s no
definitive answer to that question: LeSean McCoy, Jamaal Charles and Adrian
Peterson are all very viable options. Jamaal Charles finished with the most
fantasy points last season (as Anna can attest), but historically is due for at
least a slight drop off. McCoy finished 2nd, but could lose some
receiving touches to new Eagle Darren Sproles. Peterson didn’t finish in the
top 5, mostly due to missing 2 games with a groin injury, but of course is
always worth a consideration for #1 overall. My bet would be on McCoy, as the
loss of DeSean Jackson could compensate for Sproles’ presence by McCoy
receiving some of those lost touches. However, I envy whoever has the #3 pick:
they can just take whichever one hasn’t been taken.
2.
Which rookie position has the most potential, in terms of players worth a
fantasy pick?
Undoubtedly,
rookie wide receivers are most worth your valuable draft picks. This year’s
crop is especially worth noticing because a lot of talented players landed in
great situations to not only start, but potentially excel. I’d say that there
are 5 guys (Sammy Watkins, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Kelvin Benjamin, Odell
Beckham Jr.) worth a pick.
3.
Which teams have the easiest fantasy playoff schedule, and which players
benefit?
This
could change based on defenses performing better or worse than last season, but
is still a good question. The Eagles draw Dallas and Washington, two teams with
lackluster pass defenses. Nick Foles, LeSean McCoy, and Jeremy Maclin could all
be in for big games. The Colts draw Houston and Dallas, so look for dominant
performances from Andrew Luck. Lastly, the Ravens draw Jacksonville and
Houston. Matchups against teams of that poor caliber warrant a play from anyone
decent.
4.
How will Peyton Manning come off of a season in which he set new NFL records
for passing yards and TDs thrown?
As
incredible as Manning is, it’s seemingly downright impossible
for Manning to perform better than his amazing 2013. Manning also lost one of
his favorite targets in Eric Decker, and his trusty running back Knowshon
Moreno. He is definitely due for some regression, but that being said, should
still be the first QB off the board.
5.
Everyone saw Percy Harvin perform exceptionally during the Super Bowl. Can I
trust him to be a starter on my team?
Percy
Harvin would be a top-end WR2 (your second starting fantasy wide receiver) if
he could just stay healthy. Harvin has struggled with injuries his whole
career, dating back to elementary school. Part of the reason he performed so
well in the Super Bowl was simply due to the fact that he was fresh, while
everyone else on the field had experienced the wear and tear of a 16-game
season, plus 2 playoff games. Harvin has tons of potential, but be wary of his
injury history come draft day. If you draft him, definitely grab another viable
starter at WR2, or a high-end WR3.
6.
Which committee backfield should I stay away from?
Committee
backfields are backfields in which two running backs both receive a decent
chunk of carries. Some examples are the Bengals (with Giovani Bernard and
BenJarvus Green-Ellis) and the Bills (CJ Spiller and Fred Jackson). Taking Gio
Bernard is fine, he could even be a low-end RB1, and CJ Spiller and Fred
Jackson are both decent RB2s. However, I would definitely stay away from the
Saints’ backfield of Pierre Thomas, Mark Ingram, and Khiry Robinson. First of
all, the Saints had a 62:38 ratio of passing plays to running plays last year.
That’s one of the most pass-heavy splits in the league. That 38% includes short
passes out of the backfield to Darren Sproles, who is now departed. Those short
passes will likely now go to speedster Brandin Cooks, a rookie wideout. None of
these backs are built to be a workhorse, and none of them receive enough
touches to be a fantasy starter. Ingram and Robinson might not even deserve a
spot on your bench.
7.
The Seahawks are obviously the #1 defense/special teams unit (D/ST), but who’s
the #2?
This
comes down to Carolina vs. San Francisco. Both are stellar defenses with great
playmakers that allow very few points. I think the difference lies in the
ability to create turnovers, which generates fantasy points. The 49ers get a
lot more turnovers, and for that reason I’m picking San Francisco as the #2
D/ST.
8.
Tom Brady experienced a big statistical drop-off last year, and was unreliable
and not explosive as a fantasy quarterback. What should we expect from him this
year?
Brady’s
2013 is a classic example of a player who’s real life value was worth a lot more
than his fantasy value. Brady went from 340.28 points in 2012 to 251.52 in
2013: almost a 90-point drop. There’s a simple reason for this: an extreme
drop-off in the talent of his receivers. He downgraded from Wes Welker and
Aaron Hernandez to Julian Edelman and Danny Amendola. His #1 weapon, Rob
Gronkowski, was injured for most of the season. The Pats still went 11-5,
cementing his real life value, but unfortunately that does little for his
fantasy value. With his current receiving corps, I think Brady’s numbers will
be closer to his 2013 total. I think he’ll do better than 250 points, but
likely won’t approach his previous levels. He’s been downgraded to a middle-low
QB1.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Who deserves ESPYs? (it's a big night for Peyton)
The ESPYs have long been one of sports' best award shows. The very first televised show gave us the immortally inspirational Jimmy V speech, and ever since then, have provided us with fantastic speeches, entertainment, and excitement. While all of the nominees this year are certainly deserving of their respective awards, which are the most deserving?
Best Male Athlete
Nominees: Kevin Durant, Peyton Manning, Floyd Mayweather, Miguel Cabrera
All of these athletes were fairly unquestionably the best at their respective sports, so deciding who was the best of the best requires us to look to other categories, such as challenges faced, winning ability, and the scientifically calculated 'wow factor'. Mayweather was great, winning both of his fights this year, but he was expected to win and it felt as if his level of challenge was not great. KD and Miggy were both spectacular, but only Peyton was able to get to the Super Bowl, his finals. The man(ning) also broke both the TD and passing yards records, which falls right around the line of unheard of.
Verdict: Manning
Best Female Athlete
Nominees: Maya Moore, Breanna Stewart, Ronda Rousey, Mikaela Shiffrin
All of these women rocked their sports, but no one was quite as captivating as UFC fighter Ronda Rousey. She took the fighting world by storm with attitude and dominance. I'd be afraid to not give her the win.
Verdict: Rousey
Best Championship Performance
Nominees: Jimmie Johnson, Kawhi Leonard, David Ortiz, Shabazz Napier
This is tough, but for me it comes to two people: Leonard and Big Papi. While Napier and Johnson were fantastic, I think Napier was actually better throughout the tournament than his performance in the championship game, and does anyone really want to see a racer win when most of the voters don't even know what the NASCAR championship is? No disrespect, Jimmie. Leonard rose above the ranks of supporting cast Spur to Finals MVP, after three truly fantastic games in Games 3, 4, and 5. Leonard's shooting was dynamic, his contribution to the Spurs' pass-first offense obvious, and did one of the best jobs ever guarding LeBron James. However, Leonard wasn't an overly fantastic factor in Games 1 and 2, whereas Big Papi's championship batting average of .668 is more consistent. Consistently ridiculous.
Verdict: Ortiz
Best Team
Nominees: Seattle Seahawks, San Antonio Spurs, UConn Women's Basketball, Los Angeles Kings, Boston Red Sox, Florida State Football
These are all championship teams, so no team sets itself apart by being able to win the big one. However, dominance throughout the regular season can narrow the field, so I'm going to bring it down to UConn, Seattle, and San Antonio. I think the Spurs truly set themselves apart by being so dominant throughout the season despite playing their stars less than the average team, and truly getting it done throughout the playoffs. However, what tips me towards the Spurs is the way they truly encompass the 'team' heading by gelling together and playing team-first basketball in a sport becoming increasingly focused on individual performance. In terms of truly excelling as a team, San Antonio rises above the rest, though any team in this field is worthy.
Verdict: San Antonio
Best Game
Nominees: Alabama vs. Auburn (Iron Bowl), Chiefs vs. Colts (AFC Wild Card), Kings vs. Rangers (Game 5)
Every one of these games was captivating because a big play in the final seconds won it. By that logic, I'm going to pick the game with the most exciting big play: the Iron Bowl. The other two games were great, but the Iron Bowl, and in particular Chris Davis' FG return, is absolutely legendary. This is the type of the game, especially considering the stakes of the rivalry, that will be talked about for ages. I'm not sure I can say the same about the other two games.
Verdict: Iron Bowl
Best Breakthrough Athlete
Nominees: Nick Foles, Masahiro Tanaka, Richard Sherman, Damian Lilliard
These athletes all performed incredibly, but I'm going to start off by eliminating Nick Foles because he didn't play the full season and while very good, didn't dominate on a week-to-week basis. My prediction is that Sherman will win, but I don't consider him to be a 'breakthrough' athlete because he was already considered to be one of the best corners in the game, just not by the average football fan. His post-championship game speech introduced a whole new legion of people to his dominance (see Richard Sherman article from January), but again, his dominance already existed. Establishing that, I'm going to say that Tanaka is the most deserving. Lilliard was incredibly, but Tanaka truly 'broke out' by coming from being unknown in the US to a shutdown pitcher for the Yanks.
Verdict: Tanaka
Those are the athletes I think are most deserving of their respective awards. Did voters agree with me? Find out on ESPN at 9pm!
Best Male Athlete
Nominees: Kevin Durant, Peyton Manning, Floyd Mayweather, Miguel Cabrera
All of these athletes were fairly unquestionably the best at their respective sports, so deciding who was the best of the best requires us to look to other categories, such as challenges faced, winning ability, and the scientifically calculated 'wow factor'. Mayweather was great, winning both of his fights this year, but he was expected to win and it felt as if his level of challenge was not great. KD and Miggy were both spectacular, but only Peyton was able to get to the Super Bowl, his finals. The man(ning) also broke both the TD and passing yards records, which falls right around the line of unheard of.
Verdict: Manning
Best Female Athlete
Nominees: Maya Moore, Breanna Stewart, Ronda Rousey, Mikaela Shiffrin
All of these women rocked their sports, but no one was quite as captivating as UFC fighter Ronda Rousey. She took the fighting world by storm with attitude and dominance. I'd be afraid to not give her the win.
Verdict: Rousey
Best Championship Performance
Nominees: Jimmie Johnson, Kawhi Leonard, David Ortiz, Shabazz Napier
This is tough, but for me it comes to two people: Leonard and Big Papi. While Napier and Johnson were fantastic, I think Napier was actually better throughout the tournament than his performance in the championship game, and does anyone really want to see a racer win when most of the voters don't even know what the NASCAR championship is? No disrespect, Jimmie. Leonard rose above the ranks of supporting cast Spur to Finals MVP, after three truly fantastic games in Games 3, 4, and 5. Leonard's shooting was dynamic, his contribution to the Spurs' pass-first offense obvious, and did one of the best jobs ever guarding LeBron James. However, Leonard wasn't an overly fantastic factor in Games 1 and 2, whereas Big Papi's championship batting average of .668 is more consistent. Consistently ridiculous.
Verdict: Ortiz
Best Team
Nominees: Seattle Seahawks, San Antonio Spurs, UConn Women's Basketball, Los Angeles Kings, Boston Red Sox, Florida State Football
These are all championship teams, so no team sets itself apart by being able to win the big one. However, dominance throughout the regular season can narrow the field, so I'm going to bring it down to UConn, Seattle, and San Antonio. I think the Spurs truly set themselves apart by being so dominant throughout the season despite playing their stars less than the average team, and truly getting it done throughout the playoffs. However, what tips me towards the Spurs is the way they truly encompass the 'team' heading by gelling together and playing team-first basketball in a sport becoming increasingly focused on individual performance. In terms of truly excelling as a team, San Antonio rises above the rest, though any team in this field is worthy.
Verdict: San Antonio
Best Game
Nominees: Alabama vs. Auburn (Iron Bowl), Chiefs vs. Colts (AFC Wild Card), Kings vs. Rangers (Game 5)
Every one of these games was captivating because a big play in the final seconds won it. By that logic, I'm going to pick the game with the most exciting big play: the Iron Bowl. The other two games were great, but the Iron Bowl, and in particular Chris Davis' FG return, is absolutely legendary. This is the type of the game, especially considering the stakes of the rivalry, that will be talked about for ages. I'm not sure I can say the same about the other two games.
Verdict: Iron Bowl
Best Breakthrough Athlete
Nominees: Nick Foles, Masahiro Tanaka, Richard Sherman, Damian Lilliard
These athletes all performed incredibly, but I'm going to start off by eliminating Nick Foles because he didn't play the full season and while very good, didn't dominate on a week-to-week basis. My prediction is that Sherman will win, but I don't consider him to be a 'breakthrough' athlete because he was already considered to be one of the best corners in the game, just not by the average football fan. His post-championship game speech introduced a whole new legion of people to his dominance (see Richard Sherman article from January), but again, his dominance already existed. Establishing that, I'm going to say that Tanaka is the most deserving. Lilliard was incredibly, but Tanaka truly 'broke out' by coming from being unknown in the US to a shutdown pitcher for the Yanks.
Verdict: Tanaka
Those are the athletes I think are most deserving of their respective awards. Did voters agree with me? Find out on ESPN at 9pm!
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
The Beautiful Game Leads A Beautiful Charge
I won't pretend to be an expert on soccer. I know as much, maybe a little more, as the next sports fan. The MLS has never really caught on in the US, and our obsession with just about every other sport fits in with our American way of being different. However, this year's World Cup was able to completely change the context of soccer in America, if only for 2 weeks. The beautiful display of heart and pride exhibited by our now beloved 23 red, white and blue-clad men is seemingly juxtapositional with the little relevance of soccer in America, but upon closer examination, exhibits the American spirit in the way only sports can.
There were plenty of moments throughout the World Cup when giving up seemed a good option: starting with being placed in the 'Group of Death'. Experts predicted American failure at seemingly every opportunity, even now fan-favorite coach Jurgen Klinsmann commented on the impossibility of American victory in Brazil. As a nation, we cautiously watched our crucial game against Ghana tip off. While we didn't witness a spectacular performance, it was probably our worst of the Cup, we saw a type of determination we take pride in. From Clint Dempsey getting back on the field after breaking his nose, to the I-dare-you-not-to-smile moment when unknown sub John Brooks headed in the game-breaking goal, we showed true heart. In America, heart is everything. Faced with difficult circumstances, we prevailed, truly exhibiting the American spirit.
Feeling good, we played a dominant game against Portugal. Jermaine Jones scored a beautiful goal, Dempsey followed, and we were able to contain reigning Ballon d'Or champion Cristiano Ronaldo. Of course, it made it that much harder to bear when Portugal scored the equalizer with 35 seconds left in extra time. Well it was easy to lose faith after the shocking draw, our team, and with it our country, was able to remain composure and consider the positives of drawing with a world-class Portugal team. What better representation of the American, someone who can see the positive in depressing and extenuating circumstances?
Even in our loss to Germany, we were still victorious in that we made it to the next round (and in hindsight, only surrendered a single goal to Die Mannschaft, worlds better than the 7 host nation Brazil surrendered yesterday).
We eagerly awaited the game against Belgium, and what a game it was. There were so many hold-your-breath moments that it's no wonder we didn't all suffer respiratory issues. During regulation time, we had nothing to worry about: we had Tim Howard. While we suffered the heartbreaking loss, sinking after allowing 2 goals, perking back up after Julian Green netted a goal, and tearing our hair out at every oh-so-close opportunity (Wondolowski, Wondolowski!), and ultimately the disappointment of realizing this captivating journey was over, we went through it together. These players went to Brazil as a bunch of vaguely familiar names, and came back heroes (except for Tim Howard, he's a legend). For two weeks, these 23 guys were able to not only unite, but united a nation. Despite our elimination to Belgium, we were able to see the type of heart that is not only refreshing, but inspiring. Well it would have been nice to continue in the bracket, we were still treated, in every sense of the word. Besides, freedom tastes better than waffles anyhow.
There were plenty of moments throughout the World Cup when giving up seemed a good option: starting with being placed in the 'Group of Death'. Experts predicted American failure at seemingly every opportunity, even now fan-favorite coach Jurgen Klinsmann commented on the impossibility of American victory in Brazil. As a nation, we cautiously watched our crucial game against Ghana tip off. While we didn't witness a spectacular performance, it was probably our worst of the Cup, we saw a type of determination we take pride in. From Clint Dempsey getting back on the field after breaking his nose, to the I-dare-you-not-to-smile moment when unknown sub John Brooks headed in the game-breaking goal, we showed true heart. In America, heart is everything. Faced with difficult circumstances, we prevailed, truly exhibiting the American spirit.
Feeling good, we played a dominant game against Portugal. Jermaine Jones scored a beautiful goal, Dempsey followed, and we were able to contain reigning Ballon d'Or champion Cristiano Ronaldo. Of course, it made it that much harder to bear when Portugal scored the equalizer with 35 seconds left in extra time. Well it was easy to lose faith after the shocking draw, our team, and with it our country, was able to remain composure and consider the positives of drawing with a world-class Portugal team. What better representation of the American, someone who can see the positive in depressing and extenuating circumstances?
Even in our loss to Germany, we were still victorious in that we made it to the next round (and in hindsight, only surrendered a single goal to Die Mannschaft, worlds better than the 7 host nation Brazil surrendered yesterday).
We eagerly awaited the game against Belgium, and what a game it was. There were so many hold-your-breath moments that it's no wonder we didn't all suffer respiratory issues. During regulation time, we had nothing to worry about: we had Tim Howard. While we suffered the heartbreaking loss, sinking after allowing 2 goals, perking back up after Julian Green netted a goal, and tearing our hair out at every oh-so-close opportunity (Wondolowski, Wondolowski!), and ultimately the disappointment of realizing this captivating journey was over, we went through it together. These players went to Brazil as a bunch of vaguely familiar names, and came back heroes (except for Tim Howard, he's a legend). For two weeks, these 23 guys were able to not only unite, but united a nation. Despite our elimination to Belgium, we were able to see the type of heart that is not only refreshing, but inspiring. Well it would have been nice to continue in the bracket, we were still treated, in every sense of the word. Besides, freedom tastes better than waffles anyhow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)