« April 2004 | Main | July 2004 »
June 30, 2004
Georgia's Fate Rests On the Biggest Dawgs
Expectations surrounding the 2004 Georgia Bulldogs are running high as the season's opening kick-off approaches, and not just in Athens. National publications and prognosticators see Georgia (along with USC and Oklahoma) as the favorites to win the National Championship.
Unfortunately for fans of the Bulldogs, these national prognosticators might be falling prey to the most obvious of misconceptions.
Every summer, when college football preseason publications start to flood the newsstand, eager fans gobble up the literature on star quarterbacks, game-breaking receivers, and disruptive pass-rushers. It is rare that a team (other than maybe Nebraska of the mid-'90s) gets written up as a national contender due to their offensive line. It is the very nature of preseason forecasting to focus on the skill position players, the so-called "household names," and ignore the "big uglies" up front.
But this year, the fate of the Georgia Bulldogs rests squarely on the shoulders of the five men that will comprise their offensive line. And that could spell trouble in Athens.
Ignoring their offensive line for a moment, the Georgia Bulldogs are as stacked with talent as any team in the nation. They have Heisman candidate David Greene at quarterback, burgeoning game-breaker Fred Gibson at receiver, two-time All-American David Pollack at defensive end, and future first-round draft choice Odell Thurman at linebacker, to name just a few. They also return all five starters at offensive line. That fact might look good on paper, but, to anyone who watched Georgia in 2003, it means absolutely nothing.
The Georgia offensive line of 2003 was multi-talented in the sense that they could not establish the run and were horrible in pass protection. While their ineffectiveness could be excused early in the year due to the fact that they were breaking in five new starters, the line as a unit did not progress nearly as much as expected.
Furthermore, only one of those new starters (mammoth Max Jean-Gilles) showed signs of having star potential, and he could be forced to play out of position at tackle this season due to injuries and ineptitude.
The progression of the Bulldogs' offensive line will have far-reaching implications. If they can not protect Greene better than they did last year, than the Georgia staff might be forced to use the more athletic D.J. Shockley under center, as he is far superior to the statuesque Greene at avoiding the pass rush.
Shockley, despite the fact that he oozes potential, has a bad history at Georgia of making major mistakes at key moments. Senior Greene, in his fourth year of piloting the offense, has the poise and presence (along with a deadly accurate arm) to guide Georgia to the national title that some are predicting. But the offensive line must improve their pass-blocking and allow Greene to display his skills and lead the offense.
This whole point is moot, of course, if the five returning starters gel together and develop as an offensive line. Mark Richt as recruited as well as anyone in the country over the last three years, so the raw talent is definitely there. But if that talent does not translate into production, it will be a year of disappointment at Sanford Stadium.
And all of the preseason prognosticators, who were blinded by the prime talent Georgia possesses at the skill positions, will be reminded that football games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage.
Posted by Michael Beshara at 1:07 AM | Comments (0)
June 24, 2004
Showdown at Shinnecock
Nine putts.
That's all Retief Goosen needed over the final eight holes of the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills.
Nine. A single two-putt, seven one-putts.
Needing only nine putts over eight holes in any round of golf is remarkable. Needing only nine putts over the final eight holes of a tournament to hold off the hottest golfer in the world is truly special. But needing just nine putts over the final eight holes of a U.S. Open with the browns -- er, greens -- running at the speed of Teflon to win by two strokes is legendary.
How good was Goosen's putter down the stretch? Over his final eight holes, he holed 66 feet worth of putts. That's an average of over eight feet per hole during that span. Phil Mickelson, who shot the second lowest round on Sunday, needed three putts just to get through the treacherous 17th. That's a third of Goosen's eight-hole total. Bo Van Pelt took six putts on the fourth green alone.
The putter can act as the great equalizer; on Sunday, Goosen proved this to be true. Despite a shaky long game -- Goosen hit just five fairways and six greens -- Goosen's putter rescued him throughout. For the day, Goosen had 12 one-putts and just 24 putts total.
And in the end, it was Goosen's successful up-and-down from the bunker at the 17th that outdid Mickelson by two strokes, the final margin of victory.
Did Mickelson choke? It's easy to point to his three-putt double bogey at the 71st hole of the tournament. When he arrived at the tee, still beaming from his birdie at the 16th, Mickelson owned a one-shot advantage over Goosen, who was playing the par-five hole behind him. By the time Mickelson exited the green, Goosen had birdied 16, and Mickelson's double bogey left him at two under par; Mickelson trailed by two.
Some media members even asserted that his choke began on Saturday when he bogeyed 17 and 18. Indeed, Phil's Saturday finish was sloppy. He missed a short putt on 17 for par, and then three-putted the 18th green for another bogey.
But let's not forget that this 2004 U.S. Open had the potential to be a shootout among the Big Four: Mickelson, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, and Tiger Woods. All three, except Mickelson, failed to make it so. Singh's weekend scores: 77, 78. Woods never even sniffed the leaders; and as for Els, he fired his worst U.S. Open round ever on Sunday, an 80.
Mickelson, however, was the only player to challenge Goosen on Sunday. On a day when only one player shot even par, and the scoring average for the day was almost 79, Mickelson carded a one-over 71. He had only 27 putts and finished at two under par, three shots clear of his nearest competitor not named Retief. So who choked: Mickelson, or Els? Or Singh? Or Woods?
Even Mickelson's three-putt at 17 can be explained by something other than "The Choke Theory." He faced a slick, downhill, left-to-right six-footer for par. While waiting to attempt the putt, he watched as Goosen holed a 12-footer for birdie on the 16th to tie Mickeslon at four under par. Goosen's birdie must have had an effect on Mickelson, and even Jack Nicklaus, in a recent interview with the Associated Press, sympathized with Phil.
"Here you are standing on 17, needing to make a putt to save par, and Retief birdies. It made Phil's putt a lot longer," Nicklaus said. "I've had it happen to me many times. You miss that first one, and suddenly you get frozen over the second. Because of what's going through your mind at the time, it's difficult to prepare yourself for the second putt. It's a shame for Phil, because he played a wonderful U.S. Open."
He borrowed too much break on his par effort and left himself four feet for bogey.
Mickelson's bogey putt was elementary: four feet, inside right, and firm. It's a putt he makes 99 times out of 100 on the practice green. But this was no audition. Mickelson stood on the toughest stage in golf with one putt to keep his Open hopes from being swept away on a Shinnecock gust.
But a misread of the break kept his ball from disappearing. With a vacant half-smile, Phil walked off the 17th green to a sound he had not heard all day in the boisterous parade-de-Mickelson that was his seventeen hole stroll to that point: silence.
Mickelson's parade ended prematurely: one hole early, one trophy short.
But rather than disgrace Mickelson's new image of a major champion with a galvanized reserve, Mickelson's foibles at the 17th should instead polish the sheen of Goosen's performance. 27 putts? A back nine charge including birdies at 13, 14, and 16? "Sorry, mate," Goosen seemed to say, "not good enough."
Mickelson summed it up in his post-round press conference perfectly: "To come very close, to play so hard for 72 holes and play better than everybody but one guy is disappointing."
It's important to note that Goosen and Mickelson seemed to be playing on a different course than the rest of the field. It's not often that NBC can shrink their leaderboard to two names at the conclusion of the front nine, but that's exactly what they did; with apologies to Jeff Maggert, who finished third, no one else had a chance.
Goosen's putting drew comparisons to a machine: an unfeeling, unemotional robot that is not affected by pressure or nerves. But Goosen insisted that he is as human as all of us. He admitted to having first-tee jitters and being "on edge" throughout the front nine.
But how to explain one of the best final eight-hole putting performances ever televised?
"I actually started feeling more relaxed around about No. 11 and 12."
Understated, like Goosen himself.
Posted by Vincent Musco at 2:00 PM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2004
Capitals Shopping Top Pick?
When the Washington Capitals won the rights to the 2004 first overall pick in this past April's draft lottery, the consensus amongst fans and media was the club would use the pick to draft Russian forward Alexander Ovechkin.
The Capitals, in serious rebuilding mode after dumping most of their high-paid veteran talent over the course of last season, need a talented young superstar as their foundation player.
By most scouting reports, Ovechkin fits the bill, as he's drawn favorable comparisons to a young Peter Forsberg. A player who can play well at both ends of the rink is a rare catch and one who'd be perfect for the Capitals to build around.
But since winning the rights to the first overall pick, there's been speculation Capitals GM George McPhee might shop the pick for a package of young players.
But why would McPhee trade away the rights to draft a player tagged to be a "sure thing" for a package of young players who, as talented as they may be, aren't on the same level as Ovechkin?
As promising as Ovechkin is, he's still a gamble, like every first-round pick before him. Some first overall picks, like Mario Lemieux and Ilya Kovalchuk, step easily into the NHL and become superstars. Some, like Joe Thornton, Guy Lafleur, and Ed Jovanovski, need a few seasons to adjust to the NHL game before they blossom into stardom.
And some, like the 1974 first overall pick, Greg Joly, who was also drafted by the Washington Capitals, never make it as a star player and quickly disappeared from sight after a disappointing career.
There would also be tremendous pressure on Ovechkin to step right in and become a superstar, to carry the rebuilding Capitals on his young shoulders. That could be a burden too heavy for such a young player to carry.
There are other factors involved, as well. If McPhee trades the picks for a package of two or three good young players, he at least knows for sure what he's getting. He'll know what those players are capable of at the NHL level and if they'll be able to develop further. As good as Ovechkin is projected to be, it's not a lock that he'll adjust well to the NHL game.
As noted earlier in this column, there's the depth factor. The Caps are seriously lacking depth at all positions after their massive fire-sale of veteran talent. The only defenseman of note is Brendan Witt, the only quality goalie in the system is veteran Olaf Kolzig, and both have been the subject of trade speculation for months, something that isn't likely to die down in the near future.
Up front, there's little quality depth beyond Jeff Halpern, Dainius Zubrus, and rookie Alexander Semin. Would it not make more sense, if the right offer were there, to trade away the rights to Ovechkin for a package of quality youngsters to help plug some of those gaps more quickly?
Then, of course, there's the money factor. Ovechkin will seek the maximum salary under the current rookie cap, worth $1.07 million. But that's not counting the bonus clauses he and his agent are bound to seek.
Tally up the bonuses for goals, assists, points, and games played, and you're talking over $3 million per season. Should he win the Calder, that would push it up over $4 million. And if his play by the final year of his deal got the Capitals back into the playoffs, that would also keep it over $4 million per season.
That, of course, is if the Caps are willing to spend that much to sign Ovechkin. While they'll own his rights, it certainly won't look good to the organization to have their star prospect holding out in a salary dispute to start next season.
After the free-spending follies of the past three seasons, team owner Ted Leonsis obviously decided it made more financial sense to return his club to the more tried and true method of building from within and dealing for young, promising talent.
Factor in the uncertainty over the next collective bargaining agreement, and suddenly drafting a player of Ovechkin's talent and paying him nearly $4 million per season doesn't factor in well with the club's bottom line, especially if two or three young players could be had for the same as it would cost to pay Ovechkin.
And let's not forget what happens to players of Ovechkin's talent after his three-year rookie contract expires. Freed of the constraints of that contract, Ovechkin and his agent would pursue a much more lucrative salary. Depending on how well he plays in his first three seasons, he could seek a substantial raise starting at $5 million per season. Those demands would only go up as Ovechkin advances through his twenties.
Ah, but if the league succeeds in getting a hard salary cap into the next CBA, Ovechkin wouldn't be able to seek that much money, right?
To suggest certain GMs wouldn't make a pitch for Ovechkin and pay him a hefty salary under a new CBA with a hard salary cap would be akin to suggesting ten years ago that player salaries wouldn't rise under the current CBA, which has the most restrictive free agency in North American pro sports.
Somebody, somewhere in the NHL would happily pay the luxury tax to have Ovechkin on their team and would pay him whatever he wanted. The last thing the Capitals want is a franchise player staging a lengthy holdout to force the club into paying more than they want to retain him, or to trade him to a club that would pay him a hefty salary.
I may be getting ahead of myself here, but it is something you can bet Leonsis and McPhee have mulled over. After getting burned by big-money talent, they obviously don't wish to repeat the process again.
So as the entry draft weekend approaches, speculation has heated up that McPhee could move the pick. He's hinted that as many as five clubs contacted him over the past month making trade inquiries, while some reports suggest as many as 11 teams could get into the bidding.
One of those clubs was the Florida Panthers, at least until general manager Rick Dudley was axed. New GM Mike Keenan says he isn't interested, but the Panthers are a team with young, affordable talent, some of whom (Kristian Huselius and Stephen Weiss) didn't get along well with Keenan back when he coached the club. One shouldn't rule out the possibility. One team that has admitted pursuing the first overall pick is the Chicago Blackhawks, themselves a rebuilding team loaded with plenty of young, affordable talent.
Once one of the most profitable and popular hockey markets in the United States, the 'Hawks have fallen on hard times in recent years, driving away their once-fanatical fans with years of mediocrity, bungled trades, and financial pettiness. Landing a player of Ovechkin's calibre would be a huge boost to the Blackhawks, for he could become the franchise player who brings back the fans. He'd also be a great fit on a team that, like him, is young and developing.
Blackhawks management obviously want to build their club following the model of this year's Stanley Cup finalists, the Calgary Flames and the champion Tampa Bay Lightning, and could visualize Ovechkin, teamed with the promising Tuomo Ruutu, leading the 'Hawks back to playoff glory.
But who would the Blackhawks part with to land the first overall pick?
Thus far there's been no names mentioned in the Chicago media, other than a report suggesting the only untouchable on the team is Ruutu.
The website BlackhawkZone.com suggested a major deal between the two clubs could be possible, citing an apparent friendship between Leonsis and 'Hawks owner Bill Wirtz.
To quote the report on the site, "they feel that Cam Barker and his sweet outlet passes plus two number two draft picks, along with Tyler Arnason, Kyle Calder, and Steve McCarthy's salaries help out the Capitals in the long run." In return, the report claims the Blackhawks would get the first overall pick which they'd obviously use to select Ovechkin.
A deal of that magnitude hasn't been seen since 1992, when the Philadelphia Flyers dealt six players (including Peter Forsberg, Mike Ricci, Ron Hextall, and Steve Duchesne), two first-round draft choices and $15 million to the Quebec Nordiques for Eric Lindros.
But will such a deal go off? Would the 'Hawks part with such a steep asking price for Ovechkin? Would the Capitals get cold feet and retain the pick after all? Could another team make a richer offer?
Posted by Tyler Norwood at 2:35 PM | Comments (0)
June 18, 2004
The Demise of Jim O'Brien
Let's start off with a hypothetical question.
Let's say you are the head basketball coach at a major university, and you're recreating a 7-3 kid from Serbia.
You know from reading the papers that Serbia is a war-torn, frighteningly impoverished country. You have the opportunity to help this big kid, and his family, to the tune of $6,000. Six thousand big ones would be manna from heaven to this family. Their life is no longer a living hell. They can eat. They can move farther away from the violence. The two things this family can count on in their lives is violence and hunger. But if you give them the $6K, you are in clear violation of NCAA rules, and you know it.
Do you do it?
Jim O'Brien, formerly the head basketball coach at Ohio State, did. Five years later, it comes out. O'Brien gets fired.
My first reaction to hearing this is O'Brien is he paid a high price for doing the right thing, the humanitarian thing.
In my judgment, I'd much rather err on the side of humanitarianism, which would put me firmly O'Brien's corner. Shame on Ohio State and the NCAA who would prevent those who can help a desperate family from doing so.
And yet, something didn't sit quite right with me all the same. Something about O'Brien's words to the press after being fired.
The comment O'Brien made that bugged me was, "I am advised that my firing is because I was asked to and tried to give assistance to a young man's family who was in dire financial straits. The assistance in no way influenced the young man in his decision to attend OSU, and, indeed, the young man did not enroll at OSU." (From ESPN.com)
"Indeed, the young man did not enroll at OSU." This strikes me as a weaselly cop-out by O'Brien. The only reason the player in question, Aleksandar Radejovic, didn't enroll at Ohio State was because, having signed a pro contract in Europe, the NCAA ruled him ineligible. He did sign a letter of intent to play at Ohio State. In fact, he was signed and sealed -- just not delivered, so for O'Brien to bolster his argument by pointing out the Radejovic didn't play for the Buckeyes is disingenuous, because for all intents and purposes, he did, or surely would have.
Secondly, it struck me like a ton of bricks that O'Brien's donation to the Radejovic family had nothing to do with his recruitment of him has to be a lie.
If O'Brien had no other reason to help Radejovic was out of the goodness of his own heart, then he (O'Brien) could've taken a very simple step that would allowed him to keep his job. He could've, rather than donating to Radejovic directly, given to a Serbian charity or relief fund, and helped a lot of families, not just Radejovic's. If O'Brien was only helping a family in need, why didn't he do it in a way that could help many, and allow him to be clear of NCAA bylaws?
The only feasible answer I can thing of is, he didn't want to. He did want to help Radejovic's family in particular, for one of two reasons:
Scenario 1: Because he wanted Radejovic to play for Ohio State (in short, O'Brien is lying). If that's the case, then Ohio State did the right thing in firing him.
Scenario 2: He took such a personal liking, basketball aside, to Radejovic and his family that he made the donation. If that's the case, O'Brien is making a judgment call -- the Radejovics are less worthy of starvation than other Serbian families he could help by donating to a charity -- that, I'm not comfortable with him making. Lots of Serbian families could use help, but not all of them have a 7-3 meal ticket in the family.
It stinks if O'Brien "picked" the Radejovic's over anyone else just as worthy and needful of assistance, but it would also be highly coincidental and extremely unlikely ... and why would he keep it a secret for five years, if he had the courage of his convictions? Thus, I believe the former scenario must be true, and now I'm saying "good riddance" to O'Brien.
Replacements are already being discussed, and three big names have been bandied about. One is Thad Matta, whose Xavier squad knocked off St. Joseph's after the Hawks had finished the regular season undefeated, won the Atlantic 10 tournament, and rolled all the way to the Elite 8. Matta would be an excellent pickup.
The other two rumored candidates are an intriguing contrast of styles and dispositions: North Carolina State head coach Herb Sendek and Texas Tech head coach Bobby Knight.
As an OSU alum myself, my reaction to Knight taking over the Buckeyes is similar to the mumblings you might make aloud in the midst of having a nightmare: Tossing back and forth going, "No. NO! NOOOOOOO!!!"
My beloved alma mater paired with the single person in college basketball, and maybe all of sports, that I loathe and despise the most. I don't want a head coach known as "the little general." I don't want a head coach that doesn't understand why it's wrong to choke his players. I don't want a head coach whose arrogance and temper are exactly that of a 2-year-old's.
Of course, Knight is the kind of guy everyone either loves or hates, and I detest him to the bitter bone. But, he's an OSU graduate and, as the ESPN article points out, there will be a large herd of (really stupid) alums clamoring for his hiring.
I realize that a lot of players respond to the drill sergeant approach of Knight, but his last several years at Indiana were mediocre, and at Texas Tech he has made a bad team fairly good, no more.
A lot of players (like me, if I played), don't respond to drill sergeant mode, but do respond better to the non-acidic, supportive, grandfatherly approach of Sendek, who, no kidding, is my favorite coach in basketball today. It's surreal. My very own alma mater is quite possibly pondering on whether to hire my favorite guy in college basketball, or my least favorite.
Sendek has done been quite a fighter at North Carolina State, fielding competitive teams in the most intensively competitive conference in the country. Playing in the shadows of Duke and UNC, he never quite allows his Wolfpack to fall off of anyone's radar. Quite a feat, considering the constant-pressure cooker he is under.
For Ohio State to score a coach from a rock-solid ACC program would be a huge reputation boost at a time the Buckeyes badly need one. You would be hard-pressed to find a profile of Sendek that doesn't deal at length with his sincerity and humility. Truly, he is the anti-Knight.
***
THONGCHAI JAIDEE WATCH: It was exciting to see Jaidee get invited to play in this Jack Nicklaus's Memorial tournament last week. Needless to say, I hoped for a big performance from Jaidee, giving him U.S. exposure, and all the sudden, I'm not the only member of the Thongchai Jaidee fan club. I was doubly excited when he played his first seven holes at three-under par, briefly tying him for third in the first-round.
Alas, it was all downhill from there. He didn't record another birdie the rest of the day or the next, and after a double-bogey-laden second-round, he missed the cut. His score for the two days was 71-79 on the par-72 course.
Posted by Kevin Beane at 7:28 PM | Comments (0)